Loading...
1999-12-15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN LEWIS STONE PAUL HAYES CHARLES ABBATE CHARLES MC NULTY ROBERT MC NALLY MEMBERS ABSENT DANIEL STEC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-Before we start. I want to take this opportunity, with the largest crowd of the evening, because we dwindle down as the night goes on, to publicly thank Mr. Chris Thomas for all his work as the Chairman of the Zoning Board for Queensbury. I guess you’ve been on the Board for seven years, Chris? MR. THOMAS-A touch over seven. MR. STONE-A touch over seven, and this is his last meeting. He has declined to seek re- appointment, and he’s going to be missed, and I just wanted to thank him publicly for all he has done, both for the Zoning Board and certainly for the Town of Queensbury. As I say, he will be missed. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. All right. A little re-arrangement on the agenda here tonight. I want to pick up under the Old Business first. OLD BUSINESS: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1999 WR-1A CEA DR. ROBERT HUGHES CLAIR A HENSLER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE FITZGERALD ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN SUMMER COTTAGE ON PROPERTY WHILE CONSTRUCTING A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RELIEF FROM THE AREA REQUIREMENTS THAT ALLOW ONLY ONE DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE OF LAND. TAX MAP NO. 40-1-42, 43 LOT SIZE: 1.19 ACRES SECTION 179-16 MR. THOMAS-This is just a request for an extension of an approved application. There’s six of us now. Could you read that letter into the file there. MR. HAYES-Okay. We have a letter dated November 15, 1999, from Dr. Robert Hughes and Clair A. Hensler, 33 Garrison Road, Queensbury, NY, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, “Dear Board Members: Subject: Variance File Number: 8-1999 On February 17, you approved an area variance for our property on Mannis Road, Glen Lake. We would like you to extend this variance for another year. We feel it is inappropriate to go ahead with our project because we have not yet sold our primary residence on Garrison Road. Your approval to extend this variance, would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Clair A. Hensler” MR. THOMAS-All right. All the Board members have a copy of that letter, plus a copy of the record of resolution. Are there any of the Board members that feel that we should not extend this? Does anybody have a problem extending this for one year at the applicant’s request? MR. MC NALLY-I think we should extend it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Why don’t you make a motion, then. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MOTION TO EXTEND THE APPROVAL FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1999 DR. ROBERT HUGHES AND CLAIR A. HENSLER, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: For an additional one year. Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stec MR. THOMAS-So, one more year from today. That takes care of that one. OLD BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5-99 IRENE PATNODE LEO BRUCE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: CRONIN ROAD, TAX ID: 59-3-10 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IS APPEALING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION. ZBA WILL RE-HEAR APPLICATION. BRUCE CARR, LEO BRUCE, PRESENT MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Thomas, I’m excusing myself because of a potential conflict, and I’ll abstain from this. MR. THOMAS-Yes, sir. Read this memorandum in, to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. HAYES-Okay. I have a memorandum to the Zoning Board of Appeals, from Chris Round, Zoning Administrator, dated November 2, 1999, Notice of Appeal 5-99, Patnode and Bruce “I am requesting a re-hearing of the appeal of my determination (Appeal No. 5-99) brought by Patnode and Bruce (represented by Bruce Carr). My determination was (and is) that the keeping of horses is not allowed in the SFR-1A zone. Rehearing of appeals is explicitly provided for in Town Law Section 267(a). A unanimous vote by the Board is required to rehear the appeal. I am requesting you vote to rehear this issue due to the far reaching impacts of the ZBA’s decision. I am presenting a limited amount of information regarding my reasoning on this issue for your consideration. I will present additional information if you do indeed choose to rehear. A. Zoning Ordinance Allows Use in Other Zones The Town Zoning Ordinance identifies agricultural uses as allowed uses with site plan review in select zones throughout the Town. The LC-10A, LC-42A, RR-3A, RR-5A, SR-1A, SR-20, SR-15, zones allow agricultural use and farms and the RC-15, RC-3A allows for riding academy/livery stable. B. Use is contrary to purpose of zone. The SFR zone purpose indicates: “Single Family Residential Zones are established residential neighborhoods where the character is strictly single family detached residence on standardized lots. This character will be strictly reinforced and preserved through SFR zones” (underline for emphasis). The Agricultural use is a conflict with both the purpose of the zone and the permitted and allowed uses. C. Use Variance is the Appropriate Mechanism for Relief The property in question may be capable of supporting agricultural use. A Use Variance is the appropriate process to evaluate the hardship imposed by the Zoning Ordinance on a single property. A change in zone is an alternate method to achieve the applicant’s desired outcome. An interpretation that the agricultural use is an allowed use in the SFR zone has broad impacts. Consider the variety of housing in Queensbury and some of the SFR zoned areas. Because of this interpretation, is the agricultural use now allowed in all other zones given the SFR zone’s designation as the “strictest” zone? Please consider a rehearing of your decision.” MR. THOMAS-All right. Do you want to read the motion to re-hear in? MR. HAYES-Sure. Okay. Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Resolution, Motion to Rehear Notice of Appeal No. 5-99, Irene Patnode & Leo Bruce, Introduced by Christian Thomas, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: At the December 15, 1999 ZBA meeting, and that that Appeal No. 5-99, as requested by the Zoning Administrator, be first on the agenda on the first meeting in December. Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE Sincerely, Christian Thomas, Chairman, Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals” MR. THOMAS-All right. What I’m going to do, Bruce, is I’m going to let Chris go first, and then you can answer afterwards. Okay? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. CARR-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Round, it’s your show. MR. ROUND-This is rather unusual that we appeal the appeal of a Zoning Board determination, and I felt strongly about that because I thought your interpretation was extremely broad and was going to open up potential for some large impacts under the Zoning Ordinance, and I think you erred in your judgment. I’ll be frank with you. I read the meeting minutes, and from my reading of the meeting minutes, most of you discussed the hardship of the Zoning Ordinance on a particular property. That being the question, in reading the minutes, and you’ll have to interrupt me if I’m incorrect, is that most of you supported the decision that this is indeed an agricultural use. The keeping of horses is an agricultural use under our Zoning Ordinance by definition, if you look under Section 179-7. Agricultural uses are categorized in our Zoning Ordinance in select zones. They’re defined broadly in the definition, and they’re categorized as animal husbandry or agricultural use, riding stable, ag use or farm classifications, private greenhouses, as an agricultural use is an allowed accessory use in some of our residential zones. So agricultural use is an allowed use in select zones, and therefore it is permissible in those zones, and if you read the beginning of our zoning section, 179-12, it identifies permissible uses, and it indicates a use shall be permitted in a given zoning district if it is listed in the schedules or regulations hereof as a permissible use for that district, provided the other requirements of the Chapter are met, and it refers to site plan review process. It goes on to indicate non permissible uses, any use which is not a permissible right by use or by site plan review in a given district, or which is not an accessory use, shall be a non permissible use and shall be deemed prohibited in that zoning district. So when I review the Ordinance to make a determination on a particular use, first I look to the schedule of uses and see if it is indeed a listed use. There is some discretion because it’s impossible to be exhaustive in the listing of all potential land uses. So we use those as examples. Then we look to see if it is a listed use in other zones, to see if it has been identified as a use in the Zoning Ordinance in its entirety. In this case, agricultural use, keeping of horses, is an identified allowable use in select zones. It’s not identified in the SFR-1 Acre zone. Therefore, it’s a prohibited use in that zone. I noted in my memo to you previously, the SFR zone is our highest and strictest residential district within the Town. It is the most pristine residential district within the Town, and I don’t think that can be challenged. Hardship imposed on a single property, on the Zoning Ordinance, hardship imposed by the Zoning Ordinance on a single property is subject to relief by the Zoning Board. The mechanism for granting relief of hardship imposed by the Zoning Ordinance is the variance process. So if we find that a particular zone doesn’t allow a use, and a particular applicant would like to conduct that use in the zone, we go through the Use Variance process, and we’ve done that. You regularly see Use Variances. If the strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance doesn’t allow for a particular structure to be placed in a particular location, because the property is too small or has wetlands on it, we go to the Area Variance process. So those are the mechanisms, and those are defined by New York State Town Law, as to the process by which an applicant seeks relief from the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Board doesn’t re-write the Ordinance. That’s clear in case law throughout New York State. In closing, what we do is consult, there’s professional reference material out there, and one of the professional references in New York State is Anderson’s New York State Zoning Law and Practice, and they speak specifically to the processes, as I’ve talked to you about, and that’s substantiated in there. They also mention agricultural use, and it’s interesting to note, ag uses are important. They identify that, and it’s important to our development here in Queensbury. There’s a long history of agricultural use. Most Zoning Ordinances, Anderson notes, allow agricultural uses in residential zones. However, they include narrow definitions of farms to include permitted, when agricultural uses are allowed in residential zones, they have a very narrow use, and that’s typically to, when farms are allowed in residential districts, the narrow definition includes it’s primarily concerned with the raising of crops. It’s not keeping of large animals. Because what they try to do is when you craft an Ordinance and you look at what the allowed uses are, you try to narrow those uses so that those uses will not be in conflict with the other uses that are allowed in the zones. In this case keeping of large animals in residential zones is in conflict with the primary use in that zone, and that’s single family home. Again, whether a particular property, if it’s 10 acres, 15 acres, is capable of carrying horses or supporting horses is not the question here. It’s not the question whether this particular property that we’re talking about tonight can have horses on it or whether that has a negative impact on the neighbors or not, that is not the point. The point is, is this an allowed use in the zone, in the SFR zone, it clearly is not, and an interpretation otherwise has not been made by my office. This is a consistent interpretation that we have offered to other individuals in similar circumstances. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them for you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions? I have one. Do you know how many SFR lots there are in the Town of Queensbury that are over one acre? MR. ROUND-I don’t have that information. If you wanted to see what the impact of that was and where those zones are, that’s doable. I can readily provide you with that information. MR. THOMAS-But you can’t do it right now. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. ROUND-No, I can’t. MR. CARR-Mr. Thomas, I’ve looked that up. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, are there any other questions for Mr. Round before Mr. Carr gets up here? MR. STONE-Not at this time. MR. THOMAS-Okay, Mr. Carr? MR. CARR-Good evening. My name is Bruce Carr, representing Miss Patnode and Mr. Bruce. I disagree strongly with what Chris has interpreted this Zoning Ordinance to mean. He says that there’s broad, far reaching impacts of this decision, and I agree with him. The problem is I think if you overturn your decision from October, the broad, far reaching impacts are going to be more devastating to the Zoning Ordinance and to this Code than leaving it as you have. Our main point, back in October, was that this was not a commercial operation, and that the agricultural use, as defined by your Code, deals more with commercial operations, and we ask for a practical interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, and I think that’s what you gave us back in October. Now to just prove my point, if you apply the definition of agricultural use, and it says an agricultural use is not allowed in an SFR-1 Acre zone, you are not going to allow gardens. You are not going to allow flowers. You are not going to allow the trimming of hedges, and that is all under your definition. Because agricultural use includes horticulture. Horticulture is defined growing of flowers and pruning of trees. Is that really where you want to go with this definitional interpretation, that people within districts, within Single Family Residential districts, are not allowed to trim their hedges, plant flowers, have a little tomato garden, and that’s where you have to go if you side with Mr. Round’s determination. If you don’t, then it becomes selective enforcement. Also, if you look under the farm classification, which he keeps trying to throw us into, and we do not fit into any of the definition of farm. If you look under that section, bear with me just a minute, Class B Farm Hobby, okay, any parcel of land less than five acres. You’re going to have most of the residential developments in this Town, used for the raising of agricultural products, which has been defined as horticulture, or keeping of large or small mammals, for personal use or pleasure, and being incidental to residential use. That’s everyone’s flower gardens. That’s everyone’s little tomato gardens, every one of those are a Class D Farm, by your definition under your Zoning Ordinance. That’s not what is meant by agricultural use. You’re looking more at large scale commercial operation. You came to that determination back in October, and I believe you had the proper interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, that under Sub Section D, where you talk about the raising of horses and ponies specifically, then you look at the acreage, and that could be maintained anywhere in the Town of Queensbury. To put us under the agricultural use definition, okay, of the Ordinance, will lead to an enforcement nightmare for their office, because if you put horses there, you have to put every other agricultural use, which includes all those minor uses I just described here. Your interpretation was correct back then, that if you’ve got the proper acreage, you can maintain a horse or a pony. It’s limited. That is a narrow definition. It is not a broad, far reaching impact that Chris has indicated would happen here. You asked how many parcels. I’ve got the tax map book, and I counted about 50 to 60 parcels, in Single Family Residential zones, which have the proper acreage to have horses. Many of those are large parcels that are probably subject to the development, but if you look in developments such as Bedford Close, or Twicwood or near where I live up in Westland, okay, there’s not going to be horse farms cropping up there because each of those have individual covenants within the deed, and if you look at the covenants, most of them say there are no farm animals allowed within those developments, and that’s where the majority of single family residential zones are, is within these developments. I think you’ve got to also weigh, I mean, what are the options here? Chris says we can go for a variance. He knows full well we can’t. LEO BRUCE MR. BRUCE-This Board told us we wouldn’t be able to do that. MR. CARR-Yes, you told us, too. He knows we’re never going to get a Use Variance. We don’t have the financial hardship, but our option is then to put approximately 20 homes there, tear down the trees, take down the fences, take the meadowlands and make a home, and I’m not sure that’s really where you want to go. Your interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance back in October was very narrow. It was narrow. It was saying, if you’ve got the acreage, you can have the horses. Because there aren’t that many lots within the Town that you’re going to have that acreage. I would urge you to not overturn your decision of October, but to uphold what you’ve decided previously as the correct interpretation of this Ordinance. Also, let me bring it up. You had asked had we relied on your interpretation from October, which there is a provision within the re-hearing under 267, I think, of the Town Law, to take into consideration our reliance. We had a contractor lined up to rehab the stables, re-wire. He was told to hold off because of the October meeting. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. BRUCE-I actually had it scheduled prior to the October meeting, on their schedule, and stopped because I’d put enough money in relation to the horses directly into the property, that I couldn’t run the risk of putting anymore, and he said that that was fine. He was looking at four or five days work he could do on cold days, and to let him know when I was ready. The day after I was here, and all of you voted unanimously in my favor, I called him. The day after that he started the work and in four days completed the work, and it’s just over $7,000, as a result of your decision that I’ve now put inside my barn. Not what I’ve done on the outside of the barn. MR. CARR-So there was some reliance here, as well, on your determination, which is a factor to be considered on any re-hearing. There are a lot of people here. I don’t want to take up your time. There are a lot of people here who are in support of allowing the horses to remain where they are, but I will answer any specific questions you may have. MR. THOMAS-Any questions for Mr. Carr? MR. ABBATE-Yes. I have a couple of thoughts. Good evening, Mr. Bruce. Counsel, if I’ve read your assertion argument once, I must have read it at least 20 times, and Counsel for the Appellants does present a very persuasive argument. However, in my opinion, it’s not very compelling. If you will please indulge me, I would like to offer my rationale, which will be in opposition to you. Now you mention the law. If we have any devotion to the rule of law, we must deal in facts, facts equal truth. Fact Number One: The property listed as Tax ID 59-3-10 is inescapably cataloged as Single Family Residential One A zone. If we proceed with this fact, then the reasonable person will concur that “the keeping of horses is not allowed in the SFR-1A zone”. If in fact “we’ve got a very poorly written Zoning Ordinance and no question it’s flawed”, then the ZBA, by the very nature of this inadequacy must support the position of the Zoning Administrator, in strictly interpreting “the keeping of horses is not allowed in SFR-1A zone”. To insist that a Zoning Ordinance is flawed or poorly written, and based on that assumption, issue a decision contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance is, in my opinion, the ZBA imposes itself on zoning, and the ZBA has no legislative power to alter current Zoning Ordinances. If, in fact, a Zoning Ordinance is flawed, it is the sole function of the Town Board, and appropriate departments, to review, and if necessary re-write or modify the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in question. The ZBA “has no power to set aside a law on the grounds that its terms are arbitrary, unreasonable or constitutional”. To uphold the appeal of the Appellant could be construed as an oblique approach into legislative functions. Paragraph 179-20, Single Family Residential zones, SFR-10, SFR-20, and SFR-1A, zoning from the Town of Queensbury, as written, sets forth unequivocally and in specific terms, permitted uses in SFR-1A. Other than stipulated, there are no provisions for any other use. One, the Appellant seeks a determination as to the applicability of Sections 179-63A, to SFR-1A, Tax ID 59-3-10, A, Section 179-63A, Agricultural Use, Section 179-63A is cited in Sections 179-19, Suburban Residential zones, SR-1A, SR-20, SR-15, LC-42A, LC-10A, RR-3A, RR-5A. B. There are no provisions in this Section applicable to SFR-1A zones. 