Loading...
1999-02-17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY ROBERT MC NALLY CHARLES MC NULTY DANIEL STEC PAUL HAYES MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JOHN AUGSTELL OWNER: JOHN & JAMES AUGSTELL APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF EXISTING DECK INTO A SCREENED-IN PORCH AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/10/99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 152-1-4 LOT SIZE: 0.16 ACRES SECTION 179-60, 179-79, 179-16 ROBERT RUGGLES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-“Location: 38 Bean Road, Kattskill Bay Owners: John H. and James J. Augstell RE: Proposed construction of a screened porch over existing patio While we have owned the property for 18 years, this is the one and only building alteration we have proposed. We use the front room of the cottage (13 ½’ x 16’) for gatherings during the daytime/evening and for meals. Our children now have families and when they visit we are very cramped for space. The existing outside patio in front of this room is of little advantage. It is underneath trees and difficult to keep clean, and it is our experience that it is seldom used even in good weather. It is useless in rainy weather, and in the evening due to mosquitoes and bats. We need a covered, screened porch in place of the open patio to relieve the congestion and create a better situation for all. John H. Augstell James J. Augstell” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-1999, John Augstell, Meeting Date: February 17, 1999 “Project Location: Bean Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes conversion of existing deck into a screened-in porch and seeks relief from the setback requirements and for expansion of a non-conforming structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 17 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum setback requirement of both the WR-1A zone, §179-16 and the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, Section 179-60 and 8.26 feet of relief from the 12 foot minimum sideline setback requirement of the aforementioned WR-1A zone. Additionally, the applicant requests relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure, Section 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 construct and utilize an addition to their seasonal residence. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to no construction. A downsized proposal may not be feasible for the applicant. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 17 feet of relief from the 50-foot shoreline setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 8.26 feet of relief from the 12 foot sideline setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 98-751 Porch addition - pending Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the proposed addition is located above the existing patio, the project is a screen porch addition, which, while it complies with the height requirements, it may pose a moderate visual impact to the neighborhood given the close proximity of the adjoining development. This proposal does not require compliance 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) with the current sanitary disposal code, as it is a screened in porch, which is not considered, by definition, to be an increase in floor area. However, impacts relating to the condition of the existing system and its proximity to the lake and adjoining properties may be considered. SEQR Status: Type II” MRS. LAPHAM-Is there anything from the County? MR. THOMAS-There was something from the County. I think it said “No County Impact”. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 16, 1999 Project: John Augstell Owners: John and James Augstell Queensbury Area Variance 6- 1999 County Project Number February 99-15 Current Zoning: Waterfront Residential One Acre Community: Queensbury Applicant proposes conversion of an existing deck into a screened in porch and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Applicant is also requesting relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: North on Pilot Knob left on Bean Road third building on the right past the curb in the road Tax Map No. 152-1-4 Copy of applicant’s drawing is included in the summaries. Staff is of the opinion that the issues presented from the enclosure of an existing patio are of local nature only provided that this room does not become living space at some point in the future. Staff has concerns about septic issues on this site with two cabins and additional living space. This could have a negative impact on the carrying capacity of the parcel to absorb that intense a use. Staff, therefore, is recommending discussion so that a condition may be applied. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with the condition that the proposed project not become enclosed to extend living space but would remain a screened porch.” Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Ruggles, is there anything else you want to add or Mr. Augstell? MR. RUGGLES-This is Mr. John Augstell. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else you want to tell us about, add, say? MR. RUGGLES-Well, first of all, have you got photographs? We took some pictures, some snapshots there, have you looked at those? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. RUGGLES-That’s to show that the other houses, the houses on each side are closer to the lake than Mr. Augstell’s, which we would hope would have some bearing on the situation. Most everything that we’ve got to say has been written down there. It’s not only that they don’t have enough room. This existing deck is never used. It’s been there for many, many years, much longer than they’ve owned the place, and it’s never been used, because right now it’s approximately three or four feet below the existing floor, and what we propose to do, what Mr. Augstell and his contractor propose to do, is to build on top of that same deck. We’re not changing it one iota as far as size is concerned, but we propose to build a deck up to the floor level. That would be the floor of the new screened porch, so that they can use it when they, especially they can use it to see the lake. There’s no place to sit, really, to view the lake, which everybody wants on Lake George, but basically to relieve the congestion when they have their children and grandchildren there. It’s pretty tight. It’s a very small building, and it is a small lot, but they do have company on weekends, and I suppose they’re going to have them whether they are allowed to put the porch on or not. It’s not effecting anything else that I can see, anything, it’s not detrimental to anything else in the area. They have no problem with the neighbors. Even putting this deck on, they probably will still be further from the lake than their neighbors, putting this porch on the existing deck. It’s not infringing on anything that I can think of. It’s just a matter of relieving some congestion for them, when they can enjoy themselves in the summer time at Lake George. MR. THOMAS-All right. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, when the County suggested that you have no plans to turn it into a living space beyond a screened porch, we could make that a condition here. MR. THOMAS-Yes, we could. MRS. LAPHAM-All right. Because that would be the only thing I would be concerned with, because if you have more living space, then you have to have more septic. MR. RUGGLES-We fully agreed with Warren County last week, yes, and we can put that in writing, however you want to do this. MR. THOMAS-Are there going to be any trees cut anywhere along there? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MR. RUGGLES-No. There’s no trees to cut. I’ve marked, I think, the trees on the plot plan that are there, but none that are coming down. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-Have you discussed this with your neighbors? MR. AUGSTELL-No, I haven’t. MRS. LAPHAM-Because I was wondering what. MR. RUGGLES-They’re not there. I guess one of them is probably, I don’t know where they are. One of them is in Florida, right? MR. AUGSTELL-The Whitemans are in Florida. At least some of the Morrison’s are in Florida, but, no, I didn’t have a discussion. MR. RUGGLES-I’m sure they know about this by now. MRS. LAPHAM-I was going to say. They’ve been notified . MR. THOMAS-Yes. The notices went out. Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed, opposed? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? It seems to be pretty cut and dry here. If not, lets talk about it. What do you think, Bob, are you going to stick here or are you going to fail? MR. MC NALLY-I’m going to abstain, I think. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, again, we’re balancing the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment, if any, to the neighborhood. As I walked the property, the patio that’s there now is already constructed. It’s there. If we’re not increasing living area, I really don’t have a big problem. Like Bonnie said, it is not going to be at least any closer to the lake than the other two properties, and it certainly is a small building, a narrow building, and I can see the need by the applicant to relieve some congestion, and I just couldn’t come up with any real negative impact, outside of going closer to the lake, but there’s already a cement footing, if you will, there now anyway. So, I guess I don’t like granting relief toward the lake, especially considering that we’ve reduced the setback from down to 50 feet, but in this case, the encroachment’s already there. So I don’t have a problem with the application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-Yes. I agree 100% with what Jaime said. These pictures say 1,000 words. On both sides both neighbors are closer to the lake. So you wouldn’t be hindering their view, and again, since the applicant is comfortable with a stipulation that we’re not making this year round room, but it’s just a screened in porch, and it doesn’t effect the Floor Area Ratio or call for more septic, I don’t have any problem granting this relief either. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I agree. I can’t see a big problem. It’s going to probably cut the neighbor’s impression of open space down a little bit, but it’s certainly not going to block their view of the lake or anything like that. So I don’t have any real problem with it, either. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t have a problem with it, and I know just what he wants to do with the screened porch, because that’s, in our cottage, it becomes a summer dining room. We’d never even dream of turning it into living space because we don’t need it. We need just the porch. So, I would have no problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I don’t have a problem with this either. When I was up at the site yesterday, I looked both ways, and it will not impede either resident on either side of this project, on their view of the lake or of their, any kind of view that they would have. It’s fairly well treed. It’s fairly well screened from the lake, also. I can see where the applicant needs to have that porch on the front, and as long as it stays a screened porch, I don’t have a problem with it, either. Having said that, I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1999 JOHN AUGSTELL, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: On Bean Road. The applicant has requested 17 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum setback requirement for both the Waterfront Residential One Acre zone, Section 179-16 and the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, Section 179-60, as well as 8.26 feet of relief from the 12 foot minimum sideline setback requirement of the aforementioned Waterfront Residential One Acre zone. Additionally, the applicant has requested relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The one provision would be that, and the applicant understands and agrees, that this porch is to remain a screened-in porch and is not to be a year round porch or addition to the Floor Area Ratio or the living space. In weighing the benefit to the applicant, the applicant will be permitted to expand the usable space of his structure. While the feasible alternatives include no construction or downsized proposal, it’s really not attractive to the applicant. As far as the amount of relief sought, while 17 feet of the shoreline setback relief is significant and eight and a quarter feet of the 12 foot sideline setback are significant, when viewing the other structures and the geography around this lot, it really won’t have a significant impact on any of the neighborhood, specifically their view or access to the lake, and while this difficulty is self-created, the benefit outweighs any detriment. So I move that we approve this variance request. Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNally ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. AUGSTELL-Thank you. MR. RUGGLES-Thanks a lot. MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-1999 TYPE II HC-1A STEWART’S ICE-CREAM CO. OWNER: ROGER & BARBARA BRASSELL NORTHEAST CORNER OF BAY & CRONIN ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,400 SQ. FT. STEWART’S SHOP AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT. APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN ACCESS POINTS. CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 12-1998 SPR 65-98 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-11.1 LOT SIZE: 7.70 ACRES SECTION 179-28, 179-66 TODD LEWIS & JIM GILLESPIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 3-1999, Stewart’s Ice-Cream Co., Meeting Date: February 17, 1999 “Project Location: Northeast corner of Bay and Cronin Roads Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2500 sf Stewart’s Ice Cream Shop and 2000 sf retail space. The applicant is requesting relief from the setback requirements of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone and relief from the minimum separation distances between access points. Relief Required: Applicant requests 29 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement of 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) the Travel Corridor Overlay zone, §179-28, C. This section calls for the entire 75 foot setback area to be maintained as open space. Additionally, the applicant requests 50 feet of relief from the 150 foot minimum separation distance between access points requirement of the Off-street parking and loading section, 179-66.B.,(4). 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 the desired business in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may be limited to site reconfiguration, elimination of the additional retail space would allow the building to be relocated to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The combined requests for 29 feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor requirement along with 50 feet of relief from the 150 foot access separation requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood are 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.): Subdivision 12-98 - res. 12/22/98 sketch plan stage Site Plan Review 65-98 - res. 12/22/98 - tabled Staff comments: Moderate to substantial positive and negative impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The addition of a neighborhood convenience store such as this should be balanced against the potential traffic and visual impacts on both the immediate community as well as the Bay Road corridor. Section 179-28, C. calls for the 75 foot setback, along Bay Road, to be open space. Open Space, by definition requires that the land not be covered by buildings, pavement, open storage….etc. SEQR Status: Type II” MRS. LAPHAM-“Warren County Planning Board Project Name: Stewart’s Ice Cream Company Incorporated Owner: Barbara & Roger Brassel Queensbury Area Variance No. 3-1999 County Project Number: February 99-19 Current Zoning: Highway Commercial One Acre Community: Queensbury Applicant proposes to construct a 2400 square foot Stewart’s Shop and seeks relief from the setback requirements of the Travel Corridor Overlay District. The applicant is also requesting relief from the minimum separation distance between access points. Location: Northeast corner of Bay & Cronin Roads. Tax Map No. 60-2-11.1 Staff Notes: A copy of the site drawing is included with the summaries. Staff is unsure of the exact nature of the variance required since the forms have not been filled out. Staff will attempt to secure this information from the Town of Queensbury. The included site drawing does not have dimensions on it, and it lists in the upper right hand corner of the drawing that all setbacks seem to be met. Staff is under the opinion, after looking at some of the information in the application, that it is an issue with the setback of the gas pumps. This will be clarified by the meeting. Staff is recommending discussion.” Terry Ross, County Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-All right. You’re on. MR. GILLESPIE-My name is Jim Gillespie. This is Todd Lewis. We’re both from Stewart’s This plan is our original submission to the Town. It required variances. We’re originally proposing the subdivision of approximately 1.1 acres from the existing 7.8 acre parcel. It required variances for the canopy, the future parking, and the freestanding sign within the 75 foot open space. The Board pointed out to us that this was really a self-created hardship, in that you could either build less building or buy more land. So we opted to buy more land. We revised our print. We moved our entire project to the east, which eliminated the canopy and the parking from the 75 foot open space. However, even with this additional land purchase, we are still requesting variances for a portion of our parking and our freestanding sign within that 75 foot open space. Also, it was requested, and we think it makes sense, that this driveway be located as far away from the Bay Road and Cronin Road intersection as possible, which is shy of the 150, the required 150 foot separation between it and the Social Security access drive, which I don’t believe is a high traffic generator. I think that the further away this is from the intersection the better, as far as left turn movements into here, the further away, the better that’s going to be. We are also requesting variances for, we are allowed two wall signs. We are proposing three, one on the rental, one on the building, one on our building, and one on the canopy, and we are also requesting a variance, we are allowed 50 square feet for our freestanding sign. We are proposing a 56 square foot sign. MR. THOMAS-The sign is a separate issue, on a separate variance which will come next. MR. GILLESPIE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-So the only thing we’re going to be involved in on this one is the separation of the two driveways, and the disturbance of the 75 foot setback from the Bay Road property line, just those two things on this one. So, having said that, we know what we’re talking about, are there any questions for the applicant? MR. HAYES-I have one question. So you’re saying that there was a, for the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, there’s still a few parking spots that are going to be in that? MR. GILLESPIE-It’s only pavement. We were able to, with the additional. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MR. HAYES-Okay. That’s my question. It doesn’t look like there’s parking spots marked there. It’s just pavement. MR. GILLESPIE-Just pavement, yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. That’s actually a turning radius for those other parking spots then, really, in a way. They’re next to the building. MR. LEWIS-The first one, the property owner wanted to retain 40 feet on the eastern side. At the Preliminary subdivision, or at the Sketch Plan meeting, the Planning Board rightfully said, you’re going to have to go to the Zoning Board. You guys have got to buy more property, and so we did. MR. STEC-And there’s a sign in the 75 foot Travel Corridor as well, right? So we’re talking about a sign and some pavement. MR. THOMAS-That comes next. That’s in the next application. There’s two applications. MR. STEC-But is that sign allowed to be in the Travel Corridor? MR. THOMAS-No, it’s not, but isn’t that in the second one? MR. STEC-I thought it was in this one? MR. THOMAS-I thought it was in the second one. MRS. LAPHAM-I thought it was, too. MR. BROWN-After discussion with the Zoning Administrator, typically, historically signs aren’t really. MR. HAYES-Structures? MR. BROWN-Yes. They’re allowed in that 75 foot setback, as an amenity to a site. So there hasn’t been any enforcement of that sign issue in the 75 foot open space area. MR. STEC-What’s the purpose of the 75 foot Travel Corridor? MR. THOMAS-This is unique to Bay Road. MR. BROWN-Yes. If you remember the current Lowes site, it used to be Quaker Village. There used to be parking right up to the edge of the road. I think this provision is geared toward eliminating parking right up to the edge of Bay Road and keep it, you know, the commercialism that’s there, as far away from it as possible, and keep the corridor. MR. STEC-So for the request for the 75 feet, really all we’re talking about is this? MR. BROWN-The curbing and the pavement. MR. STEC-The pavement. MR. THOMAS-And also the two driveways between the Social Security and Stewart’s. MR. STEC-On Cronin, right. MR. THOMAS-It has to be 150 feet, and they only show 130.5. Are there any other questions for the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, what’s the purpose of having, if you’re not having parking spaces there, I know Jaime touched on this, but I’m not clear. If you’re not going to have parking spaces there, why do you need the extra, you know, footage going into the 75 foot Corridor? MR. GILLESPIE-The pavement will allow movements around the canopy and also enough space to back up and get out of those parking spots against the building. MRS. LAPHAM-So it would be less congested than your Ridge Street store. MR. LEWIS-This is a large lot for us. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MR. MC NULTY-How much does the pavement encroach into the 75 foot? MR. STEC-Is that the 29? MR. HAYES-Or is the new plan less than that? MR. GILLESPIE-The pavement is 46 feet from the right-of-way, versus the required 75 feet. MRS. LAPHAM-So you’re going into it 29 feet? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GILLESPIE-That’s from the right-of-way. I guess it should be noted that there’s almost 65 feet of green space from the pavement, from pavement to pavement. It’s quite a bit of green space, as you can see. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because that property line does sit back a ways. You show the building that’s attached to the new Stewart’s as being a bank. Have you got a signed lease on that? MR. LEWIS-We have a verbal agreement on the terms of the lease. We’re just waiting for the lawyers to get to it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-And it is going to be a bank? MR. LEWIS-Yes. They asked me to not violate the confidentiality clause and say who it is, but I heard it was in the newspapers, and they’re the ones who released it, not us. MR. THOMAS-I didn’t see it in the paper. MRS. LAPHAM-I didn’t, either. MR. THOMAS-It really doesn’t matter which bank it is. MR. STEC-Well, and it may not always be a bank, either. MR. THOMAS-That’s true, too. MR. LEWIS-It’s a 20 year lease with two 10 year options. We wouldn’t build anything for less than 20 years. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, we’ll talk about it. I’ll start with Dan, this time. MR. STEC-Well, looking at the site out on Bay Road, that is an awful lot of wide open space. I don’t have a tremendous problem with the Travel Corridor setback off of Bay, and I agree with the applicant in regard to the separation between that and the other driveway, that it’s probably in the best interest of traffic safety and movement to locate it further away from Bay Road than closer. The benefit to the applicant is obvious, and I agree that this is a large lot for a Stewart’s shop. The feasible alternatives, well, we’re trying to balance public safety, aesthetics of the neighborhood, but also we’re also talking about commercialism and business. So the benefit to the applicant and the community I think overweighs any possible detriment to the amount of relief that’s sought. So I don’t have a problem with supporting the business on this corner by granting of this relief, even though 29 feet may be considered substantial, and the 50 foot of relief for the driveway may be substantial, but when you weigh in the benefits, support business in the area, and again, just looking at the site, it is a large site. So I don’t have a problem with this variance. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, as far as the driveway separation, I’ll agree. I think it makes more sense to have the driveway where it is. I guess I don’t have a problem with it as long as the building and the gas island is outside the 75 foot Corridor. Otherwise, I was going to be concerned. I would hate to see us approve this and then have 100 commercial establishments come along and also ask for the same kind of relief for a building, but a parking lot I don’t think is going to, especially since it’s a travel part of the parking lot rather than the parking spaces. So I guess I don’t have a problem with it, either. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t have that much of a problem with it. I do think it’s sensible to locate the driveway where they are, and I think it might be a convenience for those areas to have a store like Stewart’s nearby, because there hasn’t been, traditionally, anything for Orchard Park, Twicwood, Bay Road, the County Club Road, to go to in a short distance. So they may very well be approving of it, which might be why we have no neighbors complaining tonight. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I abstain. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with the other Board members. I think that, overall, it’s a well laid out plan. I think that this might have been one of their easier jobs, actually, particularly when they purchased the additional property to move the property to the east, and as I look at the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone definition, the Town of Queensbury realizes that the Town and the region will continue to grow and need to improve local arterial roads, and I think they’re not proposing constructing anything in the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone that presents a major obstacle, if, in fact, that becomes necessary. If it was a structure, a meaningful structure, then that would be the exact opposite of that, and I know that certainly the east side of Town is growing rapidly, and that’s probably why they’re proposing to construct the store there. So as far as the pavement and the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, I don’t have any problem with that, and like the other Board members said, I think moving the driveway down is a good idea. I think that that actually is a benefit to the neighborhood, to the Harvest and to the Social Security building. I think it will improve the traffic flow. So in both cases, I think they’re actually improvements. I don’t have a problem with them. So I’m for the application. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. I think this is a good plan. I agree with putting the road back, the one access road as far back from the intersection as you can get it. As the applicant stated, the traffic in and out of the Social Security Administration isn’t all that great, but I know the traffic in and out of Stewart’s will be, because of the Stewart’s and the bank. As far as the encroachment into the 75 foot setback, the Bay Road corridor is the only one that has a 75 foot setback. The rest are all 50, and as the applicant stated, there’s more green space than the 46 feet that the applicant shows, and as the other Board members said, as long as there’s no building within that 75 feet, and it’s going to be just asphalt curbing and paving, I don’t see any problem with that either, because they need to get that gas island far enough away from the store, for safety reasons, and I believe this is a good layout, the entrance and the exits for this property. So I would have no problem with this one, either. Having said that, I would ask for a motion. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, for accuracy for the application, the separation distance, based on the new dimensions on the revised plan, show that the separation distance, measured along the property line, between the two drives, is 98.5, so the requested relief would be 51.5, rather than 50. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. BROWN-And also, it was discovered at last night’s Planning Board meeting, a bank, under the current approved and allowed uses in an HC-1A zone, a bank isn’t listed as an allowed use. So the review of this application for a Stewart’s store and a rental space, I think should be clarified in the resolution, not a Stewart’s store and a bank, because a bank, a determination hasn’t been made yet whether a bank is going to be an allowed use or not. That’s in front of the Zoning Administrator right now. So as long as it’s clear that the approval is for a Stewart’s store and a rental space, at this point. A bank may be allowed. The determination may be made that that’s an allowable use, but at this point, it’s just rental. MR. THOMAS-Just for kicks and giggles, is that in the new zoning change? MR. BROWN-The addition of banking in HC zones? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MR. THOMAS-In the HC zone. MR. BROWN-I don’t know, to be honest with you, and that’s basically outlined in their application, the description of project calls for a Stewart’s store and a rental space. The plans show bank. Just to clarify, so that there’s no confusion in the future, that, at this point, it’s just for Stewart’s and rental, and the bank would come later. MR. THOMAS-Okay. This is going to take care of whatever building is going to be in there. He’ll make the appropriate decision as to, if they need some kind of relief. MR. BROWN-Right, prior to the site plan approval. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. Would someone like to make a motion, keeping those points in mind? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-1999 STEWART’S ICE-CREAM CO., Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Northeast corner of Bay and Cronin Roads. The applicant proposes construction of a 2500 square foot Stewart’s Ice Cream Shop, and a 2,000 square foot rental space. The applicant is requesting relief from the setback requirements of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, and relief from the minimum separation distances between access points. Specifically, the applicant requests 29 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, Section 179-28. The applicant is proposing paving that portion of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, and adding curbing. This Section calls for the entire 75 foot setback area relief to be maintained as open space and it won’t be, obviously. Additionally, the applicant requests 51.5 feet of relief from the 150 foot minimum separation distance between access points requirement of the Off-Street Parking and Loading section of Section 179-66B(4). Criteria for an Area Variance, the benefit to the applicant, the benefit to the applicant would be they would be allowed to construct this new store in the location as proposed. Feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives are limited based on the generous 75 foot setback requirement of the Overlay Zone on Bay Road. Additionally, the alternatives are limited for the separation distance, as the applicants have, correctly I believe, placed the access point on Cronin Road further to the east, and that’s an improvement. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? I believe that it’s moderate. Twenty-nine feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay is a decent number, but it’s only pavement and curbing, and there is a tremendous amount of green space when actually considered the actual pavement as proposed and the current pavement. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I think that the effects are pretty minimal and that the addition of a convenient store in the area is probably warranted. Is the difficulty self-created? I guess so, but it’s a project overall, and I think it’s well planned. So, I move for its approval. Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNally ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. THOMAS-That’s one of two. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 9-1999 HC-1A TYPE: UNLISTED STEWART’S ICE-CREAM CO. OWNER: ROGER & BARBARA BRASSEL NORTHEAST CORNER OF BAY & CRONIN ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 4 SIGNS AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-11.1 LOT SIZE: .70 ACRES SECTION 140, SIGN ORDINANCE TODD LEWIS & JIM GILLESPIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 9-1999, Stewart’s Ice-Cream Co., Meeting Date: February 17, 1999 “Project Location: Northeast corner of Bay and Cronin Roads Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2500 sf Stewart’s Ice Cream Shop and 2000 sf retail space. The applicant is requesting relief from the Sign Ordinance. Relief Required: Applicant is requesting relief from the Sign Ordinance, §140-6,B.(3),(c) for one additional sign. Additionally, the 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) applicant seeks 6 sf of relief from the 50 sf size requirement of the Sign Ordinance, §140-6,B.(2),(a). Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to advertise and display the desired business in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the freestanding sign to meet the ordinance requirements and consolidation of the wall signs to meet the ordinance. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: One additional sign and 6 sf of relief from the 50 sf maximum may be interpreted as minimal. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood are 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.): Subdivision 12-98 res. 12/22/98 - sketch plan stage Site Plan Review 65-98 - res. 12/22/98 tabled Staff comments: The addition of one sign and 6 sf of additional area to a 50 sf freestanding sign may have minimal if any negative impacts on the neighborhood or community. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MRS. LAPHAM-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review Project Name: Stewart’s Ice Cream Owner: Roger & Barbara Brassel ID # Queensbury Sign Variance No. 9-1999 Community Project: February 99-21 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury “Applicant proposes to construct four signs and seeks relief from the local Sign Ordinance. Site Location: northeast corner of Bay and Cronin Roads. Tax Map No. 60-2-11.1 Copy of the applicant’s sign elevations are included with the summaries. The applicants are allowed to have two signs and are requesting four because there are two businesses on the parcel. Staff is unsure of the dimensional issues relative to the signs and whether there is a variance necessary for total square footage or just the number of signs. Again, Staff will attempt to clarify this by the next meeting and is recommending discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Deny with the exception that the pylon sign will be moved 10 feet north of its present proposed location.” Terry Ross. MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anything else you want to talk about on this sign, keeping in mind that Warren County said they wanted it moved 10 feet north. MR. GILLESPIE-The freestanding sign. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GILLESPIE-Just to give you the thought process behind the three signs, because of the bank, obviously, we’re going to need a sign, or I should say rental. Because of the rental, we’re going to need a sign on that building. Bay Road being the main road, we’re going to need a sign on our building. What we’re trying to avoid here with the canopy sign is anyone coming west on Cronin not realizing, or realizing at the last minute, that they need gas or this is a Stewart’s, not having the building sign here, and not having a canopy sign here, we’re trying to avoid any last minute decisions to turn in here or last minute decisions to turn around in the Harvest parking lot or any unnecessary traffic movements that this sign would eliminate. So, given the two uses, I guess I don’t see that a third sign would have any adverse impacts. As far as the freestanding sign, our typical sign is eight by four. We want another sign for the rental underneath it, which made the sign eight by seven, which is where the 56 square feet came from, which is unfortunately six feet over, but that’s the thought process behind the whole thing. MR. THOMAS-All right. Questions for the applicant? The sign on the end of the canopy, that came in at, how many square feet was that one? Ten? MR. GILLESPIE-Ten, yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. That one’s 10. What can they use for a directional sign, what’s that, six, six square feet, or is it down to four? MR. BROWN-Four square feet for on-premise directional. MR. THOMAS-Okay. If you put a four square foot sign on the west side of that driveway off Cronin Road, and eliminate that one on the canopy, you could eliminate the need for that variance for that sign, because you can have a four square foot directional sign, and I think it would better for you because it’s closer to the road. It’ll be seen farther back, whereas the canopy sign, because it’s at an angle looking south and east, it would be hard to see anyway. I think a four square foot directional sign, right out there by the road, on the west side of that driveway, would do you better. What do you think? MR. GILLESPIE-That makes a lot of sense. MR. LEWIS-It’s better than nothing. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MR. THOMAS-All right. So we eliminate that problem. So, if they eliminate that sign off the canopy, they don’t need a variance for another sign. MR. BROWN-Well, when you change it to an on-premise directional sign, the maximum height for a sign by the Ordinance is six feet, unless the Code Enforcement Officer says it can be higher, up to 10 feet. So if you want it to be an on-premise directional sign, you may have to give them relief from the height that they can display it. MR. THOMAS-Well, I think six feet is tall enough, coming down that road. MR. LEWIS-Six from the top or six from the bottom? MR. BROWN-Six probably to the top of the sign. It’s not specific. It says a maximum height of six feet shall be allowed. MR. THOMAS-If it was higher than that, you’d want it eye level. MR. LEWIS-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-So, are there any other questions for the applicant concerning this application? I only have one more question. Is there any way you can knock that 56 down to 50? MR. LEWIS-We’d rather do what the County Board said and move it 10 feet, and then I think we’d comply. Because what the Ordinance says is up to, at 15 feet, you could only go 50 feet. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. LEWIS-But at 25 you can go 64. MR. THOMAS-Didn’t they say 10 feet to the north? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I don’t know what good that would do. That wouldn’t do you any good because it would get it, you’d still be 25 feet from that property line that goes out on Bay Road. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. All the County’s proposing they do is move it. MR. LEWIS-Yes, that’s fine with us. What the County said is fine. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but you’ll still need a variance. MR. LEWIS-No, I don’t think so. MR. BROWN-You’d have to go 10 feet to the north and 10 feet to the east. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. BROWN-To have both setbacks be 25 feet. MR. GILLESPIE-Well, right now it’s 23 feet. So it would be 10 feet to the north, 2 feet to the east, right. MR. LEWIS-So we go two feet to the east. MR. THOMAS-Two feet to the east, ten feet to the north, you don’t need a variance. MR. LEWIS-Then we’d comply. MR. THOMAS-Then you comply. So we don’t need to listen to this variance, do we? MR. BROWN-If they’re willing to change their plans and amend their. MR. THOMAS-If you’re willing to change the plans as we talked about to make everything complying. MR. LEWIS-We like to cooperate with boards. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Then you can withdraw this variance. I don’t know if you’ll get your money back, but. MR. LEWIS-You came up with something that we didn’t know about, the four foot directional sign, and that doesn’t solve the issue as well, but we recognize there always has to be give and take in this business. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, like you say, directional signs, property line setbacks, I don’t think there is any. MR. BROWN-I don’t think so. MR. THOMAS-No. In fact, you could put that on the property line on the, no, the power pole is there. MR. BROWN-Yes. That would be something that would be addressed at site plan review. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. BROWN-Visibility, traffic hazard. MR. THOMAS-So, if you bring everything into compliance, we can forget about this variance. MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. BROWN-Does there have to be a formal request to withdraw the application? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Just make a statement that you request to be withdrawn, and you’ll bring the signs into compliance. MR. LEWIS-We request that we withdraw. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA MICHELE & MONIQUE JULIEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE PRIVATE #1 OFF OF CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL LOT. SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/10/99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 10-1-4.3 LOT SIZE: 0.58 ACRES SECTION 179-70 LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-1999, Michele & Monique Julien, Meeting Date: February 17, 1999 “Project Location: Private road #1 off Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes development of a residential lot and seeks relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum frontage requirement, §179-70, A. This section requires that every principal building shall be built upon a lot with frontage upon a public street improved to meet Town standards. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to develop a pre-existing non conforming lot. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include acquisition of additional lands. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as attributed to the pre-existing non-conforming nature of the lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): *** AV 1346 - res. 4/27/88 Construction of single family dwelling - denied ZBA denied application for parcel 10.-1- 4.4 based on a previous change in ownership to Wanamaker. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Consideration should be given to the adequacy of accessibility of the private drive for emergency vehicles, which, at best appears to be marginal. The availability of a compliant location for a conforming sewage disposal system is necessary for a complete review of this parcel/project. SEQR Status: Type II” 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MRS. LAPHAM-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form Project Name: Julien, Michele and Monique Owner: Same ID #: Queensbury Area Variance No. 7-1999 County Project: February 99-16 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury. Applicant’s proposed to construct a single family home and seek relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. Site Location: Private Road #1 off Cleverdale Road Tax Map No.: 10-1-4.3 Staff Notes: The applicant requires a variance because their parcel does not front on a Town or County highway but rather on a private right-of-way. The Town of Queensbury is the only Town that does not recognize real property law which states that a private right-of-way is sufficient access. Therefore, Staff is recommending that this does not impact County resources and is of a local nature only.” Terry Ross. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Steves, anything you want to tell us about? MR. STEVES-You’ve said it all. Good evening. The lot is pre-existing, nonconforming. The earliest map I have on it is 1973, showing that the owner at the time was a Dan H. and Audrey Ann Wanamaker, and it was purchased probably originally from the Kirchoffs, and I noticed that one of the comments from the Staff was that perhaps additional lands could be purchased. I don’t think so. The Kirchoffs have never been interested in selling much land at all, in my years that I’ve known them. MR. HAYES-Mr. Steves, can you explain how the Private Road #1, that’s apparently this property is going to get access through Private Road #1, is that how that’s going to work? I guess I’m confused. MR. STEVES-Do you have something there? MR. HAYES-Is this Private Road #1, essentially? MR. STEVES-Yes. There’s another one that goes right over to Cleverdale Road. MR. HAYES-So we’re accessing here like this, going like that? MR. STEVES-Yes. Well, it doesn’t go through here. It goes this way, from Cleverdale Road back. It comes through here and down. MR. HAYES-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-The road that veers off toward their house would be their own private driveway. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. THOMAS-In the Staff Notes, the Planning Staff made a comment about location for a conforming sewage disposal system. Is there any, it looks awful low in there. I know that gets flooded in the spring time, at the marina right around the corner, and it did look low in there. Is there any water problems that you can’t put in an acceptable septic system? MR. STEVES-I don’t know that answer. We haven’t investigated for that purpose at all. We would find that difficult, at this stage, to make a determination or an investigation of a system that is not going to be allowed on a building. If we don’t get a building, we can’t put the system in. So we don’t want to put the cart before the horse. MR. THOMAS-Is there any way you can make a determination, at some point in time, that a system would work there? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. That should be done. MR. THOMAS-Because if you can’t put a system in there, then you can’t put a house up there. There’s no use in giving you a variance. MR. STEVES-I don’t know which should come first. Should we go to the Town Board and ask for the sewer, the septic variance on it, if necessary, to something that’s nonconforming? I don’t know that they would give it to us, either. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, you’d probably have to prove that a septic system would work in that location, by percolation tests and all that other stuff. MR. STEVES-Yes. We would have to go through all that. MR. THOMAS-The access road, getting down there. I didn’t drive down in there, because the driveway was ice, and that tells me, how would I get an ambulance or a fire truck down in there? Do they plan on widening that road out any? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MR. STEVES-I would think that if they have a house down in there, that it would have to be year round, of course, and that, it would improve the driveway condition. Most driveways right now, and a lot of the highways, up until the past week, have been of icy condition anyway. Now that’s not an excuse. It’s just a fact. MR. THOMAS-It is a fact, but it shows just a right-of-way, and then the road I saw going down there, I don’t think you could get a fire truck down there if you had to. I don’t know, I’m not an expert on that, but that’s something that either the North Queensbury Fire Department or Kip Grant could make a determination. MR. STEVES-We could ask them. That’s true. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for Mr. Steves? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ELSA KRAFT MRS. KRAFT-I’d like to say something. My name is Elsa Kraft, and I own the adjoining property. The right-of-way road that you’re referring to, I own that, too. As you turn off of that right-of-way road, to the access road going down to Wanamaker’s two lots, that corner lot is still mine. So you’d have to go over the first lot of mine to get to her two lots. MR. THOMAS-Do they have a deeded right-of-way that goes through there? MRS. KRAFT-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Of a specific width? MRS. KRAFT-I don’t know about a specific width on it, but they do have a deeded right-of-way. MRS. LAPHAM-The deeded right-of-way, is that access road, Private Road #1, or is that going into their? MRS. KRAFT-That’s going off of the private road. MRS. LAPHAM-The access that goes into what would be their lot? MRS. KRAFT-Yes. Also, there is a stream that runs down. There are three culverts for that stream to pass through, Corny’s, north of me, my right-of-way road, and then Harry Pulver had to put in a culvert, before it enters the lake. So that stream that is referred to is nothing but a runoff. It does run into Lake George, and he had to put a culvert in there, and in the spring, that runs pretty fast. Now, Ann filled in a spot there where she wanted to have the Niagara Mohawk power pole, by doing that, it diverted the stream back. So when the stream is running full force in the spring, it can make the turn, but then in the summer it stands as stagnant water, because it can’t go any place because it’s been filled in there. MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for Mrs. Kraft? Okay. Thank you. MRS. KRAFT-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. There’s a letter from the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company, Cleverdale, New York. Attention: Craig Brown, Town of Queensbury, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804 RE: Subdivision off Private Road #1, Cleverdale, NY Tax Map No. 10-1-4.3 “Dear Mr. Brown: As an officer of the North Queensbury Fire Co. it is my opinion that the fire company would be able to provide fire protection to the said property noted. Also, I would recommend that the intersection at Private Road I and the development road be widened to accommodate easier access for a fire apparatus. Sincerely, Jeff Baertschi Asst. Chief North Queensbury Vol Fire Company” MR. THOMAS-Is that the only one? MRS. LAPHAM-That’s the only one. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MR. THOMAS-Well, that answers one question, doesn’t it? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, that they can get emergency vehicles down there, except which road is he talking about widening, the driveway or the Private Road? MR. THOMAS-Well, the one that says Private Road #1, probably off Cleverdale. I think that’s what he said. MR. HAYES-The entrance to that he said, right? MRS. LAPHAM-“I’d recommend the intersection of Private Road I and the development road” so that would be the driveway and the private road, be widened. MR. STEVES-The 20 foot wide right-of-way. MRS. LAPHAM-So you’d want the driveway widened. MR. STEVES-So it can be widened out a little bit. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. MR. HAYES-What’s the total acreage on the pre-existing lot? MR. STEVES-Half an acre, 25,000 square feet. MR. MC NALLY-You’re saying that you’re going to widen it to 20 feet? MR. STEVES-No, I say it could be. It is a 20 foot wide right-of-way. MR. MC NALLY-And how wide is the road right now, substantially less than that? MR. STEVES-I don’t know if I can tell you that. MR. MC NALLY-I’ve seen it, but you have no current plans, though, to improve it, is what you’re saying. MR. STEVES-No. MR. MC NALLY-Had you seen the letter from the volunteer fire department? MR. STEVES-I had not. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for Mr. Steves? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-No more questions for him? Lets talk about it. Chuck, what do you think? MR. MC NULTY-As I see it, the main question I think is the fact that he doesn’t have frontage on a Town road, and from what I’ve heard and understand, the main concern about that is access for fire apparatus. It strikes me that even if he could buy a 40 foot swath out to the Town road, that would make no difference. Then he would have just his own driveway and that piece of property, which could still be as narrow as what we’ve got now. I don’t see, if that’s the main reason for the requirement of having frontage on a Town road, I don’t see that we gain anything by insisting that he wait until he can buy a piece of property to connect him to the Town road. So, on that basis, I don’t think I would have a problem approving this, unless there are concerns that I’ve missed. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I have a number of other concerns, the first one being the septic problems that would have to be resolved to our satisfaction, and the other is there’s no elevation or blueprints or anything of the house. So how do we know we’re not going to get into setback problems or height restrictions or what have you. MR. STEVES-I think is addressed by the Staff or by the recently passed legislation that restricts the house size to the lot size, the setbacks from the sideline, the front and rear. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MRS. LAPHAM-But not seeing an elevation or any plan, you know, we won’t know that for sure until we see it. MR. STEVES-We’re not asking for a variance for the building. We’re asking for a variance to build upon the lot. MRS. LAPHAM-No, I understand that. It’s just I hate to approve anything that I haven’t seen. MR. STEVES-I understand. MR. BROWN-Yes. The building plans were addressed and discussed with Mr. Raven when he submitted the application, and he lead me to believe that there wasn’t going to be any problem with setbacks or height, and at this point, they just wanted to go for relief for no frontage. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I think I’d want to wait on it until I hear more about the septic. MR. BROWN-And Dave Hatin, the Director of Building and Codes, has been on the site with Mr. Raven, doing some preliminary soil investigation, and at this time, I think there’s a problem with some high groundwater. Dave’s not a soil scientist. I don’t know if he can make those determinations, but he was there. They did do soil testing, and even at this time of year, with frost in the ground, there was evidence somehow. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what evidence there was, but there could be high groundwater problems. I don’t know if, you know, bedrock or separation to ledge or separation to groundwater is the issue, but there may be some problems with that, so with that lack of information to be considered. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Off the top of my head, I don’t have a problem with the concept of putting a building down there, because I do think it otherwise would be able to meet whatever setback requirements there may be, but asking for 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot requirement is a substantial amount of relief requested, and in view of the fire department’s concerns about getting down there, I’d like to hear more from the applicant, as far as what concrete plans they have. So that if it is winter or the fire department does have to get down there, no one is hurt or a vehicle’s not trapped or something like that. I’m sure it’s the best of intentions. I’m just not sure exactly what’s going to be done to alleviate the fire department’s concerns, which I agree with Chuck, is probably the primary motivating factor behind the Ordinance, and while it could be the driveway, as much as you want, driveways do lead to 40 feet of road, and we don’t have 40 feet of road adjacent to this parcel. It’s a 20 foot right-of-way, but you don’t have any plans how you’re going to widen it or whether you’re going to widen the intersection with the new driveway. MR. STEVES-A right-of-way that is granted over someone else’s property gives you the right for ingress and egress, and the maintenance of that area defined by the width here of 20 feet, but it doesn’t give you the right to expand beyond that at all, and if you elect to do so, or attempt to do so, you would be in trouble with your neighbor. MR. MC NALLY-I understood that, when I looked at it, it’s not 20 feet wide by any means. MR. STEVES-No. MR. MC NALLY-So it can be expanded, a brush cut, things like this, the road surface built up a bit. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-But I’m asking what plans you have for that, or are you just asking for relief of 40 feet and that’s it? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I’m not inclined without further concrete plans. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with Chuck. I think the purpose of that Ordinance is to provide for the necessary public services that might be needed in that property, and I don’t think, in this case, forcing the applicant to grant, to buy 40 feet of property, or trying to, is going to, you know, relieve this situation. I think just focalizing on the 40 foot minimum, I think that there is a right-of-way. I’d be willing to bet that the right-of-way was granted before the Zoning Ordinances, in order to service these lots or lakeside properties, and I think that’s, I’m not sure who accepted compensation, at what day or year to do that, but I think that that’s probably how this easement happened in the first place, 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) and taking that in mind, I think that the parties are charged, when they buy the properties or sell them, to be aware of those facts. So, I really don’t have a problem with it, particularly since the fire department said that they could access the property. I mean, I think, in this particular circumstance, even though 40 feet is a lot, I’m okay with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? MR. STEC-Well, on Lake George, I know that the lack of road frontage is a common problem, and these private roads are very common place up there. So I don’t have a problem with the concept of allowing a building on this pre-existing lot. I am encouraged that the fire department has written a letter stating that they feel comfortable being able to get down there, although I don’t know if I share that conclusion myself personally, and I agree with the other Board members. I think more could be done to make it more accessible to emergency vehicles, but again, as Chuck pointed out, this could easily be just a driveway, and I mean, there are worse travel problems getting to houses in Queensbury on lots that do have road frontage. So just talking about the 40 feet relief from the requirement for road frontage, I’m comfortable with that, but then I anticipate that getting past this variance may open future problems concerning septic and hence other setback requirements, but I just imagine we would cross that bridge when we got to it. I guess what we’re dealing with now is the developability of this lot and the 40 foot road frontage requirement which, again, past practice, it’s common place in the Town. So that and the letter from the fire department, I don’t have a problem with this variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. I don’t have a problem with the 40 foot right-of-way, because there are a lot of those right-of-ways in the Town of Queensbury, especially along Lake George and Glen Lake also, and as the fire department said, they can get emergency vehicles down there if they have to. The only problem I think I, and I’ve been thinking about this, is if they can’t get a septic system in there, why give them a variance in the first place? That’s what’s bothering me. Why give them a variance for a lot that would never be built on? MR. MC NALLY-Isn’t that their concern? MR. THOMAS-Well that is their concern, but I guess it’s one of those Catch-22 things that just keeps going around and round. MR. HAYES-We’ve proven at least we have a chance for a defining moment. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I’d listen to the other Board members. I think that concern about getting a compliant septic system in there. I don’t think it’s as important as I thought it would be, and as far as the access road, like I said, I don’t have a problem with that because there are a lot of those around here. So, having said that, I will ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-1999 MICHELE & MONIQUE JULIEN, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Private Road #1 off Cleverdale Road. The applicant proposes development of a residential lot and seeks relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. Specifically, the applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum frontage required in Section 179-70, Section A. This Section requires that every principal building shall be built upon a lot with frontage upon a public street improved to meet Town standards. The benefit to the applicant would be that the applicant would be permitted to develop this pre-existing nonconforming lot. Feasible alternatives are limited based on representations by the applicant’s agent that the purchase of additional lands is not feasible. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? I believe that it is. Forty feet of relief from the 40 foot requirement, by definition, is substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or community. I believe this is where the balancing test takes effect. I believe that the impact will be moderate on the neighborhood, and as other Board members have pointed out, it is common place in the Town, particularly along lake front properties, to have such arrangements. Is the difficulty self-created? I don’t believe that it is. I believe this is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot, and there was a deeded access right, and they’re just trying to take advantage of that. So, I would move for the approval. Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. THOMAS-There’s the first hurdle. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA DR. ROBERT HUGHES CLAIR 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 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-1999, Dr. Robert Hughes Clair Hensler, Meeting Date: February 17, 1999 “Project Location: Fitzgerald Road, Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a second single family dwelling on a property. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from requirements allowing one single family dwelling per lot and for 0.81 acres of relief from the requirement allowing one principal building per acre, §179-16 A., (3) and B. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a second, larger single family dwelling on a property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to no construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: A second single family dwelling proposed property with marginal site conditions and 0.81 acres of relief from the area requirements may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the current zoning requirements which necessitate non-conforming properties to be considered as one when the ownership is the same. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 88-795 11/22/88 - Construction of a single family dwelling AV 109-1989 res. 9/27/89 Shoreline setback relief for SFD denied Staff comments: Substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Given the existing conditions of the site, the proximity of the project to both Glen Lake and the wetlands areas of Mud Pond, Site Plan Review of this project by the Planning Board may be considered. The availability of a conforming area for the installation of a compliant septic system is vital to the review of this project. Many of the issues raised during a previous review of a similar project on this parcel are still valid concerns and should be considered. Requiring the parcels to be consolidated will relieve the possibility of future individual resale and a potential increased intensity of use on the property. Relative elevations depicting the proposed structure as well as proposed final grading may aide in addressing the critical site issues. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay. This didn’t go to the County, right? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Mr. O’Connor. MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, I’m Michael O’Connor, for the purposes of your record, from the firm of Little & O’Connor, and I’m representing the applicants, Robert Hughes and Clair Hensler, and they are here with me at the table, as well as Leon Steves from Van Dusen and Steves, and with us also is Matt Cifone, who gave us some information with regard to the application. I’d like to simplify my presentation to you as much as I can, although I have a lot of information, and basically what we’re trying to do is save the 1930 summer home that’s on this site. If we didn’t want to save this home as an entity, we could build this house that we propose, and a house twice the size of that, without any variances, and I’ll go through the whole thing. This house here is a stone house. The exterior wall is the interior wall. It’s not a house you could winterize. It’s used probably from late May, June, until September, maybe a little bit beyond that, but traditionally on Glen Lake, you’re there for about 10 weeks. That’s what that’s used. On your Assessment rolls, I think the assessment for the building on that lot is $24,000. In an appraisal that we had when the Hughes bought this property, there was about $40,000 that was put to the value of that building. Whether it’s 24 or 30, on top of that, if we were to eliminate that, we would probably have an $11,000 cost, according to Cifone Construction Company, to demolish it and repair the hill, to an area where it was stabilized. So, what we’re asking for is to preserve a 1930 summer camp on this site by an Area Variance. We’re not talking about a Use Variance. We’re not talking about anything that will affect the character of the neighborhood in any significant way. In fact, before, while we were waiting, we’ve got some neighbors here. We spoke to them. I think they may speak or may not speak, but they’re fairly well satisfied. Historically, let me go through a little bit of what we’re talking about, and we’re only here because of, I think, a quirk in our Ordinance. In 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) 1993, Section 179-76E was adopted, and that says that where you own lands in a Critical Environmental Area, or in the Adirondack Park Area, and they are contiguous in the same ownership, those lands are deemed to have been merged by law, and that’s something that came through more for the APA than anything else. I think this is the only Town that I’m aware of that I practice in that has extended it beyond the APA boundaries, as some other classification of land, and that’s a little bit unique, even to this parcel, in that these are the two parcels that we’re talking about, and they’re shown on the tax map, and that’s why there’s two tax map numbers. If you will, the one on the west, this is The Great Escape over here, Route 9. This is the Bay Road side of Glen Lake, or end of Glen Lake. This parcel on the west I’ll refer to as the Smith parcel, and this parcel here on the east I’ll refer to as the Flynn parcel. It’s unique, even in the sense that we’re within a Critical Environmentally Sensitive Area, because it’s only for the first 100 feet that these lots are merged at the hip. The back of the lots isn’t. This is a little bit like what we presented to you with regard to the Christensen property. This is Mannis Road that goes off this way, and the lake turns that way, and the Christensen property, we had the same issue there. We had undersized lots, partially within the Critical