Loading...
1998-10-21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY ROBERT MC NALLY LEWIS STONE BRIAN CUSTER PAUL HAYES DANIEL STEC CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-1998 TYPE II LI-1A REGINA HIMES OWNER: CHARLES & ILENE ADAMS 31 MINNESOTA AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE EXISTING MOBILE HOME AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQIUREMENTS OF THE LI-1A ZONE, SECTION 179-26, AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, SECTION 179-79. TAX MAP NO. 127-7-11 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 JOE NUDI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 68-1998, Regina Himes, Meeting Date: October 21, 1998 Description of Proposed Project: “Project Location: 31 Minnesota Ave. Applicant proposes Relief replacement of a 480 sf mobile home with a 1560 sf double wide manufactured home Required: Applicant requests 19 feet of front setback relief and both 2 and18 feet of side setback relief from the setback requirements of the LI-1A zone, Section 179-26. The required setbacks in the LI-1A zone are 50 feet in the front and 30 feet on the sides. Additionally, the expansion of a single family dwelling or mobile home in excess of 50% of the gross floor area requires relief from Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 Section 179-79, A., (2). of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to place and occupy 2. Feasible alternatives: the desired home in the chosen location. Feasible alternatives are 3. Is this relief limited given the size of the pre-existing lot and the required zoning setbacks. substantial relative to the ordinance?: 19 feet of front setback relief and 18 feet of side setback 4. relief may be interpreted as substantial, however 2 feet of side setback relief is minimal. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood are 5. Is this difficulty self-created? anticipated as a result of this action. The difficulty may be Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, associated to the size and zoning of the lot. etc.):Staff comments: Town Board Authorization - res. - 9/21/98 Minimal impacts are anticipated on the community as a result of this action. This is an enlarged relacement of a pre- existing nonconforming use, according to the LI-1A zone. This use is consistent with most of the SEQR existing neighboring uses. The proposed replacement will only enhance the neighborhood. Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anything else you’d like to add, tell us about, say? MR. NUDI-This is Regina Himes, who seems to be a little bashful right now. My name is Joe Nudi. I’m with Today’s Modern Homes. I’m the seller of the home, and I did the drawings that you have with your packages, and the only thing that maybe needs to be added again, if it really wasn’t covered, is this is really residential neighborhood. There’s one Light Industrial lot, as it’s being used now, and I did talk to two of the neighbors, and they were very surprised to find out that they were actually living in a Light Industrial zone. So it’s one of those things you don’t know until you need to do something to your property, but I think as was just read here, that what we’re looking for is certainly reasonable and will be an improvement to the community. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Yes. Who owns the property? Will you own the land, too? REGINA HIMES MS. HIMES-Yes. It’s in the midst, right now, of, we’re in the midst of putting it into my name. Yes. I will be owning it. MR. STONE-Okay. So you will own the house and the land underneath? MS. HIMES-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-And will you be living there? MS. HIMES-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Is there a septic system at present? MS. HIMES-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Is it functioning? I mean, does it? MR. NUDI-Yes. As a matter of fact, the system is only about seven years old. We have dug it up, and pending the results of tonight, we’ll address that with our permit, and have Dave Hatin go down and inspect it, which he has said that he wants to do. MRS. LAPHAM-And there’s Town water there? MR. NUDI-That is correct. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-I was just curious, why is it 12 feet on one side and 20 feet on the other? Can’t you center it on the lot? MR. NUDI-And I probably need to get my map here, or my diagram, but one of the reasons, yes, the driveway and the power pole. We’re trying to alleviate the expense of having to install a new power pole and new power system. They also have the driveway on that right hand side, too. I guess I probably would like to point out that these setbacks that we’re not meeting are because of the Light Industrial setbacks. If this were the mobile home overlay, the side yards would not be a problem, and quite honestly, that’s one of the things that happened here is Regina’s actually bought this home, figuring there was no problem, and I even figured no problem. You’re in a mobile home overlay, and then when you go up there and see the map, and there’s a jog where Minnesota Avenue’s cut out of the mobile home overlay, but in the mobile home overlay, other than, even the front, at 31 feet, we would meet all the setbacks. We’re not encroaching beyond any, I mean, all the neighbors are out that far or close. We’re not setting a precedent here with any of the setbacks. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Is there anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. I’ll start with Jamie. MR. HAYES-Well, I think the applicant is correct in their arguments. There’s no doubt in my mind that the use that’s proposed would be consistent with the neighborhood as it is now. I mean, 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) as I drive through those properties every day to work, there’s a great deal of recycling going on in that whole neighborhood, and this would be a continuance of that, and I certainly think that that’s an improvement for the neighborhood. The setbacks that are proposed are, in fact, consistent with the rest of the houses on that street, and that’s part of the nature of the setback requirement is to get some consistency, and provide adequately, and really I think it does entirely revolve around the fact that it’s an existing lot, and it’s zoned Light Industrial which I don’t think the neighborhood would appreciate any of the Light Industrial uses as described in our Code at all. So I think it’s a good use for the lot. It’s a good project, and the relief is minimal, really based on the, not hypocrisy, but the fact that it’s zoned Light Industrial. So I have no problem with the application whatsoever. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I think Jamie said pretty much everything I was going to say. So, like I said, the setbacks are fine to me. I think that whole area needs to be addressed with the relationship to the zoning, and I have no problems with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree. The effects on the neighborhood are minimal. This, for all it’s zoned as Light Industrial, is a mobile home neighborhood. The placement of a new home is going to be an improvement on the lot. It’s going to better the area. There will be no effects on the neighborhood. So I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Do you want to jump in tonight, Dan, or do you just want to sit there? MR. STEC-I’ll just watch. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-He was just appointed on Monday. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I think it’s a good project. I agree with the other Board members, and until the day when I really think the Town should address the problem of Mobile Home Overlay and Light Industrial, and try to be more consistent, but until then, we can’t do anything but grant a variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-I wish they were all this easy. I agree. I concur. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I agree with the other Board members. If this was in a single family zone, or in a mobile overlay zone, that the setbacks would be adequate. I can see the reason for the 31 foot setback because of the existing septic system, they have to maintain 10 feet from the septic tank, and because of the paved driveway that’s there, you really don’t want to put the home over the driveway. Other than that, I see no problem with this. It’ll be an improvement to the neighborhood. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Your neighbors must be thrilled. MS. HIMES-They are. I know a lot of them up there, too. They’re happy about it. MR. THOMAS-And there will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood. MR. STONE-To say the least. MR. THOMAS-Having said that, I will ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-1998 REGINA HIMES , Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: 31 Minnesota Avenue. For the replacement of a 480 square foot mobile home with a 1560 square foot double wide manufactured home. Granting this variance will require relief from Section 179- 26 and 179-79A(2). The granting of this variance will require 19 feet of front setback relief and 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) two and eighteen feet of both side setbacks from the requirements of the LI-1A zone, according to Section 179-26. Additionally, the project will require relief for the expansion of a single family dwelling, a mobile home in excess of 50% of the gross floor area, as required. So this relief requires 840 square feet of relief from Section 179-79A(2). Granting of the variance took into account the four criteria. Benefit to the applicant would allow siting of the occupied home in the chosen location. Feasible alternatives are somewhat limited, due to the size of the lot and the pre- existing conditions therein with the septic system, power pole, etc. The relief, in some aspects, could be considered substantial, yet I think it’s warranted, and relative to the area and the neighborhood and community, there’s no negative impacts on the community, and I’ve heard no negative comments from any of the neighbors. Is the difficulty self created? The difficulty is associated with the size and zoning of the lot, as it currently is with the LI-1A zoning, which puts an encumbrance upon it, and I don’t believe that effects the motion. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stec MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. NUDI-Okay. Thank you very much. MS. HIMES-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-1998 TYPE II SFR-1A ARLEEN & JOSEPH M. GIRARD, JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 43 GARRISON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE TO EXISTING HOUSE AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFR-1A ZONE, SECTION 179-20, AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, SECTION 179-79. TAX MAP NO. 106-5-13 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION 179-20, 179-79 ARLEEN & JOSEPH M. GIRARD, JR., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 69-1998, Arleen & Joseph M. Girard, Jr. “Project Location: Description of Proposed Project: 43 Garrison Road Applicant proposes construction of a 576 Relief Required: square foot garage addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant requests 15.83 feet of relief from the sideline setback requirement of the SFR-1A zone, Section Criteria 179-20. The setback requirement is 20 feet. The applicant proposes a 4.17 foot setback. for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize the desired addition in the 2. Feasible alternatives: preferred location. Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: construction. 15.83 feet of relief from 4. Effects on the neighborhood or the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. community:5. Is Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, however, any Parcel History (construction/site substantial sized garage addition would require relief. plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: None Applicable This project should have a positive impact on the community, given that this home is the only home in the immediate neighborhood SEQR Status: without a garage. Neighborhood support has been noted. Type II” MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t think there’s anything from the County. MR. THOMAS-No. The County didn’t get this one. All right. Mr. & Mrs. Girard, is there anything you want to add, tell us about, talk about? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. GIRARD-Sure. Just basically what we’re doing here is we don’t have a garage currently now. So it’s not like we’re going to expand the garage, make it a family room, and then build an attached garage. Where the area is now is basically asphalt. It’s where we park our cars anyway. So what we’re looking to do is obviously we would dig that up and basically frame, as you can see from Van Dusen and Steves, frame right over where we park our cars anyway, and we spent a lot of time and energy on this to have it done professionally so there’s nothing hidden here. We had Van Dusen and Steves map out everything exactly to where everything is, had it designed professionally and also took it upon ourselves to go to the neighbors before we came here to make sure everything was good. As you can see, we already have the submittals of signatures, and basically, as I noted in there, everyone else on Garrison Road has a two car garage, and in Upstate New York, as we just bought the house in ’96, I’ve found it’s awfully difficult in the winter months to store lawn mowers and to store snow blowers without the garage. So we only feel it’s going to add to the property, and that’s basically all we’re looking for. MR. THOMAS-All right. You say you bought the home two years ago in ’96? MR. GIRARD-Yes, sir. MR. THOMAS-It looks like the building on the west end there looks like it used to be a garage that was converted. Was that the case when you bought it? MR. GIRARD-It was already converted, yes, sir. It was on the, the house was actually on the market for three years prior to when we purchased it. So I don’t know if that was the hold up, that they didn’t have a garage and people really didn’t, you know, want a house without a garage, but we bought it in hopes of being able to get a garage put in, but when we bought it, it was like that, and it was on the market prior for three years. MR. STONE-But were you told that it had been a garage, to your knowledge? MR. GIRARD-No, sir. If you look at it, like he said, you can probably assume that it was, yes, but the whole story of the house is sort of strange. It was owned by the Ginsbergs who, one has since deceased and passed down to their daughter Joy, and that’s who we technically bought it from. They aren’t even like around the area. She’s in Massachusetts. Her mother’s still living in Florida. So there wasn’t really, we never even met Joy, to be honest with you. We dealt with the real estate agent. So, you know, maybe that’s why it wasn’t said. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, I’m wondering, did you consider possibly putting the garage more in the back yard, so that, or behind the house in some way? MR. GIRARD-Yes. The way the house is situated now, you can sort of see on the Van Dusen and Steves drawing that little bay window. If we were to turn the garage side ways, and according to Matt Steves at Van Dusen and Steves, you need, for a side entrance garage, at least 37 feet. So that would put our garage almost right to where our kitchen is, and that, I’m sure you’ve been to the property, would change this whole scope of the property. We wouldn’t have any yard, and you’re basically turning more black top and more construction than just putting it out there, if that answers your question, sir. MR. STONE-Well, it certainly says you’ve considered it and thought about it. Whether it answers my question or concern is another story. You should be aware that asphalt does not bear on setbacks. The fact that it’s there and the fact that they park their cars there really doesn’t, it’s certainly true, but it’s not. MR. GIRARD-Right. I understand that. My only point was we’re not going to be digging up any greenery or trees. We’re basically going to be digging up asphalt and putting a structure there. That’s all my point was there, sir. MR. STONE-I did notice that was done in the house across the street. They do have a garage on the side, with a side entrance and behind the house. Are you aware of that, the brick house across the street? MRS. GIRARD-Yes. They have a double lot, also. They have a lot of land behind their yard. They are able to do that. The houses across the street all have a double lot. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. GIRARD-And they have two garages. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, and they don’t back up to anything really either. It’s all woods. MRS. GIRARD-Right, it’s all woods. MR. GIRARD-Correct. MRS. LAPHAM-Whereas on your side you’re backing right up to Fort Amherst. So you don’t have a lot of room to play. MR. GIRARD-Right, and that would be a thing. If we were to put a structure sideways, I mean, we might be able to have room, variance there but then you’re going backwards that way. MRS. LAPHAM-And it wouldn’t be as pleasant for your neighbors in the back. MR. GIRARD-Right. MRS. GIRARD-Right. MR. GIRARD-And that’s the thing. I mean, instead of seeing two cars there, they’re going to see a nice structure that’s going to be aesthetically done and look cosmetically, you know, everything will be attached. MRS. LAPHAM-And go with the house. MR. GIRARD-Yes, ma’am, exactly. From the windows to everything will be the same window panes that’s on the back of the house now, and the roofing shingles will be, we’re actually even going to re-shingle the current roof that Mr. Stone was saying looked like was once a garage. We’re even going to re-shingle that to match the same ones that are going to be on the proposed garage. So it all looks like it’s always been there. In that buffer in between where the asphalt is now, to where we’re going to put this is grass, and then there’s the hedges, and that’s always going to be there. Yes, there’s only four feet to our property line, but if you take into consideration those hedges, you have about seven feet, and those hedges are never going to be removed, even should the neighbors on the other side decide to do something. So there’s always going to be a buffer in between that. MR. STONE-The hedges are on their property? MR. GIRARD-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-So you have no control over those? MR. GIRARD-Correct. MRS. LAPHAM-The hedges aren’t on your property? MR. GIRARD-No, ma’am. MR. MC NALLY-What was the number of the neighbor that’s going to be closest to your garage? Is it 40? MR. GIRARD-He just dropped off a letter that I think he faxed to you, Bonnie, today. I don’t know if you’ve received it, it’s the one right next to him that’s going to be effected, just faxed a letter. MR. MC NALLY-Is that Number 40, though? MRS. GIRARD-I’m not sure. MR. STONE-That’s 43. So it’s got to be an odd number. MR. GIRARD-I think it’s 39, to be honest with you. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MRS. LAPHAM-It’s either 41 or 39, because you’ve got a double lot there. MR. STONE-What’s the name? MR. GIRARD-Lebowitz or Griffin it would be under, sir. MR. STONE-Lebowitz is 40, but that would be. MRS. GIRARD-There’s two Lebowitz’s. Jack Lebowitz the lawyer right next door to us, and there’s a Lebowitz diagonal across the street. MR. MC NALLY-So it’s Jack Lebowitz, yes, sir, and he, again, apparently said he faxed this addressed to Bonnie. MR. CUSTER-You can submit it. MR. GIRARD-Sure, and that’s what he said, since he would be effected the most, that he has no objection. MRS. GIRARD-Their house is 39 Garrison. If you look under the correspondence, his wife signed, and her name is Kathleen Griffin. MR. GIRARD-And then they in turn wrote a letter there which responded. MRS. LAPHAM-Right, and then we have a letter from Merritt Scoville at 50, I think it’s 50, I’m not sure, Garrison Road. 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 application, in favor of? Come up and state your name and tell us what you want. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHARLIE BRIWA MR. BRIWA-I’m Charlie Briwa, 42 Fort Amherst. My property abuts the Girard’s in the rear. I would welcome the addition of a garage to their property. I think it would help the neighborhood immensely. MR. THOMAS-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Appreciate your coming. MR. THOMAS-Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. 10/15/98, “No objection to the garage construction not conforming to Section 179-79, Merritt Scoville, Garrison Road, Queensbury.” Jack Lebowitz and Kathleen st Griffin, 39 Garrison Road, October 21 , re: Area Variance No. 69-1998 Arleen and Joseph Girard, Jr. “Dear Ms. Lapham: We are in receipt of the public hearing notice issued by your office relative to the above Area Variance request as sent to adjacent landowners. We are the adjacent landowners who are primarily effected by the above request of our neighbors to build a new garage structure within the 20 foot side-yard setback along our common boundary. The pending application requests a sixteen (16) foot waiver of the setback, leaving a four (4) foot side yard setback to the common property line. Please be advised, and advise the Zoning Board accordingly, that we have no objection to the grant of the Girard’s pending Area Variance request at this evening’s ZBA meeting. Respectfully submitted, Jack R. Lebowitz” And a copy to the applicants. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That does it? MRS. LAPHAM-That does it. MR. GIRARD-Do you need, Bonnie, to read all the other signatures that we had or no? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. THOMAS-Yes, take that petition and just read the names. MR. GIRARD-We just included it to show that we already did it before we came. MRS. LAPHAM-Let me see if I have it. “We, the undersigned, do not object to the construction of a new attached two car garage on the property of Arleen & Joseph M. Girard, Jr. residing at 43 Garrison Road, Queensbury, New York Nancy Keating at 46 Garrison; Raymond A. Maddox, 45 Garrison; James E. Towne, 48; 42 Fort Amherst; Holly Chlopecki at 46 Fort Amherst; Raymond Purty, 40 Fort Amherst; Carleen Sawyer at 34 Garrison; Lenore Lebowitz at 40 Garrison; Kathleen Griffin at 39 Garrison; Edward Kerr at 47.” So it looks like you’ve got them all. MR. STONE-You didn’t get the ducks, though, in the pond. MR. GIRARD-They come by the lawn, though. We let them use the lawn. They get lost in the rainstorms, and that’s the thing. We do appreciate to be living on Garrison Road at such a young age, and only want to enhance it and we’ve done a lot since we’ve owned the property, and, you know, that’s why we took it upon ourselves to go see all the neighbors, and like I said, we’re going to have it done so it’s going to look like it’s always been there. This isn’t a $3,000 garage, believe me. This is expensive. MR. STONE-No matter how we vote, I wish you luck with your future children. Obviously, you have none at the moment. MR. GIRARD-No. She’s hoping, though, soon. I said, lets get a garage first. MR. CUSTER-You’re going to need a place to get away, believe me. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-No more questions for the applicant, lets talk about it. I’ll start with Brian. MR. CUSTER-I think the project is exemplary. I think it’s been well thought out, and showed a lot of concern for the neighborhood by securing all the signatures and talking to the neighbors, explaining the project thoroughly to them, hearing nothing but positive comments from the neighbor in the rear. I realize that the relief is a little bit substantial relative to the Ordinance, but I think it’s warranted in this case, in order to make the proper adjustment to the house, make it livable and to help them out, and again, if I had heard negative comments from the community or something of that nature and there was a lot of vocal support against it, I probably would have a different opinion, but I think I’m very for it at this point. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Brian’s point about the requested variance being a bit extreme is true. Four feet from the line is kind of tight, but the neighbors haven’t complained, and I have no doubt but that the garage would be built in accordance with the appropriate Codes and would certainly be an addition that would be complimentary to the neighborhood and to the home. So in that sense, it would be a great benefit to the applicant. It’s possible to downsize the construction, but given the large size of the homes in the neighborhood, I don’t think it’s really a feasible alternative. The effects on the neighborhood or community, there was no one to complain. It’s going to be minimal. So all things considered, I’d be in favor of the project. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I think it’s a good project, and I’m definitely for it. I think it will enhance the home. They are the only house without a garage, and I’m for it. I think they’ve done a good job connecting with their neighbors and having it professionally thought out and so on. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. STONE-I basically, well, I agree with my fellow Board members. I am disturbed by the amount of relief, but I understand the necessity for it, and since it will definitely be a benefit to the neighborhood and certainly a benefit to the applicant, and by making this house more marketable, it helps the whole neighborhood down the road, so that it doesn’t stand out and become, unfortunately, years from now, that it goes downhill because it doesn’t have this particular accouterment. So I’m definitely in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, I think the other Board members have pointed out that the relief is definitely substantial, and that taking into account the balancing test, at that point, I would sweep, as far as lack of alternatives and genuine need for the project, and also a positive neighborhood feedback, and I think you’ve got that sweep. I think that’s basically what’s happened here, and based on that, I think the test falls in favor of the applicant. I think it’s a good project, and I think you’ve approached this from a very positive aspect, and I think that counts. So I’m for the project. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members that even though the relief is substantial, that it is warranted in this case. This isn’t an overly, an oversized garage, and the neighbor to the west also has their driveway adjoining the property line. So it’s not like the house next door would be right there, plus the shading from the cedar hedges there, and like everyone else said, I agree with everyone else on the Board. MR. STONE-Just a quick question before we make a motion. There will be an interior door to the garage? MR. GIRARD-No, sir. MR. STONE-There will not be? MR. GIRARD-No. It will be outside, and that’s due to the way the family room is designed now. There, on the wall, are all built in shelves with a built in dry bar, and very nice, you know, when people walk in they see all these shelves and the closets open. To ruin that would change it. So, by setting it back, another thing that the neighbors like, that we’re setting it back 16 inches from the road. In having it 24 feet, it’ll allow us to overhang on the back, where we have plenty of room, four feet, and we’ll put the door there. So we’ll basically walk from our kitchen door directly into that garage door outside, which is about, you know, 10 feet, but we don’t mind walking outside as long as we have a garage to walk into. We can live with that. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, plus the overhang would keep you sheltered, too. MR. GIRARD-Correct. Yes, ma’am. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-1998 ARLEEN & JOSEPH M. GIRARD, JR. , Introduced by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 43 Garrison Road. The applicants wish to construct a 576 square foot garage addition to an existing single family dwelling. The applicant needs 15.83 feet of relief from the side line setback requirement in the Single Family Residential One Acre zone, Section 179-20. The setback requirement is 20 feet. The applicant is proposing a 4.17 foot setback. The benefit to the applicant would be the ability to construct and utilize the desired addition in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives may include downsizing, but that is not likely, given the neighborhood that the property is located in. The relief is substantial, at 15.83 feet, but the effects on the neighborhood or community seem to be minimal, and all of the neighbors have spoken in favor of this addition. The difficulty could be interpreted as self-created, but any substantial size garage addition would require relief on this particular lot, and the project would have a positive impact on the community and for the applicants. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stec MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. GIRARD-Do we get anything? MR. THOMAS-You have to go down and see Craig. He’ll give you an application for a building permit. You don’t see Craig. You go see Sandy. MR. BROWN-I’ll take care of him. MR. THOMAS-Yes, just go downstairs and see Craig. MR. GIRARD-Okay. All right. Thank you all. MRS. GIRARD-Thank you. MR. STONE-Good luck. AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-1998 TYPE II WR-1A CEA PAUL THOMAS VANSCHAICK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE FIELDING LANE, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 988 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE, AND RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-16 AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, SECTION 179-79, AND RELIEF FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 57- 98 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/14/98 TAX MAP NO. 12-1-11 LOT SIZE: 0.30 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 70-1998, Paul Thomas VanSchaick, Meeting Date: October Description of Proposed Project: 21, 1998 “Project Location: Fielding Lane Applicant proposes construction of a 988 square foot second story addition to an existing 1420 square foot Relief Required: home. Applicant requests 6 feet and 4 feet of side setback relief from setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. The side setback requirement for this parcel is 12 feet. Additionally, the applicant requests 3% relief from the Floor Area Ratio 22% development allowance. Also, since the current structure does not meet the above setback requirements, and the proposed expansion is greater than 50% of the existing floor area, relief for the expansion of a non Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to conforming structure is requested. Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to 2. Feasible alternatives: expand an existing home in the desired manner. Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguring to meet setbacks and Floor Area Ratio requirements and no 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: construction. 4 and 6 feet of relief from the 12 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate while the 3% relief from the 22% FAR 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: requirement may be interpreted as minimal. 5. Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. The Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. etc.):Staff comments: AV 102-1996 res. 11/20/96, tabled no variance required. Moderate impacts on the community may be anticipated as a result of this action. The addition of floor area requires the septic system to be in compliance with current codes. This item is addressed during SEQR Status: the building permit process. Type II” MRS. LAPHAM-Queensbury Area Variance No. 70-1998 and Queensbury Variance No. 57-1998 VanSchaick, Paul Thomas, both No County Impact. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Roulier, do you want to tell us? MR. ROULIER-My name is Joe Roulier. I’m representing Mr. VanSchaick in this Area Variance application. I would like to make one correction. I don’t believe it’s been made yet, but we are not 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) seeking any relief from the height. The initial introduction indicates that we’re requesting relief from the height, which is 28 feet up in that area, and that is not the case. The building will not exceed that. I just want to bring that to your attention. We’re able to, obviously, meet the 50 foot, the new 50 foot setback requirement. The building, currently, is approximately 62 feet from the shoreline, and we’re certainly able to meet the rear requirement, which is 30 feet. The problem that we have is, of course, the new requirements of 12 foot respectively on either side, and because it’s a pre-existing nonconforming structure, it becomes even more difficult for us to meet the requirement. I think, fundamentally, when the new variance setback requirements were placed into effect, they were trying to make it, obviously, easier for this Board, but principally, they were trying to have people design new construction so it would fit within the parameters of those setbacks. I, at that time, had sat on that Board, and that was one of the principal reasons which was new construction, and why these 12 foot and 20 foot respective, depending on the size of the property, side line requirements came into play. The difficulty is that when we’re dealing with buildings that pre-existed any zoning up in North Queensbury, this one, for example, that’s only six foot and eight foot, it becomes that much more difficult for people to conform to that current 12 foot setback. If we had a situation here where it was an older structure, and Mr. VanSchaick said go on in with a bulldozer, lets raise it and start from new, then it would be, this would be a moot issue. We would conform to all the setback requirements, but we have a good structure to work off of. We have a footprint that has been well established, and because this footprint has been established, we feel as though we are asking this Board for nominal amount of relief, given the existing building in place already. The application that was before you a minute ago was asking for relief going into areas were already set up as setbacks. In this particular case, we have a building that has been well established within the parameters of what the setback requirements are, and we’re only asking this Board that we be allowed to, of course, put a second story on the house, but simultaneously, we’re trying to work within all of the current requirements that have been established. Is there a reasonable alternative to this? The construction, the nature of the construction that we’re proposing to you, we will be putting in a new septic system, and because of the requirements for a three bedroom home and the number of perforated pipe that’s required and the setbacks that you have to meet from the house and the side line requirements for new septic systems, we’re actually at the limit as to where we can both put a new septic system onto the property and still maintain the existing structure that’s there. With the exception of the 44 square feet additional, which is on the east side of the house, and which is not going any closer than the six feet that the existing house is already at on the property, we feel as though we are really and truly asking this Board for the minimum amount of relief necessary to accomplish what we’d like to do to this structure. The effect on the neighborhood, in my opinion, and I’ve been up to Lake George for years now, construction of this nature only tends to enhance the neighborhood, in terms of property values. I’ve seen, time and time again, where people go in, they build new homes, homes in the area generally tend to trend upwards, and the value of the property, of course, has increased. I mean, I’m sure this Board is well aware of property values 10 years ago versus property values today. So in terms of this project having any detrimental effect on any of the adjoining properties, that would, in my opinion, would never be the case. It could only have a positive impact. Fundamentally, though, when you’re dealing with situations of this type of construction where we would be going ahead, putting in new septic systems, in my opinion, as a builder and as a resident living up in Lake George, first and foremost is the water quality, and by upgrading the septic system, which would go along with part and parcel of this project, that would be the single most positive effect that it could have on the adjoining neighbors, and also on the community as a whole. Does anyone, at this juncture, have any questions for me? MR. STONE-What is the height going to be? MR. ROULIER-Mr. Stone, the height will be approximately 27 and a half feet, but I have assured Craig this that it will be under the 28 foot limitation. MR. STONE-Where did we say that? MR. HAYES-It was on this agenda. MR. STONE-It was on the agenda. MR. ROULIER-It was on the agenda. That’s correct. MR. STONE-Right. Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-Is he planning to use the house year round? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. ROULIER-The home right now, as it exists, is a year round structure. It has three bedrooms. It will still be a three bedroom year round home. He is anticipating retiring, and the use of it will be increased from basically weekend type of use now, weekend and vacation type of use to probably more of a six month use, and then possibly six months some place else. MR. STONE-Joe, what is going to be in that 44 square feet, that cross hatched area? Upstairs and downstairs? MR. ROULIER-Yes. The reason for the 44 square feet increase is so that we can increase the existing kitchen on the first floor into that area. It’s a very small galley type kitchen right now, and his wife asked that we, for cooking purposes or whatever, increase the size of the kitchen, and then correspondingly upstairs there is a bedroom in that area, and it would just follow through over that. MR. STONE-But that’s filling in a space that already exists to the south? MR. ROULIER-To the south and east. MR. STONE-Well, that little “L” that’s there already. MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. That’s why I said earlier that we are not increasing, we’re not encroaching further into the setbacks. MRS. LAPHAM-It’s the exact footprint but two stories, right? MR. ROULIER-With the exception of the 44 square feet that is, it’s a complete duplication of the existing footprint of the house. MR. CUSTER-Joe, according to these plans you have here, where that sliding glass door goes, that’s going to have to be changed? No? MR. ROULIER-Yes. The plan that is in front of you. MR. CUSTER-Right now it’s a four foot hatched area, and you’re pushing it another six feet back. MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. CUSTER-I understand. So you’re going to just put a window or something there? MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. The elevation that you’re looking at on the first page of that actually faces Lake George. The elevation to the, second as you open it up, would face Fielding Lane or the rear of the house, toward the septic system. MR. STONE-I was concerned when I saw the garage, but I see it is truly a garage, even though on the lake side it looks very much like an apartment. MR. ROULIER-Yes. It is not an apartment. I will tell you that there is a washer and dryer in that area. It will probably continue to be in that area, but it is not used as any more than storage. I’m sure at one time it was used as a play room. They had two younger children, but at this juncture, it’s only used purely for storage. MRS. LAPHAM-It just looks like an apartment, to me, right there. MR. ROULIER-Yes. That’s not the case. MR. STONE-No. It certainly didn’t look like one wanted to live in there. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STEC-I have one. Our previous applicant was exhaustive in soliciting comments from the neighbors. I was just curious if this was done in this case? MR. ROULIER-Yes. The plan that’s before you was brought to and shown both to the neighbor to the east and to the west of the property, okay. On the east is a Mr. Black. I have a letter here indicating that he has absolutely no objection with the proposal. The man on the other side is Mr. Austin, Harley Austin. He has also seen that, reviewed it, and he has no objection whatsoever with 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) the proposal. The property that’s located to the south of it is owned either, I believe either by the Town of Queensbury or the State of New York. MR. STONE-Both, I think. The Town has a little bit, but it’s mostly State. MR. ROULIER-Right. So from that standpoint, we didn’t canvas either one of them, but I can’t imagine that there would be any objection from that particular property. Now, further to the west, I was over there today. I took a lot of time to look around the property. There’s three large locust trees. There’s additional maple trees. So that properties to the west would really have a very difficult time even seeing this once it would be constructed. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions? MR. ROULIER-Mr. Thomas, I have these letters also, and I don’t know if. MR. THOMAS-We’ll read them in at the public hearing. MRS. LAPHAM-And I have letters. So some of them may be the same. MR. ROULIER-They probably are, from a Mr. Black and a Mr. Austin. MRS. LAPHAM-Lets see what I have. From, yes, Mr. Austin and Mr. Black, well, Mrs. Black, actually. They might be the same. MR. ROULIER-The one that I have is from a Mr. William Black and a Mrs. Penny Black, and they’ve both signed it. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, then that one we might want to put in, because I think mine’s only signed by her. No, they’ve both signed it here, too. MR. ROULIER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. If there’s no more 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-Okay. Read the correspondence in there, Bonnie. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Mrs. Bonnie Lapham, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals, Re: Area st Variance No. 70-1998, Type II, hearing notice October 21. “Dear Mrs. Lapham: This letter is in reference to the Area Variance requested by Mr. Tom VanSchaick for Fielding Lane, Cleverdale. I own the property adjacent to Tom’s on Fielding Lane (on the west side of Tom’s). I have reviewed and I understand his plan to expand his existing structure and his need for a relief from the setback and height requirements. I am completely in favor of this addition. I feel that the changes Mr. Van Schaick plans will be an improvement to the neighborhood. As I am unable to attend the meeting st on Oct. 21, I would very much appreciate this letter conveying my opinion on this matter being read at the meeting to those present and included in the Record of this Area Variance. Very truly yours, Harley R. Austin 620 Engleman Ave. Scotia, NY 12302” Mrs. Bonnie Lapham, Secretary, Town of Queensbury Zoning, RE: Variance request P. Thomas VanSchaick, 11 Fielding Lane, Cleverdale “Dear Mrs. Lapham: I would like to thank the Zoning Board for the opportunity to address Mr. and Mrs. VanSchaick’s request for a variance at 11 Fielding Lane in Cleverdale, NY. We have lived in Cleverdale for the last 7 years at 3 Fielding Lane, and most recently purchased the house next to the VanSchaicks at 13 Fielding Lane in Cleverdale in April of 1998. We feel the project does not have any adverse economical or environmental effect on the surrounding homes, in fact the proposed changes will increase the values of all homes in the area. The VanSchaicks have been good friends, great neighbors and forthright in all dealings in the community. We fully support the application to the zoning board and request that they issue the necessary variance in support of the VanSchaicks. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Mr. William H. Black, 13 Fielding Lane, Cleverdale, New York; Mrs. Penny Black, 13 Fielding Lane, Cleverdale, New York” MR. THOMAS-Are those the two letters you had? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. ROULIER-Yes, they are. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other ones that you have that you want read in? MR. ROULIER-No. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. There aren’t any others here, no. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant? No other questions for the applicant? We’ll talk about it. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I think it’s kind of cut and dried. As I look at the five points, the benefit would certainly be that the applicant would be allowed to have an expanded home in a very desirable location in the configuration that he wants. The alternatives are few, given the existing structure, the limitations imposed by the lake and the septic system, as far as moving it back and forth. The relief, I don’t find, is substantial. The existing house is already four and six feet from the side setbacks, and the amount of additional floor area that they’re asking for is only 3% relief. So I do interpret it as minimal. I was satisfied that they didn’t go up more than 28 feet. Height certainly would be important to me on the lake. Overall, I don’t see much of an effect on the neighborhood. Forty-four square foot addition doesn’t seem that significant to me. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? MR. STEC-Yes. I’d agree that it seems that the relief sought is minimal, again, given the existing structure. You’re talking about building up on the existing structure, and I think the consideration of the septic system and the fact that the height isn’t going to be excessive. So that makes it a favorable request. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t have a problem, really. It’s so tight in there, but the two things that are really in favor of this particular are, first of all, he has a front to back lot. It’s not one of those lots with two houses, (lost words) Fielding Lane has. Like where his garage, some of those properties where his garage is is a whole other house, and he’s got a front, front to back, he goes right from the lake to the road. So the garage is his. There’s no view he can obstruct, and then the new septic system really says it loud, that that would be an addition, because so many of those are so old, they’re substandard. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I basically concur. I have to admit, I was very disturbed, as Bob said, when I saw the height in the agenda, because height on the lake is very important to me. I think we have a good Ordinance. I think 28 feet, with certain exceptions, and we’ve made certain exceptions, but in general, I think 28 feet is a reasonable height. I, personally, would love to see, if someone’s going to expand a home on Cleverdale, that area, that they buy the guy’s lot next door, but, I understand it doesn’t work very often to do this. The fact that this is on the same footprint, essentially, the 44 square feet being very minimal, and that it’s within the height requirement, I really don’t have a problem. The only thing that I would ask is that when we make a motion, we don’t say three percent relief from the twenty-two percent. I would much rather we say three percent from the Floor Area Ratio, because it sounds, to me, when you start putting percents on percents, it’s really, it’s on the square footage is what it is. It’s a minor point, but when we make the motion. MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s a point well taken. All right. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree. I think everybody’s pretty much spelled it out. The benefit to the applicant is, you know, that he’s going to improve his property substantially, and I do think it’ll raise the property values in the immediate neighborhood, and the relief is not substantial, in my mind, and I think Bonnie was very right that the nature of the lot itself, too, you know, lessens the impact that I think that it will have on building, going up the extra, so I don’t have any problem with the project. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I concur with all my fellow Board members. I think all the points have been fairly delineated and discussed, and I hear no negative opposition. So I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with Brian. Everything that’s been said about this variance, the fact that it’s going up two stories and it’s going to stay under the 28 foot height requirement for the Waterfront Residential zone is significant, and also because he’s going up two stories, and because the land behind the house belongs to the Town and also to the State of New York, there will not be any obstructed view, and the same thing for the neighbor on either side, because as the applicant says, most of the houses point north, or look north, and that’s where their view is. Their view is not to the east or the west or the south. Because like Bonnie said, the size of the property is 50 foot wide and 248 feet deep, that there’s really no other way that the applicant can do what he wants to do without acquiring additional property on either side, which is not feasible at this time. So I have no problem with this application being passed. MR. STONE-I also want to congratulate the applicant on the condition of his property. It’s really an attractive piece of property. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it is. It’s very attractive. MR. STONE-I do want to know what the piece of equipment on the lawn is there, though. Did you notice that? MR. ROULIER-On the left? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ROULIER-That’s for the jet skis, so they bring up fuel for the jet skis, and they can put some fuel into it. If I could take a minute after you vote. MR. STONE-Sure. MR. ROULIER-Can I just ask you one point of clarification? The three percent number that you’re referring to, okay, I was not aware of how that was calculated. MR. STONE-Forty four over, what’s allowed? MR. THOMAS-Well, this is how it’s calculated. You didn’t fill one of these out? MR. ROULIER-Yes, I did. I have that in front of me. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That’s how it’s calculated, the three percent. Because the allowed square footage for that lot is 2728, okay, minus the building area that’s there now, the 2728 represents 22% of the property. Okay. MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-And the total building that’s there now is 2,080 square feet, okay. In order to bring it up to the 22%, you could only add 648 square feet of additional, and you’re asking for 988 additional square feet. So the three percent comes between 648 and 988. MR. ROULIER-All right. MR. STONE-It’s the 340 over 2700. MR. THOMAS-Yes, is where that three percent comes from. MR. ROULIER-Okay. Thank you for the clarification. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. All right. Everybody’s had their say. Would someone like to make a motion? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-1998 PAUL THOMAS VANSCHAICK , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Fielding Lane. The applicant proposes the construction of a 988 square foot second story addition on an existing 1,420 square foot home. The applicant requires, and I move that we approve, six feet of relief on the east side of the building, with respect to that setback, four feet of relief on the west side of the building, with respect to the side setback in that location, as required in WR-1A zones Section 179-16. Additionally, the applicant requests three percent relief from the Floor Area Ratio, and since the current structure does not meet the above setback requirements, the proposed expansion is greater than 50% of the existing Floor Area, I also move that we approve that expansion. This approval of the Floor Area Ratio is in accordance with Section 179-79A(2). The benefit to the applicant is that they would be permitted to expand the existing home in the desired manner. Feasible alternatives are few, the location of the house on the very narrow lot in Fielding Lane and Lake George. The existing home and placement of the home and existing septic system makes it unfeasible for the house to be built in any other location. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I don’t think that it is. Four and six feet relief from the twelve foot requirement where there’s already existing building, and the applicant desires to build upwards is not a substantial relief. The effect on the neighborhood would be minimal, and I don’t see that the difficulty is self-created. I move to approve this three percent increase in the Floor Area Ratio. For purposes of this motion the allowable Floor Area Ratio, at 22%, would be 2,728 square feet, but that this applicant is asking for, and we are approving by this motion, an additional 340 square feet, on top of the 2,728, and that is equal to 25% of the total lot size. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: MR. MC NALLY-With respect to Lew Stone’s comment, Lew, I move to approve this three percent increase in the Floor Area Ratio. I’m allowing an additional 340 square feet over the current allowable 648 square feet under the existing Ordinance. The three percent is the difference of 340 over 2700, as I understand it. MR. STONE-That’s correct, and unfortunately, I divided that, and it comes out to be 13. It comes out to 13%. MR. THOMAS-I think you have to take the. MR. STONE-Just say 340 square feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Take that 340 and divide it into 12,400 square foot, which is the square foot of the lot. It’s 22% of the lot size. MR. STONE-Yes, but you’ve got to total it. They’re only allowed 2728. MR. BROWN-I think what you need to do is take what the total proposal is, is 3,068 square feet, and divide that by the area of the parcel which is. MR. THOMAS-12,400. MR. BROWN-And it comes up to a total of 25% is proposed. MR. STONE-Okay. Now that’s the whole thing. Then we are granting a three percent additional over the 22%. That’s not what I first thought about when we started talking about it. MR. CUSTER-I like the 340. MR. STONE-Yes, well, the 340 is very clear, which is, we can say 340, which is 25% of the area. MR. THOMAS-No, an additional three percent. MR. STONE-Three percent. MR. STEC-Bringing the total to. MR. STONE-Bringing the total to 25%. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. CUSTER-Okay. That I’m comfortable with. MR. THOMAS-All right. Is everybody comfortable with that? Okay. That’s the way it will be from now on, then. MR. CUSTER-Are MR. STONE-Bringing the total to 25%. MR. CUSTER-Okay. That I’m comfortable with. MR. THOMAS-All right. Is everybody comfortable with that? Okay. That’s the way it will be from now on, then. MR. CUSTER-Are you comfortable with it? MR. STONE-Well, he’s getting the relief. It’s a matter, we’re only trying to do it so that it’s clear. MR. CUSTER-As long as comfortable with it? MR. STONE-Well, he’s getting the relief. It’s a matter, we’re only trying to do it so that it’s clear. MR. CUSTER-As long as comfortable with it? MR. STONE-Well, he’s getting the relief. It’s a matter, we’re only trying to do it so that it’s clear. MR. CUSTER-As long as you’re clear, Joe. MR. ROULIER-Yes. I was a little uncertain, initially, when you referred to the three percent, but you’ve certainly clarified that. MR. STONE-But it really is. It’s an additional three percent, if one were, it’s an additional three percent on top of the 22% that you’re allowed. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-And I didn’t read it that way originally either. MR. CUSTER-I didn’t either. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-So for purposes of this motion, the allowable Floor Area Ratio, at 22%, would be 2,728 square feet. That this applicant is asking for, and we are approving by this motion, an addition 340 square feet on top of the 2728, and that is equal to 25% of the total lot size. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me comment on that, if I might. Having seen it this way, that’s not minimal, in my judgment. Since the 22% was the reason, was hard fought, as you talked about in your committee, and you’re giving a relief to 25. That’s a lot. That’s not minimal, when you look at it that way. To me, it’s not. MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s minimal when you look at the entire project. MR. STONE-Yes, I agree, but I think we have to be sure that we’re not setting a precedent, that everyone who has lake property is going to come in here and want 25% Floor Area Ratio. Because that’s a lot more than 22, since knowing the history of the discussion, it ranged all the way down to, what, 16, 18 at one time. MR. ROULIER-Actually, it started at 28. Then it was brought down, then it went back up to 25, and we’re pretty much set at 25, and then it went to 24, and then it went to 22. In this particular case, it becomes a little bit, even though the size of the structure is on the existing footprint, the actual floor, in other words, we’re not being greedy by taking the entire second floor and duplicating the second floor. What we’re doing is we’re only using a portion of the interior of it, and we feel as though, because of that, because we’re not being greedy, we’re only looking for nominal relief to accomplish what we want to do, and the three percent of that relief is really not 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) much in terms of the square footage that we need for the inside of the house, versus if we made a complete duplication of it, and then we’d be looking for that much more relief, and we don’t want to do that. MR. STONE-My concern is not this project. As we’ve discussed, this is a reasonable project, because of the footprint, because of the building that’s already in place. I’m only concerned that, and I’ll probably vote in favor. Don’t get me wrong. I’m only saying by allowing a 25% Floor Area Ratio, we may be creating a dangerous precedent. That’s my only concern. I don’t know how to handle that, except maybe just to say 340 feet in excess, and let somebody else figure it out, rather than say 25% in the motion. MR. THOMAS-I think because the law has the percentage in it, that we have to mention percentage. MR. STONE-That’s probably true. MR. HAYES-But that is an Area Variance, too, and we’re allowed to consider. MR. STONE-We’re allowed to consider it. MR. HAYES-It’s not a boxed in precedent, is what I’m saying. MR. STONE-Yes, except you get all the guys that are coming in and want to build a bigger house than they’re allowed to build right now. We know we’re going to see more of these. MR. ROULIER-That’s what I wanted to bring up after you voted, but since you brought it up, I’ll bring it up now. I’m just finishing a house on the lake for myself, and when I took the piece of property and I knew, of course, all the rules, I simply delineated on the survey the setbacks, and then I went ahead, once I had that all delineated with the 50 feet, the 20 feet, etc., I designed the house so that it would fit within those parameters, and also designed the house so that at any given point on the slope of the property, I would not exceed the 28 feet, okay. I also, at that point, knew what the Floor Area Ratio was, an designed the house so that it came right in line with what the 22% was. Now, I’m working in a situation, there, where I had a lot of approximately 17,500 square feet. I felt as though the home was a reasonable sized home to build on that particular piece of property. It does become a little bit more difficult when you start working with properties that are of square footage somewhat smaller than 100 feet, and what I wanted to say to this Board, and I would have waited, was that when you’re dealing with new construction and you have, you’re able to establish the parameters, it becomes easier to build and construct a new house so that the Board isn’t burdened with several variances. Now, in this particular case where we are asking for some relief from the Floor Area Ratio, as I indicated earlier, we’re not asking for an actual duplication of the square area, the Floor Area Ratio. We feel as though we’re only asking for what is necessary to enhance Mr. VanSchaick’s lifestyle, and keep it in conformity with the neighborhood. That’s what I wanted to say, and we do feel as though it really is a nominal amount to request for this Board. MR. STONE-I have no problem with this particular request. None whatsoever. I think it’s top of an existing structure, the small addition, the 88 square feet, so it’s a quarter of the relief we’re granting. That’s not much either. I have no problem with this. I’m only worried that, as you say, if you work very hard to keep your total building, Floor Area Ratio, at 22%, not easy to do. MR. ROULIER-That’s right, but as I indicated to you, it’s easier to do when you’re dealing with new construction, okay. It becomes harder, and we recognized this when we were establishing these numbers. It becomes increasingly harder when you’re dealing with a pre-existing structure that all of a sudden you just can’t change at all. MR. STONE-That’s why I interpret what you did, and I know it’s not agreed to, but it was intended by your neighbor’s lot. If you want to build on 65 front foot, get another 65 somehow. MR. ROULIER-I’d love to. This is it. MR. STONE-But having said that, I mean, certainly, I have no problem. I could go on. I don’t want to take any longer on it. MRS. LAPHAM-Between that and the fact that the people next door might not want to sell. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. STONE-Well, I know that. MR. STEC-I have a question. In the past, how common has this issue come up with the 22% rule? MR. THOMAS-Well, the 22% rule has been in effect for about two years now. MR. MC NALLY-On Rockhurst we’ve done it a couple of times. MR. STONE-Two years this month. MR. THOMAS-It comes up quite often, but it’s because it’s new to the Ordinance. MR. STEC-Are we talking five times in the past, a dozen times? MR. STONE-The Floor Area Ratio hasn’t really come up. MR. THOMAS-I can think of maybe three. Probably three times. MR. STEC-And in the past the Board has approved these kinds of reliefs? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STEC-What was the largest exception? MR. THOMAS-I think the largest one was a 9% exception. MR. STONE-I wasn’t here then. MR. THOMAS-You were, too. You sat here as the Chairman. MR. MC NALLY-Was that the one on Rockhurst? MR. THOMAS-No. It was the one on Glen Lake. My brother. MR. STONE-Yes, right. Your brother. That’s how you knew it so well. MRS. LAPHAM-That’s why you weren’t Chairman that night. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. All right. Bob’s made a motion. Is there any question on the motion? Does everybody understand the motion? I’ll ask for a second. MRS. LAPHAM-Second. MR. THOMAS-Go ahead and vote, Maria. AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. ROULIER-Thank you. Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. MR. STONE-Thanks for your openness, Joe. Because I know this is a very interesting, I know the fight that went on on this thing, and I just would like to just get it out in the open. MR. ROULIER-It took a lot of hours. MR. STONE-I know it did. MR. ROULIER-Okay. Thank you very much. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. THOMAS-All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1998 TYPE II WR-1A CEA WAYNE D. & CAROLYN R. KELLOGG OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 14 JAY ROAD WEST, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING 3 BEDROOM RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT NEW 3 BEDROOM RESIDENCE WITH NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK, AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE, SECTION 179-16 AND FOR RELIEF TO CONSTRUCT A PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON A LOT WITHOUT FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET, SECTION 179-70. CROSS REF. SPR 58-98 TAX MAP NO. 43-2-23 LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRES SECTION 179-70 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-1998, Wayne D. Kellogg & Carolyn R. Kellogg, Meeting Description of Proposed Date: October 21, 1998 “Project Location: 14 Jay Road West Project: Applicant proposes demolition of a 1327 sf single family residence followed by Relief Required: construction of a 1762 sf single family dwelling. Applicant requests 20.4 feet of shoreline setback relief, 3.06 feet and 3.00 feet of side setback relief from requirements of the WR- 1A zone, Section179-16. Additionally, the applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot Criteria for considering an Area requirement of Section 179-70, Frontage on public streets. Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant 2. Feasible would be permitted to construct and inhabit the desired home in the preferred location. alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the home to an area more in compliance with the setback requirements and no construction, given the fact that there is an 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: existing home on the property already. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or The cumulative relief may be interpreted as substantial. community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of 5. Is this difficulty self-created? this action. The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan, variance, etc.): Staff comments: None applicable. Given the applicant’s action to gain additional lands on which to place a septic system, it appears feasible that the proposed home can be removed somewhat from the lake in order to conform with SEQR Status: the shoreline setback requirements. Type II” MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, in the relief required, I inadvertently omitted the two feet of height requirement relief they’re seeking, also. It was advertised for height relief. MR. THOMAS-It was advertised as two feet? Okay. Mr. O’Connor. MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I’m here representing the applicant, Wayne & Carolyn Kellogg who are with me at the table, and also with me is Matt Cifone, from Cifone Construction Company, which is the project builder, or the person who has helped us with the design, at least up to this point. Basically, what we’re doing is replacing a year round three bedroom home with another year round three bedroom home. We’re modernizing the facility. To say that we’ve been around the barn with this project is probably to say it very briefly, and that’s before we made application and before we got to you folks. This was about an 8,000 square foot lot when we started. We have increased the size of the lot almost twice. It’s now approximately 23,000. It’s 23,371 feet, trying to fit into our plan, compliance as best we could with the Town Regulations. We’re asking for a number of variances, but each of those variances really is not very substantial, and I’ll go through each one of them with you and see if we can discuss them. If you look at the overall map, and I apologize also, and I acknowledge that Staff has been very cooperative with us, because we initially were going to build, maybe, and square off the old camp, and in the last few days, we decided that just wasn’t feasible, and it was better to replace the building with a brand new building, and we’ve got, I think, the skeleton of the application in to Staff, and then over the last two weeks, we’ve been developing this thing as we came along, and we’ve been bringing things up, or various people have been bringing things up, as we got there. This is what the project looks like right now. Glen Lake Road is out here. This is part of the network of roads that are there. That’s Jay Road and Jay Road West. You come in Jay Road here, and you go to Jay Road West right about in here. This property and then that property are probably the only two properties that are served by Jay Road West. This area right here was owned by John Dennett, and we have taken a deed to the 15,000 square foot lot that’s here, without making his lot in any way nonconforming, so as we can accommodate the expansion that we propose. Basically, if you look at the present 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) building, on the west side, the side toward the Northway, and you looked at the old survey, you would actually find that the existing building encroaches on the neighbor to the north by nine inches. This area I have highlighted in pink right here. That’s actually an encroachment, and what we are proposing to do is to tear down that encroachment, and the rest of the building. Now this is a large covered porch that encroaches over the property line. It’s not a full building. It doesn’t go all the way to the ground, but it would be considered part of the structure. The building itself, the nearest point, gets to 5.3 inches from the property line. What we propose to do is to construct a building now that would be nine feet, uniformly, along that whole property. We are required to have 12 foot setback. We would have nine foot for the building, and I apologize, but I think we’re actually, and I’m not sure if we count the eaves or don’t count the eaves, as far as setback. Typically we don’t. If we count the eaves, this will actually be eight feet from the property line, I’m sorry, seven feet eight inches, because the eaves is going to be a sixteen inch eaves. Typically we haven’t. I think we count the foundation width, but I’m proposing, as I typically do, that we propose and ask for approval to build it as shown on the plans. The eaves are shown on that plan. This is a unique property line. MR. STONE-To say the least. MR. O’CONNOR-Well, the development of the adjoining lot, and this lot, was before our present restrictions. This shed is almost right on the property line. The camp is down in front. I’ve drawn it on this a little bit, and it’s just a matter of view, which I’ll get into when we talk about setback, but it’s close to the property line. This, it’s concrete block garage. It’s probably a misnomer on there. That is a year round residence. There is a family that lives there even now. There is a third residence on this lot in the mobile home, which is behind the property. This garage comes right to, this home comes right to the property line. So if you compare one to another, we are in a much better circumstance, or situation than actually this property owner, but it also shouldn’t necessarily be a concern. That property is owned by the Millers, Doug Miller & Teresa Miller, and I guess her brother, a Celadone, may have an interest in it, too. They’ve been more than cooperative. They know the Kelloggs. They know the type of project that the Kelloggs usually involve themselves in, and I have an affidavit here, which I’ll submit a copy to the Board, because I want to save this for the Planning Board, or I’ll submit this original and keep a copy, whichever. It was, “I, Teresa Miller, being duly sworn dispose and say: I and my family own the lot to the west of the lot being developed by Kellogg We have seen the plans and understand they are requesting: A. two foot height variance B. a side line variance of three to four feet C. a front/lake side variance of 20 feet for the deck with house at 30 feet. We have no objection and join them in requesting approval. Teresa C. Miller” And it was signed to today, or sworn to today by Teresa Miller. Just to give you an indication that they understand what we’re proposing. They’ve actually seen the plans and that they have no objection to what we’re proposing. This existing house, and I’m sure that you’ve all gone out and looked at it, is kind of a combination of probably what was a seasonal house at one time or another, with add ons, which become year round, and what we’re proposing is something that’s going to upgrade this development here, and this lot, and probably their value as well as our value. That is the one side line, if you call that side line number one, that we’re requesting a variance for. If you look at the easterly side line, we’re also requesting a variance there. We’re requesting that we be allowed to build a building at 8.94 feet, instead of the 12 feet required on that side. Presently, right now, there is a porch with stairs, and I’ve colored it in in this little map. It wasn’t too clear, I don’t think, on one of the maps that you had, that actually goes to that line. What we’re proposing there is equal to what’s there, if you consider that porch. If you don’t consider that porch, we would, by statute, consider that porch, but if you were thinking about aesthetically or whatever, and you said, no, we’re probably increasing that side line, or decreasing that side line setback by a couple of feet. The property immediately to the east of that is already developed. That is the property of John and Donna Dennett. They have an ample side lot yard of their own. We will not be infringing upon them in any manner by even building it nine feet. I don’t have an affidavit or a letter of consent from them, but I do offer it as proof of their consent, and I will tell you that I’ve spoken to them both personally. I have a signed deed by them, and without that signed deed, we couldn’t do this project. We’re taking title to this piece of property in the back here, subject to approvals being obtained. This is, it’s an expense that we’re incurring, but it’s subject to us obtaining those approvals. So we’re asking for a side line setback here, and a side line setback variance there. We also are requesting a front or lake setback variance. We’re required, by statute, to have a setback of 50 feet, and we’re asking for a setback of 30 feet. I think it’s 30 feet 4 inches, or something of that nature, 29’ 6” is what we’re proposing. I suppose if we do a little bit better job on the retaining wall it would be 30 feet, but that is identical to the present front setback that’s there with the cabinets there, or the home that was there. The difference is in actuality we’ve given up 10 feet, because the house is going to be 30 feet, .4 back, and we’re going to have a 10 foot deck in front of it. Presently right now the house comes out to the 30 feet. So we’re giving up something as far as the setback. If you take a look at the building plans that were 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) submitted, you’ll see on this part of the map the front elevation. The decking is what we’re talking about, and we’ve included that as being part of the residence, as far as the setback goes. The actual building will be back, not the 30 feet, but approximately 40 feet. If you take a look at the adjoining lots, you’ll see some of the reason that we’re talking about doing that. This shed would actually block the view from these windows that are part of the year round home to the west. They wouldn’t block the view if you walked out on the deck necessarily, but if you’re sitting in the house in the winter part of the year, late spring or something like that, and you were looking to the west, the only thing that you would see, if you go further back, is the shed, which is right here. Further blocking the view, also, is the house, which projects out beyond the shed, and if you look a little, even further than that, there are four large trees right near the shoreline that totally block you, if you don’t try to maintain this type of set, site line looking to that lake. The side set line or site line to the west or east is not much better, because of some trees that are in the Dennett property. The location of the house is further back than the house on the west, and the house on the east is situated, so it’s kind of hard to see if it’s further back or it’s just about equal with our front deck, but we aren’t interfering with either neighbor. The impact of what we’re talking about here is very insignificant. The other problem that we have, and probably the most compelling problem that we have, if you went to the property, you saw the high power line or high tension power line immediately behind the house. It looks to me to be 13’ 5” type line. It’s not just a simple single family pole. It’s a distribution system. There is a transformer here that