2. The Appellant seeks an interpretation of Section 179-63D, as it relates to the subject parcel. A. Section 179-63A and 179-63D are conspicuously absent in reference to SFR-1A. Reciprocally, Section 179-20 is conspicuously absent in references to Section 179-63A and 179-63D. Section 179-11, Zoning Districts Enumerated, “The Zoning Districts established by this Chapter, subject to future amendment, including an aggregate of all the area of the Town are and shall be as follows”. Section 179-11 “Are and shall be as follows”, is implicit in that the intent is to distinguish one zoning district from another. It is my opinion that there is no intent to allow negotiable co-mingling of one zoning district with another, and as such prohibits individual judgment or discretion to do so. Based on the irrefutable fact that it is the intent of SFR-1A to preserve the “Single Family Residential zones where the character is strictly Single Family detached residences” the request of the applicant should be denied. While it is noted that several neighbors do not object to the request of the Appellants, the laws of any entity cannot be modified by virtue of several citizens do not object. The impact of such reasoning would be devastating to the entire concept and intent of any ordinance of law. I submit that to approve the applicant’s request may very well set a dangerous, irreversible legal precedence for the modification of all SFR-1A designation. The ZBA would be shackled to approve similar modification of all residents in the SFR-1A zone who have a propensity for horses. Each resident in SFR-1A zone would be in a position to advance the same arguments as the Appellants. To disprove any similar requests in the SFR-1A zone, I suspect, will promote speculation as to discriminatory practices by the ZBA which are arbitrary and capricious. There are two compelling questions that must be addressed. One, is the property located on Cronin Road, Tax ID 59-3-10 zoned as SFR-1A, and Two, is there a direct or peripheral intent of SFR-1A zoning to allow three or more horses? I close my argument. MR. CARR-Mr. Abbate, can I ask you a couple of questions? Who are you quoting? May I ask? Just in general. MR. ABBATE-Most of the quotes I have are from the law. MR. BRUCE-What was the question? That’s my question. You said. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. ABBATE-I guess, let me put it this way. I believe your appeal should be denied, and I think this Board was in error. MR. CARR-Okay. Let me ask another question. You say that, you’re talking about 179-63A, as being specifically referenced, and that D is not referenced in the SF, this is where horses and ponies are allowed. Can you show me one zone where it is specifically referenced? MR. ABBATE-My comments are based upon, and I’ll give you a specific example here, which I think sets the precedence for it all. The Board made its decision based on the fact that the Ordinance as written is poorly written and there’s no question that it’s flawed. Now there is a precedence for that, it’s Cherry vs. Bramblaugh 255 Appellant Division 880, which makes it quite clear, very clear in fact, that in spite of the fact that an ordinance may be flawed, and as a matter of fact it may be even unconstitutional, the ZBA has no power to set that aside, none whatsoever. That is a legislative function. MR. BRUCE-But what about translation? This Board translated the information. They didn’t state case law. MR. ABBATE-I’m stating case law. MR. BRUCE-I know you are, but this isn’t the place for case law. MR. CARR-Excuse me for just a minute. If you want to get into case law, then you’re premise that you have to uphold the Zoning Administrator if it’s flawed is wrong. You’re taking away property rights of people, and that if it’s a flawed Ordinance, then it goes against the Town and in favor of the applicant. That is case law. If you really want to get into case law, we can do it, but we’re asking for. MR. STONE-I have not had this discussion with anybody, but let me just tell you that I’ve changed my mind, and I’ll tell you why I’ve changed my mind. I think I was very proud of myself. MR. ABBATE-Wait a minute, we’re getting ahead of ourselves here. MR. STONE-You want the public hearing. MR. CARR-Yes. I want the public to speak, because I want them to hear. MR. THOMAS-All right. Have you got anything to say, Chris, after Mr. Carr? MR. ROUND-I think 179-63 is a supplemental regulation defining agricultural uses. Those are referenced specifically in specific zones. RR-3A says agricultural use and farms, See Supplemental Res, 179-63 for Farm classifications. That reference is not there in the SFR zone. Also, Mr. Carr’s assertion that the Farm classifications, A, B, C, D is going to apply all uses, and that hedge clipping and gardening is not going to be allowed in an SFR zone. That has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here tonight. MR. CARR-It has everything to do. MR. ROUND-Pardon me. Incidental agricultural uses to an allowed use is a permissible use. Farming and the raising of crops and tomatoes is something that we allow today, and it’s not a discretionary enforcement. MR. CARR-How do you get around it? MR. ROUND-It’s allowed in an SFR-1A zone. It says right here. MR. CARR-Under where? MR. ROUND-Allowed Accessory Uses. MR. CARR-No, no. MR. ROUND-I’m the Zoning Administrator. I’m making an interpretation that we’ve made it for years and years and years. We haven’t gone out prosecuted people to say that they can’t clip their hedges. That ridiculous. You have to exercise discretion in interpreting the Zoning Ordinance, and when there’s a question, I make a determination, and if somebody disagrees with me, we’re here, and we talk about it. That’s the case, and for him to talk about, that that’s going to happen, it’s ludicrous. It’s not going to happen. It hasn’t happened in the 30 years that zoning’s been here. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. CARR-That’s my point exactly. It’s not happening, because it’s selectively being enforced, which is illegal. MR. BRUCE-I have one more question. Back to my original feelings of the whole thing, is the grandfather situation. If horses are agriculture, and harvesting, I mean, hay has been grown and harvested from that property without fail, always. There were fences there. The horse farm was there. The taxes didn’t change when the zoning changed. The only thing that was absent was the animals. I mean, somewhere in the communications over there, there is a letter from the man who harvested the hay every year, to feed the horses at Cronin Road, and after those horses left, to feed his own horses, beneficial to the property owner because it kept the property neat. I mean, if that’s the case, the property’s always been used agriculturally. The horses left. Does that make it less a farm? Not according to what he’s saying. It was always a farm then. Then I don’t need to be here. The grandfather should apply in that case. MR. ROUND-That’s not what’s being challenged here today. The challenge is whether, I talked to Mr. Carr, some time ago, about the grandfathering aspect, and he must have consulted with you. MR. BRUCE-Yes, he did. MR. ROUND-If you kept horses continuously, and there hadn’t been an interruption, for 18 months, that you are grandfathered. I asked Mr. Carr if he could present some of that information. He offered no information to that effect. Some months later, we got a letter from, that made no reference to this particular situation that that horses had been there. There was no indication in that correspondence that horses have been there. Mr. Carr doesn’t challenge that. The applicant doesn’t challenge that horses haven’t been there. MR. BRUCE-So I can still bring farm equipment and hay the property, and sell the hay off the property? MR. ROUND-That’s not what I’m interpreting here tonight. It’s a very narrow focus that we have to talk about here today. MR. BRUCE-But it’s a broad classification. All these things fall under the same zoning regulations. How can you pick one thing out of the zoning and say, you can’t have this aspect of agricultural. You can have this aspect of agriculture? MR. CARR-And also, you’re saying, one thing you’re saying, it’s broad implications, but it’s a narrow focus. What is it, is it either broad or narrow? MR. ROUND-You’re pulling things out of context, and I’ll let the Chairman handle the meeting from here. I apologize. MR. CARR-And as to the pre-existing use, it was not known to us until the correspondence came in today, that Francis Sharrow says that he’s been haying that property for the past 10 years, since 1988. When he got there, there were horses. The tenants had horses until the tenants left, probably the mid 90’s, but he has been haying that field until we bought the property. So that this property has always been used for an agricultural use, and I’m not springing this on you at the last minute that I’ve held this back. I mean, we didn’t know about this until he called today to let us know, and we’ve got a letter from him that’s in the correspondence to that effect. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. ROUND-That’s not being challenged here tonight. The appeal is the applicability of Section 179-63A to noncommercial uses, and an interpretation of 63D, to subject property. That’s Mr. Carr’s application on behalf of Miss Patnode and Mr. Bruce. MR. CARR-But I think he’s trying to classify us as a Farm, and that’s clearly, I defy him to show us in A, B, C. MR. ROUND-Keeping of horses is an agricultural use, is a Farm use, and is not allowed in SFR zoning. It’s agricultural use. MR. CARR-You’re ready to enforce that in SFR? MR. ABBATE-I just mentioned before the meeting, and what was a very cordial relationship, I hope it doesn’t change any. May I ask a question, please? Is the property, a simple question, located on Cronin Road, Tax ID 59-3-10, zoned SFR-1? MR. CARR-Yes. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I have a second question. I have a follow up. Is there a direct or peripheral intent of SFR-1A zoning to allow three or more horses? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. ABBATE-I think you’re wrong, but that’s okay. That’s why we’re here. MR. BRUCE-I only have two horses there. MR. CARR-But the issue is, under 179-63D, we’re allowed to have it there. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s okay, if that’s your position, and I’m disagreeing. I’m saying, absolutely not. MR. BRUCE-But you didn’t even mention “D” in anything you just quoted to us. MR. ABBATE-What I did, my friends, what I did, I addressed your request, applicant seeks a determination as to the applicability of Section 179-63 to noncommercial uses and an interpretation of Section 179-63D, as it relates to the subject parcel, and I addressed that this evening. MR. THOMAS-All right. That’s it for that. I’m going to open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Please come up to the microphone and state your name. In favor of the horses. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ED BANTA MR. BANTA-Ed Banta. I live at 203, directly across from the property in question. I sent a letter to the previous meeting. I was out of town and couldn’t be here. I knew the O’Brien’s when he formed the Warren County Mounted Patrol, had the horses all there, and never had a problem, all the time, and I know from what came up a little while ago, that you all are not really interested in what the neighbors think, but the neighbors do have to put up with horses across the road, and I don’t see a problem. The haying has been done, as you’ll see in the letter, and everything at the property is definitely improved, and I feel that it’ll be a benefit to the community. We have people stopping in my yard and looking and saying, isn’t that wonderful. Look at the horses. Really enjoying it. So I wish you would stand by your original decision. I hate to see anybody reverse themselves, and I feel you should stay with what you originally decided. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? TOM DOLON MR. DOLON-I’m Tom Dolon. I live at 225 Cronin Road. I’ve lived there since 1952. I’d say that the Town of Queensbury blew it, when they zoned that as SFR. There’s only one other resident house on the entire side of Cronin Road. You start out with a housing development. You come up to a woods. You come up to their place. The next place belongs to Dr. Bannon, and it’s just trees. Then you have Britton’s, which is an explosive outfit. Then you go up, you have one resident. Then you go up to another field, and where are you? You’re up on the Ridge Road. How can you make that SFR in the first place? Because Tom O’Brien died, and his son and his wife didn’t challenge it, is why we’re here tonight. That’s always been a farm, and it’s never, since 1952. How can you make that SFR, take the acreage away from these people? Where’s your basis? If you can show me any residence, in that whole section of road, let me see where it is. Because some college kid came up that road and decided, for him, at lunch time, it would be easy to make that SFR, that’s why we’ve got it. So, how can we put it back the way it should be? MR. ABBATE-Sir, your point is well made, and as a matter of fact, I support what you say. However if it is inappropriately classified, then it’s the sole function of the Town Board and appropriate departments to review that, and if it ever came to us, based on your premise, I would agree with you. We have no argument, you and I. MR. DOLON-Yes, and I’ve talked to the neighbors on our side, which we could have, if we had over five acres, nobody’s objecting to this. MR. STONE-That’s a question, I was just going to ask Staff. The north side of Cronin, is that SFR? MR. CARR-No, it’s SR. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. STONE-That’s SR, okay. MR. CARR-That’s why they can have chickens across the street. MR. ROUND-But that has nothing to do with the interpretation. That’s the point here. We’re talking about property hardship, and this is not what we’re discussing tonight, but that’s what you’re going to hear. MR. STONE-We understand that. MR. DOLON-If you’ve made a mistake in the past, now’s the time to correct it. MR. ABBATE-You’re right. This is not the forum to correct it, and I agree 100% with you. You’re absolutely correct, but this is an inappropriate forum to correct it. That would have to be addressed to the Town Board and subsequent bodies to change that thing, not us. MR. DOLON-Okay. Can you get a variance until we can go through something like that? MR. ABBATE-You’re asking the wrong person. I just listen to the case. I don’t make recommendations. MR. DOLON-Well, you had all those laws. That’s all I’ve got. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Who’d like to speak next? GRETCHEN SUNDERLAND MRS. SUNDERLAND-Gretchen Sunderland. I live in Queensbury, and first of all I’d like to ask, if that were possible to change the zoning, how long would that take? It would take forever. We’ve been through this with our own property, where we went in front of a Planning Board, and they said, no, no. It should be in front of the Zoning Board, and that took months, and then we went in front of the Zoning Board and they said, no, it should never have come in here. You should be back at the other one, and meanwhile they re-zoned our property, and so now we’re at Single Family, and it used to be UR-5, and we’ve lost complete use of our property that was zoned for horses, and we have five acres in Queensbury that’s absolutely worthless except to put one house on, and then we thought about appealing that, and it was zoned then for five houses, because we have five acres in Queensbury, in a beautiful place, and so we thought, okay, we’ll put one house there and we’ll sell the other four, and while we’re waiting to do that and get the approval for that, it was re-zoned that there’s a wetland there, and we can only put one house on it. So how long does this take? Meanwhile, you made a decision, and it seems like this gentleman went ahead, on your decision, and spent $7,000 more dollars, which is a lot of money to us, and proceeded on your decision. So, you have to listen to the citizens, because we get caught up in this legal morass, and we don’t understand what the heck you’re doing, and meanwhile, people suffer. If this was always a horse farm and continues to be a horse farm, yes, fine, what might be great to change it over and go through the legal process, and ten years from now he could have horses there, but people don’t have that kind of time or patience or understanding of the law. So, thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Who would like to speak next, in favor of? BOB RUGGLES MR. RUGGLES-My name is Bob Ruggles. I live in Queensbury. I haven’t got too much to say except that we’ve been working for Leo Bruce on his house there. He’s done a lot of work. He’s a fussy guy. He’s exacting, and we’ve had people, I think that’s the way he would treat these horses, the way he has been. He has a man there that’s there every day, cleaning up, very, very careful. We’ve had three different people that have stopped by there while we’re working and want to know if we own the property because they want to compliment the owner on having these horses. They love to have them there. It’s a thing that he’s always done. He bought this thing with the understanding, and he did a lot of work on it with the understanding he could keep horses there. It’s always been a horse farm, and I think that you people should stick by your original decision, and then think about re-zoning. There’s a lot of places in the Town of Queensbury that aren’t zoned properly, as far as I’m concerned. I’ve been in the building business for 40 years. I’m now kind of retired, and I think that you should stick with it. Mr. Bruce can’t go through all this expense when he’s planned on being able to use his horses there. He’s a horse lover. He’s very careful, very proud of his horses. I think it’s a big mistake you’re trying to drive him out. MR. THOMAS-All right. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. STONE-I just want to ask the public, are you aware that we are currently reviewing the Zoning Ordinance, and there have been already a series of public meetings, and there will be more, and quite frankly, the turn out at these meetings has been low. Would you agree with that, Staff? It has been low, and yet we’re looking at the whole Zoning Ordinance, looking at all parts of Queensbury, and I happen to sit on this Steering Committee, and quite frankly, the public input has been lax. So I encourage you, there will be more public hearings when we get a little further along. I encourage you, not just on this issue, but come to these public hearings. Please. We do want the input of the community. It’s necessary. It’s important, and we’re not really getting it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Who’d like to speak? CRAIG DOUGHER MR. DOUGHER-Gentlemen, Craig Dougher. My wife and I own a piece of property at 517 Ridge Road, on the east end of Cronin Road. I would make a suggestion to the Board, that they might take into consideration tabling it, let it set until such time as these people can get the zoning changed. It certainly would be a way out for everybody. Allow them to keep these horses there, considering there’s no objection by the public that lives around the house, and then, satisfying the lawyers on both sides, just table it. Let it sit for a period of a given two years, three years, whatever, pick a time, and say, apply for a zoning change. It certainly is a way out. I’d consider it seriously. Rather than running to, spending the taxpayer’s money, my money, your money, everybody sitting here, go to court, argue it, bring it back, maybe going to court again, that I would certainly not like to see, paying lawyers to go again, on either side, and then it puts the hardship on the person who owns the property, and all you have to do is let it sit. A suggestion. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks. PEGGY HARRIS-NOBLES MRS. HARRIS-Hi. I’m Peggy Harris-Nobles, from Ridge Road. I’ve traveled three generations down, I’m H. Russell Harris’ daughter, I should say, and the Harris’ have been involved in the Town of Queensbury and its development from the first stages. I do say that my dad, at 96, I still take around because he’s interested in what’s going on with you people and the Town, and we travel Cronin Road a lot. I travel it once a week with my mom, and I know that there’s been horses there ever since I was a little girl, and dad remembers it, and it should come under the grandfather clause. I also know that I think you people, and I know there’s some flaws in the zoning, and I know what you’re trying to do in the Town, and our family appreciates it, but you have made a lot of mistakes. We all do, but when you make a decision, I think you should stand behind it, right or wrong. That’s what I had to do when I was a supervisor at Glens Falls Hospital. I also want to tell you that Leo Bruce worked for me in the laboratory, and he’s an upright, upstanding young fellow, and as Bob Ruggles said, he will maintain that property to top notch, and that’s what I feel you and I both want in the Town of Queensbury. We want people like this, and it is too bad that we don’t get enough people out to public meetings. I’d like to come a lot more myself, but I’m caregiver for a 91 and 96, and it’s hard to get away at times, but I do feel that it should be left. Everybody stops, as they say. I see it when I go through there, and we want Queensbury to be kept somewhat rural. Let’s not let things happen like it has in some other areas. Keep these young people coming in to the Town, besides the old ones. