Loading...
1999-08-25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN LEWIS STONE ROBERT MC NALLY DANIEL STEC CHARLES MC NULTY PAUL HAYES MEMBERS ABSENT BONNIE LAPHAM CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 77-1999 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A HEWITT’S GARDEN CENTER OWNER: JAMES T. CULLINAN QUAKER ROAD AND EVERTS AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A PYLON SIGN AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 8/11/99 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-34 LOT SIZE: 11.21 ACRES SECTION 140 JON LAPPER & JIM CULLINAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 77-1999, Hewitt’s Garden Center, Meeting Date: August 25, 1999 “Project Location: Quaker Rd. & Everts Ave., Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 50 sf free standing sign and seeks setback relief from the Sign Ordinance. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum front setback requirement and 5 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance, § 140. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and display the desired sign in a preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: There appears to be several locations on the property to place a sign in a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Five and ten feet of relief from the 15 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, given the availability of compliant locations. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 11-99 res. 4/20/99 Garden Center Subdivision 3-99 res. 4/20/99 two lot subdivision Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While relocation of the proposed sign to meet the setback requirements, in this corner of the site may not be feasible, relocation to an area in front of the store, perhaps to the area labeled “nursery stock” on the plot plan, would be. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. STEC-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 4 August 1999 Project Name: Hewitt’s Garden Center Owner: James T. Cullinan ID #: QBY SV 77-1999 County Project No.: August 99-17 Current Zoning: Highway Commercial One Acre Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant proposes the placement of a pylon sign and seeks setback relief. Site Location: Quaker Road and Everts Avenue Tax Map No.: 108-1-31, 32, 33.1, 34, 38, 27, and 28 Staff Notes: A copy of the applicant’s site drawing is included with summary. Staff is asking Board members to review their April ‘99 minutes, Page 4, where Jon Lapper as attorney representing the applicant stated that there would be no Sign Variances. I believe at a meeting Mr. Lapper was also asked the question directly about Sign Variances and he indicated that there were none anticipated. Based on that and the prevailing Board sentiment regarding Sign Variances in the Town of Queensbury, Staff is recommending discussion. Local Actions to Date (If Any): A public hearing is scheduled for August 25, 1999 County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with clarification that this is a distance related issue not a square footage issue. Also, a condition is applied that this project be coordinated with the request made by the Queensbury Board.” Signed by Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. THOMAS-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. With me tonight is Jim Cullinan, the President of Hewitt’s Garden Center. To begin with, at the time that we applied for the substantial changes to the site and the adjacent sites, it was not anticipated that a Sign Variance would be required because it was viewed that there was plenty of frontage along Quaker Road. However, as we went through the process, and as was acknowledged by the County Planning Board when they voted to approve this last week, or two weeks ago, which is always nice, the Planning Board requested, in Site Plan Review, that Jim plant street trees. They saw a photograph or actually a drawing that we brought with us when we were here in the spring for approvals, a drawing of his Wilton store, which had a series of Clump Birch trees out along Route 9, and they thought that that would be nice, if we could get approval from the County to plant the trees within the County right-of-way. Probably all of you have viewed the site in the last few days, and you’ve seen that those trees have now been planted, and as a result of that, that eliminates the visibility. I mean, right now they’re small, but birch trees will grow very big, and relatively quickly, so that the whole area in front of the store, and the intention of having those trees there, is that that’s going to be softened and blocked. It’s not an optimum spot for a sign, because the trees will get big, and the sign is not going to be visible. The only area on the site where it will be visible is the area on the east side of the parking lot which, admittedly, doesn’t have a lot of space because we had to change it to a three lane entrance configuration, so we could have two turning lanes for right and left turns. As a result of that, and the pre-existing location of the parking lot, it’s not that we couldn’t have moved the sign back, but it just, you’re already 50 feet from the edge of pavement, because of the County right-of-way, which is excessive in this area. It is unlikely that Quaker Road, in our lifetime, will have to be more than five lanes wide, even if it were expanded so that there was an extra lane on that side, that’s another 12 feet. It’s 50 feet, and so by going five feet in, sure, it may sound like a lot, that we’re asking for a variance of 10 feet on the front setback, but to have 55 feet from the edge of pavement, and not to ask for the sign to be any larger, it’s still the same 50 square foot sign that you can have at 15 foot back, it’s really just not a big deal to put this sign five feet from the front, and on the side setback to the neighbor, it’s 10 feet rather than 15, and the neighbor has no problem with that. It’s just, visually, it’s not going to be a problem because that area next door, part of the site plan for the Northway Car Care site, that was all pavement and that’s now been removed, and that’s a big grass area which will be planted and softened up, so it’s pretty attractive compared to what was there. It was all asphalt. Jim feels it’s very important with that location because the building is so far back from the road that he has a pylon sign at the road, and we think that, while this may appear to be a lot, that this is really a very minimal variance. Is there anything that you’d like to add, Jim? MR. CULLINAN-I guess all I can say is what Jon kind of said, and I’m being repetitive a little bit, but it’s really still 55 feet back off of the road, and when I drive up and down the road, I see still everybody is probably going to be closer to pavement, for the most part, than I am. There might be a little bit of a, if it’s put where it’s supposed to be at this point, those trees will indeed, pretty soon, birch having a habit of kind of having leaves pretty much from the bottom to the top, are going to get pretty flocking. There may even be a little bit of a safety issue here. By the time people see the sign, it’s going to be right there, and they’re right at my entrance, which is on the east side of the property, and if you get breaking things like that, which I’m seeing quite a bit of now, because we have no sign, and all of a sudden they discover, there it is, and start to turn in, there could be a bit of a safety issue, but like Jon said, it’s really still 55 feet back off of the pavement. I’m not requesting anything larger because it’s so far back, but I would like it to get in front of the trees where it’s not going to be blocked as it is, that far back. MR. THOMAS-All right. So what you’re saying is the reason you’re asking for this Sign Variance is because the County asked you to plant birch trees along Quaker Road? MR. LAPPER-The Town asked us to plant birch trees and the County consented, because we planted them within the County right-of-way. MR. THOMAS-How far off the property line on the highway side are the birch trees planted? MR. CULLINAN-Between five and ten feet off of my property line, in front of it. MR. THOMAS-That’s the entire length of the property along Quaker Road? MR. CULLINAN-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Not on the east side. There’s the very edge, in front of the building. MR. STONE-In front of the building. MR. THOMAS-In front of the building. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. STONE-Just a general question, in going on the property for the first time in a while, it seemed messy. It had nothing to do with the Sign Variance. Is that because you’re still paving, I hope? MR. CULLINAN-At this point I would have to say that we are finished, and it’s definitely time to clean it up. We just barely finished here about three weeks ago, and now we’re getting, it will be cleaned up I guess is probably the best thing I can tell you, because I would tend to agree with you. I’m kind of disappointed, it is messy. Everything finally just got finished and now we’ll kind of switch into clean it up mode. MR. LAPPER-You notice between this site and the Northway Car Care site that there’s a drainage swale and about 12 feet of vegetation. That was all weeds up until they treated it and planted, in accordance with the site plan, and that’s all been done. There was a big rush in the spring. Jim was trying to get open before Mother’s Day, which didn’t happen. So there was just an incredible amount of activity. Because of really some building code issues that related to the greenhouse building, first they weren’t going to be treated by the Town as a building structure under the New York State Code, because greenhouses generally aren’t, but then when the building inspector saw the nature of this, he thought that, and because it’s not for growing stuff but to have people, as retail area, it just changed, and it changed the specs, and it slowed the project down. So compared to other sites that Jim has, that I've seen, which are very neat and attractive, this is just really because it was just getting finished. MR. STONE-I appreciate that. MR. STEC-I’d just like to ask a question. How did the Town arrive at the decision of what species tree to plant? Why birch trees? They don’t strike me as a particularly ornamental tree. MR. LAPPER-That’s what you had in Wilton, right? MR. CULLINAN-Yes. That’s what we had, and I think probably it just came out of, I was showing a drawing of the Wilton store, and they liked just the way it looked. It’s very similar to this one, and they kind of suggested, how about if we have trees just like that, and that’s kind of where it evolved from. MR. THOMAS-Does anybody have any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STEC-I have a letter from Bartlett/Pontiff/Stewart/Rhodes, to Chairman Chris Thomas, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, re: James T. Cullinan, Hewitt’s Garden Center, Quaker Road, application for Sign Variance “Dear Mr. Thomas: On behalf of Jim Cullinan and Hewitt’s Garden Center, I hereby submit an original and 9 copies of the variance application, Short Environmental Assessment Form, sign elevation drawing, and the applicable portion of the Site Plan along with a check in the amount of $50 for the application fee. Under the Town Sign Code, a 15 foot setback is required for a pylon sign. A variance is required in order to provide for a 10 foot setback from the eastern property line and a 5 foot setback from the front property line. The requested sign setback is necessary for visibility due to the distance of the property line from the Quaker Road right-of-way. More than a 50 foot grassed island exists between the roadway and the property line, thus making the setback from the road 55 feet. Due to the pre-existing condition of the parking lot, it is not possible to increase the distance from the side property line by an additional five feet and still maintain the three necessary drive aisles at the entrance. This variance was not anticipated at the time that the site plan was approved, and I hope the Board will view this as a minor variance request. Please place this matter on the agenda for the Zoning Board meeting of the 25 of th August. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper” MR. THOMAS-That does it? MR. STEC-That’s all the correspondence, yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? No? Lets talk about it then. We’ll start down there with Bob. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. MC NALLY-We’ve had a lot of applications on Quaker Road where the boundary of the property was quite a distance from the paved area of the road, and in large part, I agree with Mr. Lapper’s representations to the effect that this is sufficient setback for signs a little bit closer to the property line than otherwise would be appropriate. I don’t see Quaker Road as actually being expanded to the full extent of that setback, and I think the request is relatively minor, given the nature of the business along the road. I don’t see any effect on the neighborhood or community. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m torn on this. I think we’re compounding the problem, because it seems lately that anybody who comes in and asks to move a sign closer to Quaker Road, we’re saying okay. We don’t know what the real motives were of the people that wrote the Zoning Ordinance. I think that they’re being a little presumptuous in assuming that the set up on Quaker Road is an error. I think also we’re ending up, basically, re-writing the Zoning Ordinance, because every time somebody comes in, we’re saying, sure, put your sign closer. So I guess where I come down is I’m opposed to allowing the variance for the sign being closer to Quaker Road. I understand the need for its site variance, and I will go along with that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-Well, I think both Bob and Chuck make good points. Benefit to the applicant is clear. There are feasible alternatives. However, what turns this for me to be able to support isn’t the fact so much that we’ve done this in the past, but really because they’re here because they’re accommodating the desires of another Town, the Town Planning Board that’s asked them to plant trees, or else they would have had a compliant location to be able to oblige. So based on that, and the fact that, in my opinion anyway, I think the relief sought, and the large setback in the Travel Corridor there, I don’t think there’ll be significant impact on the community. I’m comfortable with the minimum nature of the relief sought, and, again, I note that the relief, they’re here tonight because they’ve accommodated another request of the Town to beautify the road front. So I’m willing to concede the relief sought, but Chuck brings a good point, but for me, that’s what turns it for me, is the tree issue. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I, too, am initially conflicted, if you will. I have no problem with the Sign Variance, the side setback. That’s not going to get in the way of anything. I am concerned, as Mr. McNulty says, that we’re intruding more and more onto the County property. Having said that, I’m also aware that the average person would have no idea that this is not on Mr. Cullinan’s property, and way back from the road, because they don’t know to whom this land belongs. There’s no question that most of us, without the knowledge that we have, would even be aware of that. However, I’m still not sure that the reason for this, that the trees are going to get in the way of the sign, is necessarily appropriate, but I think on balance, considering the depth of the County property, I would, I think reluctantly, vote for the requested variance. MR. THOMAS-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, as long as I've been on the Board, we’ve had a history of strong protection of the Sign Ordinance. In this particular case, I think I’m in favor of the application for a few reasons. One, we’re talking about dimensional relief versus overall square footage, and in most cases, requests to increase overall square footage are more of a concern, as a rule to me, than dimensional relief. The second thing, and probably the largest reason, is I agree with Dan that when an applicant comes to the Board, having at his own expense accommodated the request of the Town, I think that has to be given strong consideration, being that obviously he wouldn’t do that if not for that, you know, desire to please the Town, and there’s no doubt in my mind along those lines that eventually, particularly the fact that they are a nursery, those trees will grow strong and large and provide a great deal of blockage of a sign, if not some change being made in the plans. So I think the applicant is coming to the Board with clean hands, in this particular circumstance, and the final thing is that, and other Board members have already pointed to the fact that we’ve dealt with travel corridor issues before and 55 feet is a long ways away from the actual pavement, and for a business of this size that does derive some of its income from spontaneous stops and stuff, I think it’s a reasonable request, and I think on balance, the clear benefit to the applicant and the Town to have the improvement of that Travel Corridor Overlay Zone outweighs any negative implications as far as precedent that may be set. So for those reasons, I would be in favor of the application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the those Board members that mentioned first the fact that either the Town Board or Town Planning Board had requested these trees be planted in front of the building. Back on March 17, when Mr. Lapper was here for the other variance request for the th subdividing of the land, he stated there, I asked him three times if he wanted a Sign Variance. Three 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) times he said no. So now here he is again tonight, and I think his reasons for wanting the Sign Variance are very plain, and I think that we should give it to him. Having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-1999 HEWITT’S GARDEN CENTER, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Quaker Road and Everts Avenue. Applicant proposes construction of a 50 square foot freestanding sign and seeks setback relief from the Sign Ordinance. Specifically, I move we grant 10 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum front setback requirement, and 5 feet of relief from the minimum 15 foot side setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance § 140. The reasons for approving this would be that there’s clear benefit to the applicant, in that the applicant would be permitted to display a sign at a more visible location than would be otherwise possible, given the clear agreement to plant trees as requested by the Planning Board. While there were feasible alternatives, such as a more compliant location, this is mitigated by the fact that they’ve been asked to plant trees in front of the storefront. We feel that based on this information, that the relief sought is minimal, and that we don’t anticipate any negative impact on the community or neighborhood, and actually, I’d argue that the difficulty is not self-created, because of them entertaining the request of the town board to beautify, and in fact block the visibility of their business from the road by planting the trees. So, on balance, the pluses outweigh the minuses, and I move that we approve the Sign Variance. Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1999 TYPE II WR-3A CHRIS MACKEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 15 WILD TURKEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ADDITION AND ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO INCLUDE NEW FLOOR SPACE, STORAGE AREA, COVERED DECKS AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE. APPLICANT REQUESTS SETBACK RELIEF AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IS REQUESTED. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/11/99 LOT SIZE: 1.54 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79, 179-60 JON LAPPER & DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 78-1999, Chris Mackey, Meeting Date: August 25, 1999 “Project Location: 15 Wild Turkey Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an approximately 4100 sf addition and seeks setback and height relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 62.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of both the WR-3A zone, § 179-16 and the Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, § 179- 60. Also, the applicant is requesting 12 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum allowable height for a principal building. Further, the applicant is requesting 10.44 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-3A zone, § 179-16. Additionally, the applicant is requesting relief from § 179-79 for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a sizable addition and perform a significant architectural upgrade to the existing structure. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include construction of an addition to the South of the existing structure. Additional floor area could be gained while at the same time the shoreline setback could be significantly maintained. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. However, the pre-existing location of the current structure may contribute to the difficulty. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate to substantial visual impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The construction of a 40 foot tall structure 12.5 feet from the shore will present a significant visual impact regardless of the quality of construction. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) Consideration may be given to a southerly “L” shaped addition, substantially removed from the proposal submitted. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STEC-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 4 August 1999 Project Name: Mackey, Chris Owner: Same ID Number: QBY-AV-78-1999 County Project #: Aug99-19 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes an addition and alteration to an existing residential structure to include new floor space, storage area, covered decks and an attached garage. Setback relief & relief from the maximum height requirements. Also, expansion of a nonconforming structure is requested. Site Location: 15 Wild Turkey Lane, off Route 9L Tax Map Number: 3-1-7 Staff Notes: A copy of the applicant’s project description is included with the summaries. Also included is a copy of the relevant portion of the site drawing. Staff feels that the structure is located away from the shoreline and thus is not creating additional setback variance needs. Given that condition, Staff does not identify any issues that are significant to County resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Terri Ross Warren County Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Lapper again. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. With me tonight is Chris Mackey, the project applicant, Dennis MacElroy, from the Environmental Design Partnership, who’s sitting next to me, and Mike Szemansco who’s the architect on the project. I’d like to start out with just a brief overview, and then have Dennis go through the site plan with you, and then have Mike talk about the architectural design. In general, as the application has stated, we have a fairly significant sized lot. 1.3 acres, an old and unattractive home that is significant, in terms of size, and therefore cost, but not significant in terms of design. It’s a very unattractive home to have next door to the neighbors, and to be visible from the lake, and what Chris is trying to do here is to bring this current to make a major investment in the home, including Fieldstone façade on what is now exposed concrete facing the lake, to do everything he can to make the addition to the rear of the structure, but yet to utilize the structure, because it is so significantly large, in terms of not knocking it down. He just can’t afford to knock down 3100 square feet and start again in the middle of the lot. At the same time, much like this Board recognized in April, when the neighbors, the Joneses, came in for a variance on a lot immediately to the west, this is a very steep lot, and by building the addition attached to the existing location, it allows the back of the home to be filled in, to reduce the grade somewhat, to allow cars to access the garage area. It just makes the site work better. At the same time, as the application mentioned, the septic system will be relocated, beyond 100 feet from the lake. We have a letter that the neighbors have told us that they’re very in favor of this because they view this as a major upgrade to the neighborhood, and I believe their letter was submitted to the Board and will be read as part of the comments, and that’s the neighbor who would be located immediately next door to the addition, but where the side setback is at issue. In terms of the height, I know that Staff scaled it out from the plans, but our architect will discuss this. We believe that the, and in terms of the height, it’s the very peak of the roof, and because the height is measured from the ground, and the ground falls off, at the front of the site, just a very small portion of it there, this covered porch above it just to block the sun, to have an area on the porch that provides protection from the sun, and it is the roof of that covered porch, but it’s just a very small portion of the home, of the addition, in terms of the height. So while Staff focused on the fact that we’re asking for a height variance, we believe that the variance, at the maximum, is only 7.1 feet, rather than the 12 feet in the Staff comments, but we’ll discuss that when we get to that. In general, this is an attempt to take an old property and make it something that’s attractive, and therefore is going to be attractive from the lake. We also have photographs that show, in terms of the visual impact, that there are substantial trees, even in the distance between the home and the lake, which will remain so that it is shielded and will continue to be shielded from the view from the lake somewhat. With those general comments, I’d like to turn it over to Dennis to talk about the site plan specifics. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you, Jon. I’ll go right to the plan, and I've given you each a photocopy of the portion of the site plan which involves the proposed site, and within that is an outline, in red, of the existing footprint of the structure, and then highlighted in blue those areas of new coverage, new living area. I should orient you. This is what’s known as Wild Turkey Lane, a private road that access three or four homes off of Route 9L. Route 9L is up in this location. You enter in off an adjacent property and cut across lots on this access road with a driveway to the existing structure. The property to the west is the Jones property that was subject to previous Board action. You’re familiar somewhat with the site. This lot is similar in character to the Jones lot. The changes to the site would involve, first of all, access. Currently, the drive comes down and swings around to the west, and there is no garage serving this structure currently. The new design would add a garage in this location, raised slightly from the entry level of the building, thus assisting in at least some small way the relatively steep grade that exists on that driveway. There will be a parking pull off, a stubbed parking area, for two vehicles. It will also assist in backing out of the garage and pulling in to be able to get back up the driveway. The existing driveway would be, the pavement would be removed and that area would be re-established with grass and landscaping and serve also as a stormwater management area. There’s an existing concrete retaining wall, quite well built, I might add, that exists 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) from the 60’s, when this home was originally built, and that will be retained, and the addition of the structure, the addition of the home, takes place in the southerly direction from the existing back wall to that concrete retaining wall. There then is a connection at entry level grade, between that portion of the addition and the garage. So that there’s direct access. It’s an attached garage, which then adds to that structure. The line that’s dashed or lined here is the second level addition. Obviously, in plan view, you don’t have a good sense of that, but perhaps Mike or Ted will go through the architectural elevations and give you an idea of what that area of increase is, as well. Jon mentioned the change to the septic system. On this site, obviously, there is some septic system of some vintage and character and capacity, unknown to us. We’ve planned for a new septic system area, a raised system, employing some of the latest technology, this Elgin in-drain system we’re contemplating, at a distance of 120 feet, I believe, approximately. It’s certainly more than the 100 foot minimum away from the lake, and that’s in this location here. I would point out, as shown on the plan, we do have, and even a back up system to that, further upland on the property, but it’s more difficult to get to. Either way we’re a pump system, but that would cause more disruption and cost to get a force main up to that location, but it would also be a viable site. I mentioned stormwater. That would be part of the site plan consideration as well, the paved surfaces, the roof runoff taking place in this previously paved area. Again, I think that’s a real benefit to this location of the garage, is that this would now be able to be restored and revegetated, serving as a garden area or landscaped area for the property owner, but also serving a dual function of some stormwater management, as well. Water will come from the lake intake, similar to the two adjoining properties. So we don’t have any separation distances, any concerns about septic systems, although this location is right in the middle of the lot anyway. So I don’t think, we wouldn’t have a concern with that anyway. So that, in a nutshell, is the site plan changes. Perhaps Mike could discuss the areas and give you a better perspective of the changes in the elevation views. MR. SZEMANSCO-I’m Michael Szemansco of Synthesis Architects. When we started working with the design of the house, we realized that there were many constraints that we’d be working with, and we took quite a bit of pains to try and work with the unique characteristics of the site. As you know, the site is very steep. It’s very close to the lake, and what we tried to do with our design is take advantage of the hillside to minimize the impact of the building, improve the parking situation so that it was easier to come into the site. As you can see, the current parking really involved a very steep driveway and even steeper drop off down to the current parking area. We really wanted to try and minimize that, and give a straighter drive into the driveway, also trying to raise it up. I believe it’s about four to five feet from the current grade, so that we’re regrading this whole driveway to reduce the slope into the building. In addition, as we were doing the garage, we wanted to make sure that we tried to work with the existing retaining wall, and so that the garage itself would be set back as far as possible, and we made sure that we were further than the 35 foot setback that’s required for no tree removal. In fact, we’ve gotten the garage back about 43 feet from the lakefront in doing that. e also decided, as part of our design solution, to try and do as much of the addition work as we could for living space behind the existing structure, again, realizing that we were designing very close to the lake frontage, trying to do all of our work back here, and we’ve created sort of this connector spine that works with the existing patio that’s here and maintaining that existing patio and also trying to connect the garage so that it’s attached to the new dwelling. This space is a two-story space that wraps with another piece of construction for a master bedroom suite that sits on top of the existing structure and the existing flat roof. We really looked at that, also, as something important in trying to keep a setback as much as possible from the lake, so that this is our major impact that’s built on top of the existing roof structure. So all this construction you’re seeing here, it’s set back quite a bit from the actual front of the existing building. We thought that an architectural feature that we needed also as a benefit to Chris, would be to have a roof structure that comes out from the master bedroom. That roof structure would sit out in this space. It’s not shown on this drawing, but it comes out to the edge. It would act as a shading mechanism, and also we felt importantly that it acts as an architectural element that adds needed character to the building as well, that it adds a little bit of asymmetry to it, that it adds a really nice attractive element, and you can see from this rendering that this piece is set back, and that this is the existing building, and we’re completely reskinning this building. Right now there’s large single pane expanses of glass. It’s a fairly plain building. This existing retaining wall, in fact, is just brown painted concrete block. So really looking to make a substantial change in character to the building, do something that has a lot of Adirondack flavor, using Adirondack type material, such as stone, cedar shakes and a multicolored pattern, an Adirondack green clad window system, eyebrow dormers, stoning or adding a stone facing to the chimneys, and really trying to create something that is, we think, a nice benefit to the lakefront. In terms of the height variance, it is true that the house is, according to our drawing, about seven foot nine at the front. That this peak at its furthest most point, is about seven foot nine above the height restriction of 28 feet, not 12 feet, and again, we really tried to work with that. The shape of the site, because it’s so steep, makes almost any type of second floor addition difficult. The peak of the master bedroom wing you can see here, there’s only a small portion of that that’s above the height restriction, and this part, obviously, fades off as the hill does. The garage addition that we have on this side, we’re not seeking relief from the height variance. This is below the 28 feet, at that side. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. LAPPER-In terms of the character of the neighborhood, which is one of the main components of your consideration, we feel that this is consistent with the neighborhood, not only in terms of the existing homes, but also what was approved in the spring for the lot immediately to the west. That’s going to be 35 feet from the lake at the closest point, and everything that we are proposing here is farther back than 35 feet back from the lake, so that we’re attempting to make this, to minimize it as much as possible. Dennis took photographs, and I think it would probably be helpful to, because they’re small, to just show the Board. MR. MAC ELROY-The bottom photos are the property and their easterly and westerly neighbors. This is the existing structure, as is this. This is the property two doors away on the westerly side. The vacant lot in between is not shown. This is the property directly to the east, the closest neighbor which is effected most closely by this side setback variance, and also the individual who wrote a letter, two doors away, three doors away, to the east. MR. STONE-I went by boat today to look. MR. STEC-I didn’t go by boat. I went on foot. MR. STONE-Well, I went by foot, too. MR. LAPPER-In case you couldn’t see, what Mike was pointing out, in terms of the height, the only height issues are what’s colored here in yellow. MR. MC NALLY-What’s the height from the ground to the peak, on the front of the building where you show it in yellow? MR. STONE Thirty-five. They’re saying almost 36. MR. HAYES-Almost 36, right. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Well, 28 plus 7 and change. MR. MC NALLY-So to the peak it’s how much? MR. HAYES-Thirty-six. MR. STONE-It’s 36. MR. MC NALLY-Thirty-six, and then to the smaller peak out front that covers the deck? MR. LAPPER-That’s the 36 right there. MR. MAC ELROY-When you’re measuring from the adjacent land, this is this approximately 29. MR. MC NALLY-And it goes back with the slope of the land? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. HAYES-From an architectural standpoint, there’s no way to bring that roof, the pitch of that down at all, or is that just about as? MR. SZEMANSCO-I think, from an architectural standpoint, it would really diminish it. We’ve worked with that and tried to work within the requirements, and just because the site is so steep, that I think it really is difficult, and the roof would end up being so flat as to be almost, to have no architectural character to it at all. It is, I think if you, that this whole area here is open as well. It’s not solid wall, used to what you’re seeing in terms of the windows. Are the windows behind, because this is really an open covered area, and you can see pretty much this entire roof is in, so in order to, we would need to eliminate this, which I think the reason we’ve created is because it really. MR. HAYES-It breaks it up. MR. SZEMANSCO-Yes. MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper, did you say this was unsightly? What was your quote? MR. LAPPER-Something along that order. MR. STONE-I only remind you, in 1960, this was a very modern house. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. LAPPER-State of the Art. MR. STEC-I think the word then was “groovy”. MR. STONE-I was a young man at that point. So you’ve got me to consider in the fact that it was modern at the time. Maybe it shouldn’t have been built in the North Country, but it was a very modern house. MR. LAPPER-Just to take a step back in general, could this be done differently? Could there be an addition that runs right up the hill? Sure, but it just doesn’t make sense, architecturally, and the goal here was to minimize the need for a variance, but just to do something that is attractive and that makes sense functionally. For example, spreading it out to put the garage section, and you can see from the photo that this does not look like your basic garage. This is something that’s a very attractive architectural detail. That with then the two-story entranceway and this is just a design feature that’s intended to improve what we have there. It could be done differently, but it wouldn’t be as nice. MR. STONE-I’m looking from the lake here? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-These are garage doors? MR. LAPPER-No, but that’s not the garage. That’s a storage area. That’s not a car garage. You have to look at. MR. MC NALLY-That’s beneath the level where the cars will be. MR. STONE-The cars on the other side. MR. LAPPER-The cars on the next level as well. MR. STONE-And above it. MR. LAPPER-Only above it, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-And the area with the windows that are shown above those garage doors, that’s the area where the cars are? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SZEMANSCO-Yes, and in fact the reason there’s those windows there is we’re designing a fairly large workbench area. So that’s why there’s that quantity of windows in the back of the garage essentially. MR. MC NALLY-The connecting structure between the existing place and the garage, is that one floor or is that two floors? MR. SZEMANSCO-That’s one floor. In essence, the height would be considered, I guess, one and a half floors in height. MR. MC NALLY-Cathedral type ceiling? MR. SZEMANSCO-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So it’s not separated by a floor? MR. LAPPER-Right. That’s an open space, dramatic as the entrance way to the house with a view of the lake, and that’s built on the existing concrete porch area. MR. MC NALLY-Now the existing structure has a footprint of 2,000 square feet? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-And it shows a living space of 3,150 square feet. MR. LAPPER-Because for these purposes we have to count the basement area. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. MC NALLY-My question. The existing structure is basically three levels, a basement a first and a second floor? MR. LAPPER-No, two levels, a basement. MR. MC NALLY-And a first floor? MR. LAPPER-And a first floor, but for these purposes, it all counts as square feet. MR. MC NALLY-And you counted the basement in that living area to get 3,150 square feet? MR. LAPPER-Yes, which makes it sound a lot bigger than it really is. MR. STONE-How long, Mr. Mackey, have you owned this house? CHRIS MACKEY MR. MACKEY-I purchased it in October. MR. STONE-October. All right. So you purchased it knowing all of its problems, all of the variance problems. You purchased it knowing all of these things. MR. MACKEY-Well, to tell you the truth, I didn’t know all of the variance problems. I purchased it because I like the spot, and with the hope that I could improve what existed there. MR. LAPPER-He then hired Mike as an architect to come in and say, you know, what should we do with it, and that’s when we all got involved and saw what it would take. MR. STONE-Was the first recommendation to tear it down? I’m just kidding. MR. MACKEY-Actually, he walked in, Mike and his assistant walked in, and they said, we love it just this way, as did my sister, which was sort of scary. I’m living there right now with day glo vision because the walls are green and pink and orange. It’s the retro look right now. I feel like I’m living with the Brady Bunch. MR. STONE-As I say, it was modern and State of the Art in the 1960’s. MR. THOMAS-All right. 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? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STEC-Yes. I have a little correspondence. A record of field inspection, date August 24, 1999, Site: Chris Mackey, Area Variance No. 78-1999 “Parties present: Dave Hatin, Dennis MacElroy, Craig Brown Site inspection to determine potential areas for septic system. Mr. MacElroy proposed two locations on the property and explained that he had performed preliminary soil testing to determine the adequacy of soils on the site. Mr. Hatin agreed that either one of the proposed locations would be suitable for a replacement system.” And we have public comment, Aviation Road Properties, August 14, 1999, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board, re: residence, Mr. Chris Mackey, “Gentlemen, Mr. Mackey was kind enough to provide us with drawing of the proposed addition and alterations that he wishes to make at his residence off Route 9L in the Town of Queensbury. According to Mr. Mackey he will need a variance in the side yard setback requirements of the Town. We wish you to know that we have absolutely no objection to his proposed addition and frankly feel that it will be a material enhancement to the property. As a point of interest, we are the immediate neighbors to the east and the addition will have no impact on us in any negative way. We therefore wish to go on record with no objection. Very truly yours, Conrad T. Brickman 45 Upper Loudon Road Loudonville, N.Y. 12211” And Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes, July 28, 1999 “Chris Thomas, Chairman, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board, re: Chris Mackey residence, 15 Wild Turkey Lane, Queensbury, NY application for Area Variances “Dear Mr. Thomas: On behalf of Chris Mackey, I hereby submit an original and ten copies of the area variance application, short environmental assessment form, site plan and schematic elevations, along with a check in the amount of $50.00 for the application fee. The project involves alterations and additions to an existing unattractive dwelling which will include a significant architectural upgrade. The existing dwelling is a prior non-conforming structure which does not comply with the 75’ shoreline setback in the waterfront residential 3 acre zone. However, the entire addition will be constructed to the rear of the existing dwelling with the exception of a small covered porch on the top floor. With the exception of the porch roof and an attached two-car garage, the remainder of the project involves a 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) twelve foot wide two-story addition which runs along the non-lakefront side of the dwelling. While a 22% floor area ratio is permitted under the Town zoning code, the floor area ratio of the proposed dwelling will be only 12.7%. Area variances are required from the following sections of the code: 1) § 179-79(a)2 Because the proposed addition exceeds the existing square footage by more than 50%. 2) § 179-16(c) Because the proposed garage will be 14.56 feet from the side-yard property line at the closest point while 20 feet is required. 3) § 179-16(c) Because both (i) a very small portion of the roof peak (ii) the covered porch roof exceeds the 28 foot building height. 4) § 179-60B(c) Because the proposed addition will not comply with the 75 foot shoreline setback. While the requested relief may appear substantial because a number of sections of the zoning code are involved, as described in the application and as shown on the schematic elevations, the project will result in a significant visual improvement for the neighborhood and with an updated dwelling that will be appropriate for the size of the parcel for the character of the neighborhood. Please place this matter on the agenda for your August 25 meeting. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper” th MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is that it? MR. STEC-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Yes. I’m disturbed that you don’t know where the septic system is now. MR. LAPPER-We have an explanation as to why we don’t. There are two areas which appear. There may have been two separate systems, and we didn’t dig it up. MR. MAC ELROY-Maybe I was a little flip, there, Lew, with that comment, but there are records. The Park Commission has records of suspected locations of septic systems or known locations. That gives varying information, based on what we might see in the field. MR. STONE-We don’t know whether it’s ever been pumped in 35 years, 39 years? MR. MAC ELROY-No, I don’t. I wouldn’t know that. I think the point I made, and I just wrote it today as part of future site plan application, if we get there, is that obviously, the system has to be within 100 feet of the lake, because there’s no pump as part of the system. MR. STONE-But the garage would be built, at least where you suspect it is, or one of the places, you’re going to put the garage on top of that? MR. MAC ELROY-That’s where I was told that it was possibly was located. I think it’s to the other side. I think it’s to the west. I believe the septic tank is right in back of the building, with something going to the west, some sort of disposal area to the west, but I can’t be sure of that, and it at this point wasn’t crucial. MR. MACKEY-When I purchased the property, the widow of the gentleman that bought the home, she indicated to me that the septic system was on the west side of the house, and, you know, there’s piping and clean outs that run along that, the rear side of the house, and look like they go in that direction, and it was her understanding that it was there. It’s tough to figure it out because there’s so much poured concrete on the site. MR. STONE-Have any water samples been taken, tested for coliform along the property? MR. MACKEY-Well, when I purchased the property, my bank required a water sample, and there was no problem with the water sample. MR. STONE-You’re talking about the water sample that you drink. MR. MACKEY-Yes. MR. STONE-I’m talking about in the lake immediately adjacent to the property. MR. MAC ELROY-The same thing. His water supply comes from the lake. MR. STONE-It’s not treated in any way? MR. MACKEY-No, no treating at all. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. LAPPER-Was the house vacant, or were they living there before you bought it? MR. MACKEY-It was used from time to time. MR. LAPPER-So the system may not have even been utilized. MR. THOMAS-I think the gentleman in the back has got something he can add to this conversation. JOHN MATTHEWS MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews. I’m a neighbor, two or three doors down. Since I was 10 years old, I've been familiar with this property. I know exactly where the septic system is. I've maintained the house for probably 30 years for Mrs. Jacobs. The tank is built in conjunction with the foundation, right behind the backdoor. It’s laid up or poured up with concrete into the ledge rock, and it drains to the west, right around the southwest corner, and there’s a pit with some stone in it, probably no more than 30 feet from the lake, and Mrs. Jacobs made sure that we had it pumped on a regular basis, because there was evidence of drainage coming out around the pit when we had rainy weather. I know when I did my property, four or five doors down, I had to pump the system way to the rear of the lot and what not, which is a lot flatter than this, but still and all, the conditions are the same with the ledge. MR. STONE-And this, of course, will be an improvement over? MR. MATTHEWS-Anything would be an improvement, providing they improve what’s there. If they just use what’s there, it’s really, they’re altering or adding to the system, the house was only used by two elderly people for the last 40 years. Their children were all grown up when I was a kid, and the only people there were Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs. They were aware of the usage. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC ELROY-Thanks, John. MR. THOMAS-That clarifies that situation. Are there anymore questions for the applicant from the Board? Everybody’s got their questions asked? All right. We’ll talk about it. Chuck, what do you think? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I have several thoughts. If something is going to be done with this house, I can see the reasoning behind the architectural proposal, and it’s probably the best way to do it. However, I have to believe that the 75 foot setback was put in place for a reason. Obviously, the people that drew the line at 75 feet knew full well when they did it that there were a lot of places on Lake George that were within that boundary. So, to my mind, what they were saying is, we know there are places there, but there really shouldn’t be, and anything new should be 75 feet from the shoreline. If there were no house there, as was the case with the situation we had earlier this spring, then we’d be faced with, is it a buildable lot or not a buildable lot, and I’d probably be more inclined to go along with building something closer than the 75 feet. However, in this case, this is a major addition that’s falling with the 75 feet. That bothers me. I think it’s going to have a visual impact from the lake, and that bothers me. The height variance bothers me, and I’m also kind of of the same mind in this situation as I was with the Quaker Road situation. I don’t think we can keep allowing variances to the 75 foot setback every time somebody comes in, because if we do, we’re changing the zoning, and that’s not our job. That belongs to the Town Board. So while I see the benefit to the applicant, and I can understand your desire to expand this place, I think the detriment is going to exceed the benefit to the applicant and I’m inclined to disapprove. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with Chuck. When I first saw the application and then went and visited, the applicant raises several good points. I feel for their situation as far as the topography, the steep grade that currently exists. So I think that their alternatives are limited by geography. However, that’s really not, there’s nothing the Board can do in that regard, but what struck me when I saw the application is that the number, the frequency and the magnitude of the various reliefs that are sought, really, it struck me in the face as way too much, I thought. Listening here, I don’t doubt that it’s a sincere attempt to improve the property. I think the applicant is sincere. I think he’s serious, but I just think that, while they were able to explain a lot of the reasoning behind what they’re trying to do, I felt better about what they were trying to accomplish and the way they were going about it, but I still felt that it was an awful lot to ask for. Specifically, doubling the size of, or an increase of more than 50%, all of which will be within 75 feet. We're not talking about, well, we’re expanding toward the back. The sum total is that the entire addition will all take place within the 75 foot shoreline setback. That bothers me. The significant amount of request sought for height bothers me, and 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) frankly I think that a feasible alternative, although Staff would decline to take a bit at the apple, really is a downsized proposal. There’s clear benefit to the applicant if we approve this, but I think the nature of the feasible alternatives, the substance of the relief sought, and the fact that I feel the difficulty is self-created I think is too much to bear. I know that we always talk about each case on its own merits, however, I feel the applicant opened the door when the applicant quotes back past case history to us, and to that I would say, a year from now, I wouldn’t want this case coming before the Zoning Board and being used as an example for another similar variance request. So for all those reasons, I’m going to vote no. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I basically come out the same place. Integrating it all together, it’s too much. I think I could live with something behind the house, the new living quarters behind the house that you’re talking about. It would be hidden from the lake. It would not really be visible from the lake, as you try to point out on the overall project. I am concerned by the fact that the garage and the porch are just too much. I mean, we’re talking 36 feet at the water line. Not literally, but three feet or four feet, maybe ten feet if you want to say, from the water line. It’s just too close. I did look at it from the water today. The house now, even though it’s close to the water, sits in not badly. It’s too close, but that was perfectly legal at the time, but I think if you put a third story on there and put that roof right at the front edge of the house, it’s just going to be too much. That’s basically it, then plus the fact that we’re putting a garage sticking out where nothing exists today, 43 feet from the lake, when the setback is 75 feet, and then we’re sticking that over within the 25 foot setback to the easterly property owner. Whether he doesn’t have any problem is not the point in this particular case. I just think the project, considered totally, is just too much. I, too, would like to see, and I would certainly entertain, some modification of this application, but as it stands right now, I could not sit tonight and vote yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I've been sitting next to Lew for two and a half years on this Board, and as usually my notes have nothing more to add. Essentially, he said all the points that concern me. I think I really don’t have a problem with any part of the project, as far as living quarters behind the house. I think the trade, in this circumstance, the cumulative relief being significant, but the improvements that the applicant is proposing to make, to me, are a lot, and I would be certainly willing to trade, in my mind, or give consideration to a lot behind the camp in lieu of those things, because as Mr. Lapper delicately put it, there’s certainly, I don’t think there’s any doubt that there’s some things to be gained as far as the community with this project, but I think when you consider the garage and the fact that we’re looking at still a significant height variance with the porch on top. I think, cumulatively, the balance just falls in favor of denial. So I guess I would be against this application, basically for those reasons. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I think the architect should be commended on the selection of materials and the design of the proposed structure. It’s quite attractive, but as attractive as it is, as the other Board members have said, this project is asking for too much relief in my opinion. The existing structure and the proposed one is, as I see it, 12 feet max on the water line. It’s in some places 10 feet, and I suspect maybe a bit closer, and to have a structure so close to the water’s edge, 36 feet tall, with a fair amount of glass on front, would be contrary to the spirit and intent of the Ordinance to protect the nature resources and to limit expansion of existing structures in the shoreline setback. Under 179-79, a structure can’t be enlarged within the setbacks would increase the non-compliance of the minimum setback requirements which this surely would do. It’s a massive structure. Certainly, there’d be a great benefit to the applicant. He could have a larger home, but I honestly think that there are feasible alternatives that would have been available that would not go into the setbacks as much as this proposal does. A modern home could be built on the existing footprint, modernizing the exterior and interior, and an addition might perhaps be constructed to the back, away from the lake, not observable from the lake, and this Board might also have entertained additional square footage on the same square foot footprint, only going up a bit, perhaps. I don’t see it comparable to the Jones’ property. If I remember the Jones’ property, I needed a rope to get down to that property, almost, and if I’m not mistaken, there was no building there, was there? That was a fire loss. MR. STONE-Fire loss. MR. MC NALLY-So there was no existing structure, and they had to build on an existing footprint because of that fire loss. This is an existing structure, which is still amenable to modernization and improvement on the existing footprint. The garage, and the connecting structure, really do violate the setback, and it may be more than 35 feet from the lake, but in this case, the setback is 75 feet. So there’d be substantial increase, and there was a lot of trees there. When I was sitting there, looking at this property, I noticed that some of those trees have been taken out by the garage, and also the trees 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) are mature, in the sense that there are no branches on the lower surfaces. You stand out on the end of the deck, on the dock, and you look at the house, and you see blank trees and a building immediately behind it, 12 feet from the shoreline, so I’m not sure the fact that there are trees there is really going to be any benefit to us. The 62 and a half feet of relief from the 75 foot setback is substantial to the main house. Thirty-two feet of relief requested from the seventy-five foot setback is substantial with respect to the garage and the attached addition, and the entire addition, even behind the house, is within the 75 foot setback, and that’s all contrary to 179-16 and 179-60. The other thing I was struck with is how close it comes to the next door neighbor’s line. I know he doesn’t care, but you can very easily see, I tried to pace out where the garage was, that the neighbor is quite close, his log dwelling, and the 10.44 feet of relief from the side setback relief is also not appropriate in my mind, particularly when you’re given the fact that there’s so much other property on the other side of the house. The effects on the neighborhood and community, on balance with the benefit to the applicant are such that I can’t be in favor of it. I also feel the difficulty is somewhat self-created. It’s purchased knowing that there are limitations as far as setback and height requirements, and I’m not sure that a great deal of effort was made in order to comply with the existing Queensbury Town Ordinance. So in that respect, I think it is a self-created problem. I’m not in favor of this project. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess to begin with, we’d like to ask the Board to table this because obviously what you’re telling us is to go back to the drawing board and to see if we can come back with a request that is smaller in terms of the variances that are necessary. I think what I heard was that the Board, as a whole, did recognize that we were trying to do our best to come up with something, starting with what we had. I find it troubling a little bit that, this compared to the lot next door, where they had a blank slate, and it wasn’t, in terms of throwing precedent in your face, but just to recognize that the difference is that here we have a house that’s existing, which is non-compliant which is not a positive, which is something that Chris has to deal with, that he’s sort of constrained because he’s not going to build another house and tear this down, that they could have gone anywhere and you allowed them to go 35 feet back, and we did our best to propose the addition beyond what the neighbors would have, so it not only is compatible in terms of, when you look from the lake, but our attempt to be sensitive to that and to make this less nonconforming than what the neighbors were allowed, but in general just that it’s an attempt to work with what we have there, in terms of the slope, in terms of the existing structure, but based on all of your comments, we’ll have to go back with the architect and the land designers and see what we can come up with. So we would respectfully ask that you table it. MR. MC NALLY-Jon, you have to understand. The next door neighbor’s property was basically a fire loss. If Mr. Mackey’s home burned down, I don’t think we would have too much difficulty allowing him to rebuild on the existing footprint, as we did to the next door neighbor, and that’s the distinction in this case. MR. LAPPER-You mean, it wasn’t an addition. It was a replacement. MR. MC NALLY-It was a replacement of an existing structure. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. You want to table it? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1999 CHRIS MACKEY, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Until no later than the October 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 tabling this variance is at the request of the applicant. Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-1999 TYPE II RR-3A THOMAS KUBRICKY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE OAK VALLEY WAY, NORTH FORTY SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8 ½ FOOT HIGH PRIVACY WALL (CONCRETE) AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FENCE ORDINANCE. TAX MAP NO. 26-2-14.13 LOT SIZE: 3.70 ACRES SECTION 179-74 TOM KUBRICKY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 79-1999, Thomas Kubricky, Meeting Date: August 25, 1999 “Project Location: Oak Valley Way, North Forty Subdiv. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 8 ½ foot tall concrete privacy wall and seeks relief from the fence ordinance. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the fence ordinance, § 179-74. Specifically, the applicant is requesting 45 feet of front setback relief and relief to have a stockade/solid fence in a front yard and to have a fence in excess of 5 feet tall. The applicant is proposing a 8 ½ foot tall wall/fence. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would have additional privacy and gain the aesthetic image desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the fence and relocating the privacy fence to the rear yard. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative relief requested may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created?: The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Given the substantial distance that the home and fence/wall are removed from the right of way, the impact may appear to be less than if it were constructed nearer the road. Apparently construction of the wall was begun and completed after the variance application was filed. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-Anything from Warren County? I don’t think so. MR. STEC-No, nothing from the County. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Kubricky. Do you want to come up here and tell us what you’re going to do? MR. KUBRICKY-What we did here is we started this house, and the architecture, the guy that drew up the house, it was Harry Williams, and we drew the house up and we talked with Dave Hatin on this, and Dave told Harry Williams that we didn’t need a permit for this. They would put it in with our house permit, and then what took place is we were pouring the footings for the wall and I think it was one of your guys, was it you personally? MR. BROWN-It was one of the building inspectors. MR. KUBRICKY-It was one of the building guys. They came out and they said the wall is going to be over six feet high, and you need a variance on it, and then we were, I was sort of in a Catch-22, to be honest with you. Because we were already pouring the footings, and we had a pump truck set up to come and pump them, and I was sort of rolling the dice by going ahead and doing it without getting a variance, but my contractor and my architect, you know, they’re not guilty on that part of it, because we didn’t realize it was a serious thing we that we were doing out of line. So the wall is actually it’s only, you measured it. What were your? MR. BROWN-It was about eight and a half feet, but it was before it was paved, then. MR. KUBRICKY-Right. Yes. I don’t know if any of you have been up there and taken a look at it, but we did it without the permission of you, and I’m guilty on that, and I wasn’t trying to do it to be smart about it or anything like that. We were just sort of, we had a time frame set up, and what I did is, before I did it, I went to Gene Petramali, that lives across the road, Tom Eagan, Bernie Charlebois, Tony LoCasio, Crusziniki, and Tom McDermott, everybody that lives in Oak Valley Way, and what I did is I asked them all. I took them and I showed them what I was doing, and I said to them, do you guys mind if I do this, and they said no, and what I asked them to do is I asked them to write letters to the Town of Queensbury, and did you get any letters? MR. STEC-I've got several letters. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. KUBRICKY-Okay, and I told them, you know, I mean, I wouldn’t have done this if one neighbor in my neighborhood said no, I wouldn’t have gone forth with it, and that’s really all I have to say. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff, Craig. The 45 foot front setback, how far back is this supposed to be? MR. BROWN-Basically in line with the house that fronts on the road. MR. MC NALLY-That would be the side of the house. MR. KUBRICKY-They call the front of the house where the garage doors are. That’s what they’re calling the front of the house, but the front of the house. MR. STONE-That would be the front, and that’s not far enough back? MR. BROWN-If it’s past that plane of the house, toward the road, you need a variance, and 45 feet is the distance from the house to the end of the wall. MR. MC NALLY-It’s got nothing to do with the setback from the road. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-You can’t be closer than the wall of the house. MR. HAYES-So that’s essentially how wide that little parking area is, then. MR. BROWN-It’s 45 feet. MR. KUBRICKY-Right. The parking area is 45 feet. I’m 330 feet back from the road. Then I’m like 600 from the road that goes around that cul-de-sac. MR. STONE-The property along where Oak Valley goes, lets say south. You come in off of 9L, it goes down, and then it turns by where your property is. MR. KUBRICKY-Right. MR. STONE-There will be a house built between this house and the road? MR. KUBRICKY-No, there won’t because I own all the land. I've got like 14 acres in the back. MR. STONE-I’m talking about the road. As I come in off of 9L, and then I enter the North Forty subdivision, and then the road turns, lets say it turns left to the south. MR. KUBRICKY-Right. MR. STONE-And then it turns back west, and then there’s your house. When you look out of the front door where the columns are. MR. KUBRICKY-Right. Nobody will ever build there because that’s wetlands. MR. STONE-Nobody will ever build there. Okay. MR. MC NALLY-By the corner lot, Lot Five. MR. STONE-We're talking about Lot Five. Nobody will ever build there? MR. KUBRICKY-No. Somebody will, if we sell it they will. MR. STONE-Okay. Because that brings a problem to bear that I have, because that wall is very visible from the road as you go there, looking over at the house, and if there’s not going to be anything in there, it gives me more problem, but we’ll get to that. MR. MC NALLY-Do you own that five now? MR. KUBRICKY-No, I don’t, but my mother does. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. MC NALLY-Your mom does. Does she have any plans to develop it within the next? MR. KUBRICKY-If anybody develops it, I’ll probably end up buying that to protect my investment. So, for the long range, unless somebody comes in there and is going to build a nice house, I’ll probably be in control of, you know, who builds there, if anybody ever does. MR. MC NALLY-You had plans to landscape that wall, too, shrubs? MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. I’m going to do it up first class. MR. MC NALLY-This is how you plan to do it? MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, something like that. It’s going to look. That was a, they wanted to know a rough idea how I’m going to landscape it. It’s going to be nice when it’s done. I've got to pick out the right kind of shrubs that are going to give the house enough body. It looks sort of dormant right now, and it sticks out because the house is on three acres of dirt right now, not a tree standing, is why it sticks out, but if I get some six, eight inch maples and put them in there, and some cedars and run them in there, and run them up the driveway, I’ll landscape it so it looks real nice. MR. STONE-I could understand the 45 feet setback, that you didn’t know that, but an eight and a half, or lets say eight, now that you’ve paved it, is, I’m surprised you didn’t know that we don’t allow anything over six feet in the Town, plus the fact that it, well, the stockade part of it is another thing, but eight feet is, all by itself is as third higher than is allowed by Code. MR. KUBRICKY-Right. You’re correct on that, because the first thing I did is I asked Harry Williams. I said, Harry, do we have to get a variance for this, and Harry Simms called Dave Hatin, and Dave Hatin said to Harry Simms, no, he’ll put it on this same permit, because that’s what they said to me, and then we proceeded with it, but, you know, that’s. MR. STONE-An eight-foot wall’s an eight-foot wall. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. The reason I chose eight foot, if you drive up that road, I've got eight foot high garage doors on the end, and I had to have the wall come up, so you can’t, when you’re driving up past there, you can’t see the garage doors, the top of the garage doors. That’s why I chose that height. MR. STONE-All your neighbors’ garage doors are very evident, as I drive. I mean, it’s very nice of you to want to do that, but all the other garage doors are sticking right out there in the same subdivision. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Who’s in Lot Seven, as you’re facing your garage, there to your left shoulder? MR. KUBRICKY-Tom Eagan. MR. MC NALLY-Did he send a letter approving it? MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-He did? Okay. MR. KUBRICKY-You should have it in there. What I've done, they’re all happy with me. MR. MC NALLY-He’s your closest neighbor, though. MR. KUBRICKY-He is. Tom is my closest neighbor, and I talked to Tom. Before I do anything, Tom’s the guy I talk to. They like what I've done, and they know what the finished product is going to be, and my neighbors are behind me. MR. STONE-This your subdivision, this whole thing? MR. KUBRICKY-No. This is my mother’s subdivision. MR. THOMAS-Why didn’t you face the house toward the road? MR. KUBRICKY-Well, I’ll tell you, the views are what I was looking for, and what I did is I turned my house a little bit, so I wasn’t so, when I looked back out, because I've got the 14 acres in the back, and that’s what I wanted to look at. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. STONE-By the back you mean to the west? MR. KUBRICKY-It would be the west, right, the back is the west. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. KUBRICKY-And then the front I wanted to keep it, because all the houses that are in there, except for my next door neighbor, they’ll all be facing the same way on the lots, pretty much, I believe. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STEC-Yes. I have a record of telephone conversation dated August 23, 1999, at 11 a.m., between Jane LoCasio, 94 Oak Valley Way and Sue Hemingway, Zoning Office, Subject: Thomas Kubricky, Area Variance No. 79-1999, “Has no objection to fence. Looks great.” I have an e-mail from David Krucilniki, to Craig Brown, Subject: Oak Valley Way 10 foot concrete fence “Mr. Brown, Tom Kubricky has asked me that we communicate with you to express our position re: his plans to construct 10 foot concrete walls around his house currently under construction. This note is to advise you that we do not object to his plans for such walls. If we can be of further help, please do not hesitate to contact us. David and Patricia Krucilniki” July 28, 1999, Dave Hatin, Building Department “Dear Dave: As the owner of Lots Number Two, Three, Five, Ten, Eleven, Thirteen and Fourteen in the North Forty approved Subdivision located on Route 9L in the Town of Queensbury, I’m writing to inform you I have no objection to a maximum height 10 foot privacy wall attached to a home presently being constructed by Thomas Kubricky on Lot Number Six which consists of 3.7 acres of land. A wall that height is not an uncommon aesthetic accommodation to a building of that size but rather a necessary architectural standard set by the dimension of the house itself and by the size of the lot it occupies. Please refer this letter to the appropriate department within the Town. Cordially, Joan M. Kubricky” That’s all the correspondence I have. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We're missing a few in there. MR. KUBRICKY-I only have two more neighbors left, Tom and Bernie. I know Tom sent one in, and Bernie did, too, Bernie Charlebois. They gave me copies of them. MR. THOMAS-Do you have them with you, the letters? MR. KUBRICKY-I could call. MR. THOMAS-No, if you haven’t got it here. MR. KUBRICKY-I’ll swear that I have them. MR. THOMAS-Well, send them in so we have them for the record. MR. KUBRICKY-Right, I will. MR. THOMAS-A lot of those letters said the wall is ten foot high. Is it eight and a half or is it ten? MR. KUBRICKY-It’s, well, what I did is I went to the neighbors and I told them I’m going to build a ten foot high, because I was going to bring it to the top of the window. Then I had Harry draw it up, and it was too high. So I came down. I brought it down to eight. I dropped it down two foot from where I wanted to go with it. We were a little bit confused on, you know, six foot is off what, after you get your planter box next to it, is it six foot high off the planter box to the top of the wall? If it’s six foot, do you need a variance at that stage? MR. THOMAS-Six foot from the ground level. MR. KUBRICKY-From the ground level. So if I took that dozer, pushed up dirt against it, would that be ground level? That’s what we’re talking about. From the inside of the wall you’ll be eight foot. It’s be seven, six exactly from the inside of the wall, once the pavement’s in there. MR. THOMAS-I do believe the Ordinance reads from the highest point of the fence to the lowest. MR. KUBRICKY-Right. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. STONE-Are you going to have gate doors on that wall? MR. KUBRICKY-Well, we’re deciding that now. I've got him drawing me up some sharp ones, and I've got to wait to see what they look before I’m going to determine. MR. STONE-You’ve got bolts in the wall. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, I do. I am going to have a gate at some given point in time. MR. STONE-Because certainly as you look down the driveway, right now you’re looking right at the garage doors. MR. KUBRICKY-Right. It doesn’t look good. I agree with you. I've got to finish it. It’s just a slow process. MR. STONE-Are you living there now? MR. KUBRICKY-No, not yet. MR. THOMAS-You will be the occupant of the house though, right? MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, I will. MR. THOMAS-All right. Anymore questions for Mr. Kubricky? MR. STEC-Could we go over again how construction of the wall continued after you applied for the variance? How did you find out you needed a variance? And was there a stop work order issued or anything? MR. KUBRICKY-No. What happened is, Ken Collette is my builder, and Ken and Harry, you know, Ken’s like the GC on this, and he was dealing with Harry on this. So then what happened is Ken poured the footings for the walls, then he was running the concrete and all that stuff through me. I was setting up, different segments of the job, I was saying, okay, we’re ready to do this function now. Go ahead and do it. The next function, and so on and so forth. So what he did is he put the footings in, and I set up the concrete and the concrete pumps, and the guys came out to inspect the footings on it, and they inspected the footings on it, and they said to Ken, to the best of my knowledge. I wasn’t there. Ken’s the guy that’s doing it all, but he had the forms up against the wall, and he said to Ken, how high is that wall, and Ken said 10 foot, which we had 10 foot forms up first coming off the footings and stuff, they were like 12 foot, and then one of the guys said to him, you’re going to have to get a variance for that, and we were already so far into it, to get a variance, what do we do with the guys the next day? And I went immediately to the neighbors, and I got all their blessings on it, then I came back over and I talked to him and I told him, you know, and he said that you’re rolling the dice, and I said all I can do is hope for the best. MR. STONE-So the concrete truck wasn’t on its way when you were told you needed a variance? MR. KUBRICKY-No, it wasn’t. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. KUBRICKY-That’s when I back tracked and went back to Harry Williams and said, what’s going on, and he said that he would call Dave, and Dave was on vacation at the time, correct? MR. BROWN-I think so. MR. KUBRICKY-I think we could have gotten it all resolved, if I was a little bit tighter to the project. I could have been on top. It sort of just got away from us, to be honest with you. MR. THOMAS-All right. Anymore questions for Mr. Kubricky? All right. It’s time to talk about it. We’ll start this time with Dan. MR. STEC-All right. Well, I figure if I go into it, you might not have to listen to Mr. Stone go into it, but I wouldn’t rule that out. I have a big problem. The Board has a problem. We’ve seen this before with variances after the fact, and we consider every variance, what would we do if the work hadn’t been performed. How would we feel? Would we grant the variance, but applicant’s put a lot of pressure on the Board, when they come to the Board and they’ve already done something and they’re seeking a variance for something that’s already there, because they’re putting the pressure of human nature on the Board to say, hey, undo something that you’ve done, that you’ve put time and 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) money into. So I think what happens then after a while is that there’s a tendency for people to say, well, if it’s done already then they won’t make us undo it. MR. KUBRICKY-No, I wasn’t going with the strong-arm approach. I want you to realize that. MR. STEC-Right, but you said yourself, you rolled the dice, all right. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, but before I rolled the dice, I went and made sure that, you know, what I was doing wasn’t like a felony. I mean, I made sure that my neighbors, I figured if my neighbors, if 25 houses around me all felt that it was a good thing, I felt that I had more of a leaning chance with you guys. Do you know what I’m saying? MR. STEC-I hear you, and it’s not a felony. Don’t get me wrong, but again, it bothers me a lot, because I think the Board is really put out when somebody comes in and says, hey, you know, we had a fence last week. It was one of those wooden stockade fences, and we were talking about, well, it’s a foot too high, well, you could take a chainsaw and you could dog ear the tops with the chainsaw and make it five feet. Now we’ve got a bigger project here, a lot more money involved. They do make masonry saws. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, but I wasn’t trying to hide anything. I went and asked. MR. STEC-But you knew you needed a variance and you poured the concrete anyway. You said yourself you took a gamble. MR. KUBRICKY-That’s correct. I’m guilty there, right. MR. STEC-I appreciate your honesty in telling us that you took a gamble, but what I’m saying is I don’t appreciate being put on the spot. Do you know what I’m saying? MR. KUBRICKY-I’m guilty there. MR. STEC-And that’s just it, it’s hard to say. I’ll tell you right now, if we were talking about a wooden fence, I’d be saying take it down, but again, now we’re at the point where we’re talking about a big concrete wall, and do you punish an applicant who knowingly knows that they need a variance and yet they continue anyway? And that’s really disturbing. You put everyone on this Board, you put everyone in the zoning office, you put all the other applicants in a funny spot, and you knew you needed a variance. Now I’m not going to say that that’s enough for me to say, take the wall down. I’m going to weigh all the factors. It’s the benefit to the applicant. Does it go with the house? Are the neighbors in favor of it? Yes. Were there feasible alternatives? Yes, there were. Is the relief substantial? The house is well set back. I mean, there’s many things going in favor of this project. I’m not saying that I’m going to vote no just to punish you, but I want you to know that we’re in an awkward position when an applicant does something unknowingly, but what really irritates the Board is when an applicant comes and they’ve done something knowing that they needed a variance. So I just want you to carry that back to contractors that you deal with and just say, gee, that Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, they don’t like it when people proceed with work knowing that they need something from the Town. That’s insulting. MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. MR. STEC-All right, but with that said, there is benefit to the applicant. The relief, well, and we’re going to talk about that, but an eight foot high fence, I can tolerate the eight foot high fence, given the size of the house and the fact that it’s so far set back from the roads, and that the neighborhood is comfortable with it. So you’ve got things going in favor of it. Is the difficulty self-created? You’re darn tooting it is, but the thing is, what would we have done if you had come here and the wall hadn’t been built, and I’d venture a pretty solid guess that the Board would say, five feet in the front yard, and it shouldn’t be a stockade fence, or it shouldn’t be a solid wall fence. I’m willing to listen to the rest of the Board on that, and keep an open mind. I think that I could probably listen to the Board and if the rest of the Board is willing to let it go because of the fact that it’s far back from the road, I could probably go along with it. I think it looks nice. I think it looks really nice, but I just want you to know, I want you to leave here knowing that you put us in an awkward spot, and no one here should feel bad, but we do, because it’s hard to tell a guy that’s put a lot of money in something to cut off two feet, which is what we were talking about making somebody else do last week. So, I just want you to fully appreciate the spot you put us in. MR. KUBRICKY-I do. MR. STEC-And I appreciate you telling us that you took the gamble, but what I’m saying is, that’s not a gamble I would take, and I’ll listen to the rest of the Board now and see how they feel, but you’re really putting us in an awkward position. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. KUBRICKY-I apologize. MR. STEC-And with that said, on its merits, if you hadn’t built it, I would have preferred to see it lower, but now that it’s built, it looks all right, and it’s far from the road. I could probably let it go, with reservation. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I usually give that speech. That’s what he’s really talking about. Lets ignore the fact that it’s built and lets ignore the fact that you were told you need a variance and you say you rolled the dice. That’s perfectly fine. You can always take a chance. The question that we quite often ask ourselves when this, we’re confronted with this, and Mr. Stec referred to this, what would we have done if you had come to us without it being built? The zoning code for fences is relatively clear. I mean, we have a number of areas in our zoning code that sometimes require interpretation. A fence, it says, is, in a front yard, it’s five feet. It says it can’t be a stockade or obviously a stone wall. In other words, you have to be able to see through it. Taking those two things, I would have said no. I would have said, can’t you find a way to hide your garage, if that’s what’s very important to you. As I say, your neighbors have not made this effort, and it’s a lovely subdivision. There’s no question about it, but none of your neighbors, as I drove around, have made this effort, and I just think that I would have said no, and I will probably say no tonight. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I guess quite often it’s been my own personal belief that your first impressions of a property, when you visit it, plays a major part in your decision making process, and in this case it did with me. As I drove in there and looked at your house and the fence and stuff, it actually looked pretty good to me. I mean, it is a special zoning district. The property there is extremely (lost words) and I think it’s actually, while I’m against substantial fencing in close neighborhoods, in this particular case I think it’s actually consistent with the architecture of your home, in reality, and of course, and probably most important would be how do your neighbors feel? They’re the ones that are most directly impacted. They all have substantial investments in their property in that neighborhood, and if they’re for it, they’ve got a lot on the line, and I guess you could count on support from mom, but outside of that, it seemed like there was no opposition and there could have been, in this particular circumstance. MR. KUBRICKY-Right. If there was with any of my neighbors, I would have aborted it, because I’m not that kind of a guy. I’m not a troublemaker or a Keith Harris trying to strong-arm anybody. I’m not that kind of a guy. MR. HAYES-So I guess all that said, in my opinion, the balance of the test falls in favor of you, and I could support the fence as it is. MR. KUBRICKY-Thanks. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-If Mr. Kubricky came in with a new application asking to build an eight-foot fence like this on this lot, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. I, too, was impressed, driving up the driveway, 300 some odd feet up the road. The purpose of our fence Ordinance is to prevent people in more congested neighborhoods from putting up stockade fences which are going to detract from the appearance of the neighborhood, which will pose obstructions to people driving up and down the road, which would be spiked fences and things like that that would drive neighbors apart. Your fence is going to do none of those things. I was also impressed with the house. It’s a big house, and it is architecturally appropriate, given the size and the style of your home, that you have a privacy fence like this. I didn’t think of it in terms of a privacy fence. All I could remember is like Churchill’s house in England where he had this 12 foot high brick wall where he segregated the outside world from his home, and again, it is appropriate for that style, and I don’t see any effect on the neighborhood or community, with the exception of the Eagan home, and they’re not here again. Apparently they don’t complain. You’ve assured us that they’ve asserted that they don’t have a problem with it, but even their home has to be 250 feet away. MR. KUBRICKY-I have a letter. I can go out to my truck and I've probably got it in there. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t doubt it. So because of the unusual nature of this house, and the unusual nature of your development, you’ve got at least four acres of land, it’s 375 feet from the road, and on condition that you landscape it in accordance with the way you’ve shown it, I don’t have a problem with this fence. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. KUBRICKY-Okay, thanks. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Most of what I would have said has been said. Looking at it, what I would have done if this had been an application before the fact, I’d have to agree with Lew. I think I would have said no, the Ordinance says five feet in the front yard, six feet elsewhere, and while I would agree the fence as it sits now, the wall does seem to go with the house, nevertheless, I would have said no also, and I think that’s probably the way I’m going to go tonight. MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes in particular made a point, and I guess I did notice it and didn’t write it down when I looked at it. The fence is, does go with the house. There’s no question, it is so far back that obviously, from the road, if I didn’t know it was eight and a half feet, there’s no way I could have decided it was eight and a half feet. MR. KUBRICKY-Right, and it’ll look even lower once I get it, you know, it just looks. MR. STONE-If you will accept this condition here that you’ve presented with this landscaping, I think I could go along with it. I think the landscaping, and you mentioned three-foot. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, and I will. In another six months, you could take a ride up and look at it, and it’ll be, everything, it’ll look good. I guarantee you. MR. STONE-I guess I've been concerned that we have a favorite color in the Town of Queensbury called white, and I really wish we didn’t use quite so much of it. It’s not your fault. We use too much of it in the Town. I mean, it’s an earth tone I’m told by someone sitting in this room, but I don’t regard it as one myself, but okay. Having said that, go ahead. MR. THOMAS-All right. I, too, consider variances that are already built as if it weren’t there. In a case like this, I would have said, no, six foot, that’s it. In fact, five foot in this particular yard, but because that house sits back so far from the road, and it is architecturally, does go with the house, that I don’t have a problem with the fence being eight foot tall, providing that he puts the plantings in in front of the fence, to more or less hide the starkness of it. I mean, it’s just a big slab of concrete. So, I wouldn’t have a problem with it being back that far and landscaped, but I would also throw a condition in there, that these plantings be put in, and they be put in at least six foot high before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, just to make sure that what we ask for is done. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-1999 THOMAS KUBRICKY, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Oak Valley Way, North Forty Subdivision. The applicant has constructed an eight and a half foot tall concrete wall, and after the fact, seeks relief from the fence ordinance, Section 179-74. Specifically, the applicant is requesting 45 feet of front setback relief, and relief to have a stockade/solid fence in a front yard, and to have a fence in excess of five feet tall. The applicant’s fence is, as I stated earlier, eight and a half feet tall. The benefit to the applicant would be they would have an additional privacy, and would gain the aesthetic image desired, attached to their home. This is an architectural feature of the house. So that would certainly be of benefit to them. The feasible alternatives would include downsizing the fence and relocating the privacy fence to the rear yard, but given the circumstances, I don’t believe they’re appropriate. The relief, I think, is moderate, but the effects on the neighborhood or community are going to be minimal. The applicant, in this case, has constructed a fence 375 feet, approximately, from the paved surface of the closest road. The nearest neighbor is approximately 250 feet away, and that neighbor, and all other neighbors have not objected to the fence, as it has been constructed. It is appropriate, given the nature of the house, that it matches it and fits in with the construction and the architecture and compliments it. So I would move that this application be approved, subject to the applicant landscaping the exterior of the wall, on both sides, in accordance with the plans he has proposed and submitted to us tonight, by the installation of shrubs at least six feet tall, in the locations indicated, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. With that, I move the application be approved. Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. THOMAS-So, those are the conditions. MR. KUBRICKY-Thanks a lot, really. I mean, I appreciate it. MR. THOMAS-Spread the word around, we don’t like this. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, I will. MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got a lovely home, a nice house. MR. KUBRICKY-Thanks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-1999 TYPE II LI-1A ADIRONDACK SEAFOOD CO. MICHAEL J. WILLIG OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 115 RIVER STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. TAX MAP NO. 112-1-60 LOT SIZE: 0.53 ACRES SECTION 179-26, 179-79, 179-60 MICHAEL WILLIG & JOHN TAYLOR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 80-1999, Adirondack Seafood Co., Meeting Date: August 25, 1999 “Project Location: 115 River Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 975 sf addition to an existing restaurant and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 25.66 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement and 4 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement of the LI-1A zone, § 179-26. Additionally, the applicant is requesting relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to increase the floor area of the restaurant. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the addition to a compliant location, however, given the existing location of the current structure, relocation may not suit the applicant’s desires. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 25.66 feet of front relief and 4 feet of side relief may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. However the pre-existing location of the structure may contribute to the difficulty. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR 22-95 res. 5/25/95 restaurant Staff comments: Minimal negative impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The project is also subject to site plan review to address parking, stormwater, lighting, etc. An expansion of this allowable use appears to be reasonable well suited for this property. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STEC-And I don’t think there’s anything from the County, nothing from the County. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Either one of you can start. MR. WILLIG-Basically what we’re doing is we’re looking to add on to the northwest part of the property, the existing building, primarily for added space for the patrons who wait for a table, and in the future, provided the liquor authority grants it, a bar or a lounge with maybe 12 to 15 chairs, and also toward the back of the addition, another 12 by 16 feet on the kitchen to eliminate congestion in the kitchen, due to the added business. As it is now, things are a little crowded in there anyway. Michael Willig, owner. I don’t know if it applies to the variance, but more parking to accommodate for the extra chairs, and the side, on the northwest side, the setbacks I believe are 30 feet, and the most encroaching corner is 26 feet from the property line. That’s four feet of encroachment. We're zoned for Light Industrial and we’re a restaurant. So the setbacks are a little harsh for our type of business. The front setback is 50 feet, which would eliminate any kind of addition in the front part of the building, but the building, as it stands now, is I’d say approximately 20 to 25 feet from my property line, which was probably built before your code was enforced. Basically, we’re just looking to add on and increase the business a little bit, not to interfere with traffic or our neighbors. MR. TAYLOR-I don’t believe the violation on the setback is that severe a situation. The existing neighbors and the parking lot pretty much the way it is now, to get the required amount of 30 feet, you would have to shrink the addition from 14 feet down to 10 feet, and there really wouldn’t be much purpose of adding on only 10 feet. The situation, if it does become a future bar, with a back bar and service bar and then pedestrian way, there’s no, you wouldn’t be able to fit a bar in 10 feet, and you can’t come back in for the existing building because there’s bathrooms, existing bathrooms are there now, and that’s, pretty much want to leave them where they are, and just add on a 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) handicapped bathroom, to upgrade the amount of how much bathrooms are supplied for the people. So, you know, if it’s not too much to ask, I think it’s a good opportunity for Mike, with this plan, with the 14 foot addition, and he also gets the opportunity to clean up the property, put a bigger parking lot that I think will look better from the road. I think with the addition going on, it gives him a chance to upgrade the building, which is only going to benefit from it, his business. Like I said in the beginning, I don’t think 26 feet is really a huge issue. If the setback required is 15 feet, and he’s only going to have an extra left over 10, that’s crowding or pushing 30 feet’s the setback, and 26 is, it might sound foolish, but it’s still pretty close to 30. John Taylor. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions for the applicants? MR. STONE-The parking on the west side, the handicapped, 16 and 17, they’re going to be parallel type parking? MR. WILLIG-Yes. MR. STONE-The others are drive in? MR. WILLIG-No, everything on the northwest and west areas are 9 by 20, 20 being against the edge of the parking lot. So that would be a parallel situation on that side. On the southeast, they would be drive in’s. MR. STONE-That’s what I meant. MR. WILLIG-Okay, yes. MR. STONE-Sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen and twenty are all parallel, and one through fifteen are all drive in back up. MR. WILLIG-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. TAYLOR-There’s from 15 to 16, and then also between 10 and 9, there’s quite a large area for radius for turning. Also, between that existing steel culvert, which is beyond the existing parking lot now, that’s a huge area from, you know, that’s roughly about 50 feet from that culvert to the back of the building, and that’s all just traffic area. There are no parking spaces outlined there. There’s probably actually even room to put a couple in there, if you went right by the book. MR. MC NALLY-Who owns the parcel to the west, the little tiny strip? MR. WILLIG-Tony Simione and he’s actually my bread deliveryman. We're good friends, and I didn’t think I’d need any letter or anything, but he has no problem with what I’m doing. He’s for it. MR. MC NALLY-This is subject to site plan review, right? MR. THOMAS-Yes, they have to go through that for parking, stormwater management, lighting. MR. MC NALLY-What about that stream to one side? Is that going to be part of the site plan review, too? MR. THOMAS-That probably will be, since it is, because that does flow into the Hudson. MR. STONE-Yes, it goes through the culvert. So you’re proposing to pave over the culvert, as it is now, for cars to go back there? MR. WILLIG-Yes. MR. TAYLOR-The culvert that’s there now, we measured it, it’s a 30 inch steel culvert, and it’s a real heavy steel, and it’s obviously been existing for a long time, and it is buried now. It’s basically a field out there. MR. STONE-Yes, I know. Are you going to pave back there, or is it? MR. WILLIG-Just in the parking area. We need some green area, and we’re within the limits now. So that’ll all just remain a field. MR. TAYLOR-Yes, what’s shown on the outline for parking spaces will all be paved. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. WILLIG-It’ll all be paved. MR. STONE-Okay. It’s an interesting shape. MR. WILLIG-Well, we’re trying to pitch the stormwater to that drain MR. TAYLOR-Also, we’re trying to work with the existing culvert and the stream. The way the stream is, to the, I guess north and south, pretty much didn’t want change any landscape in that area. MR. WILLIG-Not only that, but the topography, where it tapers to the 10 through 15 parking areas, there’s some grade there that it would need a lot of fill to widen it, and as John said, we’d have to extend the culvert. It would be a little more of a project. MR. STONE-Which way does the stream flow, from Hudson Falls? MR. WILLIG-From north to south, yes. MR. STONE-From Hudson Falls. MR. WILLIG-I’m pretty sure it does. I’m not really sure in what way. MR. TAYLOR-The Feeder Canal is above it, on the other side of River Street. Between River Street and the Boulevard is the Feeder Canal. So it probably comes out of the Canal, for runoff from those properties. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicants? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHLEEN SALVADOR MRS. SALVADOR-Kathleen Salvador. I just wanted to say, as one small businessperson to another small businessperson, I’m glad to see that you’re doing so well that you can expand. I do feel we need more good small businesses in the area and keep some of the big chains out. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this application? Anyone opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. STEC-Yes. I have a letter dated August 20, 1999, Town of Queensbury Public Hearing “We, Edward and Lucy, are giving our permission to Michael to expand his seafood restaurant at 115 River Street. Edward J. Kempski and Lucy T. Kempski” And that’s all the correspondence. MR. THOMAS-Where are they located? MR. WILLIG-I believe they’re two lots to the north/northwest on River Street. MR. STONE-Toward Glens Falls? MR. STEC-Yes. It says 10 Warren Street, Hudson Falls, their return address. MR. STONE-Yes, the Warren Street that always messes people up, because it’s not Warren Street. It’s Warren Street. MR. THOMAS-All right. Is that it for correspondence? MR. STEC-Yes, sir. MR. THOMAS-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicants? No more questions for the applicants? Okay. Lets see, Dan went first, it’s up to Lew. MR. STONE-I must echo Mrs. Salvador who spoke in the public hearing. As I wrote down, this is a good project. Obviously, the front setback is troublesome, but that’s where the building is. You didn’t put it there. You’ve made a go of a small business. The side setback is very negligible, the 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) relief that you’re asking for. I think it’s a good project, and certainly the benefit to the applicant far outweighs any detriment to the community, and I have no problem voting yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. I mean, we’re talking about a total addition that’s less than 1,000 square feet. So it’s not a major project that’s going to burden the area. In this particular case, I think Mrs. Salvador is correct. You have a property owner and a taxpayer taking responsibility for his own property, in an area where that’s not always the case, and I think we’ve got to be for that in every case that we possibly can be. So they have to go to site plan, and I put a lot of confidence that any of the issues that have to be a lot with parking and stormwater will be handled sufficiently, and cumulatively, I think it’s a minimal relief. So I think it falls in favor of the applicant, quite clearly, and I have no problem with it whatsoever. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem with it. I think that the benefit to the applicant is self- explanatory, and the effect on the neighborhood is going to be minimal. If anything, it’s going to result in improvement to the parking situation. I had some concerns about site plan, because it’s going to be a little bit tight getting in and out of there, and with that stream there, I’m not sure if they can meet all their requirements, but that’s site plan’s concern, not ours. I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I agree that it seems to me that it’s an appropriate project for this situation. Existing zoning is already up close to the road. I think what’s proposed is very appropriate, and I’m delighted to see something come along tonight that I can vote for. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with the rest of the Board. There’s obvious benefit to the applicant, and I believe that we should try and encourage small and accommodate them when we can. This plan is well thought out. They addressed any of the feasible alternatives, conditions in the sense that they indicated that with relocating this to another part of the structure would involve a great deal more expense and inconvenience because of the plumbing and the kitchen is located on that side of the house. So this is the logical direction to expand in. I feel the relief is minor and there’ll be minimal effect on the neighborhood. So I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. This is really the only place the addition can go. The applicant is proposing to expand his parking, which comes under site plan review. So anything that’s done out there will be under the scrupulous eye of the Planning Board, this does the stormwater runoff, lighting, parking, and any other things that are done to the land physically. I think this is a minimal request, and like I said before, it’s the only place it really could go on here. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-1999 ADIRONDACK SEAFOOD CO., Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: 115 River Street. The applicant proposes construction of a 975 square foot addition to an existing restaurant and seeks relief. Specifically, the applicant requests 25.66 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement, and four feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Light Industrial 1A zone, Section 179-26. Additionally, the applicant is requesting relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, Section 179-79. The benefit to the applicant, he would be permitted to increase the square footage of his restaurant. The feasible alternatives, I believe the feasible alternatives are limited, based on the configuration of the lot and the configuration of the existing restaurant. This seems to be the most logical way to gain area in the restaurant, based on the current circumstances. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that 25.66 feet of relief from the front setback is still minor, based on the fact that the rest of the restaurant is already there. It doesn’t represent a further encroachment on that setback, and the four feet of relief on the side is minor. It’s only four feet out of 30 feet. So effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that there will be no negative impacts on the community. In fact, this represents a continued upgrading of this particular property, and it may in fact improve the neighborhood. Is the difficulty self-created? I don’t believe that it is, based on the pre-existing location of the building and the already existing configuration of his restaurant in general. So, based on those things, I move for its approval. Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. WILLIG-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-99 JOHN SALVADOR, JR. APPELLANT IS APPEALING A DETERMINATION MADE BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CONCERNING A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN. SPECIFICALLY, WHETHER OR NOT COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE STORAGE IS ALLOWED. PROPERTY OWNER: DUNHAM’S BAY BOAT CO., INC. PROPERTY LOCATION: OFF STATE ROUTE 9L TAX MAP NO. 10-1-19.2 LOT SIZE: 13.59 ACRES ZONING: LC-42A JOHN SALVADOR, JR., PRESENT MR. STEC-And I’ll read the associated memorandum, to Zoning Board of Appeals, from Chris Round, dated July 15, 1999, re: Dunham’s Bay Boat Company “In response to your request, I visited the Dunham’s Bay Boat Company property located on the east side of Route 9L. The use of a dumpster on the site is not a violation of the site plan approval Site Plan No. 28-90 for the boat storage facility. The complaint is without merit.” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 3-99, John Salvador, Jr., Meeting Date: August 25, 1999 “Project Location: Dunham’s Bay Boat Co. Boat Storage Area Description: The applicant is appealing the Zoning Administrator’s determination that commercial solid waste storage on tax parcel 10-1-19.2 is not a violation of site plan approval 28-90. Information requested: Applicant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a determination whether the above described activity is in fact a violation of the previously approved site plan. Staff comment: Enclosed is a copy of the Zoning Administrator’s memorandum regarding the appellants’ original complaint. Also please find documentation taken from Site Plan 28-90.” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Salvador? MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I believe the first thing we should do is address a letter that I received this afternoon when I requested the submissions. It’s written by Mr. Howard, requesting that this hearing be adjourned, postponed, what have you. Do you have that information? MR. THOMAS-I don’t know a thing about it. MR. STEC-This? Do you want me to read it into the record? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STEC-I've got a letter dated August 23, 1999, Town of Queensbury, Christopher Round, re: Notice of Appeal No. 3-99, “As owner of Tax Map No. 10-1-92, I have a significant interest in this Appeal. I will be unable to attend on Wednesday August 25, 1999. Therefore, I am requesting the public hearing to be postponed until a later date. Sincerely, PRESIDENT” So presumably from Mr. Howard of Dunham’s Bay Sea Ray Company. It’s not signed. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Are you going to put that aside? There’s no sense proceeding if the public hearing is? MR. THOMAS-What I think I might do is let you go through, tell us what you want to, I’ll open the public hearing and I’ll leave it open, and I’ll table it. Does that sound fair to you? MR. SALVADOR-Providing I can address the Board again when the public hearing is continued. MR. THOMAS-Yes. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I would just like to use the time tonight to clarify one issue on this whole subject, and this is the zoning classification of this tax parcel. When I filed my notice of appeal, I always refer to the zoning on this tax parcel as rural residential three acre, and yet I see on the agenda for tonight’s meeting, LC-42 Acre. What I’d like to do is refer to the zoning map that was prepared as a part of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted by this Town in May of 1989. Now, we’ve had a Comprehensive Plan prepared since that time. However, there have been no zoning changes in this area. I've made an eight and a half by eleven photocopy of this section of the map pertaining to this project. MR. STEC-I don’t have any copies of the documentation from the site plan. MR. SALVADOR-You’ll notice that area here, “M”, moderate intensity, you see Alexy Lane? Okay. The boat storage building is right there. That’s the only thing up there. That’s the storage building. MR. THOMAS-Where are you saying the boat storage is? MR. STONE-It’s in “M”. MR. SALVADOR-It’s in “M”. MR. SALVADOR-You’ll notice “C” on here is the Land Conservation. I think the intent always was was that the wetlands would be the Land Conservation, and that this high ground, hard lanes, whatever have you, would be considered developable land, providing everyone meets the setbacks and that sort of thing. We have, in our Town, we have a zoning plan that Staff works from that has supposedly supposed to have been prepared from this Comprehensive Plan and this map, which has been prepared in conjunction with Warren County, at least their name is on it. It’s prepared by Warren County Department of Planning and Community Development and Town of Queensbury, Frederick J. (lost word) and Associates, and this, I think, was adopted by the Town. I don’t know that those zoning plans, if they’ve been adopted or anything like that. I understand they’ve been prepared by Leon Steves, but in any case, how anybody could mistakenly zone that building LC-42 is beyond me. When you look at the intent of how that land conservation area, wetlands, was laid out and mapped and the distance of that line from there, this was clearly all residential, all of that. This “MH” is moderate to high-density residential one acre. So that whole region there, we have residential development. So I think that it’s an issue that we’ve got to settle, because as we go back to refer to previous site plans that were prepared, it was considered to be Land Conservation 42 Acres, in violation of this, and it’s something we just didn’t pick up. I can tell you, I tried repeatedly, as I served on the Town’s Comprehensive Land Use Planning Committee, to address these issues, and I failed to get anything across. You’ll notice this time we’ve prepared a Comprehensive Plan and there’s no map. I thought it would be a good idea to prepare the same kind of a map. That also failed, but we’re going to have to address that issue. MR. THOMAS-What you’re saying is in the proposed comprehensive use there’s no map? MR. SALVADOR-No map. Not like this. MR. THOMAS-No, not like this, but there are individual pages, but we really can’t talk about that, because it doesn’t exist. MR. SALVADOR-No. The other thing I think you should appreciate is that this solid waste storage that’s going on there is not only commercial, as you would have a lot of packing boxes and things like that, but people do come off of their boats that dock with the Dunham Bay Boat Company and they do have household waste, just like you’d have at home, and it goes into that dumpster, and they may even have diapers, disposal diapers go into that dumpster. Those are the kinds of things that are being stored there. The other thing that should be recognized is that this storage facility is on a lot other than where the solid waste is being generated, and therefore it constitutes a transfer station, and that’s under the jurisdiction of the DEC. So we’ve got all of these thorny things to handle, and the public hearing would be left open until your next? MR. THOMAS-Yes, September meeting. MR. SALVADOR-Well, this kind of delay and postponement is characteristic of this property. Mr. Schriner is here tonight, and he can attest, the last time we went through a site plan on this. It must have taken over a year with the postponements and the delays and the tabling because, it was a charade. Now, the reason we got into the site plan the last time was that the Dunham’s Bay Boat Company was given a special use permit to put this boat storage, boat storage, on this residentially zoned property back in 1972, ’73, and there were restrictions on what they could do in this residential zone, in 1973, and they never lived with them. They never lived up to them. It’s way up in the woods someplace. Who cares? Well, finally Mr. Schriner got a snoot full and he started complaining about it, and the solution from this Staff at the time, Mr. Martin and Mr. Goralski, their solution was, 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) well, let them go to site plan, and if they get approval for all these things they’re in violation of, it’ll be okay, and we walked into that, dummies. We walked into that, and that’s what happened back in 1990 something like that. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 1990. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Well, this time we’re not going to stand still for it, and this whole area has got to be addressed. If you’d like to leave the public hearing open, fine, but we’re, we’ll get back to it. MR. MC NALLY-How large a dumpster are we talking about? MR. SALVADOR-How large? I don’t know as though it makes any difference, but I think it’s about a four yarder. MR. MC NALLY-You’re talking about something like eight feet on a side, something like that? MR. SALVADOR-No. MR. STONE-What size is it, do you know? MR. BROWN-Approximately four by six, I would guess, three or four yards, probably, is accurate. MR. MC NALLY-And you’re not here challenging the zoning? MR. SALVADOR-No. MR. MC NALLY-You’re here saying that that dumpster is not an accepted use under the site plan. That’s the only thing that you’re challenging? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-The determination of our Zoning Administrator. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. These are some pictures. You weren’t at the last meeting. This is the way they operate. I’d like to know if you’d like to have this in your residential neighborhood. MR. STONE-It did not look like that yesterday when I revisited it. MR. SALVADOR-I mean, this attracts all kinds of vermin. MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask Staff what the zoning is in this area? MR. ROUND-It’s LC-42. It allows for commercial boat storage under Site Plan Review, and does have a valid site plan approval for commercial boat storage, and I think you’re correct, Mr. McNally, in that the question is the fact that a dumpster doesn’t appear on the site plan presented as a part of that approval, is the presence of a dumpster a violation of the site plan, and I've indicated that it’s not. I think that’s what we’re trying to focus on here. MR. STONE-This is the same very narrow issue that we have every time that your determination is requested. Are you right, in our judgement, or are you wrong. It makes no difference how it’s zoned. It’s did you make the right decision as far the information that has been made available to us. You said it is. Mr. Salvador, obviously, is challenging that decision. It’s a very narrow issue, and while Mr. Howard certainly does have a vested interest in listening to the discussion, and contributing, if he so desires, the issue is very clearly, is Mr. Round right, or is Mr. Round wrong? We're the people who have to say he’s right or he’s wrong, and it’s a very narrow issue and I, for one, don’t think I need anything more to hear, looking at the property, knowing what I know about the site plan approval that was made. I believe I can vote now, but if we want to leave it open, that’s fine. MR. THOMAS-Well, my determination in doing that is that Mr. Howard is a vital part of this, because it’s his property. MR. STONE-I’m the one who told him to write the letter. MR. THOMAS-Yes, so he has the right to defend his own property. MRS. SALVADOR-He didn’t sign it. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. ROUND-He hand delivered it to me. I didn’t open the letter. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, and the letterhead is the Dunham’s Bay Sea Ray, and you sign as the President of an organization if it’s a corporation. The same sloppy work we always do. MRS. SALVADOR-The one thing that bothers me tremendously in all of this is that at one time the representative for the Boat Company was saying what a first class operation this was, and this was going for the site plan for this building and all, and they were saying, well, it’s even screened from the neighboring properties. Yes, there are trees. He cut down every single tree that he could. Our trees are screening his garbage from our guests. His rodents from that garbage come down on our property. I don’t know what he’s doing now about his used oil and all, but we’re down gradient from that. Our water wells are down gradient from that. MR. SALVADOR-And there was acetone containers. This was all the last time we went to the site plan. We couldn’t get to the site plan until the DEC got the landfill cleaned up. Okay. Then we got to the site plan. That was no longer an issue. MRS. SALVADOR-Now your Mr. Hatin, we have complained about another neighbor of ours, and your Mr. Hatin has said, well, there’s no law against living like a pig. Well I think there should be, then, if there isn’t. You are always talking about other areas of this Town where you’ve got all this garbage and buildings and all. People are getting rid of it and they’re health hazards. I think this is a health hazard, to us and to our guests and to Mr. Schriner, and I think it’s something that you people should look at. Just because we’re not politically correct doesn’t mean we should not be treated like everyone else is, and I am getting a little upset about it. I don’t get upset very easily, but I am. MR. MC NALLY-We are not the Town Board. We are here on a very limited issue, and if you have complaints against the Town Board, it’s not fair to take it against us and accuse us of not having done our jobs. MR. SALVADOR-I’ll tell you something. Mr. Howard isn’t here tonight because Mr. Howard doesn’t think he has to be here tonight. MR. STONE-That is not true. That is not true. I personally talked to Mr. Howard. He called me and asked what I thought he should do since he said he could not be here. He had a previous commitment. I suggested that he write the letter that he did write. Whether you have a problem, technically, whether it’s, I suggested he do that. Then it becomes a matter of the Chairman, does he want to grant it or not grant it. Obviously the decision, I don’t want to speak for you, Chris, but the decision is, we’ll open the public hearing. We’ll hold it open, and we’ll hear it next month, and that’s perfectly fine, but again, it’s a very narrow issue. It has nothing to do with where the appealer is coming from. It is the interpretation of a site plan that was given in 1990, is this in violation of that? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, the site plan in 1990 does not address commercial solid waste storage. Simply boat storage. Numbers of boats and the fact that they can’t do certain other things. Nothing was said. MR. STONE-That’s the only issue we can talk about. We can’t talk about, in a sense, vermin or oil. It’s this dumpster. MR. SALVADOR-Right, that’s what comes. Go look at the dumpster. MR. STONE-The point is, is the dumpster legally on that property. That’s what Mr. Round has said it is. He can do that. That’s what I heard, and I’m not saying, you know, we’ll listen, but that’s what he said. That’s what we’re talking about. It’s a very narrow issue. I mean, we had 60 people in this room, a couple of months ago, and they talk, but we were still dealing with a very narrow issue. Was Mr. Round right or was Mr. Round wrong? MR. SALVADOR-We’ll deal with that issue, okay, and I can tell you that having participated in the last site plan review on this project, solid waste never, never came into question. There were, we were talking about the things they would be allowed to do. We even got into things like whether or not they could park employees cars there. MR. STONE-Okay, but you’re saying right now you have not made your public hearing statement, yet. What you said tonight is not what you’re going to say when we actually have the public hearing? When we continue the public hearing? MR. SALVADOR-I don’t know that. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. STONE-Well, you’re saying things now that are different than what you said before we got into this point. You’re not changing your point. I’m not saying you’re changing your point, but you did not discuss what was said in the previous site plan. I mean, you didn’t get into a word by word. MR. SALVADOR-If we’re going to make a determination as to whether or not what’s going on on that site is legal or illegal, then we have got to go back to the point of departure, which are the previous site plans. MR. STONE-Fine, and we have that. We’ve been given that information. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. There was no talk of storing commercial waste, maintaining a dumpster there. None whatsoever. They were keeping oil barrels up there and throwing trash on the ground, and the DEC forced them to clean it up. That was a part of the previous one, and Chris mentioned that’s on the record. MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Salvador, is it your position that the storage of any garbage, in any container on that site, is prohibited? However incidental to the use of that property? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, because the site plan addressed very narrow and few allowable uses in a residential zone. MR. MC NALLY-I understand your position, sir. You’re saying that they can’t store garbage at any time under any circumstances on that entire property? And even garbage generated by their own business? They can’t store that there because it wasn’t specifically expressly permitted by the site plan approval? That’s what your position is? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying, that’s all. JOHN SCHRINER MR. SCHRINER-My name is John Schriner. I’d like to get into what Mr. Stone said here a minute ago. You have to bear with me. I can’t think fast like I used to be able to, but you just mentioned we’re here to determine whether this man made the right decision or not, and it kind of bothers me, this letter that Roger Howard sent. What can he say, if he was here, or what can I say if he was here, that’s going to make any difference of whether or not this is legal to have this dumpster up there? I don’t understand that. MR. HAYES-Well, it’s your right as a citizen to express your viewpoint. I guess that’s the point of a public hearing. Whatever your viewpoint is. MR. SCHRINER-See, the one thing that bothers me about this dumpster up there, anything that’s in that dumpster is not made from up in that storage facility. It’s all trucked up from the marina, and taken up there, and what I have to put up with is the dust of 42 customers, if they want to go up there and put their garbage into the dumpster, and I went over to the Park Commission and I asked them when the dumpster was first moved, when they first came up in April, because it was moved through the wintertime some time. I asked them, what do they do about these customers, and they said, he has to have a place for them to dump their refuse, their garbage, whatever they bring in from their boat. So I said, how far away do they have to go, and Molly told me, she got out the book, she said, there is no measurement, and I said, you mean to tell me he can have a dumpster five miles away and that’ll pass your rules to be a marina? And she said, I guess so. I mean, this is kind of stupidity, as far as I’m concerned, but I mean, that’s the way it’s written up. There is no measurement, but like I say, I've got to put up with the dust of 42 people, some of them come in and night, and that has always been chained up up there, but the last few weeks, for some reason, it hasn’t been chained anymore. I don’t know the answer to that. MR. STONE-You’ve already added information that is of interest to me. So don’t say that the public hearing isn’t worthwhile. Mr. Howard can add similar information. It may be contrary to what you say. So he can add. You’ve made some statements which I find of concern. MR. SCHRINER-That’s only a statement that is my feeling about it. MR. STONE-No, no. I’m not objecting to what you said. I’m concerned by the fact that you stated it. MR. SCHRINER-What has my feeling, or what I say, the dust and everything that I have to put up with, what has that got to do with whether or not it is legal to bring garbage from someplace else and put it up on that facility? What’s that got to do with it? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. STONE-Sir, I am not arguing with you. I’m agreeing with you. MR. SCHRINER-I’m asking a question. MR. STONE-I’m agreeing with you. I’m hearing, and I did not know this, and I don’t know whether the Board did. I’m hearing that individual boat owners bring their garbage up to this dumpster. I was unaware of that. It’s of interest to me. How I handle it we’ll determine as we go through this process. I hear that. MR. SCHRINER-Let me straighten you out on one point. Excuse me. I didn’t say that they are doing it. I’m saying that they can do it. This is their option. Roger has no containers down at the docks down there. If a guy comes in with his boat and he’s got a bunch of garbage, and there’s no place to put it down there, he either throws it on the road, or he gets in his car and he takes it up to the dumpster, which is there for his use. MR. STONE-You said that they do this. Do they or don’t they? MR. SALVADOR-They have the option. MR. SCHRINER-They have the option to do this. MR. MC NALLY-I have the option of dumping my household garbage in that dumpster, but I never have. Do you do that? MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. You do not have that option. MR. MC NALLY-If I wanted to, I bet you I could. MR. SALVADOR-Wait a minute. That’s a private right-of-way. Don’t let me catch you on that private right-of-way. MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Salvador, my point is are they doing it? Not that they can do it, not that they might do it. Are they doing it? MR. SCHRINER-I've seen cars go up there. I didn’t follow the cars up to see what they took out of them. I didn’t do this. MR. MC NALLY-So do you know that that in fact is what is happening, or this is what you surmise? MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Howard, as a result of having a Lake George Park Commission Marina Permit, must provide his customers, his docking customers, with refuse disposal facilities. That’s a requirement. You’ve got to have it. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Now, if you have to have it, the presumption is the people are going to use it. MR. STONE-Again, we’re off the topic a little bit, but it’s of interest to me, in determining whether or not the site plan is flawed, as you indicate that it is, and this is not on the table at the moment, but it is of interest, that I would have assumed, you know what assume means, make an ass of u and me, but I would have assumed that this dumpster was only accessed by employees of the Dunham’s Bay Boat Company. That’s what I would have assumed. Those are the kind of questions we can ask, but we still have a very narrow point. MR. SALVADOR-And by the way, that dumpster must be periodically dumped. MR. STONE-I would assume so. MR. SALVADOR-A big, big truck has to go up that road, okay, early in the morning, in a residential neighborhood. Now small trucks don’t go into commercial businesses and pick up trash. They’re big babies. We know. We know what we have to go through to make sure the guy doesn’t come in seven o’clock in the morning, okay. We know what it’s like, but I’ll tell you where he does go seven o’clock in the morning, right by Mr. Schriner’s door. MR. STONE-The question still is, is the dumpster on that property allowed? That’s still the question. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. SALVADOR-For all of the reasons we’re talking about, for all of the reasons. If Mr. Howard were to go to site plan, site plan review, for a permit to have that dumpster there, for all of these reasons, it would fail. The site is not suitable. It simply is not suitable. It does not fit the purpose. MR. MC NALLY-You keep saying residential. Do you agree that this is a Land Conservation zone? MR. SALVADOR-I do not agree with that. That’s a flaw. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and how would you characterize the zoning in this area, other than as residential? What zone do you think it’s in? MR. SALVADOR-Moderate intensity, three acre. MR. MC NALLY-“M”? Okay. MR. SALVADOR-That’s clear to me from that map. MRS. SALVADOR-May I just say one more thing? I think it’s my impression that when someone goes for site plan review and all that some of these are very, very limited as to what they can do, and I believe this one was very limited, if you do read the record that’s before you. It was very limited. There were to be no boat sales up there, just boat storage for so many boats, inside, very, very limited site plan. MR. SALVADOR-You see, what my wife is referring to is the original special use permit that the Boat Company got to site a boat storage facility in a residential zone, and it was residential then, okay. It was an R-4 zone. That was back in 1973, ’72, ’73, a special use permit. MR. SCHRINER-It was to be winter storage, too. MR. SALVADOR-And the spirit, and the neighbors came up with petitions, everything. There was great concern for this, okay, and it was allowed, because the spirit and intent of the storage was the boats go up in October and they come down in May, and in the meantime, nothing. Okay. Mr. Schriner and his predecessor had no objection to that. They use their facility June through September, and they can enjoy the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood. That was the spirit and intent of that special use permit, and it was violated from Day One. Day One it was in violation, and then we got into the site plan. That was a charade. I’m telling you, it was a charade. MR. MC NALLY-That was the 1990 site plan? MR. SALVADOR-The 1990 one. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, that’s what we have to determine, whether or not it’s in fact an allowed use as Mr. Round says it is. MR. SALVADOR-Bear in mind, very, very narrow scope of use. People were very concerned. We're talking about residential neighborhood in North Queensbury, okay. High rent district, okay. The public hearing will remain open? MR. THOMAS-I haven’t opened it yet. I’ll open the public hearing, just as a matter of record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll ask if there’s anybody that would like to speak in favor of this, or has any opinion on this appeal? I guess not, so the public hearing will remain open for the September meeting, okay. Unless you want us to go on with it now. MR. SALVADOR-Well, Mr. Howard has asked you. It’s up to him. MR. MC NALLY-This effects his property, and as much as we may be able to decide it, I think we should keep it open. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That’s what we’ll do then. MR. SALVADOR-But remember, as I told you the last time, it took over a year, over a year, in and out of these meetings. MR. THOMAS-I can tell you exactly how long it took. MR. MC NALLY-It’s not going to take that long this time. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. THOMAS-You betcha. It started on 5/14/90, and the resolution was made on 27 November ’90. May 14 to November 27, 1990. Okay. I don’t need any motion on that one, to keep it open. thth AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA CHARLES GRAVES OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 16 ELM DRIVE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 128 SQ. FT. DECK ADDITION AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. TAX MAP NO. 43-2-5 LOT SIZE: 0.13 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60, 179-79 CHARLES GRAVES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 82-1999, Charles Graves, Meeting Date: August 25, 1999 “Project Location: 16 Elm Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 128 sq. ft. deck addition and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7 feet of relief from the 12 foot minimum side setback requirement and 33 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Simultaneous relief from the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60 is also requested. Further relief is requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to expand an existing deck. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited given the existing position of the house and decks. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 7 feet of relief from the 12 foot side requirement and 33 feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 69-93 res. 8/25/93 construction of a single family residence. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The letter submitted with the application has noted neighborhood support. Apparently, the construction of the deck is an effort to utilize an otherwise unusable area on the property. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay, and nothing from the County? MR. STEC-Nothing from the County. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Graves? MR. GRAVES-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to give us a little scenario of what happened? MR. GRAVES-Well, I went ahead, not knowing that I needed a variance, but I only have, it’s an eight by sixteen deck, and it’s built right next to another existing deck, and when it’s done, it will come out the same as the one right next to it. The same length, same everything. It’s a small thing and it’s a deck. It’s not a living area. It has no effect on the neighbors, and I didn’t know that I needed a building permit or a variance. It’s a small thing, and it’s going to be brought out just equal with the other deck that’s already there. It’s not going to extend out further or anything like that. I didn’t know I needed this stuff. So somebody must have gone by in a boat and figured I needed something. Because they made a call to Craig here I guess or somebody. So I went ahead and I've got it probably 60% done, and why I’m doing it, the gentleman that came over and looked at it, I wanted to make sure that I was there so I could explain to him why I’m doing it. If you go by the house in a boat on the lake, you look at that and it looks like a gravel pit. It’s nothing but rock and sand, not even sand, just dirt. I mean, it’s so old it’s just dust, and you can’t get a shovel full out of it. You have to use a pick ax. I mean, it’s an awful eyesore. You cannot grow anything on it or anything. I mean, weeds don’t even want to grow on it. So what I’m doing is I’m bringing this deck out to equal the other deck, and I’m putting lattice work down the front of it, to hide that bank. That’s all I’m trying to do is hide the existing rock pile and gravel pit that’s there, and it’s level below the deck, and I’m putting, I've got one side where the other deck was, it’s been there for years, and I’m putting topsoil in there and flowerbeds. I wanted to do the same on the other side, hide the other side, the same as the one that’s there, to put topsoil, put lattice work up to hide that, and put flowerbeds there, too. I want to improve the looks of the house. MR. STONE-Mr. Graves, let me make a statement. You did call me. I assume you called all the members of the Board. I apologize. I was going by and I said, I better look at this property, because I was going by and I didn’t get a chance to call you. My note was buried in my file here. So I didn’t call, but I did look at the property. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. GRAVES-I asked downstairs here when I came over, and I asked Craig, they said, well, you’ve got a right to call these people. I didn’t want to call anybody, because I don’t like to bother people, but then somebody else told me, and then I got thinking, if I bring you Board members over there and showed you what I was doing and why I was going it, they might understand it a little bit better. MR. STONE-Well, we all always go, we always try to go and look at every property. MR. GRAVES-Well, I wanted to make sure I was there. That’s why I called, because I wanted to make sure I was there so I could explain it, why I was doing it. That’s it, I guess. I’m just trying to cover up an eyesore. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have anymore questions for Mr. Graves? MR. STONE-I do have a question. The upper balcony, was that approved at the last, with the site plan? MR. GRAVES-The upper balcony on the house? Yes. MR. STONE-That was approved on the original site plan? MR. BROWN-Yes. I’m assuming it was part of the original building permit. MR. GRAVES-It was right in the original. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. GRAVES-Those supports coming off the upper deck there, coming off the bedroom, they go way back, I don’t know how many feet, but they go way back into the living room, because when they did construct it, they didn’t want, they wanted poles on the outside on each corner. MR. STONE-So it’s cantilevered from the inside, in other words? MR. GRAVES-From the inside, right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. If there’s no other questions for Mr. Graves, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR STEC-Yes. I have. I’ll start with August 3, 1999, “I, Marie Miller, do not have any problem with Charles Graves building a deck close to the property line. Marie Miller P.S. I do want to know the name of the person who complained. Please phone.” MR. GRAVES-Marie, I forget who I told today. They did have, when I started it, I had the four by four beams in the front of it. I had them all cemented in and everything, and she called me over one day, and she asked if I would move it, because it was blocking her view down the lake. So what I did, I went out and I moved it from the original. I wanted it five more feet toward their property. MR. HAYES-You told me that today, yes. MR. GRAVES-So I did move it for them. I moved it back in five foot so they would get a better view of the lake. I really wanted it bigger than it is, but they asked me to move it, so I moved it. MR. STONE-How long have you owned the house? MR. GRAVES-I built it in ’93, I believe. MR. STONE-You built it? There was nothing there? MR. GRAVES-No. There was a camp, an old camp there. MR. STONE-You tore that down? MR. GRAVES-We tore the camp down. MR. STONE-And that was the Area Variance you got then to build new? 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. STEC-Six years ago today. MR. MC NALLY-That was your folks camp? MR. GRAVES-My parents property, it was left to me. MR. MC NALLY-How long had they owned it? They owned it for a number of years? MR. GRAVES-Since I would say around ’53, ’54. The old camp that was there, there was no shower in it, no, I mean, it was just. MR. STONE-It was a camp. MR. GRAVES-It was a camp. MR. STEC-I have an undated letter, “Charles’ dad Ed was a good friend and fishing buddy of my grandfather Albert Vanderwalker. Some of my fondest memories were from those times I spent here as a kid. This deck will make his new home much more safe and attractive for our area. I do not in any way object to my next door neighbor completing his home. Albert Story” I have a letter dated August 25, 1999, from Larry Zemanek, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Attention: Bonnie Lapham, Secretary, reference Area Variance No. 82-1999 Charles Graves, “As a neighbor of Charles R. Graves on Glen Lake, I wish to express my support of his deck addition. I hope that the Zoning Board of Appeals grants this variance request. Mr. Graves has done an outstanding job in approving his property along the lake. I believe he has actually improved the conditions along the shoreline from an environmentalist standpoint, by the fact that he has stabilized the shoreline banks which will result in less erosion and silting of Glen Lake. Sincerely, Larry Zemanek” August 23, 1999, attention: Bonnie Lapham, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals, re: Area Variance No. 82- 1999, “We have no objections for Charles Graves to construct a 128 square foot deck addition and to have the Zoning Board of Appeals grant setback relief for the structure. We feel the structure will not have a harmful impact on the environment and the area and therefore the variance be granted. Very truly yours, C. Roger Gilbert and Susan A. Gilbert” And I have a letter dated August 25, 1999, Town of Queensbury Planning Board “This is to advise that John and Diane Brown have no objection to Charles Graves building a deck on his lakefront property. We live three houses from Charles. John and Diane Brown, 16 Fernwood Road, Lake George, NY” And that’s all the correspondence. MR. THOMAS-That does it? MR. STEC-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? All right. Lets talk about it. Jaime. MR. HAYES-Well, I guess we all have concerns for protection of the Critical Environmental Area and the important lakes that we have within our zoning area. So in this particular case, having to deal with a precedent issue, in my mind, versus after visiting the site appears to be the logical conclusion of this individual or unique property, in my mind putting a deck over to the opposite of that one being split by the stairwell going down the middle seems to be a fairly logical thing to do in my mind, or what might come to mind if you look at the property from the lake. Why wasn’t there a deck on the other side, but we have to balance that out with the idea that granting substantial relief in the Critical Environmental Areas is a precedent and danger for that reason. In this particular case, I think we’re Board to look at things on a case by case basis, and considering the strong neighborhood support and the fact that the 128 square foot deck, in my mind, is a small project, I think that the relief, while moderate to substantial, does not have a negative impact on the neighborhood or community in this particular case, on a case by case basis, and therefore I believe that the fact that the applicant is trying to beautify the property, trying to maintain it in a lot that has a unique nature and it is difficult to do so, I think I could go along with this on a case by case basis. I think in this particular case the benefits to the applicant outweigh any negative, if any, impact on the neighborhood. So I guess I’m okay with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Certainly it would be a benefit to the applicant that they could use a slope that has been barren and unusable for a period of time. I was disturbed, in one sense, though, because this slope’s been there since ’93, and there was no deck over it. People have done it pretty well. You survived on that lot no problem, and I suspect that slope’s been there since the ’50’s when your folks 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) originally owned the property, too. The land between the house and the lake is the land that people want to use and live in and play in, because that’s the most accessible to the lake, and I don’t know how many times I've seen people want to deck the entire front of their house, go down to the water. It’s just the way it happens to be. Jaime’s point, though, that it would symmetrically balance the existing deck is well taken, though. If you’ve got a deck on one side, we can’t do anything about that. That’s a pre-existing structure. MR. GRAVES-I couldn’t tell you when that one was put up, I mean, years ago. MR. MC NALLY-And it does make sense that you would compliment it on the other side with a deck of the same area, and the same screening in the front, all right. So I’m torn betwix and between, to be honest with you. If you tried to put a new deck on both sides of that stairway today, I would tell you no, no question I would tell you no, because there’s not enough frontage between there and the lake within the shoreline setback. With the existing one, I’m torn. I want to hear what the other Board members have to say. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-In this case, it strikes me as logical putting the deck on where it is. I think as the applicant points out, what exists underneath the deck, the property is unusable, unsightly. At the same time, I hear what Bob is saying, and he’s probably right. I think I would go the same way. If there were no deck there, I would probably not approve the deck, but given that there is some decking there, this kind of completes the project, and I think improves the appearance. I’m inclined to say yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-Well, I think the benefit to the applicant here, this really strikes me. I think that the addition of the deck actually improves both the aesthetics and the safety of the site, given the steep slope and the nature of the hard pan that exists there. I think that this makes access to the lake safer for the would be traveler going down to the dock. It does balance it out nicely, and what really strikes me is that, considering the relief sought is substantial, it’s mitigated by the fact that it’s balanced by a pre-existing deck of equal size, but for me, it’s only 128 square feet, which is comparatively small. It’s not fenced. It’s not covered. It’s merely a flooring. It’s six inches above the ground, with a very small bench area around it. It impacts no one’s view. It just basically gives a level standing area. So essentially a floor with a bench that goes around it, I think is a modest structure to add, and again you note the community support, or the neighbors have no problem with it. I don’t have any problem with granting it at all, actually. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I’m concerned with the original granting, the original variance. I’m concerned that there were no environmental comments made at all in the motion, and I would like to think that if we were discussing that project today, we’d at least talk about it, as we have earlier this evening, and some of the other things that have come up, in other words, the impact upon the lake. All I hear is the impact upon the rest of the parcels, and I’m disturbed by that, but, having said that, and I felt I had to say that, I agree that this, in a sense, if you were putting a whole new deck in, no, there’s no way I would approve that, but in a sense, you are completing the job for which you were granted permission six years ago, and I would reluctantly vote yes, even though I think the original project could have been done so much better from an environmental standpoint, from a protecting Glen Lake standpoint, not thinking just about your needs and your neighbor’s needs and wants and all that sort of thing, but again, having said that, I can’t do anything about that, and I do think that this is not going to encroach any more than the other half of the deck. You already have the steps going down. In one sense it may make it more attractive from the lake, as you stated. So I would reluctantly say yes, even though when I originally looked at it, I thought the original relief was much too much, but that I can’t do anything about. So I’ll vote yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the other Board members. This is really the only logical thing to do, to not only cover up something that’s ugly, the cobbles and dirt that’s in there, but also to keep the water from washing it down into the lake. Knowing the area as I do, that that stuff will run right down in the lake, even in a modest rainfall. So what I’m seeing here is that Mr. Graves wants to keep the dirt from running into the lake, as stormwater management is now a big thing with the County. So, to me, that’s really the only way he can do it is cover it up, and stop that water from running down it. Having said that. MR. STONE-Well, this is going to be an open deck though, right? The water is going to. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but it won’t be coming down. MR. STONE-Not as hard. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. THOMAS-Not as hard. MR. GRAVES-There is, on the existing deck that’s there now, I put that latticework up on that, and there is sand and stone is falling down onto that already. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-1999 CHARLES GRAVES, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 16 Elm Drive. Applicant has constructed a 128 square foot deck addition and seeks setback relief. Specifically, the applicant requests seven feet of relief from the 12 foot minimum side setback requirement, and 33 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Simultaneous relief from the Shoreline and Wetlands regulations, Section 179-60, is also requested. Further relief is requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, per Section 179-79. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to expand and, in my mind, match the existing deck next door. Feasible alternatives, I believe that the feasible alternatives are limited, based on the present location of the house and the other deck and the lake, of course. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that the relief is relatively substantial to the Ordinance, not so much the seven feet of side setback relief, but certainly the 33 feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline requirement would be definitely substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that there will be no or minimal effects on the neighborhood or community. In fact, the finishing of the deck may aid in preventing erosion into to the lake, and I believe the finishing of the deck, as so described, will provide aesthetic improvement from the lake, visually. Is the difficulty self-created? I think it is self-created because he’s looking to improve his property, but the deck, he decided to put it in. On balance, I believe, therefore, that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any other impacts in this particular case, and I move for its approval. Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. GRAVES-Thank you. What do I do now about a building permit? MR. THOMAS-Go downstairs there and get a building permit. MR. GRAVES-As I said, I didn’t know I needed all this. I've got a lot of it done. Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 23, 1999: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 23, 1999 AS PRINTED, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNally ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/25/99) MR. THOMAS-All right. Does anyone else have anything for the good of the Board? If not, I’ll make a motion we adjourn. MR. MC NALLY-Second. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 39