feeds off to the other properties that are up lake, and there is another transformer on this pole here. The last time I tried to get one of those moved was over on the other side of the lake, on Fitzgerald Road, and I think the cost was about $20,000, and I’m not even sure if, in this instance, we can get it moved, because there’s no, you’ve got to take a look at this house that’s here. If we move it, it’s not a matter, it’s within 20 feet. This is the pole here, and I’m not sure what the typical cross bar is, but probably five feet, six feet. So say it’s 17 feet from what we propose is building here, and if we tried to shove the building back further, we’re going to be right on top of the thing. It’s not a matter of taking this pole and just putting it here, and swinging the lines back and forth. I just don’t think it’s that simple. This building kind of would interfere with what would then be the wires coming off of that pole. So it probably would be even more expensive than what we’re talking about. The other problem is, you shove the building back, you’re just going to have that much more expense, and probably a significant expense in excavation. This elevation of this lot here is approximately 10 feet difference between this level here and this level in here, and every time we go back, there’s another 10 feet of fill that you’re going to have to take out. So we’re not impacting anybody with our request. We’re keeping it in conformance with what has already been established by the adjoining developments. We’re avoiding the unnecessary and I think very expensive proposition, of trying to relocate this power line, if we could relocate the power line. That I don’t know if we can, as well as the excavation. We also have, we would have septic fields in here that we would hope to be able just to abandon. If we put this back, we’re going to have to excavate those septic fields in full. So you’re not just talking about the footprint of the building of what would be excavated if you were going to move that building. We may have to move the whole septic, as opposed to simply abandoning the septic systems. The third area that we’ve talked about a variance is a height variance for two feet, and this is probably even the most insignificant of what we talk about. I’ve colored in on this map, which is to scale, the actual violation of the portion of the building that we’re talking about. It’s the very peak of the front section of the building. MR. STONE-How far back does it go on the roof line? MR. O’CONNOR-It goes the full, it goes back18 feet. MR. STONE-It’s all in violation, 18 feet back. The ground isn’t coming up to minimize that at all? MR. O’CONNOR-It might, but we’ve taken it from the front elevation. MR. STONE-I understand. There is some mitigation, because you’re here, and it’s a definite pitch on the ground. MR. O’CONNOR-If you dropped a plumb bob from this peak all the way back. MR. STONE-That’s 30 feet. I understand. MR. O’CONNOR-No. It would be 30 feet, if you dropped a plumb bob down from the peak, right at the peak in the center of the room, and then you actually knew where the ground was, which is what you measure from on the outside of the building, it probably wouldn’t go back the full 18 feet. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. STONE-That’s what I’m saying, yes. That’s the question I was asking. So it’s only about six feet. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, and it is also something that is not really a visibility issue, which I think is what we were getting into when we designed this height issue, because the portion of the front that’s behind it is in compliance, even though it doesn’t look it. Because at that level, the ground level is higher, and that level I think the peak of that structure is actually 26 feet. The problem, or not the problem here, this is the typical Area Variance type lot where you have a physical lot configuration that comes into the issue, and that’s why we don’t comply. It’s the lot configuration. If this were a flat lot, we would comply, if this were a totally flat lot. This whole section that’s in the front would slide up on the building. The difference up in here would be minimized. Now we talk about a couple of things, and even on that, to mitigate. That’s an eight on twelve pitch that we’re asking for. To bring it into compliance, you’d have a five on twelve pitch. It does two things. It flattens it out and it looks terrible, and the builder just says it’s not something that he recognizes as being something that people would do. It also destroys the opportunity to have any of the glass or the window type arrangement on the front of that peak, which is the front part of the house. We went so far as to have some plans drawn to play games with it, if you will. We could bring the ground elevation up on the front of the building. The two feet that’s required, okay. That would then bring us within compliance. What it does to us, though, is it means that we can’t have an entrance way out of the front of that cellar. What we would then do is go to a passenger type door out of the side of the building, but the passenger door would only be six feet in height, which really is not a very usual type door, to have a six foot door. You’d have some steps inside there to go down into the basement level, and to me, it seems like a real lot of juggling to try and maintain a decent ceiling in that room down there, and still be in compliance, when the only thing you’re talking about is this little tiny peak, for probably a short distance back into the building. It’s not a substantial request that we’ve made. The other thing that we could do, at least in minimizing it, is leave the front as we’ve requested, which would be 30 feet, which would require a two foot variance, as we’ve requested, and build some brick walls on two ends of the porch, or underneath the porch, and fill those in. Then we would still be out of compliance for the area of the doors, but we’d be in compliance with the sides of the house. I don’t know if that makes a big difference or not. It seems to me, again, to be a lot of futsing for something that is not a significant impact. You could take that one step further and say we build a wall all the way across, and then we’d have a well inside, underneath the porch, but I think that just leads to problems with drainage and everything else. What we tried to do, again, is make everything as compatible, and as nice as we can. Do they, Craig, have a landscape plan? MR. BROWN-Yes, Laura has. MR. O’CONNOR-Does the Board have that? MR. BROWN-I don’t believe the Board does, no. MR. STONE-We don’t. MR. O’CONNOR-I’ll make a joke at the expense of my client. I’m not sure if you’ve ever done business with Warren Tire. There’s three or four facilities around here, and I think you have to kind of notice the oddity of their facilities and how clean they are, and if you went up to the property, and you walked down to the lake, did you see the carpets that were put there? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. O’CONNOR-That’s their fashion. They do not do things that are not going to be attractive or they were going to (lost words) or there was dirt running down there, so they put carpets down there. They had taken down some trees, before they decided fully what they were going to do here, and they disturbed dirt. So rather than have erosion, they actually put carpets down to hold the soil down. This is the landscape plan that they had Jim Girard propose, and I think it’s important, as to the overall impact of what they propose, but it’s significantly also important as to this height issue. If you notice the way they have set this up, there will be no entrance directly from the front porch area or underneath the front porch area, to the lake. The traffic will come out to the east side of the porch, come out this way here. The front of the camp, or the home, will be landscaped. I’m not sure of the height of that landscaping, but there’s an indication of trees here that you might be more, it’s probably a foot, two foot. MR. STONE-You mean underneath the deck, in front? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. O’CONNOR-In front of the deck. So, visually, from the lake, unless you have a slide rule eye, I don’t think you’re going to notice the difference between 28 feet or 30 feet. It probably would have an appearance, even if you have a slide rule eye, of maybe 29 feet. MR. STONE-Mike, just address for me, I think you’ve done a very good job here, you’ve got on this elevation here, you’ve got a finished grade, and if that’s, in fact, the finished grade, what happens in this immediate spot here? Are they supposed to conform? MR. O’CONNOR-This is the front. MR. STONE-If you’re saying this is 30 right here, and then we’re going up here, and we’re certainly not going up as much as we’re going up here. MR. O’CONNOR-This is 26 feet from here to here. MR. STONE-What about here? MR. O’CONNOR-Matt? Twenty-seven feet with one foot. MR. STONE-Yes, but I’m just looking at the roof line and what you called finished grade. It’s set back about two feet away from the lake. MR. O’CONNOR-I think that’s an exaggeration. MR. STONE-Okay. It may be. MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t think that that’s. You’re saying that was done before the ground elevations were done? MATT CIFONE MR. CIFONE-I have a visual thing just to show them, give them an idea what we’re trying to do. MR. HAYES-Well, if we do make a motion, we’re not going to grant that approval for that part of it anyway. MR. STONE-That’s true. We’re not going to grant them relief because they’re saying it’s going to be 28 or less, but we’ll measure it, Craig, won’t we. MR. O’CONNOR-We’re looking for a height variance on the front portion of the building to be constructed. We’re looking for a front or lake side variance for the structure to be constructed, commencing with the deck, even though the house is actually 10 feet further back than the existing house, and we’re looking for two side line setbacks. MR. STONE-And the deck will always be uncovered? MR. O’CONNOR-If that is your stipulation, if that’s a requirement, yes, I don’t think there’s any intention to open it, or to close it. MR. STONE-I mean, it would be something that I might want to see in there. I can’t speak for the rest of the Board. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. The other, there is another variance, too. This is the typical Glen Lake lot that does not have frontage on a Town road. So if it’s new construction, we have to ask for that variance as well. I’m not sure of the status of West Jay Road. We’re probably about 40 feet from that road right here. Before we acquired and got the rights to acquire this lot, we were probably 140 feet. In almost every instance we are more complying than the existing structure, except with regard to the height. MR. STONE-With access to an easement? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. STONE-Okay. If you haven’t figured out exactly where the land is going to be, how do we know that the roof is going to be 30 feet, from the grade that you’re going to be working with while you’re building the house? MR. CIFONE-We’ve already determined the elevations from the parking to the water. That line that you’re looking at is kind of a visual line to show them how the grade would go down. On the landscape plan you’ve got, you see a little better. MR. STONE-I understand that, and I understand that that’s an approximation, but you’re saying that the point of the roof from the front of the house, lake side, I would call it the front, not lake, is going to be 30 feet from the ground, and you’re not quite sure, in a sense, where that ground is going to be. MR. O’CONNOR-No. We know it’s going to be 30 feet. We’re going to landscape that whole front. MR. STONE-Well, landscape doesn’t count. MR. O’CONNOR-Well, grade and landscape. MR. STONE-Right. Okay. So you’re saying it’s going to be 30 feet, whenever you get done, you will grade up to 30 feet? MR. O’CONNOR-By essence of the application, that’s what we’re saying to the Board, yes. MR. STONE-Okay, and obviously you will make sure that the rest of the house, when you build it, is in compliance with the 28? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. HAYES-I have a question. The lake side, as the house exists now, when I walked around the property, it looked like, I guess it’s a question for Mr. Kellogg. That looked like that was a patio or porch that was built. Is that what it was? I mean, essentially, are you reversing that process? MR. KELLOGG-The current way, where the porch is, that would be the deck. MR. HAYES-Right. So it looks to me like at one time that was a porch that was built over. MR. O’CONNOR-At one time it might have been a porch, before, but since then it’s been enclosed as part of the house. If you look at the floor plan even if that were a porch at one time, the back wall of the house has been removed. So that house, as it presently sits, is open all the way through to the back, almost. On one end, there’s a bedroom or something on that floor, a bedroom and a bath. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. O’CONNOR-But we had, the front part of the house is the same distance where we’re proposing it, except we’re taking the, making it a deck. MR. HAYES-The house itself was going to be back from there, then, the 10 feet? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-The house is going to be entirely demolished, that’s there now? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So the new structure is built on a new foundation? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. We’ll probably have to remove the existing foundation, and go to virgin earth. That was one of the points, as far as going backwards. We don’t want to have to go back in and take out all the septic field and everything that’s there, would just bypass it. MR. CUSTER-How far back is that septic, Mike? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. O’CONNOR-We’ve been told it’s back in this area here. I don’t think we actually know the area. MR. CUSTER-It’s fairly close, though? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Where is it going to be, the new one, back in that lot? MR. O’CONNOR-Back here. We’ve worked very hard on this, also, and another issue too is the grading and everything else. This would be a gravity system, initially they proposed, but it would probably have to be a pump system, but by lining everything out with these elevations, it can be a gravity system. 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 application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? The only thing we had was Mr. O’Connor read into the record the deposition from Teresa Miller. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? No more questions? MRS. LAPHAM-In front of the deck, is that going to be, you won’t see this? These doors underneath? MR. CIFONE-Up to a foot or so, across the front there it will cover it up. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. So like this maybe? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. Maybe a foot. I don’t know the true height of it. They marked the type plants they are right there. MRS. LAPHAM-I’m not a gardener. MR. O’CONNOR-Neither am I. It’ll be nice. B MR. STONE-The question that I had, which you addressed, and it is hard to see the relative position of these three homes, visa vie distance from the lake and site lines, and I would tend to agree with you, the one to the south, I guess, the one to the left as you face the lake, is hard to tell whether it’s closer or further away than this thing, but with the deck, I think it’s probably reasonable. MR. O’CONNOR-John and Donna Dennett are more than happy with what we’ve proposed. They’ve seen the plans. They’ve very significantly been cooperative. MR. STONE-Do you get to play handball against that other building there? I mean, I drove in there and said, wow. MRS. LAPHAM-I know. It looked like a barracks or something. MR. O’CONNOR-It’s year round. The other thing is, too, the kitchen facilities of the proposed house is going to be on this level, going to be on this ground level. If they go out the back and want to have something that they can cook there or something like that, they don’t necessarily want to be right underneath these people. That’s a two story operation, right behind them, that’s right up to the property line. They’re trying to get a little privacy. They are going to do some shrubbery along here. MR. KELLOGG-I talked to Jim Girard about putting modest type cedars, and he gave me the dimensions of the cedars and how close they’d have to be together to just make a buffer across here 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) and then also by the garage to block off the trailer, and I spoke to the Leavers and they were in favor of it. I’m not talking letting them go up to eight or ten feet, but like six or seven feet high. MR. STONE-You feel, even with that, which to me is not very attractive, that it’s worth the investment that you’re going to obviously put into this piece of property? MR. KELLOGG-It’s something my wife liked. MR. STONE-Is the garage actually over on the other property? MR. KELLOGG-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. KELLOGG-The one corner is nine inches. The original deed, that’s all been covered. MR. STONE-Has it? Okay. It always looks scary, when you look at it on a survey, and there it is, hanging over the line. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions? No one? Everybody’s happy? MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I might ask that if the applicant has some sort of proof of the transaction, just to include as part of the file, to show the consolidation or the addition. MR. O’CONNOR-You condition it upon me not applying for a building permit until I have filed a deed. If that is okay. That’s the way I’d like to do it. I have a deed executed here. I can show you the executed deed, but the deed is given to me with the understanding that the deal doesn’t go through if we don’t get our approvals, and secondarily, I also have to get a release of fire mortgage premises immediately afterwards, which I don’t anticipate what the Dennett’s mortgage is, I don’t anticipate a problem, knowing what the Dennett’s mortgage is. So I don’t have a deed that I can surrender to you. I would testify, though, of the record, that I have an executed TP584, which is a capital gains affidavit, and executed real property transfer report and an executed warranty deed, and I have been instructed to release these upon payment for the premises, which is not due unless we obtain the approvals, and we get the clear title, which is the release of mortgage. Is that satisfactory? MR. THOMAS-What do you think, Bob? MR. MC NALLY-That’s fine. It’s contingent upon the conveyance, that’s all. That’s what he’s saying. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. O’CONNOR-As part of the application, I’m telling you we own it, and if we didn’t own it, we wouldn’t be entitled to the permit, and you can ask that question later, to show us that we do own it. MR. BROWN-Right. We’ve run into problems before where plans have been represented to be purchased and owned, and it came down to crunch time, and. MR. O’CONNOR-We have the signatures. MR. BROWN-That’s fine. MR. MC NALLY-We can make it conditioned, though, upon conveyance of titles. MR. O’CONNOR-I have no objection to that. MR. MC NALLY-And once that’s done, then. MR. STONE-And do you mind a condition, again, we have to discuss it further, but a condition that the porch stay uncovered? MR. KELLOGG-No. The other one’s covered. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. STONE-Okay. MR.O’CONNOR-If you don’t really need it, I would like not to have it as an option. There’s no plans for it, but what happens if they want to put an awning on it? MR. THOMAS-Well, I wouldn’t call that a covered one, you know, an enclosed. MR. O’CONNOR-Well, I don’t want to get into arguments. I have a deck on the other side of the lake. That’s what I’m going to do is get one of those nice canvas awnings on it. I think that’s something that’s, that I can see them doing, once you get out there and you start sitting in the sun, you’re going to decide that that’s not necessarily the best place in the world to bake. MR. THOMAS-There’s a house up at the other end that’s got one of those canvas awnings on it. I mean, it’s just an awning that cranks in and out. It’s not a permanent structure. It’s just something that hangs on the side of the building. When they crank it out, it comes down. MR. STONE-It’s got a big arm. I saw one there at the lake with just arms that go out. MR. O’CONNOR-And they may not want to do it. It may block their view and everything else. If we enclose that porch, that’s a further encroachment, and we’d have to come back for another application anyway. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You’d have to come back for an application, right. MR. O’CONNOR-That would be my understanding. MR. THOMAS-That would be mine, also. It would be just like adding a second story onto a building. MR. O’CONNOR-That’s nonconforming. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s fine. MR. HAYES-So we don’t have to include it, then. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions before we start talking about this? MR. STONE-Let me just clarify that, though, Chris. If we’re granting relief, as far as we’re concerned, we’re granting relief for 29 feet or for 30 feet. We’re granting 20 feet of relief. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. STONE-And we’re not specifying what’s there. MR. THOMAS-But it’s the same thing, like the previous application, you know, the side line setbacks. They had that, you know, that was existing. In this case, when we grant this relief, if we were to grant it, it will be existing, and if they put an addition on it, like we did in the last one, they’d still need the relief for the setbacks. MR. HAYES-Because it’s a nonconforming structure. MR. THOMAS-Because it’s a nonconforming. MR. STONE-Okay, because of the nonconforming. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Nonconformance of the setback. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. STONE-You’re still never going to get an acre, you’re not going to have a full acre here, even with this addition. You’re not going to have a full acre of land. MR. O’CONNOR-No, we will not. It’s a 23,000 square foot lot. It’ll always be a nonconforming lot. MR. STONE-Nonconforming. MR. THOMAS-Was a Floor Area Ratio done on this? I don’t remember seeing one. MR. HAYES-It’s 22%. It’s on the survey. MR. THOMAS-There it is. Yes. Total Gross Area of all Structures, 22% of total land, but that was, that’s on this one. That doesn’t include the new addition. MR. O’CONNOR-On this thing here, if you take a look in the middle there, it says total gross area of all structures, 2530 square feet, 10% of total land area, which you can see is approximately, the total land area is 23,371, and the total square footage that you would count in your calculation is 23 or 25, 30. MR. HAYES-That counts the garage? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, it does. MR. THOMAS-All right. It’s on the revised one. MR. HAYES-There’s an updated. MR. O’CONNOR-We initially did a site development data sheet, based upon the 8200 square foot lot, and then the 23,000 square foot lot, using the existing data based upon only the 8200 square foot lot, and Staff asked me to change that and make the existing data based upon the lot as we’re going to configure it, which I didn’t have an objection to. That’s why you may have a confusion. They were trying to avoid confusion. Maybe they didn’t. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there anymore questions for the applicant, before we start talking about this? All right. Here we go. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Do me last, because I’m not sure. I want to see what the other Board members say. There’s no public correspondence against it. So at least we’ve covered that aspect of it. There seems to be no public outcry and nobody unhappy with this, that lives there. It’s tight in that area, but again, what always sways me is that new septic system, which will certainly improve the quality of the lake, and I think it’s going to be a much more attractive dwelling than is there now, but I’m not sure if it meets the criteria for minimal relief or not. Even though each, as Mike says, each measurement is minimal, but you have three things. So I’d like to hear how the rest of the Board feels. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll put you down as a question mark. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Lew? MR. STONE-Well, first of all, I want to thank Mr. O’Connor for a very detailed and a very good leading us through this particular thing. You certainly always do a very thorough job that way. When it come to lake front in particular, and maybe because I live on a lake and I’m very concerned about lakes, and I have a great, done a lot of volunteer work in terms of lake protection, I get concerned when I see the existing Ordinance, which was well thought out, you were absent when we were talking about this previous applicant. We were amazed, I think it’s been two years since that was adopted, and yet it still seems new to all of us. It was well thought out. It raised a lot of questions and made a lot of requirements. Having said all that, as you’ve lead us through it, and as I listen to the explanations, I’m not concerned by the two feet. That, I think, is, it may not even be two feet when you really put the earth in there and you landscape it. We’re not going to really notice that. Plus the fact that it’s not going to go back very far of the 18 feet of the roof line anyway. I’m concerned, always, by the closeness to the lake, because people want to live on a lake because there is something of beauty to see, and lakes are supposed to be beautiful and 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) aesthetically pleasing and all that, but having said that, looking what you’re going to do with the open deck, the fact that you’re actually coming back 10 feet from where you are now, in terms of an opaque building, so to speak, and the fact that the neighboring properties are not going to be encumbered by the position of this particular house. Probably it might even be an asset in terms of their view, I would have no problem in granting this variance, in spite of all of the concerns that all of the various reliefs that we have to grant. So, at this point, certainly I feel I could vote for this variance. Unless somebody says something that strikes some responsive cord in me. MR. THOMAS-Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, I mean, I guess as I listen to the other Board members, I don’t think that myself have any problem with any single portion of relief that’s requested, including the height requirement, which is a very definite requirement, a good requirement, but I think that that’s actually, is going to be mitigated almost immediately by the pitch of the land. So I think the actual square footage of that relief, in the end, is pretty small. I think my analysis, in this case, would boil down to feasible alternatives, and if there was no complications to do it in a feasible alternative, then we’d have to examine it, but the fact is that there is a complication of the power pole. The prior septic system is close behind the house, and in reality, from a feasible alternative perspective, Mr. Kellogg could leave the house where it is, which is in fact, in impact, going to be greater, in a negative sense, than moving this back 10 feet and putting an open deck out there. I agree with Lew. I mean, in effect, he’s actually, from an alternative standpoint, there is something that’s being given back to the lake, and it’s protecting that critical environment there. So on balance, I think that there’s a lot of evidence here that Mr. Kellogg has done, he’s put his money where his mouth is. He’s gone out and secured another piece of land to meet the Floor Area Ratio requirement and to dramatically improve the septic system, from my standpoint. So I think, you know, when you balance all these things, I think it falls in favor of the applicant, and I really don’t have a problem with the proposal. MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I think Lew and Jamie have really summed up a lot of my concerns. I judge every application on its own merits, and I also take into effect some other decisions that we have made, relative to them, and I do recall we had a similar application that we rejected, on Lake George, where they wanted to tear down a house and rebuild. However, that was a little bit unique in that it was somewhat closer to the lake. It was almost five feet off the lake front, the Middletons, plus there was, I think they had quite an expanse in between the house to their septic field. So there was room to push the house back, and hearing it, this one would impinge on that very rapidly, in conjunction with all the thought and planning that went into it to improve the site. That alleviated that concern, and like Jamie said, it’s obvious the Kelloggs have gone to great expense and great trouble to secure additional lands to make this project more feasible and more environmentally sound, and having said all that, I can vote in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m just going to be repetitious. I have no problem with the side setbacks. The property, the building is being centered more on the land. It only makes sense that they should do that. The existing building is worse than the proposed building. I don’t have a problem with the right of way into the property not being on an existing Town road. I don’t like it being so close to the lake, but Brian’s analysis was pretty on point, in view of the fact that this is about the only way it can be built. So I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? MR. STEC-Well, being new at this game, and actually I’d kind of hoped to go first, but because everyone else seemed to really hit on the points that I was going to bring up. To me, any one of the single variances requested isn’t a big issue, but as Bonnie started to get into, you know, what struck me is two things. That we’re talking about tearing down an existing structure to go and build new, something that four out of the five faces are going to be in violation of the setbacks, the vertical, and the both sides and the lake front. So, I mean, concerned about setting precedents, as we talked about in the previous