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? RICHARD SPOERL MR. SPOERL-My name’s Richard Spoerl, and I live in Queensbury. I have worked for Mr. Bruce since, basically, he bought the property, as a contractor. Ever since the beginning it’s been one or two horses. The barn’s never been renovated to accommodate more horses. People have stopped by and asked about boarding. It’s always been no as far as boarding, and you made a decision, and you should stick to it. This is getting to be almost like a school district vote, where you vote for something, it doesn’t get approved. Somebody puts it to another vote, and it just keeps getting voted and voted until someone’s happy. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? ANNA HUNT MRS. HUNT-I’m Anna Hunt, and I live in the Town of Queensbury, and I just want to say that I would expect that if I came in front of the Zoning Board, and you made a decision in my favor, and I spent $7,000, that you’d stand behind it. $7,000 is a lot of money to working people. Thank you. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? KEITH WRIGLEY MR. WRIGLEY-My name is Keith Wrigley, Country Club Road, Town of Queensbury, and I would implore the Board to act with common sense here. You made a good decision. Let’s stick by it. How many people here from the Town are opposing this, or opposing the applicant? Zero. MR. ABBATE-That’s not the issue, sir. MR. WRIGLEY-Common sense is the issue here, sir. MR. ABBATE-The issue is the interpretation of the law. AUDIENCE MEMBER-By each individual who sits on this Board. MR. WRIGLEY-Have you driven by the area, sir? Are you familiar with the area? MR. ABBATE-Yes, I have. MR. WRIGLEY-What a good thing for the Town of Queensbury. Let’s do the right thing here. Let’s try to do the right thing. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. ROBERT NELSON MR. NELSON-Very quickly. Robert Nelson. I own the property at 155 Cronin Road. I support everybody, everything said here, except him. We need less Gestapo in Queensbury. We need everybody getting along better, and you people have done the right thing so far. MR. THOMAS-All right. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? RAY RIVETTE MR. RIVETTE-My name’s Randy Rivette, Lake George, NY. 1983 is when I moved here. I’ve been a landscaper ever since I graduated. He’s done nothing but improve the property. It’s been very well maintained. I’ve got a four year old daughter who looks up to people with horses. When people like that drive by, they see that, you see nothing but a smile. I live on Sullivan Place. I know what it’s like to go through here. I built my own house. I’ve been through here for zonings, paid money for applicants and then have all you guys say, well, it’s only a small piece of property, we don’t need to look at that. Well, no one said to me, you want your money back? No, they didn’t. Okay. Now he’s here trying to get a permit for his horses, and there’s nothing wrong with that property. It’s been nothing but a major improvement, and around here you should appreciate that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? GARY BANTA MR. BANTA-Gary Banta. I have a hair salon across from the property. I have all the prettiest ladies and gentlemen coming to my salon, and as far as how the property looks, sir, I’d like to ask you, where do you live, and where were you born? MR. ABBATE-In the United States of America. MR. BANTA-But which County, which Town? MR. ABBATE-It doesn’t make any difference. MR. BANTA-Well, it makes a difference to me. I’m a citizen. I’m a taxpayer and I’m asking you a question. Where were you born? MR. ABBATE-Where as I born? MR. BANTA-Yes. MR. ABBATE-It’s immaterial. It’s irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the issue. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. BANTA-Well, why do you question things that are going on? Our families were the creators of this Town. Do you realize that? I’m a Jenkins. Jenkinsville, have you heard of that? Where were you born? MR. ABBATE-In the United States of America. MR. THOMAS-All right. Let’s drop that and keep going here. He doesn’t want to answer it. He’s not going to. MR. BANTA-You have acted like a jerk, and every one in this room would agree with me. We will take you to Supreme Court. MR. ABBATE-Sir, you have insulted me. MR. BANTA-Well, you’ve insulted all of us. MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry. MR. BANTA-I’m not sorry. I’m disgusted. MR. THOMAS-Let’s get on with this thing. It’s getting, we’re going to run out of time, here. MR. BANTA-My hair salon is visited by some of the nicest people in this whole Town, and most of them are major taxpayers, including myself. You look Gary Banta up on the tax rolls, and you’ll find that I’ve been very overtaxed for years in this Town, and I will start a case against you people, the whole Town, and I mean it, a major case. My taxes at Lake George on my property up there were raised $200,000. I paid them for six years, then the Town sent me a letter that they were going to reduce them $100,000, after I’d come, meeting after meeting, night after night, over here and fought and brought pictures and said, go up there. Look at what I own, and on your own, six years later, you decide to lower it, $100,000. My first reaction was, what? When I couldn’t get anywhere, could barely pay those taxes, couldn’t afford legal help, because I was so over taxed, working my ass to the bone, then you people decided, not necessarily you. I don’t mean to insult all of you. Just some of you, that you’re going to lower it $100,000. Now, how would you feel, any one of you people pay taxes. How would you feel? Highly insulted. I said, at that point, to Freda Solomon, who’s a personal friend of mine, and Jerry, I said, where the hell do I stand? I said, wouldn’t I be smart to try to sell it for what they’re telling me it’s worth? So I acted the way I thought I ought to. Owens Davies, where Freda works, I said, try list it. Try to get what the Town says it’s worth. Not an interested person. I’ve still continued to pay those taxes. How would you feel? And this is just one example. Now, across the road, something beautiful, one little bit of rural land that’s left and beautiful in the Town. I mean, you people, I’m sure, would be very happy to have 17 houses there and collecting more taxes. So I don’t mean you people. I think the bureaucracy. I think it’s disgusting. Absolutely disgusting that every inch of land that to be a strip mall that looks like shit. Tear down nice trees. I mean, what is happening? People move up here because it’s beautiful. It’s mountainous. There’s trees. There’s somewhat of nature left, but, you know, it just makes no sense. If you fight everyone that would love to have a small place for the horses and a little bit of land to look out and see trees and not your next door neighbor’s back yard, I mean, I think you really ought to think about it. You really ought to think about it, and I’m telling you I’m not done with this Town. This is just one thing. If this goes to the Supreme Court, I’ll be there, and I’ll have 100 more friends who’ll be here with me. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All right. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? All right. We’ll do the correspondence. MR. HAYES-Okay. I’ll start with a letter that was referenced by Mr. Carr, so we can kind of get that behind us. I have a letter from Mr. Frances Sharrow, Boardwalk Farms, Route 149, Fort Ann, NY, dated December 15, 1999, Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals “I am writing with regards to the property at 204 Cronin Road. I feel it is important for you to know that I have cut and harvested the hay from that property for approximately the last 10 years, until the property was sold in the spring of 1999. I believe it was 1988 when the tenants of the property approached me to cut the hay. I received half of the hay for myself for my labor and the rest was for the owner for feeding his horses at 204 Cronin Road. This procedure was followed for the next few years. When the tenants relocated, I approached Mr. O’Brien, the owner of the property, and offered to continue mowing and harvesting the hay for my own use. He agreed to this arrangement as it kept the property looking neat. Sincerely, Francis Sharrow” I have another letter to the Queensbury Board of Appeals, December 15, 1999, from I believe Richard E. MacDonald, 173 Meadowbrook Road, Queensbury, “I have lived on Cronin Road for the last 62 years and have had horses as neighbors for over 50 years. The O’Brien’s who owned the property at now 204 Cronin Road had horses for all of my memory. Dennis Cronin had horses – Sundberg family had horses – the Sipos family on Cronin and Meadowbrook had horses. I have seen the pride of ownership and the grief of loss of the beasts. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) I have seen the great joy of the children and family groups that stop and pet and feed the horses across the street from me. All this, and not one single problem from owners or horses. I support Mr. Bruce and hope you can see to given an affirmative decision to his request. Richard E. MacDonald 173 Meadowbrook Rd., Queensbury” I have another letter to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, dated December 15, from Mrs. Anna Sundberg, 137 Cronin Road, Queensbury, th NY, “I am a resident of 137 Cronin Road and have no objection to having horses on the property of Mr. Leo Bruce at 204 Cronin Road. I hope you can rule in Mr. Bruce’s favor. Anna Sundberg” I have a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals, dated December 15, from Virginia LeGault and th Bernard LeGault, “We are writing on behalf of Leo Bruce of 204 Cronin Road, Queensbury, NY who has a lovely place with barn and fence which he keeps his horses. He was unanimously approved to be able to keep his horses there at the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting held Nov. 17, 1999 but has now been told it is not possible. At the time of this Meeting, all neighbors were notified and were all agreeable to this request. Now we understand the Zoning Officer advised Mr. Bruce it is not approved. We don’t think it is right to go against the first approval. His place is surely an improvement to the neighborhood and it is a joy to see the horses in the yard when driving by. He is a reliable owner who takes care of his property. Virginia LeGault Bernard LeGault” I have another letter to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, from a Mrs. Fitzgerald, 302 State Route 149, Lake George, NY “To Whom It May Concern: I, Mrs. Fitzgerald, do strongly support the presence of horses, on the farm property located at 204 Cronin Road. The horses are beautiful animals and add a sense of that to their surroundings. They form no threat to the environment, nor any pollution of any sort. In fact, their manure is recyclable and highly desirable to organic farmers and rose gardeners. I feel the horses greatly enhance the charm and serenity of this idyllic setting.” I have a letter to the Queensbury Town Board, I guess that’s us, December 15, 1999, from a Neil Fitzgerald “I understand there is a property at 204 Cronin Road that is subject to review tonight. I would be there, but I have a prior requirement. I also understand that there is a matter of horses being housed on the premises. I want you to know I have no objection to this housing. If you wish to contact me I can be reached on 798-5842. I have resided in this Township since 1988 and have owned property here since 1970. Yours truly, Neil Fitzgerald” I have another letter dated December 15, from Elda Lowe, Nelson Lowe, Dorothy Lowe “Since we th are unable to attend the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting tonight, we feel the need to let you know how much we are enjoying the barn, and especially the horses at 204 Cronin Road. Leo Bruce has a lovely place there. We all enjoy the horses and the property in this rural area. It seems he was unanimously approved to be able to keep his horses there at a meeting in November. Why the change of heart? That just doesn’t seem right! Horses have been there for years. We have been long time residents of Queensbury and love the rural surroundings. Let’s keep it that way!” A letter dated December 15 to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, from Roy Norton “Dear Sirs: I th am writing this letter in place of appearing in person at the meeting December 15 as I am employed th by the Glens Falls Country Club and have to work. I wish to voice my support for Mr. Bruce and his horses at 204 Cronin Road, Queensbury. I was sure that with 20 + acres of land Mr. Bruce would have no problem with the zoning. As I understand it, this is to be a family farm only, not commercial. I was not surprised to learn that Mr. Bruce obtained a unanimous decision in his favor from the Board on November 17. I am, however, very curious to understand why it is now th necessary for him to defend himself again. Please be advised that I have been a resident of the Town of Queensbury my entire life and wish to voice my support for Mr. Bruce. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Roy Norton” A letter dated December 15, to the Queensbury Town Board of Appeals, th from a Mrs. Lawrence Caverly, “Dear Gentlemen: I cannot attend the Wednesday Nite meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals because of my husband’s health. I live on West Mt. Rd. I do not understand why Leo’s is back at the Zoning Board when his appeal was granted. I shop at Freihofer’s and also get my hair done across from Leo’s. We enjoy the beautiful horses inside the great white fence at Leo’s on Cronin Rd. Sincerely, Mrs. Lawrence Caverly” A letter to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, dated December 14, 1999, from June M. Meilleur “As a resident of Queensbury, I would like to approve the use of land at 204 Cronin Road, Queensbury by Leo Bruce, for the keeping of horses. As I travel Cronin Road frequently the improvements made and to see the well cared for horses are a pleasure. I know Mr. Bruce well and am sure he will continue to improve and keep said property as a plus for the neighborhood. Yours truly, June M. Meilleur” I have a letter dated December 14, 1999, to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, from Gertrude Kacenas, 175 Cronin Road, “I, Gertrude Kacenas, reside at 175 Cronin Road, Queensbury and have been a resident at that address since January 1982. Because of health problems I was unable to attend the November meeting but I felt sure that Mr. Bruce would be received favorably due to the history of the property and the current zoning regarding private non-commercial horses. I was very pleased to hear that Mr. Bruce received a unanimously favorable decision from all of the Board members. At this point, I am confused why Mr. Bruce has to reappear before the Board. I have been looking forward to seeing the horses and enjoying the view from my home. As you can tell by the tone of this letter, I am very much in favor of Mr. Bruce’s request. I would suggest that the Town Officials as well as the Board take a look at the Town letterhead which says ‘Home of Natural Beauty…A Good Place to Live”. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation regarding this matter.” That’s it. MR. THOMAS-That’s it. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. HAYES-That’s all the letters. MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anyone else that would like to speak before I close the public hearing? Because once I close the public hearing, there is no input from the public. This is your chance right now. So, if no one else would like to speak in this matter, then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-There’ll be no more input from the public. Mr. Carr. MR. CARR-All legal arguments aside, I just want the Board to consider me. What is the effect of upholding the effect of the decision of October 17, in reality? In common sense, practical terms, th what is the effect of it? You’ve heard here from the public on many instances that they enjoy seeing the horses there. Even if you say horses are allowed in any zone, as long as you’ve got the proper acreage, what’s the harm? I guess that’s just my basic question, and it’s for you to discuss. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Round, anything else you’d like to add, say? MR. ROUND-I think we’ve said it all. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You have nothing else to say. Mr. Carr is done. All right. It’s time for the Board to talk about it among themselves. I’ll start with Mr. Stone. MR. STONE-This is a very troubling situation. I’ll tell you why it’s a troubling situation. I hear the public. I hear the interest in having horses there, but, I don’t want to be as erudite as my colleague down here in quoting the law, but previously, we looked at a situation that came before us, in which there was a definition of a certain type of building. It was defined. It was used in certain zones. It was an allowed use in certain zones. It was not an allowed use. It was not stated in this particular zone category under discussion. To me, that was in a sense, a slam dunk. It was defined. It was used. It was not mentioned in this particular area, and I voted accordingly. This is a similar situation. I hear Mr. Carr’s arguments that under Ag use, Agricultural use, maybe you could fit horses in there, but the bottom line is that we define agricultural use, we list it as a permitted use in certain zones. We do not list it as a permitted use in SFR-1A. I mean, that’s the bottom line. It’s a very simplistic thing. Having said that, I am troubled by the fact that this is a very special piece of property. It’s 22 acres. Obviously, it’s not one acre. It’s 22 acres. I hear the community say that it has always been used as a “farm”. There is a lapse, certainly acknowledged by lack of evidence to the contrary, that horses did not exist on this property for an 18 month period, or less than an 18 month period. I mean, there’s no proof been brought to bear on that subject. Mr. Round asked Mr. Carr for such proof. It was never furnished. Therefore, we can assume that there was a period of more than 18 months when horses were not allowed. This does not say that the property still couldn’t be hayed. It’s a very different thing. It could be hayed because that is grandfathered. The question boils down to a matter of grandfathering horses. If one now takes a leap of faith and goes to saying, well, lets assume this might be an agricultural use, and you start reading the various categories, one might find an opportunity to say horses are allowed, and I remember last month I felt very proud of myself because I kind of perceived this loophole in the thing, but I have to go back, when I’m saying that, to our uses, that definition doesn’t come into play in SFR-1A uses, and that’s what Mr. Round has said. However, I am sympathetic. I certainly am a strong believer in common sense. I’m sympathetic to the number of people who have come out, who live by this particular piece of property, who say that they have no problem with three or two or three horses being on this property. I also hear Mr. Round saying, what kind of precedent are we establishing. Mr. Carr said there were 50 parcels more than one acre. The question is, how many more, three or five, we can get into all these definitions. I came here tonight, quite frankly, prepared to change my vote, because, again, this literal interpretation of, Ag is defined, Ag is used, Ag is not used in SFR-1A, but I think because of the number of people who come out, and I hate to use the unique character. Everything is unique, nothing is unique, in particular cases, but it is a particular piece of property. One could argue that maybe this area shouldn’t be SFR-1, and maybe that’s the route that Mr. Bruce should have taken is to go to the Town Board and say, I’d like to be re-zoned. This is not uncommon. It’s done, and maybe this is the approach that should have been taken in the first place, recognizing the sanctity, if you will, of the SFR-1A zone. Having said that, as I said, I think I am prepared to vote again in favor of upholding the appeal, not upholding Mr. Round, but having said all that, I still want to listen to what my fellow Board members say. I probably will vote like I did last time, which obviously is to say that Mr. Carr can be allowed to keep three horses there. MR. HAYES-Mr. Bruce. MR. THOMAS-Mr. McNulty. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. MC NULTY-Like Mr. Stone, I’m really torn on this. I think you can tell how all of us really feel in our hearts from the way we voted last time. The question, though, is back to basis of law. If we are voting in favor of keeping horses on the property, because we like to see the horses there, and because we don’t think the zoning is correct, then it basically is an invalid vote. We don’t have the right to do that. We don’t have the right to change the zoning, no matter how wrong we think it is, and as I recall last time, part of the basis for our vote was the seeming confusion on the various classes of the agricultural classes in the law, and again, if it’s a poorly written law, we don’t have the right to change the law. So I’m kind of like Mr. Stone. On the one hand, I think strict rules may say that we should uphold Mr. Round. On the other hand, everything else tells me we should uphold Mr. Bruce. I honestly don’t know which way I’m going to vote until I hear what the rest of the Board has to say. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Abbate. MR. ABBATE-No comment. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I would suspect that there’s very few people in this room that don’t think that those horses don’t belong on 204 Cronin Road. It’s almost stipulated that that’s the majority of the feelings here, and I’m not sure if you asked Mr. Round, on a personal basis, if he thought the horses should be there on Cronin Road, he may say yes, but in this particular circumstance, Mr. Round, by his job description, is not there to, he’s there to interpret the Code, the law as he sees it, and that’s what he has to do, whether he likes the result or the course that that takes, and that can be a difficult position at times. Really, the long and the short of it is, in my opinion, like Mr. Norton presented, that the Town Board blew it, in this circumstance. I think that everybody knows it. I don’t think that that property is correctly zoned, but as zoned, I believe if we read the Code as it’s written and strictly enforced in the SFR-1A zone, which this is, I think Mr. Round’s decision is correct in this circumstance. The public support for Mr. Bruce is admirable. When I looked at the property, there’s no doubt in my mind that he’s a great keeper of that property, and that’s a great project, and I think it’s a compliment to this Town, to the highest degree, particularly considering that as a rule the east side and that area tends to be rural in nature. Our zoning classifications for more rural settings reflect that fact, but I think in this particular case, if I was on the Town Board myself, I would have no problem whatsoever, for example, approving this for a re-zone for SR-15, for example. It definitely is that. The people that have spoken have identified their frustration with the current zoning for that parcel, and I think it’s just zoned wrong, in my opinion, but that’s not my job. I’m not an elected official, and we have a democratic process. The way to change the zoning is to do it through the democratic process, do it through your representative. The Town Board makes the laws in the Town, and that’s, this is the law that they’ve made. So I would intend to vote in favor of Mr. Round, in denying the appeal. MR. THOMAS-All right. I guess it’s down to me. I’m going to stand by my decision in October. I wouldn’t change a word of it. My feeling hasn’t changed about it, and I don’t see how any other Board member can really change their mind about it, because I don’t think that we had any new information that could sway anyone. As far as what Mr. McNulty said about, we can’t change the law. That’s not our job. That’s the Town Board’s job, but the ZBA’s job is to interpret the law as it’s written, and to grant variances based on those decisions, and I think we had a very good discussion in October about this piece of property and about the interpretation of the law, especially 179-63D, which has its own paragraph about raising horses and ponies, and it doesn’t say anything about being in any zone. All it says is, in the case of horses and ponies, a minimum of three acres shall be required for one horse or pony. However, where two or more horses or ponies are concerned, a minimum of two acres per horse or pony may be required. It doesn’t say anything about being in an agricultural zone, in an SFR-1 zone. It just says, if you’ve got four acres, you can have two horses. If you’ve got three acres, you can have one horse, and that’s all I’m going to say about the subject. I’m going to stick by my original decision in October. MR. STONE-I have to say, looking at my previous statement, two months ago, I was just as obfuscated then as I am now. It’s a tough issue. MR. ROUND-I’d agree with that. Just as a point of process, it requires a unanimous vote to overturn your previous decision, regardless of whether it’s a 2/2, 3/2 split. So, just to let you know that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So we need five votes one way or another. MR. ROUND-I need the five votes. That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Chris needs five votes to overturn our decision. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. BROWN-If he only gets one, it’s still upheld. MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. It stays as is from the October meeting. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion. MOTION THAT WE UPHOLD THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION OF OCTOBER 27, 1999, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stec MR. THOMAS-It’s upheld from October. MR. CARR-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 103-1999 TYPE II MR-5 MH SINGLE SITING LARRY CLUTE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 62 MINNESOTA APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 127-1-13 LOT SIZE: 0.16 ACRES SECTION 179-18 LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 103-1999, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: December 15, 1999 “Project Location: 62 Minnesota Ave. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a mobile home and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the MR-5 zone, § 179-18. 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 utilized the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Based on an existing lot size and the proposed home size, feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum 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, however, the existing lot size may contribute to the difficulty. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 99-690 issued 11/9/99 demolition permit BP 99-693 Single Family Dwelling, mobile home, pending Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The MR-5 zone requires a minimum of 30 foot front setback or the average setback of the two adjoining buildings, whichever is greater. The existing homes on the adjoining lots appear to be SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Clute, what have you got to say? MR. CLUTE-It’s pretty straightforward. I just simply want to pull out the old mobile home and put in a new one. MR. STONE-Pull out? It’s not the empty lot? MR. CLUTE-No, no. There’s an existing home there. MR. STONE-I missed, sorry. Okay. So it’s the one to the north, or the south? MR. CLUTE-There’s two of them, with a bunch of property in between the two of them. Yes, it’s the one to the north, the yellowish one. MR. STONE-Okay. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. CLUTE-The newer one being to the right, looking at them from the street. MR. STONE-Looking at it from the street, yes. MR. CLUTE-The newer one’s to the right. The older one’s to the left. I want to pull the older one out. MR. STONE-Okay. I goofed. I looked at that property, too, MR. MC NALLY-Do you already have a new one to put on the lot? MR. CLUTE-Yes, I do. I don’t have a new one. I have a. MR. MC NALLY-Newer one. MR. CLUTE-Yes, an ’85. MR. STONE-It’s newer, then. MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. MR. STONE-In better shape? MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. MR. MC NALLY-Up at 27, they put a doublewide on the lot, and you were able to center it awfully nicely. What’s the difference in price between a single wide and a double wide? Any real significant price difference? MR. CLUTE-Yes. There is. In this case, I’m not buying a new one. What it is, is I’m building a house on a lot that had this single wide. So I essentially just inherited this single wide. The doublewides, if you’re going out shopping them, the doublewides are not significant. I’d say the same square footage. You might get 20,000 and then a doublewide into like 30,000, I guess. MR. STONE-But is the doublewide a mobile home or is it a? MR. CLUTE-Yes. A mobile home, no mistake, is a mobile home, whether it’s single wide or doublewide. MR. STONE-Even though you can’t take it on the highway? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Well, there is a difference between modular and mobile. MR. CLUTE-That I’ll go with, sure. MR. STONE-So it is modular. MR. THOMAS-This is mobile. MR. CLUTE-It’s a mobile home, single wide. MR. STONE-It’s a single wide. Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. How big is the one you’re taking off the lot? MR. CLUTE-It’s a 14 by, I don’t have any of the information. So you have most of it there. Whatever, it’s the same identical size as the one. MR. THOMAS-It’s the same size as the one that’s coming off. MR. CLUTE-Exactly. MR. THOMAS-That’s all I wanted to know. All right. 14 by 70 replaced by a 14 by 70. Then why does he need a variance? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. BROWN-The setback. MR. STONE-Is he replacing it in the same spot? MR. BROWN-Yes, but he still needs to meet the setback requirements. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. HAYES-It’s like new construction. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay, an existing drywell and the septic system, they’re all up to par? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the power will come in the same way, telephone, cable t.v. MR. CLUTE-Everything would be identical. MR. STONE-So the property line between those two, the big tree in the middle, what property is that on, the left property or the right property? MR. CLUTE-The right property, just barely. MR. STONE-Okay, because I was worried about the tree, because it’s a nice tree. I didn’t want to see it go. Okay. MR. CLUTE-Right. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Clute? 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? MR. HAYES-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Clute? If not, we’ll talk about it. Mr. McNally? MR. MC NALLY-I have no problems with it whatsoever. I would like to see a doublewide on all of these lots at that end of West Glens Falls, but I understand the practicalities of it, and by putting a newer mobile home in the same position as the old one, which is a sight for sore eyes, I think this would be an improvement to the neighborhood. There may be other feasible alternatives, as I have mentioned, but I don’t think, given the circumstances, that it’s really necessary, and the relief is not substantial relative to the Ordinance, and therefore I’d be in favor of this proposal. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-I feel the same way. It strikes me that this is going to be an improvement. It’s not changing the existing conditions a bit. I’d be in favor. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-I don’t see any problems with Mr. Clute’s application. As my colleague indicated here that it will be certainly an improvement in the area, and I suggest that we approve this application. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. HAYES-It’s all been said. It’s minimal relief, and the effects on the neighborhood or community have got to be positive, in this particular circumstance, replacing it with a much newer trailer, or mobile home, excuse me. So I’m in favor. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I have no problem whatsoever. I think, as I have said many times, any time we improve this particular neighborhood with a newer modular home, one that’s in better condition, the small setback relief is absolutely no problem. MR. THOMAS-All right. I think the Board members have said everything that needs to be said. I agree with all the other Board members. Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 103-1999 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 62 Minnesota Avenue. The applicant proposes placement of a mobile home and seeks setback relief. Specifically, the applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of an MR-5 zone, Section 179-18. This applicant is actually stating that he’s going to place a newer single wide mobile home in place of the existing one on the current lot. The benefit to the applicant would be that they would be able to improve the lot as it currently exists, and utilize it in an updated condition. Feasible alternatives would be reconfiguring the placement of this mobile home on the site, but in all practical reality, it’s only a 70 foot wide lot anyway. So no feasible alternative is going to result in placement that does not need some kind of setback relief. The relief is not substantial, relative to the Ordinance, and the effects on the neighborhood are going to be minimal and non-existing, given the fact that the mobile home that’s on the property already is at the same setback as the applicant proposes. The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. However, the existing lot contributes to the difficulty, and for all these reasons, I move the approval. Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stec MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. CLUTE-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 104-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA MARK W. RYAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 28 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RELOCATION/CONSTRUCTION OF A SEASONAL CAMP AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SPR 30-99 AV 51-1999 TB RES. NO. 36-99 SEPTIC VARIANCE ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 16-1-4 LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60, 179-79 MARK RYAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 104-1999, Mark W. Ryan, Meeting Date: December 15, 1999 “Project Location: 28 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes relocation and construction of a second story addition to a seasonal camp and seeks setback relief and relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement and 15 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Also, the applicant requests 9 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirements of both the WR-1A zone, § 179-16 and the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. Further, since the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements, the applicant is requesting relief for the expansion of a non- conforming structure, per § 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 relocate and expand the existing structure. 2. Feasible alternatives: Evidently, the original proposal for the acquisition of additional lands has been reduced and revised to this significantly smaller area. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests for 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) consideration may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: 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.): SPR 9-99 – res. 4/20/99 U shaped covered dock boathouse SPR 30-99 – res. 9/21/99 – second story addition Septic Variance – res. 7/19/99 AV 51-1999 – res. 8/18/99 relocation and second story addition Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The relocation of the existing camp, acquisition of additional land and an upgraded septic system appear to be significant improvements in the usage of this property, however, a concession from maximizing the allowable height may be considered, given the requested setback relief on all sides of the proposed structure. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-“Warren County Project Review and Referral Form Project Name: Ryan, Mark Owner: Same ID Number: QBY-AV-104-1999 County Project #: Dec99-22 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant proposes to relocate and construct a seasonal camp and seeks setback relief and relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Site Location: 28 Rockhurst Road Tax Map Number: 16-1-4 Staff Notes: A copy of the applicant’s drawing is included with the summaries. The applicant is removing the present building and relocating it 31 ft. back from the Lake. It appears that the applicant is relocating as far away from the Lake as practical given the lot dimensions. Also noted on the drawing is the location of the septic with the holding tank and the fact that the Town has already approved that with a variance. Staff therefore does not identify any uses that are significant at the County level since there is an existing structure already and no additional uses will be allowed or will be constructed. Local actions to date (if any): Public hearing: December 15, 1999 County Planning Board Recommendation: NCI” Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Ryan. MR. RYAN-My name is Mark Ryan. MR. THOMAS-All right. So, do you want to tell us what happened here? MR. STONE-Tell us why. MR. RYAN-Well, there’s some things I think I’d rather not comment about, but basically I came before the Board asking for setback relief for relocating the property, and I guess to make a long story short, there’s been significant delays and applications and approvals since the project started in September of ’98, and the intent at the time was to build a dock and move the cabin, or expand it where it’s at, and for whatever reason, and I guess Chris isn’t here to kind of explain his apology to me, but he basically said to me all the delays that I’ve encountered over the time weren’t good government, and he apologized for that. When we purchased the property, we asked for additional land, and that’s what you see there. During the process, it was suggested if we could get additional land, then approvals may be made easier. So we asked for a three month contract for purchasing additional land. Then we moved it to six months. Then we asked for an extension to nine months, and was not granted any additional extensions. So that’s why we’re back here today, to ask for moving of the building on a smaller piece of land. MR. STONE-You represented in August, did you not, that you owned this large piece of land, and the variance that we gave you was predicated on the fact that you didn’t need anything except a side for a side setback. Was that? MR. BROWN-Frontage, I think, from the road. MR. STONE-But otherwise you were going to be legal with this lot size that you told us you had? MR. RYAN-I do not recall ever saying that I owned all the additional land. Because the drawing at the time showed the property line that I owned, an additional property line to be purchased. I don’t recall ever. MR. STONE-Okay, but as I remember, the building was going to be located, as far as the lake is concerned, more than 50 feet away. MR. RYAN-It would have been 50 feet away. MR. STONE-Right. So you came to us on that basis, and that’s the variance that we granted you, and now you’re saying, or you’re before us again and saying that you don’t have that land, or you don’t have the ability to put the house on the property because you don’t have as much land as you suggested then. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. RYAN-Yes, and no. I’m positive I never said I owned the additional piece of land, and that’s why it was drawn as additional piece. It showed the property line that was there and the piece that I wanted to acquire, and if I understand it correctly, you granted the variance showing that we owned the additional piece of land. You didn’t grant it saying that, since you already owned it. MR. STONE-No. We granted it on the basis you were going to have it, and therefore, and we’ve been stung by this before. Fortunately, you haven’t done anything. MR. RYAN-And again, I’ve been trying to work within. MR. STONE-Yes, I understand, but now you’re taking the piece of property you have. You have listened to some of our concerns, and I appreciate that, and you’ve moved it back about as far as you can, and still be on your property with a minimal setback on the side corner, I guess. MR. RYAN-That’s right. MR. STONE-And you’re as far from the lake as you can possibly get, maybe a couple of feet more. MR. RYAN-If we go closer to the road, I think we could probably get more. MR. STONE-You may wish you hadn’t said that. MR. RYAN-Well, there’s some giant pine trees there that I’d really rather not disturb. I mean, they’re beautiful. MR. MC NULTY-There’s one property line on here, it’s marked proposed property line. Now does that still mean that you have a piece that you need to acquire to accomplish what you’ve got here on the drawing? MR. RYAN-Our contract says that we have that piece of property. We were going to apply for the property line adjustment. In the process, the suggestion to get more land, we didn’t ask for that adjustment because we were going to go for that, but we do have the legal documents that say that that’s been asked to do, and it’s still, like I said, just filing papers. MR. STONE-We have a note that will be read, obviously, from Dr. Kirkpatrick. Is he referring to land south of the line that you say proposed property line? MR. RYAN-Well, I just saw the letter tonight. I’m assuming that’s what he’s referring to. What Dr. Kirkpatrick does or does not do, I really can’t speak for him. I mean, his actions are his actions, I guess. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Ryan? MR. MC NALLY-Just so I understand, your land, which is shown by that proposed property line that you hope to acquire? MR. RYAN-No. We have a contract that’s signed, that we’ve acquired that. We’ve not filed the new deed yet. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I understand. MR. RYAN-There’s a couple of things with the deed. The septic variance says that we have to file a deed that says we will not add a new permanent heat system, to distinguish if it’s a seasonal or a year round. Chris Round is sitting on that document. It’s been going back and forth. So when we do the filing of the deed update, with the property line adjustment, that is going to be filed at the same time. MR. STONE-And that was the Town Board’s determination. MR. RYAN-The septic, yes. MR. STONE-For the septic, and making sure it wasn’t a year round home, so that you could be on a holding tank and be legal, according to the Board of Health. MR. RYAN-Right. That was one of the delays, because they didn’t know how to prove that it was seasonal. I guess after digesting it for 30 days. At that meeting, nobody ever asked about the septic system. All they wanted to know was how I was going to determine if it was seasonal or not. So that was one of the delays, a 60 day delay. MR. MC NALLY-My question is this. I see the proposed acquisition on your map. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. RYAN-Right. MR. MC NALLY-And I also see Dr. Kirkpatrick saying he’s not selling you anymore land, period. Have you spoken to him? Is the portion that’s indicated as the proposed land, where you’re going to put this house, is that something he will or will not sell to you? MR. RYAN-It’s already been sold to us. MR. MC NALLY-It has already been sold. MR. RYAN-That’s right. It was part of the original purchase. See, originally, we didn’t know if we were going to do anything with it. So we asked for more land around the existing building. That’s why the line kind of looks the way it does. Just so I wouldn’t have a deck that was over the property line, that was already pre-existing. So that was part of the original purchase of saying this is what we want from that. So when the Board suggested that we get more land, we didn’t file the property line adjustment, even though we purchased that piece. MR. MC NALLY-So this is an old map, then, that says proposed acquisition, proposed conveyance, proposed property line? MR. RYAN-Well, I didn’t want to mislead the Board saying that I actually had the deed filed, and I can’t, until Chris gives us the. MR. STONE-Okay. The building that we approved, that’s a different location, that’s a third location on this map which does not appear? MR. RYAN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Sort of back further away from the lake and toward the south, toward the property line. The one that we approved was somewhere back in here. MR. MC NALLY-Correct. MR. RYAN-It was a little bit more south of what you see there. MR. STONE-South, yes, that would get it away from the lake. MR. RYAN-Right, because since it’s an angle, it kind of slides along the angle. MR. STONE-Well, what do we have now, not that we usually ask this of people, because we assume that they have a deed to their property. What do we have now that tells us what property you actually own? What is the lot that you own? MR. RYAN-Well, the lot we own is what 16-1-4 with the proposed area. MR. STONE-Okay. So your writing of proposed property line number two, that’s your writing, right? MR. RYAN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-And that was identified at 9/21/99 additional location proposed lot line? And that was actually done by Van Dusen and Steves. MR. RYAN-Right. They have the iron stakes already in the ground. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. RYAN-You’ll see the “IRS”, close to the lake. MR. STONE-I understand that. Then why does it say proposed property line, if that’s, in fact, the property line? MR. RYAN-It hasn’t been filed as a deed yet. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. RYAN-And I wish Chris was here, but he didn’t give me the wording on the septic. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. STONE-Okay. Well, you have to know that we were burned a couple of months ago, by a piece of property that we thought the person had a contract to. They did not. MR. RYAN-And I want you to appreciate the fact that we haven’t done anything without. MR. STONE-I understand that totally. MR. ABBATE-Would you clear something up for me, sir, Mr. Ryan? Dr. Kirkpatrick indicates in here, I don’t want his house sitting directly on my property line. What specifically does he mean by that? MR. RYAN-I just saw the letter tonight, and I don’t think I could speak for him. MR. ABBATE-Well, is your property on his property line? MR. RYAN-No. We’re five feet from the property line. MR. STONE-Five feet, that’s the relief he’s asking. MR. ABBATE-So we don’t know what he really means, what the intent of his comment is here then? MR. RYAN-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Is he here this evening? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. ABBATE-No. All right. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All right. Anymore questions? 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. HAYES-Yes. I have a letter from Dr. Harold Kirkpatrick, to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, “I am the owner of land immediately to the south of Mark W. Ryan. He purchased his property from me this year. I don’t want his house sitting directly on my property line and I will not agree to any relief for set back regulations. I will not sell him any more land or allow him to change any property lines except what has already been done. I may not be able to attend the meeting, and I want you to be aware of my feeling on this matter. Sincerely yours, Harold Kirkpatrick, M.D.” MR. THOMAS-What’s the date on that letter? MR. HAYES-The date is December 7, 1999. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. HAYES-I guess that kind of confirms that the land was sold, though. MR. STONE-I guess it does. MR. THOMAS-Is there any other correspondence? MR. HAYES-No, that’s just a copy. MR. THOMAS-All right. Nobody wants to speak in favor. Nobody wants to speak opposed. That’s been done. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Ryan? If not, we’ll talk about it. I’ll start with Mr. McNulty? MR. HAYES-I have one question before we start. It’s for Staff. In the Staff notes, there’s a reference to getting a possible concession on the maximum allowable height, but that’s not in the relief required section. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. BROWN-Right. In the applicant’s plan, it shows less than 28 feet. Maybe if you want to pin him down to 27/11 or you want to see something lower than that, since there’s relief on all sides. It was just a suggestion. MR. STONE-It is something we talked about last time, because of what appears to be a third floor. You assured us it’s not a third floor. MR. RYAN-Right. The drawing should show a ceiling over the bathroom, but since the building’s so small, we were just going to leave it open to that. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions? Mr. McNulty, you’re on. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I have a problem with this, with the amount of relief that’s requested, and the size of the lot. I reluctantly went along with the original proposal that we had previously with the extra land hopefully being available, but frankly, this piece of land strikes me as being a piece that probably shouldn’t have a building on it, and with the five feet off one property line, and less than 50 feet from the lakeshore, I’m going to be inclined to vote against it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Well, since I wasn’t privy to his previous applications, and some of the conversations that took place, I’m going to probably vote, by. So I have no other comments. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, it certainly is a difficult situation, a difficult lot, but in this particular circumstance, I think the things that are proposed, even with the cumulative relief, represent maximizing a poor situation, as I see it. The applicant has agreed, through some pretty substantial work that I can derive to improve his septic system dramatically, and we all have certain feelings about holding tanks, but a property this close to the lake, I guess the case could be made, and the Town Board voted in favor of it. So they must have saw the wisdom therein. This obviously represents more relief than the original passed by us, but in this particular circumstance, this piece of property has a building on it. It has a camp on it now. So the question is where do we go from there? Where do we go forward. I don’t think it’s possible to say that that camp can’t exist anymore, because obviously it’s been purchased, and it has a value, and doing that would be a taking, in my estimation. So I think the plan is reasonable. The building itself is identical in size and footprint to the existing building. So it doesn’t represent, to me, which would have been too much, which is asking for more, in this particular circumstance. I would like to see the building smaller., but I’m not sure, based on what Mr. Ryan is trying to accomplish, that that’s possible, in this particular circumstance. Protecting the lake is a lot, in my mind, of what we want to accomplish in examining these type of proposals, and I’m sure we’ll hear that from the lake czar, but in this particular circumstance, I think it does do that. I think that the 41 feet from the lake is a lot better than 10, and I think that that, to me, is the most paramount fact, in this particular circumstance. As far as the neighborhood, Dr. Kirkpatrick has expressed the fact that he doesn’t intend to convey anymore land to Mr. Ryan, to make this any better, but he already has conveyed some land, knowing, presumably, what the applicant had in mind. I mean, I cannot believe that he wouldn’t have an understanding that that is what an applicant would be attempting to do, in this particular circumstance. So I believe in that sense, he’s agreed to it or he sanctioned at least that part of it. So in my mind, this is the best possible alternative, based on the circumstances. I believe that cumulatively the relief is moderate. I think when you’re going further away from the lake, I think that reduces, in my mind, that it’s not substantial. So I think the effects of him having a new camp at this location with a new septic system further away from the lake, cumulatively, is a good thing for the neighborhood, and I don’t believe the difficulty is self-created because this obviously is a pre-existing lot, a pre-existing condition, and one that, in my mind, is better remedied. So I would be in favor of this application. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, as the referred to lake czar, I don’t really have a problem with this. I am troubled, primarily, by the fact that we were given certain information the last time, and now we come back and we have different information, but having said that, and I hear why. I’m not faulting you. You acted in good faith. The fact that we are taking a piece of property, a building which is 10 feet from the lake, and moving it back 31 feet is significant, to me. This is a very important thing. In addition, we are making the building it appears from your drawing, a much more attractive structure than it is now. Today it looks like an ice cream stand, because that’s what it was, an ice cream stand, and that’s what it looks like. MR. RYAN-You’re right. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. STONE-I didn’t want to put you down for living there. MR. RYAN-You’re not going to offend me. MR. STONE-Okay. So the 41 feet, particularly when you consider the view from the lake, and this is something we do talk about from time to time. With the marina there, you’re going to be hard pressed to even see it from most of the lake, unless you come way into the bay. It’s not going to be something that is going to be very obvious to anybody. It is set back on a very strange lot. You’ve got a new dock that you’re putting in, which I’m told is perfectly legal, meets all the setback requirements. Obviously you went to the LGPC, and all that sort of stuff. That’s going to hide the house even more, and the fact that it’s 41 feet is not troubling to me. The 15 feet of relief on the south side, it abuts against an empty lot, which apparently your seller doesn’t want you to be too close, but you’re not close to anything except an imaginary property line, in this particular case, and I hear you saying, if you were to move the house, away from the line a little bit, then you’re probably going to get closer to the lake, and I’d prefer you to be as far away from the lake. So, therefore, I have no problem with this. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I think when we first approved this, on the prior application, it wasn’t as difficult a choice because we were basically just giving a variance for the side setback. MR. RYAN-The road setback. We had 20 feet on the side, 50 at the lake, and we had 30 from the road, with the part I own, except for the Town’s right-of-way that’s a little bit wider, and that was where I asked for the relief. MR. MC NALLY-But I find this a little bit more difficult, because the cumulative effect of the requests for variances are a little bit more substantial. When you are moving a single floor building back 50 feet from the lake, and then building up, it wasn’t a problem. Now you’re only set back at 41 feet, and you’re still putting the same building up, and you’re asking for relief from the side and the shoreline, and the front setbacks, but Lew’s points about it being set behind the marina, and all the boats at that corner, is well taken. I don’t think it’s going to be a significant impact, in that you’ll be hard pressed to see it through all the masts. Overall, I’m in favor of the project, just because I think that this is a unique piece of property. MR. THOMAS-All right. I think Lew and Bob have really said all that needs to be said about this, and because of the uniqueness of the property, the dealing that’s been going on between Mr. Ryan and Dr. Kirkpatrick about the land and stuff like that. I thought we had a real good deal the last time. We had a great deal the last time, but it appears that great deal went down the drain, and this is what Mr. Ryan has come up with, and as far as I can see, this is the only thing he can really do with that unique piece of property, and as Lew has said, the setback of the building will be 41 feet from the lake, rather than the present 10 feet, and that the Town Board, acting as the Board of Health has granted a holding tank system for this piece of property. The five feet back, as Lew said, to the property line, on an empty lot, I don’t think is of any great concern in this particular case. I really don’t like to see any trees cut down, but we could ask him to move the building again, but I’m not going to ask him to move the building again. I think this is the best plan that we can get for this piece of property, and I would have no problem approving this one. Having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 104-99 MARK W. RYAN, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 28 Rockhurst Road. The applicant proposes relocation and construction of a second story addition to a seasonal camp that now sits 10 feet from the lake, and seeks setback relief and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Specifically, the applicant requests four feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement, front in this case being the road, and 15 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, 179-16. Also, the applicant requests 9 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirements of both the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16, and the Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, 179-60. Further, since the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements, the applicant is requesting relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, per 179-79. In considering this Area Variance, we note that the applicant obviously would be permitted to relocate and expand the existing structure to his benefit. The feasible alternatives previously considered in Area Variance 51-1999 are no longer viable since property was denied sale to the applicant. The previous variance required minimum setback relief, specifically relief from the road. Since this has been reduced, the project has been reduced to a significantly smaller area. In making this consideration, we note that the cumulative request may be interpreted as moderate, but most importantly, the relief from the lake is minimal, considering the fact that the previous, the current camp is 10 feet from the lake, and this camp will 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) be 41 feet from the lake, a significant improvement of 31 feet, particularly when you consider that the holding tank has also been approved by the Town Board to be 41 feet from the lake. In granting this request, we note that there will be moderate effects on the neighborhood, and probably less than moderate, since this particular house, at a maximum height of 28 feet will be not visible, very much, from the lake because of the marina to the northeast, and the fact that there is nothing on the property to the south and, yes, we have agreed that the difficulty is self-created. However, when we balance the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community, I believe that this variance is one that should be granted, and I so move. Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSTAINED: Mr. Abbate ABSENT: Mr. Stec MR. THOMAS-I hope this is it. MR. RYAN-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 105-1999 TYPE II LC-42A CEA PHILIP C. MC INTIRE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 2352 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 13 FT. BY 16 FT. GLASS SUNROOM AT THE REAR OF THE EXISTING HOME AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. APPLICANT ALSO SEEKS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE SPR 67-99 TAX MAP NO. 21-1-9 LOT SIZE: 1.21 ACRES SECTION 179- 13, 179-79 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HAYES-I have a letter dated November 24, 1999, from Jon C. Lapper, to Christian G. Thomas, Chairman of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals “Gentlemen: On behalf of Philip McIntire, I hereby submit applications to your respective Boards for an area variance and site plan review for a proposed 13’ x 16’ glass sunroom addition to his home. These applications are required because the pre-existing structure does not comply with the 100’ setbacks required in the Land Conservation forty-two acre zone. The addition is proposed to be located at the portion of the house which is farthest from the non-conforming property lines and thus will minimize the relief requested. Site plan review is required because, although the house location is at a significant elevation increase from the Dunham’s Bay critical environmental area, it is nevertheless within 500’. I expect that both Boards will view this request as very minor. Please place this matter on your respective agendas for December’s meetings. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq.” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 105-1999, Philip C. McIntire, Meeting Date: December 15, 1999 “Project Location: 2352 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 208 square foot sunroom addition and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 28.75 feet and 53.12 feet of relief from the respective 100 foot minimum front and side setback requirements of the LC-42A zone, § 179-13. Further the applicant requests relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure, per § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Section 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition and gain additional living space. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited as the pre-existing lot and house placement contribute to the difficulty. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 28.75 feet and 53.12 of relief from the 100 foot requirements 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 characteristics of this site would necessitate relief for any addition to this structure. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 98-241 issued 9/3/98 addition BP 97-392 issued 7/14/97 Septic Alterations Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed addition does not increase any existing setback encroachment. The pre-existing non conforming location of the house is a contributing factor in this request. The proposed 208 sf addition appears to be a minimal request. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay. There was nothing from Warren County? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. HAYES-No County information. MR. THOMAS-Go ahead and ask your question. MR. STONE-I’ve got two questions. This is not going to be re-zoned? This is not one of the suggested areas of LC-42? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Secondly, I notice there was a building permit issued in 9/3/98. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-How could there be one without a variance? Was there an Area Variance, too? MR. BROWN-There was not. It was misidentified in the building permit process, as to what the permit was for. It was a second story addition on the north side of the house. A minimal plot plan was submitted and was accepted, and it was misidentified at the time, and it’s done now, CO’s issued. MR. STONE-I just happened to notice it and figured if we need it for this, we needed it for that. MR. BROWN-Exactly. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-For the record, and for the new Board member whom I haven’t met, my name is Jon Lapper. I’m an attorney with Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes in Glens Falls, and uncharacteristically, I have very little to add regarding this application. This was the old Queensbury Schoolhouse before the consolidated Queensbury District in 1950. It was subsequently converted into a home, and what Phil is proposing is this picture that I will show you, except that the glass goes down to the ground. It is virtually invisible from any property line or the road, because of the location at the back corner of the house. So I think it will have no impact, and there are good reasons to have the LC-42 zone, but because of the location of this, so far above the wetland area, it doesn’t impact that whatsoever. MR. ABBATE-This is the proposal right here? MR. LAPPER-That one without the brick. MR. STONE-And that shed is coming down, right? Where it’s going to be, that building is going to be taken down. Is that moved or removed? MR. THOMAS-Moved. Shed to be moved. There’s no “re” in front of it. MR. STONE-I know. That’s what I’m asking. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, that would be my next question is, to where? MR. LAPPER-What he told me is just slightly off from where it is. MR. MC NULTY-Just move it far enough to get it out of the way. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-You mean it’s to be moved along the deed parcel line, that direction you say? MR. THOMAS-No, toward the road. MR. LAPPER-Toward the road. MR. STONE-Well, that requires a different variance, or different relief. MR. LAPPER-I guess it does. So I guess the choice is to move it no closer to the road, or to ask for additional relief, and I don’t, frankly, know what the answer is because I didn’t think about it. So I would accept that it has to go no closer to the road, and if he wants to do anything else, I’ll tell him he can’t. I don’t think it’s a big deal. MR. MC NALLY-It’s not the best shed in the world, that’s for sure. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. STONE-No, it’s not. MR. THOMAS-Unless you’d like to table it, so we can re-advertise it? MR. LAPPER-No, they are ready to build. MR. STONE-How are you going to build it if the shed isn’t moved? MR. LAPPER-The shed will be moved, but it will be moved no closer to the road, unless we come back for another variance. MR. STONE-Okay. So in a sense you’re going to move it down along that deed parcel land, I suspect? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Outside of this thing, and then it’ll destroy the beautiful, not the lawn, the building is all glass. MR. MC NULTY-But if the shed gets moved any location where it’s not in compliance with the setbacks, does he still need a variance? MR. STONE-Yes, that’s what we’re saying. MR. LAPPER-Yes. So I’m committing that it will not be moved closer to the property line, the front property line unless he comes back for a variance. MR. STONE-Then the relief that you’re asking for which is, actually, no, you go away from the side line if you go far. MR. LAPPER-Right, but it still doesn’t conform in the front. MR. STONE-It doesn’t conform to the front. MR. THOMAS-But if it doesn’t move any closer to the front. MR. STONE-Yes, but it’s the number we need to know, because that’s not the relief we’re granting. MR. BROWN-Jon, do you know, is it 100 square feet or less, the shed? MR. LAPPER-I believe that it is considerably less. MR. BROWN-If the shed is less than 100 square feet, it doesn’t have to meet the setback requirements. It can be as close as say five feet to the line, and the other option is, it’s not really part of the application tonight. So can you give it relief without advertising it. MR. HAYES-He’s saying he’s not going to put it closer to the road, basically to jump out of that loop, right? MR. LAPPER-Compared to the 13 by 16, it seems considerably smaller than 10 by 10. So I think that it is less than 100 square feet. MR. STONE-Jon, what is that line underneath the gray? MR. LAPPER-It’s an existing patio, or there was an existing patio. I think the patio was just removed last week. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-What you’re saying is you’re going to either move it to a compliant location or it’s undersized, so it doesn’t require any variance, and if it does, you’ll be back. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-Did you come up with a number? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. BROWN-Yes. I scaled it at nine by eleven. Does that work for you? That’s what I scaled. MR. LAPPER-But I will check into that. If he needs to come back. MR. MC NALLY-That’s a non-issue. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Let’s see, Jon is done with his presentation. Does anyone have anymore questions for Mr. Lapper? MR. ABBATE-You don’t have any horses there by any chance, do you? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. THOMAS-He doesn’t have enough acreage. All right. If there’s no more questions for Mr. Lapper at this point, I will open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. HAYES-None. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Lapper? If not, we will start with Mr. Abbate this time. MR. ABBATE-What would you propose I do? MR. THOMAS-Tell us how you feel, yes, no, maybe. MR. ABBATE-I don’t see any problems with this. I think the 13 by 16 glass sunroom addition to the house makes an attractive addition. Quite frankly, I’d like to have it myself. I think it’s an improvement in the land, and the gentleman has indicated to me, under oath, that there will be no horses. So consequently, I don’t have any problems with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. STONE-We don’t swear these people, but he is an officer of the court. MR. THOMAS-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think Mr. Abbate’s got it covered there, even though I think that in LC-42 horses are permitted, actually, but it’s obviously minimal relief, and the relief that is requested, in my mind, has to do more with the zoning classification of LC-42A. We’ve dealt with this before. The setbacks are generous, and that’s good, but in this particular circumstance, I believe there’s still plenty of feet from the actual boundary line, and it’s well hidden. It’s an attractive addition, and I think the effects on the neighborhood or community are positive, when people improve their homes, in a tasteful way. So I would be in favor of this application. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-I concur with particularly what Jaime said. It’s a good project. It’s way off the road, LC-42 notwithstanding. It’s even further away than the bulk of the house or the schoolhouse. It’ll be a very attractive building, and certainly as you consider everything, the benefit to the applicant far outweighs any detriment. I don’t even see any detriment to the community, except that it is a violation of the zoning code. That it’s only detriment to the community. So I have no problem with it at all. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree. The size is nominal, as far as I’m concerned. It’s behind the house. There’s significant vegetation screening it from any possible viewpoint, and the distance from the Critical Environmental Area, while it’s within certain limitations, it’s so high above that area, so far away from it in my opinion, they’re going to have no impact whatsoever. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. McNulty? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. MC NULTY-Well, I concur. It’s a small project. Given the current location of the house, there’s not much else that can be done. I don’t think it’s going to have any impact on neighbors or anything else. So I’d be in favor. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. This is minimal impact. If this sat in another zoning classification, the addition wouldn’t, well, yes, it would need a variance because of the five and a half foot setback from the side, but in this instance here, it’s as far away from the lot line as it can be gotten. It sits behind the house, and the 99 square foot shed will be moved, and it will be moved to a location that is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Having said that, I would ask for a motion. MR. STONE-You can’t say that. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I can. Why can’t I? MR. STONE-It can’t be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance if it’s still going to be where it stands. MR. THOMAS-He can set it five feet from the property line, if it’s. MR. STONE-From a shed. I’m sorry. You’re right. I misspoke. MR. THOMAS-Yes, the shed is what I’m talking about. All right. Having said that, I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 105-1999 PHILIP C. MC INTIRE, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 2352 Ridge Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 208 square foot sun room addition, and is seeking setback relief. Specifically, the applicant requests 28.75 feet and 53.12 feet of relief from the respective 10 foot minimum front and side setback requirements of the LC-42A zone, Section 179-13. Further, the applicant requests relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, per Section 179-79. The benefit to the applicant would be that the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition and gain additional living space. The feasible alternatives seem to be limited, as the pre-existing lot and house placement contribute to the difficulty. 28.75 feet and 53.12 feet of relief from the 100 foot requirements may be interpreted as moderate amount of relief. However, we would expect to have minimal effects on the neighborhood because of this action. The difficulty can be interpreted as being self-created. However, the pre-existing characteristics of the site and the location of the house would necessitate relief for any addition to this structure. For these reasons, I move adoption of this application. Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stec MR. LAPPER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 106-1999 TYPE II HC-1A MICHAEL S. HAYES PAUL J. HAYES 87 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN ENLARGED RECONSTRUCTION TO CREATE A 1,398 SQ. FT. BUILDING. THE APPLICANT SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF, RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, RELIEF FROM THE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE SETBACKS. CROSS REF. SPR 66-99 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 107-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-66, 179-79, 179-28 JON LAPPER, MICKEY HAYES, JIM MILLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 106-1999, Michael S. Hayes, Paul J Hayes, Meeting Date: December 15, 1999 “Project Location: 87 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition and an enlarged reconstruction to create a 1,398 square foot building. Relief Required: Applicant requests 19.5 feet and 29.3 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirements and 21.4 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum rear setback 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) requirement of the HC-1A zone, § 179-23. Simultaneously, the applicant is requesting 44.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay setback requirement for Quaker Road. Additionally, the applicant requests relief from the Off Street Park and Loading Regulations, § 179-66. This proposal would require 13 parking spaces; the applicant’s plan depicts 8 on the property. 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 operate a business. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include approval from Warren County for the use of a portion of the Quaker Road right of way for parking and landscaping. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: 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 configuration of this lot along with the widening of Quaker Road and the creation of the Travel Corridor Overlay requirements may contribute to the difficulty. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 27- 94 res. – 8/23/94 Used auto sales SP 2-91 res. – 1/9/91 Bob Baker pools SP 11-88 res. – 4/19/88 Headwaters Marine denied Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Previously approved site plans did not include usage of the Quaker Road right of way. The current encroachment is in violation of the conditions of Site Plan 27-94. The applicants desire to clean up the property with a new may be attainable if the current tenant complied with the approval issued. While this property is subject to the Travel Corridor setback requirements, the intent of the setback is to allow for future increases of the right of way, road and utilities. The existing Quaker Road right of way appears to be sufficient for any future expansion of the roadway. Allowing projects usage of the right of way, which could be revoked at any time by the County , may significantly affect site conditions. Approval from the County prior to ZBA approval may be considered, as a County approval may be conditional. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 29, 1999 Project Name: Hayes, Michael and Paul Owner: Marion Wilhelm ID Number: QBY-AV- 106-1999 County Project #: Dec99-17 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant proposes to demolish and enlarge reconstruction to create a 1,398 sq. ft. bldg. Applicant seeks setback relief for expansion of a non-conforming structure, relief from off street parking requirements and travel corridor overlay zone setbacks. Site Location: 87 Quaker Road Tax Map No.: 107-1-1 Staff Notes: The applicant is requesting a variance for 26 off- street parking spaces (40 are required and 14 are proposed) and area variances as follows: Front yard (Quaker) – Existing – 30.5, Proposed – 30.5, Required 50/75 (travel corridor); Front (if corner) existing 20.7, proposed 20.7, required 50; Side Yard (1) existing 70.8, proposed 48.6, required 25; Side Yard (2), existing 3.6, proposed 3.6, required 25. Though the area deficiencies are no worse than the existing non-conforming building, the deficiencies are substantial, and the proposal would reduce the one setback that exceeds requirements. Therefore, staff recommends discussion in conjunction with discussion of the site plan (agenda item Dec99-18). Location actions to date (if any): Public Hearing: December 15, 1999. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed, Terry M. Ross. MR. THOMAS-Would you read that cover letter, too. MR. HAYES-Sure. Okay. We have a letter from Jon Lapper, Mr. Christian G. Thomas, Chairman, Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, “Gentlemen: On behalf of Mickey and Jamie Hayes I am pleased to submit applications to your respective boards for area variances and site plan approval of a proposed Cool Beans Restaurant/Coffeehouse at the location of the existing used car lot at the southwest corner of Quaker Road and Everts Avenue. The existing use is, frankly, a mess. There are often as many as forty cars on the .23 acre parcel. The proposed use will be a major visual improvement. The new building will be reconstructed on the footprint of the existing building with a small addition. The reason for replacing the existing building is to bring the new building to grade for handicap access. The total square footage of the building (1,398 sq. ft.) will occupy only 14% of the lot. It is hard to imagine any use other than a used car lot which could be accommodated by the existing 930 sq. ft. building. In contrast, the new building will be finished the same as the attractive Cool Beans facility located on Western Avenue in Queensbury. It will have clear cedar siding and architectural roof shingles. Additionally, substantial quality landscaping will be added. A portion of the existing parking area will be removed so that the site will comply with the 30% permeable requirement. The portion of the parking area which is located on the County property will be reduced in size so that the area at the corner of Quaker and Everts will not have any parking. This will improve drivers’ visibility as well as the site aesthetics. Additionally, the existing non-conforming pylon sign will be removed and the only signage will be building façade signs which will comply with the Town Sign Code. I trust that the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals will view this matter as a major improvement to the area. We look forward to presenting this project to both boards in December. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq.” MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to excuse myself, based on a small conflict of interest. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. THOMAS-Thank you for staying and reading the application into the record. We appreciate it. All right. Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-Okay. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper, from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes. With me is Mickey Hayes, the project applicant, and Jim Miller of Miller Associates, the project landscape architect. Obviously, from the cover letter and the application, I view this as a very positive change, considering what’s there now, which I think is a visual blight. There was one mistake in the notes of the County Planning Board. They misinterpreted the cover letter to mean that we were asking for a variance on parking from 40 spaces. What we were saying is just that there are up to 40 used cars we counted on the lot right now. So, what we’re showing is completely in compliance, but a portion of those spaces is within the County right-of-way. I don’t know if you received the letter that I got yesterday from County Planning, excuse me, from County Department of Public Works, which we will read into the record if you don’t have it. It was addressed to me and copied to Chris Round, that Department of Public Works, that they look positively and say that they are ready to issue the permit to use their property. I had spoken with Bill Remington before the process started, because we knew that that would be an integral part of this. Because of the large setback and the fact that Quaker Road’s already five lanes, we just don’t anticipate that the County, in any of our lifetimes, is going to increase that to a seven lane road, and regardless, we’re complying with the green space requirement on the site, which is a vast improvement over what’s there now. The fact that we need the setbacks really relates to the pre-existing, nonconforming size of the lot, and the fact that the building is very close to the rear lot line, but there’s not much that can be done in order to make a quarter lot usable, and in terms of the neighbor to the rear, impacts to the neighbor on the rear, I think that this is very positive, to clean this up, landscape it, put an attractive building and get rid of all those used cars that are just sitting there. The whole lot is, essentially, paved or graveled, which Queensbury considers impervious. So I think this is going to be a major visual improvement, compared to what’s there, and the neighbors, I don’t know if you received the letters from the neighbors, we solicited, D’Ella across the street, Hewitt’s Garden Center. MR. STONE-Dr. Hoffman, didn’t he have any? MR. LAPPER-No, but he didn’t say anything negative. He didn’t send a letter in, but Murray’s. MICKEY HAYES MR. M. HAYES-I talked to Dr. Hoffman and Murray’s, and they’re both, Murray’s right next door. MR. LAPPER-No problem, and the accounting firm is right there also sent a letter. We’ll submit those during the public hearing. We have copies with us. MR. STONE-Those trees that are there, they seem to be on both properties. The line of the trees does not follow the property line. MR. M. HAYES-As you can see, part of his parking lot is on our property, which we intend to leave. We have no problem with that, but the trees, I guess somebody believed that was the property line, including Dr. Hoffman. I told him it goes a little different than that. MR. STONE-What is this property here, lands of Loftus and Ross? MR. M. HAYES-I guess that’s a right-of-way that Loftus and Ross has, that nobody’s quite sure what really that is. MR. STONE-Okay. I just happened to. MR. LAPPER-That appears as part of the Murray’s parking lot. MR. STONE-I know. I stopped on it today. MR. LAPPER-Unfortunately, that parking lot is kind of a mess. That’s one of the issues that we’re going to talk about is whether we can get access to that parking lot, and we’d like to because it would just create another way out, and comply with the, it’s really a planning issue, but comply with the access of commercial parcels, which we would like to have as an additional access, but because of the condition of that parking lot, with big ruts and pot holes, it’s not optimum, but it may be something for the future. MR. STONE-Do we have to grant the parking space relief? That’s part of ours, too, yes. MR. LAPPER-We’re showing enough parking spaces to comply, but a portion of those spaces. MR. STONE-Are in the Overlay Zone. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. LAPPER-Yes, but we believe that this could be laid out, reconfigured, so that we can fit 13 spaces on the site, if we had to in the future, so that we wouldn’t need a parking variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions for Mr. Lapper? 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. LAPPER-We’d like to submit our correspondence, at this time. What do you have? MR. THOMAS-I have a letter from James Callahan, of Hewitt’s Garden. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I have one from Lisa Penistan, from the County, and that’s the only two I’ve got. MR. LAPPER-Here comes some more. MR. THOMAS-You have some more. MR. LAPPER-Because the use of the County property is integral to this application, Craig was appropriately pushing me to deal with that up front, and I was pleased that the County was able to process it so quickly. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We have a letter dated December 9, 1999, from Michael DellaBella, “Dear Queensbury Board Members: I’d appreciate your taking some time to read my letter. I am owner of the D’Ella Auto Group of Glens Falls and operate three (3) dealerships in the Queensbury area. Mickey and Jamie Hayes have approached me with their plans to construct a new “COOL BEANS” café on Quaker Road, right across the road from two (2) of my facilities. I believe that “COOL BEANS” will be a tremendous asset to this east side of Queensbury. I am pleased to see local business people investing their livelihoods in their own town. As a neighbor, I will look forward to “sharing” the neighborhood with an already proven attractive and prosperous enterprise. Thank you for your consideration and Happy Holidays! Sincerely, Michael DellaBella President, D’ELLA Auto Group” A letter dated December 13, 1999, from Thomas J. Ross, CPA, CTP, Zoning Board of Appeals, “Dear Board Members: This letter is written to express our unconditional support of the pending project sponsored by Michael S. Hayes and Paul J. Hayes on the property known as 87 Quaker Road, Tax Map No. 107-1-1, with the current owner being Marion O’Neil. We have discussed and met with Michael S. Hayes relative to the proposed plans and as a neighbor, we welcome the project to our neighborhood with enthusiasm. In our opinion, the setback relief, relief from the off-street parking and the relief for expansion of a non-conforming structure requirements, will not adversely affect the neighboring properties and will, in fact, enhance the property and that of its neighbors. We strongly urge your approval of the project at your meeting on December 15, 1999. Sincerely, Loftus, Ross + Co., CPAs, P.C., Thomas J. Ross, CPA, CTP, President” A faxed memo to Chris Round from Lisa Penistan, dated 12/14/99, regarding Cool Beans Restaurant and Coffeehouse, dated December 14, 1999, addressed to Jonathan Lapper, Attorney, “Dear Jonathan Lapper: As we discussed, Warren County would look favorably upon a shared driveway for the proposed Cool Beans Restaurant/Coffeehouse if it’s possible, but feel the one way entrance into the site is acceptable. In regards to the proposed parking spaces within the Warren County right of way, the County will issue a permit but will stipulate that if the right of way is ever needed by the County, the permit will be revoked with thirty day notice. Please contact me when you are ready to acquire the permit. We will need a copy of the permittee’s protective liability insurance as shown on the attached sheet. Respectfully, Lisa A. Penistan, Assistant Engineer WARREN COUNTY DPW” And attached is the DPW stipulations for using County land, and that’s all I have, just those four things. All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Are you leasing the land? MR. LAPPER-Purchasing the land. MR. STONE-You are purchasing the land. MR. LAPPER-Yes. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. STONE-Okay. It doesn’t necessarily reflect that. MR. LAPPER-It doesn’t reflect that. You’re right. It is now being leased to the used car dealer, and this will be purchased. It is under contract. MR. STONE-So therefore the user and the owner will be one, and they will be responsible for keeping it well. I didn’t understand, Craig, your comment, and it’s probably my reading. “The current encroachment is in violation of the conditions of Site Plan 27-94. The applicant’s desire to clean up the property with a new use may be attainable if the current tenants comply with the approval issued.” It sounds like there was a word or a phrase missing there, but if they’re going to buy it and run this thing, I’m confident that it will be maintained well, as the other establishment is. MR. LAPPER-Craig is correct, because he’s saying that as ugly as I feel the use is, that part of it is because it’s not in compliance, because they’re using even more of a County property, more than they applied for in their site plan, and that’s true, but I think just the nature of that use, and the fact that it’s all impervious with no landscaping, and an ugly building, that even if you brought it back a little bit, it’s still not a positive. MR. THOMAS-All right. Anymore questions for Mr. Lapper, or either one of the applicants? Let’s see, proposed is 30.1% green area and required is 30%. MR. LAPPER-Making it comply was not easy. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So everything else is in compliance except those setbacks. All right. If there’s no more questions for Mr. Lapper or either one of the applicants or Mr. Miller, we’ll start talking about this one. We’re back to Lew. MR. STONE-We go by properties all the time, when we drive around Town, and certain properties you look at because they’re really bad, but most times you don’t really look at them, and having looked at that one today, with the, I didn’t count the cars. I only have 20 toes and fingers, and I couldn’t get any higher than that. There were so many cars on that lot, and the fact that the sign had a taped over name on the top, I mean, it’s just an unattractive piece of property. Normally, we consider the project, and the project, based upon the precedent already established by the applicants on their other business, of which this will be number two. I guess we’re going to call it Cool Beans Two. Certainly, there’s the anticipation that this will be a vast improvement to the property. It will be a real asset to the area. It will make that corner an attractive corner, and the amount of relief, I mean, it is a jungle in there, when you come down to the traffic corridor overlay, and the County project, but the County is saying, they’ve blessed you. They’ve blessed the applicant, taking back 30 days to tell you to get off, but as Craig said in his Staff notes, and you’ve said in your letter, the anticipation of this ever being taken back is minimal. Certainly within the next 30 or 40 years, I won’t see it, but that’s, I don’t think it’ll ever happen. So I have no problem with this application. I think it’ll be a vast improvement on this corner. I think it will add to some of the improvements that we’ve been seeing. We certainly have seen a number of businesses gone in, some of which we can complain about, but in general it’s a vast improvement, and hopefully will lead to maybe an improvement to the west on that side of the road, which I think could use some. I’m just rambling at the moment, but I think it’s a good project, and I certainly would approve it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. McNally? MR. MC NALLY-I start from the proposition this is a small lot. You’ve got less than a quarter of an acre, and the existing use to which it’s being put is a true eyesore. Any feasible alternative is going to require some kind of relief in order to have a viable business. No way around it. The relief that the applicant’s requested is insubstantial. Quaker Road is five lanes wide. It’s got broad shoulders. Effectively, the setback is far more than 50 feet, and that’s true on the Evert’s Avenue side also. There is 44 and a half feet of relief requested from the Travel Corridor Overlay, but for the same reason, effectively, it’ll be a very long time, if ever, that they need to widen Quaker Road. So I don’t see that the setbacks as proposed would cause a problem, and the parking. It’s a small building. You don’t need that much parking, and you’ve got what you need, based upon the existing configuration of a long right-of-way. I think it’s a positive construction. It’s going to be an attractive business, and I think the Hayes’ have a track record in Town of doing right, which speaks for itself. So I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-I do have a question. The parking, you’re going to put in 13 or you’re going to put in 7, immediately? MR. LAPPER-Fourteen. MR. STONE-Fourteen, and that is in line with the kind of business you’ve done at the other place? I mean, it will be? 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. LAPPER-It’s more than the other business. MR. STONE-More than the other business. MR. LAPPER-It complies with the parking code, which requires either 12 or 13, depending upon how you calculate it. MR. STONE-Right, but it’s based upon your experience it’s going to work. MR. M. HAYES-Yes. We think it will work substantially better than the other location. Well, it’s in with BerryMill, so it’s hard to actually say how many we have because they cheat over into the BerryMill Plaza, which helped our parking situation there when we added that property. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. McNulty. MR. MC NULTY-I can’t see anything that could be done, other than what’s proposed to improve this property. Certainly what’s proposed is an improvement. Anything that gets put on there is going to require variances. I think this is an excellent project, and I’m in favor. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Well, after reviewing the request, it’s my belief that Cool Beans would contribute in a positive manner to the Town of Queensbury, in a number of ways, employment. Certainly what they propose is a very attractive, at least in my opinion, is a very attractive landscaping, and I suspect that it will be nothing but a positive move for the Town of Queensbury, and I certainly would vote for it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. This is probably the best thing they could do with this lot being a corner lot also, being a .23 acre lot, that they seem to have very nicely fit the building and most of the parking in there. It will be more attractive than what’s in there, or what has been in there in the past. They have the blessing of the County. So, having said that, I would agree with the other Board members that there’s no problem with this one. Having said that, I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 106-1999 MICHAEL S. HAYES PAUL J. HAYES, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 87 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes the demolition and an enlarged reconstruction to create a 1,398 square foot building. Specifically, the applicant requests 19.5 feet and 29.3 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirements along Quaker and Everts Avenue, and 21.4 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the HC-1A zone, that is Section 179- 23. At the same time, the applicant requests 44 and a half feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay setback requirement along Quaker Road. Additionally, the applicant proposes and requests relief from the Off Street Parking and Loading regulations, Section 179-66. Their proposal incorporates 14 spaces, and the plan itself only depicts 8 spaces on their actual lot. The benefit, of course, to the applicant would be that they would be able to improve, construction and operate a viable business at this location. The feasible alternatives are few and far between. The lot is small, less than one quarter of an acre, and any proposed development at this location is going to have to, by necessity, involve some sort of relief. The relief, though, that they’ve asked for is, given the nature of the business and this particular lot, not substantial. Quaker Road is five lanes wide. It has broad shoulders, and the setback, for both purposes of the Town setback ordinance and the Travel Corridor Overlay, is effectively greater than 50 feet, by far, along Quaker Road, and that is also true along Everts Avenue. Off street parking could be re-configured to meet the 14 or 12, 13 car requirement under the Code, but as the County has given permission for the parking along the right- of-way, the relief they’ve requested is nominal. There’ll be no effect on the neighborhood, of any nature, that I would characterize as negative. In fact, the construction is a positive attractive business location which is taking the place of a business currently at the site, which is not terribly attractive and certainly is not something I would characterize as a benefit to our community. The applicants propose to improve the property, to construct a building on that property which will be far and away an improvement over the existing conditions. I don’t believe that the difficulty is self-created. It’s the result of the pre-existing nominal and minimal size of the lot and its placement along the Quaker Road right of way, and for all these reasons, I move the approval of this application. Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have just one question that I failed to ask. Is there any alcohol served on these premises? MR. M. HAYES-No, there isn’t. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. THOMAS-No alcohol served. Okay. AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stec MR. M. HAYES-Thank you for your time. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. MR. P. HAYES-Thank you, guys. AREA VARIANCE NO. 107-1999 TYPE II LC-42A CEA TYPE II MICHAEL J. VASILIOU, INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT HAS BEGUN CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 22-1-3 LOT SIZE: 5.30 ACRES SECTION 179-13 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 107-1999, Michael J. Vasiliou, Inc., Meeting Date: December 15, 1999 “Project Location: Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has begun construction of a single family dwelling and seeks setback relief. Relief Required; Applicant requests 49.9 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum side setback requirement of the LC-42A zone, § 179-13. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to continue and complete construction at the chosen location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Based on the map submitted with the application, a feasible alternative would be relocation to a compliant location, as there appears to be ample area. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 49.9 feet of relief from the 100 foot 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 appears to be self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 99-631 issued 10/4/99 single family dwelling Staff comments: While the subject property may be considered pre-existing, non-conforming lot with regards to the acreage requirements, there appears to be adequate area for compliant construction. The enclosed plot plan, submitted with BP99-631, proposed construction with a compliant side setback. The 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends re-zoning several LC-42A parcels, however, this parcel is not included in that recommendation. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-I think that’s it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I don’t think there’s any impact. Mr. O’Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I’m representing the applicant, Michael J. Vasiliou, Inc., and with me is Christine Zintec, who is the President of Michael J. Vasiliou, and Michael Vasiliou himself, who is the principle shareholder of that corporation. Also in the audience is the ultimate user of this lot, the person for whom the house is being built. A mistake was made, and there’s no doubt about it that a mistake was made, and what we’re here to do is ask you to exercise your discretion, which is within your power, to allow that mistake to exist, and not make us go back to base zero. This property is in an LC-42 Acre zone, and my understanding, and Mike and Christine can correct me, and Staff can also correct me if they think I’m saying something wrong, but basically the lot has frontage of 400 feet. When the house was initially, or the building permit was initially applied for, it was shown to have a setback on the north side of 100 feet, a sketch plan that was submitted, and a front setback of 75 feet. At that time, when that was submitted, it was thought that the actual requirements were 50 feet on the front, 30 feet on the side. Chris keeps a notebook of all telephone conversations she has. The notebook is here. We’ve got photocopies of the pages of the notebook, and you can see that the entries are made very consistently and very uniformly, and we’ve got it for your examination, beyond just the page. At one time, on September 28, apparently a question was made as to what the th setbacks were, and at that point, Chris was advised that the front was 50, the side was 30, and the rear was 30, and this is for the Metivier setbacks, and that’s the person who’s buying or actually going to live in this property. When the purchaser actually went to the site, or went back to the site, I think probably is a better way of saying it, a little bit to the south of where the actual house exists now is a wet area. So they decided they would rather have the house moved when it was actually being 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) constructed and they were setting the foundation. They were of the mind, Mike Vasiliou and the builder or the owner, ultimate owner, based upon the representations of Michael, that the setback was 30. So they moved it to a point of 50 feet, thinking that there was no problem at all, because they thought it would still be within compliance. Apparently, two days or a couple of days afterwards, there was another phone conversation with Craig Brown, and at that point, he said the plot plan which showed the 75 foot setback was not in compliance, and it would have to be moved to 100 feet, and at that point, the house was moved back 100 feet, but at that time, there was no mention of side setback, and probably no mention of side setback at that time because Craig before him had a plot plan that showed 100 feet, and it wasn’t an issue in his mind, notwithstanding the telephone conversation that took place on September 28. If you look at the zoning map for the th area, and our main zoning maps are based upon tax maps, there is an area immediately across from this or right in that neighborhood where you do have 50, 30, 30. It’s a three acre rural residential zone, and I don’t know if somebody, when they first looked at the zone, in response to the telephone call that was made to them, said, that’s what it is, and then later went back and looked, but there’s no question about it. The side setback is 100. The front setback is 100. What we have built, and we have a foundation there, and we have $20,000 invested in the foundation, with the additional fill that was brought in to back fill against the foundation. There actually were inspections of the foundation as it went in. There’s a fence, if you’ve been up there, I’m told it’s a rather wooded lot. What is there is there. I don’t know if it has any significant impact. If you take a look at the tax map, the parcel to the south of us has only 200 feet of frontage. That’s a 2.28 acre parcel. When that property is developed, if it hasn’t already been developed, it’s a house on it, that house is not in compliance with any 100 foot setback. That lot probably has all of its rights by pre-existing conditions. The house immediately to the south of that also only has 200 feet of frontage. So those two lots to the south of us are going to be a lot less than what we are, even when we’re done. MR. BROWN-Are you going to the north, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-To the north? MR. THOMAS-Yes, because I can see where the two lots to the north are. MR. O'CONNOR-I apologize, to the north. MR. THOMAS-The one to the south looks like about 800. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The one, I withdraw that, then. The two houses to the north are the houses that have no difference than what we have or what we will have when we’re all said and done. The house or the lot to the south of it is the 14.6 acre parcel, and that has 875 feet frontage. That is owned now by Nick Cutro. We did go to him. We showed him the plot plan, and asked him if he had any objection or any concern, or any negative impact on his property, and he indicated that he did not, and he would support the variance that we are seeking, and Staff did ask, too, whether or not we had a deed for the property. I’ll submit that to Staff. This is Chris’ notebook. It covers a period of August 25 to December 19, and apparently what it is is basically a telephone log of events that thth take place in the office. I’ve got a photocopy of the page of September 28, and you’ll see the notes th as to the Metivier lot. It’s the second item from the bottom. I’d like to have you take a look at that. It’s a freestanding note that’s a couple days back of the other telephone call. The reason I make those is that I think that nobody’s trying to point fingers or whatever. It’s a problem that we acknowledge is there and we’re asking for relief from that problem, but there is very sound argument, based on an unintentional error, that would give basis for the relief that we request. It’s a single family home. The garage is a side loaded garage. The driveway will come in on the wide side of the lot, and the garage will be on the side of the house, and the house itself is 108 feet back. If you talk about single family residential homes, I’m not even sure of the proximity of the other homes to the closeness of the highway that are north and south of it. I’ve got to presume that they aren’t, as far as setback, as this home is sitting. There really is no impact that we’re talking about. How the error was discovered was Mike was in the office of Van Dusen and Steves, getting it on a schedule so that they could do a foundation location, and at that point, Leon Steves offered, you’re in an LC-42 zone, and you’ve got to be 100 feet on all sides, and at that point bells started going off and we came up and we saw Craig. We met with Craig. We submitted an application. Craig was very accommodating and allowed us to get on, even though we had filed late, for this agenda, so that we could present it to the Board and ask for relief at this agenda. We have some problems besides the $20,000. We have a time schedule that we’re trying to meet, and we’ve got a mortgage commitment for Mr. and Mrs. Metivier, who are totally innocent in this whole scheme of things, that we’re trying to comply with, so that they don’t end up with an acceleration of rate by re-application. So there’s a lot of little things that you would impact or we would impact if we had to rip out the $18,000 that we’ve expended on this lot, and re-locate the foundation into an area that would be compliant, and I think there’s very little impact upon the community. I understand reasons for setbacks and what not. This is a non-conforming lot. We could have complied. I do admit that on the record, but through a builder error that was unintentional, actions that were taken in good faith, we’ve got a problem that 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) we think that you can relieve us of the burden of, and Mike and Chris are here to answer any questions that you have in particular. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any questions for the applicant or Mr. O’Connor? MR. ABBATE-Counsel, in his opening statement, has satisfied eight specific questions I was ready to ask, and based upon his presentation, there is no doubt in my mind now that there was no conscious effort or attempt to do something contrary to any kind of compliance regulations, and in view of the fact that my questions have all been satisfied, I have really nothing more to say, and I thank him. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All right. I have one question that Mr. O’Connor stated in his presentation, that at some point in time, Craig Brown had a map that showed 100 foot side setback. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s a sketch plan that was submitted for the building permit, the plot plan. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Proposed plot plan, and that was an arbitrary showing that we were in compliance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Why wasn’t that carried forward for the regular building permit? MR. O'CONNOR-Because when they went out and walked the site, the area where that would then place the house was in a wet area and would require the builder, and the owner just thought that they were working with a 30 foot setback, and move the building. MR. STONE-So you’re saying it was wet to the north. You said to the south. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m confused on the direction, I think. MIKE VASILIOU MR. VASILIOU-Mike Vasiliou. It is wet to the north. Although it was not a designated wetland, it is wet there, and so when we sited the house with the Metiviers, we walked the location, and we moved to the left, in order to make the house in a more suitable location. MR. O'CONNOR-It probably at that point, Mr. Chairman, should have come back and filed a new plot plan, which maybe then would have been a red flag for Staff to take a look at. There’s probably more than one error here. I think the initial price that they got from Staff, their follow through and what not, there’s not a comedy of errors, but there are, nobody’s sitting here trying to point fingers. Everybody is saying that they’ve got a nice single family home which I think will have no impact on the neighborhood. MR. STONE-Let me just ask you a basic question. I mean, Chris has been here longer, but I’ve been here now a long time, and we see these “mistakes”. We’ve seen them, and I’m not saying, I believe the applicant that this thing was done totally in error, but certainly Mr. Vasiliou has built in this Town a great deal. This book is available. If you’re going to build on a new lot, you ought to know what it’s zoned. I mean, it’s very simple. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that’s why the phone call was made from us to Staff, on September 28. th We told them where the lot was. We asked them what the setbacks were, and at that time we were told it was 50 foot on the front, 30 foot on the side. MR. STONE-And you committed $20,000 the next day. MR. O'CONNOR-No. The foundation went in probably, this was all like in an application process. The people then got their mortgage approval. We then got to our closing on the lot, or I think we actually ended up with early possession on the lot because one of the sellers ended up being in England, and the building didn’t take place until November, October. MR. STONE-I thought September 30 you knew it was 100 feet. th MR. O'CONNOR-No, 100 front. MR. STONE-One hundred front, and that didn’t trigger any thoughts? MR. O'CONNOR-No, no mention in that second phone call. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. STONE-I know, but there aren’t many places where you have 100 foot setback from the road without being 100 feet from the side. MR. O'CONNOR-In that phone call also there was no mention of any sides, and I can’t tell you what all the phone conversations did or didn’t, but you did make a point, though. Mike has built homes in the Town of Queensbury. He’s probably built 200 homes. I think this is the first time he’s come in and asked for an after the fact variance, and probably he’s built another couple of homes in other adjoining communities. I think we have one down in Wilton or North Umberland. We had one down in North Umberland that was off by four feet, and we never knew why it was off by four feet, but when you get your final survey, I’ve been here before with other builders that have had ones that are off. MR. STONE-This is why our Chairman has asked the Town Board, in their infinite wisdom, to require an as-built foundation survey, so that we know quicker, or at least when you stake it out, that we know it’s in the right place, but we haven’t done that. MR. THOMAS-As-built on the footing. That way, if it’s not right, it won’t cost you $20,000. All right. Anymore questions for Mr. O’Connor or Mr. Vasiliou? 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. HAYES-Yes, we do. We have a Town of Queensbury Record of Telephone Conversation, December 15, 1999, 4:20 p.m., Susan Blackburn, property owner, and Sue Hemingway, was the recipient of the call, in the zoning office. The subject was this application. The note was, it’s, “Against the setback relief request. Worried about storing boats on property”. MR. STONE-I think because the neighbor to the south does. MR. VASILIOU-That may be Nicky Cutro, who is, I guess, in the boat business. MR. STONE-He stores boats all over on Ridge Road. MR. O’CONNOR-We have a contract to convey the property to Mr. and Mrs. Metivier as a single family home. Mr. Metivier, do you have any boats? MR. METIVIER MR. METIVIER-I do, but they are kept at a marina, not stored on the property. MR. O'CONNOR-Are they your own private boats? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. STONE-They can be stored on the property. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not the intention to have a commercial boat storage. MR. STONE-Craig, I see the applicant here keeps a telephone log. Obviously, we record things about applications that are advertised, that are coming up. Do you keep a log at all of requests made to you for information? MR. BROWN-Yes, I keep a similar phone log. Yes. The first conversation that was mentioned in the log, it wasn’t with me. I don’t have a recollection of that. It was probably somebody in the zoning office, either Sue or Sandy. MR. STONE-It was attributed to you in the notes. MR. BROWN-My recollection is I got the application in, called and spoke directly with Mike, and we discussed the 100 foot setback in lieu of the 75 that was shown on the plan. I don’t recall discussing the side setback. Mr. O’Connor referenced earlier that it’s labeled on the plan as 100. It probably didn’t come up as an issue. Because it was labeled as such. I don’t remember discussing the side. MR. STONE-I mean, I know you said you don’t want to point fingers, but in the record you presented us, it says Craig Brown, and 1:06 p.m. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of the record, Chris, did you have that? Why don’t you introduce yourself. CHRISTINE ZINTEC MS. ZINTEC-Christine Zintec with Michael J. Vasiliou, Inc. I keep a phone log. Earlier in that day on September 28, Mike did make a phone call to the zoning office seeking the setbacks for that lot, th in the early afternoon, shortly after 1 p.m. in the afternoon. I received a phone call back from Mr. Brown looking for Mike, who wasn’t in the office. He gave me the setbacks and that’s what I recorded in my notebook. I have no reason to mislabel that, and I remember it clearly as occurring that way. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Are the Metiviers buying the whole lot? No plans on subdivision? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. MC NALLY-And is there an existing contract for the sale? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HAYES-I’d like to read another letter into the minutes. I have a letter from Nick Cutro, Jr. , dated December 14, 1999, “I certify that I am the owner of Tax Map #22-1-4.1, the premises which is immediately to the south of Tax Map #22-1-3. I have reviewed the survey of the house being built on Tax Map #22-1-3. Notwithstanding the zoning requirements of the Town of Queensbury, I have no objection to the fifty (50) foot sideline setback from the border of my property. I am requesting that the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to approve the variance seeking sideline setback relief. Nick Cutro, Jr. 12/14/99” MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Vasiliou or Mr. O’Connor? If not, let’s talk about it. Since we missed Jamie the last time, we’ll nail him this time. You’re up. MR. HAYES-Okay. Fair’s fair. We’ve dealt with this situation before, where we’ve had foundations misplaced, for whatever reason. Usually there is some level of communication problem. Members of the Board have already pointed out, as I would have, and do so, that certainly the builder in question has built a number of parcels in our community, several hundred by Counsel’s estimation. That sounds about right to me, and he’s certainly charged with knowing what the setbacks are. That’s his business, but in this particular circumstance, to me, there is relatively no impact, negative, on the neighborhood. So my whole test, if you will, is going to center around the detriment to the applicant by forcing him to remove the foundation versus any neighborhood impact. I think in this particular circumstance, an honest mistake was made, and that I think it would be draconian to ask him to move the foundation, in this particular circumstance, back in to the parcel, versus another site. So there’s a lot of land on this particular parcel, which I guess makes it easier to be compliant, but I guess in the broadest sense, I think that there’s still plenty of side setback relief and front setback relief, in this particular circumstance, and I certainly wouldn’t want to see the ultimate owners of the home suffer economic hardship based on their mortgage application as well. So if Mr. Vasiliou was to come back again, I probably would feel differently, and judge it much harsher, but Counsel has pointed out that, having built these 200 homes, I’ve been on the Board for almost three years now, and I haven’t seen him for anything like this, so I have to assume that in this particular case it was not his intention to not comply. So, I’m reluctantly okay with the variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Obviously, the number of thoughts that go through one’s mind, Mr. O’Connor, you keep saying an honest mistake. Every mistake is usually an honest mistake. Automobile accidents are honest mistakes. They just kill people. It can happen. I understand it can happen. I am quite concerned that a reputable builder in the Town of Queensbury doesn’t know about the land on which he’s building and doesn’t know the requirements. It’s a simple book. We all have to read it. I would think that it would be easy to read. It’s very clear. A test that we have quite often talked about, what it you had come seeking 50 feet of relief on this particular lot? I can guarantee you that unless you could show us that you had a pond where the 100 foot line was, that we wouldn’t have granted relief on this particular lot with its 400 foot road frontage. Part of me says I want to say no, but I obviously recognize that there is a tremendous value put into this thing. The innocent party, assuming rates are going to go up, would unduly suffer if they had to re-do their mortgage 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) application or the exceeded a certain time period or so on. I mean, I came here in my own mind tonight saying, no. I mean, I looked at the lot. I see a huge lot. I see a foundation there, very clearly in violation of something which is, it’s obvious if you look at the code book. It’s not a difficult question. I’m unhappy that there appears to be miscommunication. Of course, it happens all the time. That’s why, in many cases, when there are miscommunication, you ask again, and if you’re still not sure, you ask again. I mean, it’s easy to take a yes. I mean, we’ve seen plenty of places, and we’ve seen a lot of people who have gotten a yes somewhere and they immediately rush out and do something, even though the yes was not from a person qualified to give the yes. I hear Mr. Hayes’ reluctant approval. I probably will go there, but I reserve the right to say no after I listen to the rest of the people. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I have no doubt that a builder in this Town should, under normal circumstances, be sophisticated enough to know what the side setbacks are, on any parcel that they’re committing $20,000 for a foundation, and perhaps even more with the rest of the construction, and I’m always a little bit incredulous of claims that the foundations, in such cases, were placed where they should not be, but I do think Jamie’s point that we’ve not seen the applicant here before asking for any special relief or asking to be relieved of errors on his part before. So I’m always willing, in the first instance, to believe a person when they tell me that they made an honest mistake. I weigh that with the understanding that the lot will remain as a single parcel, that the house wasn’t placed where it is now, in expectations of subdivision, allowing another structure to be built on the property, and I take the applicant at his word, that that’s not intended, and that the Metiviers would be purchasing the entire lot, nothing less. I also weigh it against the effect on the neighborhood, and in all honesty, I haven’t the slightest idea why the hell their house wasn’t placed in the center of the lot, but that’s the buyers choice, and I don’t see how it would have any effect on the surrounding neighbors, because while this may be an area requiring a setback of 100 feet, as a practical matter, 50 feet will do it. So again, I would join with Jaime in reluctantly approving it on this occasion. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can kind of be in echo. Without worrying about whether there was intent or no intent, to place a house in noncompliance. It, nevertheless, is in noncompliance, and on the one side it strikes me that it’s not up to the Town to correct the mistake that somebody else made, however honestly. The house should be 100 feet from the lot line, and there have been other places in Town where foundations have had to be torn down and houses moved, because they were placed in nonconforming locations. However, in the one I know about, there were other houses close by and it had a definite impact on the neighborhood. I would prefer to vote against this, but balancing the detriment to the neighborhood versus the benefit to the applicant pushes me the other direction. So I think probably I, too, will vote reluctantly for this. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The other Chuck. MR. ABBATE-I’m up. Okay, guys, thank you. I prefer to deal in fact. Mr. O’Connor came before this Board this evening and said I made a mistake. So be it. We all make mistakes. By the very nature, the information I’ve heard this evening, Mr. Vasiliou is a man of integrity and has built homes before, and I have no reason to question the fact that this was an honest mistake, and those of us sitting on this Board who have never made a mistake before, God bless them, but I think there’s a greater interest here, and that’s the best interest of the potential home buyers, and I think it was a mistake. It’s a mistake, and we let it go at that. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All right. I think it’s all been said, that a mistake was made here. Mistakes are made all the time. Nobody’s perfect. If they are, please stand up. I don’t see any problem. Given the size of the lot, and if this were in an SFR-1 zone, it would be allowed to have, he wouldn’t be here for a requirement, and yes, you could have two horses. MR. ABBATE-There are no horses involved, Mr. O’Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-None that I’ve seen. MR. THOMAS-So, having said that, I’m in favor of this reluctantly, and again, I would ask that the Town Board consider changing the building code to have the footings surveyed and submitted to the building office for approval before the foundation walls are put up. So we avoid these mistakes in the past. It seems we’re having a lot of these in the last couple of years. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 107-1999 MICHAEL J. VASILIOU, INC., Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/99) Ridge Road. The applicant has begun construction of a single family dwelling and seeks setback relief for the existing foundation. Relief required. The applicant requests 49.9 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum side setback requirement of the LC-42A zone, Section 179-13. The benefit to the applicant would be that he would be permitted to continue and complete construction at the depicted location. Feasible alternatives, there are feasible alternatives in other compliant locations on the lot. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 49.9 feet of relief from the 100 foot requirement may be interpreted, in my mind, as moderate to substantial. It’s 50%. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that the effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal, if any, in this particular circumstance, and I think that that is, cumulatively, what probably puts the weight of favor, as far as the applicant. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty is definitely self-created, by its stipulation. Considering the fact that there is a lot of property with the land, and that it appears that an honest mistake was made, in this particular circumstance, I believe that the overall balance falls in favor of granting the relief. Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stec MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All right. One last thing before we bail out. Minutes from the September meeting, 15. th CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 15, 1999: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 AS PRINTED, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Thomas MR. STONE-I do notice in here, just out of curiosity. We gave Aronson two months for something? It was back on the agenda, and then he came back to us. Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. I did notice a mistake on the notes that were in for the appeal. I don’t think those notes have been printed yet, just the one copy of them. The one there that was for the appeal. I noticed that in the motion there made by Dan Stec. You left out the name “Stec” on it. I think that was on the 20. I just noticed it tonight when I went through them. It’s the October 27. thth All right. Does anyone else have anything for the good of the Board? If not, I’ll make a motion we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 42