application. This is four out of five things that are going to be against our Code. So, again, any one of the four, not a big deal, but these are four out of five possible faces that we’re not going to be meeting our setback requirement. So, I mean, I can understand the merit of centering the house and I understand, you know, the current one is nine inches over, and that this may be an improvement, but to me, it does make a lot of sense to start from scratch and build something that we know is not, it doesn’t meet Code. Whereas, the other 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) point was, for the previous application, to use as a contrast, that was something that was existing and it was in Code originally, before the Code was changed, and so I could understand that, but just to have a clean slate and then to start, you know, and violate four out of five phases, again, I’m new at this art, and I think this is an art, so I don’t have a whole lot of past corporate knowledge to really gauge this against, but from what I’ve seen tonight, this strikes me as asking for 10 pounds of sand in a five pound sand lot. So I think the house is too large for this proposal, but that’s, I’m new at this so, again, that’s just my initial fresh observation. MR. THOMAS-All right. Do you want to try it one more time, Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, Jamie said something that was really important to me, that I don’t know whether the proposal was so detailed that it went over my head was the fact that it’s being moved 10 feet back because of the deck. I didn’t realize that. So that and the new septic system and the fact that the landscaping will certainly help any erosion and what have you, I think I could be for this, because I think, even though, like Dan said, with the, you know, with so many things it seems like a substantial thing, even though each one is minimal, I think with the things that the Kelloggs are putting back in, I could vote for this. I think it will be an improvement, and I also don’t see that there’s much of any other way they could do it without rearranging power poles and septic fields and their next door neighbors, and, you know, it just gets more and more complex and more and more expensive. MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other Board members. Going down through the criteria for an Area Variance, could the benefit be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, well, if you take into consideration the contour of the land, as it rises up in the back there, as Mr. O’Connor stated, that a lot more dirt, earth would have to be removed, plus an old septic system would have to be removed. I do believe you said that you’re just going to abandon the existing one. MR. O’CONNOR-We may have to, we don’t know what’s there. We may have to uncover it and fill it with concrete, but the intent would be to minimize what we have to do. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Because if you just abandon it, it seems to me it would still be leaching to wherever it’s going, and if you do uncover it and fill it with concrete, that’ll take care of that problem. MR. O’CONNOR-We would pump it out in any event. The intent and discussion we had is that we would pump it out. If it was solid concrete vault, we’d try and fill them with sand or something of that nature. If it’s a metal container. We don’t know that. We may have to take it out. We’d probably take it out anyway. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but in any case, the old septic system will be taken care of. So it won’t be leaching into the lake. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, it will be. MR. THOMAS-Okay. An undesirable change in the neighborhood? The Kelloggs proposing putting a brand new house up. How could it not be a desirable change to the neighborhood. Is the request substantial? The request is substantial, concerning the setback from the lake, but then again, too, the new house is going to be back 10 feet from where the front of the old house is, and a deck will be put on, in that 10 feet, which is not really a living space, and as Lew said, it’s not opaque, or blocking, and it’s not blocking anyone’s view. Will it have an adverse physical or environmental effect? No. The Kelloggs propose putting in a new septic system that’s up to Code, and that’s got to enhance the lake. Is the alleged difficulty self created? Yes and no. The new proposed house is 32 feet wide. If the applicant did make it 28 feet wide, that would alleviate some of the setback problem, but a 28 foot wide house, I’ve seen some, and, you know, you really need the 32. A 28 kind of closes the rooms in on them. So, having said that, I can see where the benefit to the applicant would overrun any of the health, safety and welfare provisions of the Ordinance. So, I would be totally in favor of this application. Would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1998 WANYE D. & CAROLYN R. KELLOGG , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: 14 Jay Road West. The applicant proposes demolition of a 1,327 square foot single family residence to be followed by the construction of a 1,762 square foot single family dwelling. The relief required, the applicant requests 20.4 feet of shoreline setback relief, 3.06 feet and 3 feet respectively of side setback relief from the requirements of WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) Additionally, the applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot requirement of Section 179- 70, which requires the 40 feet of frontage on public streets. Additionally, the applicant requests relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirement of Section 179-16. The applicant is proposing a 30 foot height for the front portion of the building. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct and inhabit the desired home in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, I believe that feasible alternatives are limited, based on the configuration of the lot, the fact that there’s an existing septic system to the rear of the house, and there is an existing power service which is also a question mark, as far as pushing the new house further into the lot. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I don’t believe that the relief is, being that the house is essentially being squared up and is actually being moved away from the property line in one particular circumstance, and as far as the height requirement, as Lew pointed out, two feet of relief is not going to run the entire 18 foot section of the front part of the house because of the contour of the land. So I believe it’s relatively insubstantial. The effects on the neighborhood or community, it’s a new camp. Based on the input from the neighbors, I think that it’s going to be an improvement. It’s certainly going to raise property values, and the fact that the septic system is going to be re-located rather dramatically back from the lake is also going to be a positive impact on the community and the lake quality itself. Is the difficulty self-created? It’s self-created in that they’re proposing a new house where an existing one is, but I don’t necessarily have a problem with that. The one contingency for the approval would be that this approval would be contingent on proof of conveyance of the property, of the parcel as described to be added to the existing parcel to give it the total square footage as indicated on the application of 23, 371. The approval would be contingent on that proof provided by Counsel. Also, the approval is contingent or based on the project being built as specified, including the landscaping plans that were provided. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: MR. O’CONNOR-There is a drainage report which we have also submitted and we will build in accordance with the recommendation of Tom Nace on that report. I don’t know if that’s in your packet, or if that just goes to the Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-No, that’s Site Plan Review. MR. O’CONNOR-All right. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-Okay. There you go. MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not subject to even the Short Form SEQRA? MR. THOMAS-No. It’s a Type II Action. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Well, we submitted it, that’s all. MR. STONE-I would also like to thank Mr. Cifone for the house he built next door to me. He does a very nice job. MR. KELLOGG-I’d like to thank the Zoning Board. MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. We’ve got to do a tabling for the two Garvey variances. Use Variance Area Variance I’ve got to do a tabling motion for the next two, for the and for the Garvey KIA for . MR. BROWN-They’ve been advertised. You might want to open the public hearing, too, in case anybody came. MR. THOMAS-All right. If I do that, I’m going to have to read them in. MR. MC NALLY-Aren’t they withdrawing their application? MR. BROWN-They’ve requested tabling. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. THOMAS-They requested tabling. MR. MC NALLY-They told me they were withdrawing. Okay. MR. BROWN-The public hearing’s been advertised. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We’ve got to read the applications in and get to the public hearing part. MR. O’CONNOR-Why don’t you ask if anybody’s here to speak. MR. THOMAS-Is there anyone here to speak on the Garvey one? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Well, maybe, can you tell me why it’s being tabled? MR. THOMAS-At the Garvey’s request. I think they’re going to try for a zoning change, rather than a variance. They want to change it from Light Industrial One Acre to Highway Commercial. MR. BROWN-Probably Highway Commercial, yes. MR. STONE-And that would make it legal to have an automobile dealership there, like most of Quaker Road. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes. They’re asking for a second driveway, too. Do they have to come here for that? MR. THOMAS-Yes. They’d still have to have, that’s the Area Variance. They’d still have to come here for that. AUDIENCE MEMBER-So they’re tabling that for the time being? MR. THOMAS-They’re tabling them both. They want to see if they can get the zone change. MR. STONE-We can’t act on the second one until we grant the Use Variance anyway. MR. THOMAS-Yes. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Do you want us to go through the whole? AUDIENCE MEMBER-No. MR. THOMAS-Are you sure? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Positive. MR. THOMAS-I’ll read them, I can read them and go right into the public hearing part, because that’s the only time you can say anything, really. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Well, won’t you have another public hearing? MR. THOMAS-If they come back. If they get the zoning change, no. They’ll still need an Area Variance for the driveway, but at this point right now, they want to hold up on it, to see what happens with the zoning change. MR. O’CONNOR-And I would anticipate that it’s going to be long enough that you’d re-advertise anyway, and re-notice everybody. MR. BROWN-And there’ll be public hearings for the zone change. MR. THOMAS-Yes. The zone change will be through the Town Board. MR. O’CONNOR-The zone change is going to be of that whole triangle. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) MR. THOMAS-Yes. That whole chunk there that’s Light Industrial. MR. STONE-You got us to change part of it already. MR. O’CONNOR-I’d like to change a little bit more. I don’t want to do it all at one time, you know. I’d be out of business. MR. THOMAS-All right. So I’ll just table the two of them. That’s no problem? You’re sure? AUDIENCE MEMBER-That’s fine. MR. THOMAS-Yes, like I say, everything will be re-advertised, re-noticed. AUDIENCE MEMBER-My only concern was the second driveway, and you’re going to have to have a public hearing for that again. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Because I can’t do anything with that second driveway until the Use Variance is either voted for or voted against, or they get a zoning change. If they get a zoning change, then we’ll have to hear the Area Variance for the driveway cut again. MR. CUSTER-And you’ll get advertised for that. MR. HAYES-You’ll get your day in court then. MR. THOMAS-I wish I would have said something in the beginning. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes, me, too. It was fun, though. MR. CUSTER-You got to see how politics works. MR. STONE-This is not politics. MR. CUSTER-Okay, government. MR. BROWN-I think they probably could go ahead with the Area Variance, without the use, since they have an existing business there that the driveway could be for, but. MR. STONE-No, they’re not here, first of all. MR. BROWN-Right. I’m saying, if they wanted to. You don’t have to get the Use before you get the Area on this one. MR. THOMAS-I think it’s a good idea we table both of them. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 72-1998 GARVEY KIA , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Until no later than the December meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by this Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for the tabling of this application is at the applicant’s request, because the applicant is trying to get a zoning change rather than go for a Use Variance. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-Okay. That takes care of that one. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-1998 GARVEY KIA , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Dan Stec: 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) Until no later than the second regular December meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by this Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for the tabling of the application is at the applicant’s request. I’d also like to add that these applications, the Use Variance and the Area Variance, will both be re-advertised at the applicant’s expense, because they are the ones asking for the tabling. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: MR. STONE-The only question I have, you blithely said 62 days. You’ve got 31 days in October, 30 in November. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but there are two months that have 31 days consecutively, July and August. MR. STONE-But they’re not, so it’s okay. It is within. MR. THOMAS-Sixty-two days is the way it’s always been. MR. STONE-No. I have no problem with it. I thought we were exceeding 62 days. MR. BROWN-For no more than 62. MR. THOMAS-For no more than 62. All right. AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-All right. Minutes, so we don’t get screwed up again. CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 16, 1998: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES AS TYPED , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stec September 23, 1998: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE SECOND REGULAR MEETING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTES AS TYPED , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stec MR. THOMAS-All right. Does anybody else have anything for the good of the Board? If not, I’ll make a motion we adjourn. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/98) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 36