Environmentally Sensitive Area that were merged, and we asked that they be recognized as separate lots, and we traded boundary lines back and forth, and we’re not asking for separate and distinct lots. Our application says that we will treat both of these lots as one ownership, but we want to be able to preserve that 940 square foot camp that’s there, and build our house that’s here. The history of these parcels is that the greenish or light green, I guess, parcel was created in 1979. It was conveyed by an Elizabeth Mannis Swan, to Mr. and Mrs. Smith in 1979, and this parcel here was conveyed by Swan in 1985. They never were joined again until 1996, and I’m not even sure if they were joined in 1996 or maybe 1995, because there was a mistake when this parcel was described, back in 1985. Just for, the description began here, ran this way, and then went around and closed. Later it was corrected by a correction deed. So it never actually was maybe a complete parcel. The Smith’s owned this parcel from 1979, and Ratsip’s owned this to begin with, and then they sold it to people by the name of Flynn. The Flynn’s created some problems. The Flynn’s, in 1989 or 1988, you’ve got it at the beginning of the head notes of Staff, actually obtained a building permit to build a single family home on that. They provided, and I think it’s in the file, a perc test, proposed septic, and everything else, and said that the home that they were building would fit on this property, and these lots are not untypical of Glen Lake. If you take a look at your Master Plan, I think the Master Plan quotes that there’s 214 lakeshore lots. The majority have 50 feet of shoreline and 150 feet deep. The majority of the lots on Glen Lake are 7500 square feet. Each of these lots are above that. One has 125 feet and one has 100 feet. The average size of the lots on Glen Lake is 7500 square feet. These are in excess of those. Just as an idea of what is the character of the neighborhood or what is the character of the general area, even, this parcel, as I said, was created in 1979. This was in 1985, and transferred again in 1988 to Flynn. Flynn, I’m not sure where they were going or what they were doing, but they dug a hole halfway to China, and if you’ve been up there, they’ve dug a hole, and there’s pictures in the file. They’ve put in all kinds of wood retaining walls, and before the wood retaining walls were completed, they started to collapse on them. There were lawsuits by the Town. There were lawsuits by Smith, and unfortunately the Flynn’s end up going through bankruptcy, I think in part to do this. I don’t know what else. The Smiths then, in 1995, bought this parcel to save their own fill and save their own property from collapsing, in 1995. They could have played a game and taken title, perhaps, in other than the same names that they had, but they didn’t. A lot of people on the lake do that when they buy adjoining parcels, or if they’re APA, people do that. They did not do that. They then went back and improved the property and put some fill back in to where it presently is to try and stabilize to the degree the walls or side boundaries of the property. So if you take a look at the Ordinance, the Ordinance was passed in 1993, except the adjoining lots then in the same ownership would be merged. In 1993, this property was not in the same ownership. One lot was in Flynn. One lot was in Smith. Later on, it went into the same ownership, and then eventually it went into Dr. Hughes and his wife, Clair, in 1996. We have, and we could have probably done something when we took the title, because we were taking a correction deed. We recognized, at that time, that the parcel on the east wasn’t properly described, but their intentions have been above board from Day One. Their intentions are to improve the site and improve the neighborhood. In fact, as part of our application, although I don’t think we’re required, but to assure the Board that we’re not going to do anything that would harm the environment in any way, we’re willing to stipulate that we go through a site plan review, as though we were required to go through site plan review. So that the Board has a full review, or another Board has a full review of our grading, our septic and what not when it’s developed. The house that we propose on this site is going to be unique. Probably, and I have a sketch here to show you, up until at least the top of the first floor will be underground, in the sense that it will be back-filled on both sides. The house will be open in the front in the back, because of the topographical features of the lot, but on the Ward side, which is on the east side of the property, and on the Hughes family, not Rob, but his father or brothers own the parcel to the next of them, the house will be actually back-filled into the top of the first floor. There will be a first floor below ground. There will be a basement below ground. This house is going to be a very expensive house to engineer, and that is in part why we don’t have a set of building plans to present to you and say, this is the house that we’re going to build. They retained Carl Schroder to do the engineering on it. He’s begun to do the work, but we want to know that we can build this house, before we spend $15 to $20,000 probably very easily, and I don’t set somebody else’s prices, but just my imagination, that’s where they’re going to be for the basic engineering. A good part of this house 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) is going to be concrete, because a lot of it is going to be underground. In fact, I’ll show you in a minute, the garages that are going to be built are going to be entirely underground, and we’ll have three feet of soil on top of them. The idea is to have a flat level playing area for the children and a garden area immediately behind the house toward Mannis Road. If I were to address the four questions that I think that you have to address when you look at an Area Variance, I probably would come to different conclusions all the way around from what Staff seems to suggest, and I would do that sincerely. The first question I think, is this an undesirable change that will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created in the granting of Area Variances. Again, I repeat that this lot is larger than most of the lots on Glen Lake. In the immediate area, it has more frontage than many of the lots. In 1988, when the Flynns applied for a building permit and started their excavations, there was no outcry because they were building a single family home on this lot that we are now asking to build a single family home on. The problem developed because of the manner in which they went about building their house, where the walls started to collapse on the side, and the Ward property on one side and the Smith property on the other side started to lose their banks. In fact, I think there was an erosion right into the Smith parcel. That was part of the basis of the lawsuit by Smith against Flynns. What we’re requesting is simply to allow the summer cottage, and I said before, it’s got 940 square feet. You’ve seen the picture of it. That’s saying that both levels or both floors are fully utilized. If you take a look at it, there’s 470 square feet on the first floor. The second floor, which is what you see above that, is not a dormer roof, but it’s almost similar to a dormer roof. You cannot stand on the outside of the room. So, to say that there’s 940 square feet living space in this house that we’re trying to save is probably being very conservative. I told you before about the cost that we have on it. It just seems unreasonable to say to these people, yes, you can have that square footage, if you tear down the house or if you tear down the hill and somehow connect your new house to it, but you can’t have it because it’s separated because you want to maintain the old style of the house, you want to maintain the trees and the hill that are around it. It really doesn’t serve any particular purpose or there doesn’t appear to be any real strong justification for it. That’s one of the older camps on the lake, I think in 1930, at least that’s what we can find when we looked through the abstract. It’s got one large room downstairs and it’s got three rooms upstairs, and if you take a look at the letter that’s attached there, he’s here to answer any questions. It’s not a building that’s capable of being winterized or made year round. It’s just not built that way. You’ve got your stone wall. That’s all you’ve got, and the top, the roof is the outside and the inside. If you tried to build interior walls within that room or those rooms upstairs so you could put up some insulation, you wouldn’t have a room left. So there’s not really a risk here that in the future you’re going to see somebody come in and make that a year round home, and then we end up with two year round homes on this place. You’re talking about a guest cottage, in essence, that we’re going to preserve on the property. The second question is, can the benefit be achieved by some other feasible method. The goal here is to save a small summer cottage. The only way to achieve that is probably not to build another place, at least under our definition, or try to connect this building in some way, the old and the new, and that would involve, you take a look at the photos there, that would probably mean a lot of scarring. It would mean taking down a lot of the hill that’s behind that, and again, if you connected it, what’s the sense of connecting it? It’s going to be summertime use. It would look like an elephant’s ear on dog, or something of that nature. It just wouldn’t be attractive, and it wouldn’t be something that would be usable. The other thing is tear it down, and build that type of square footage onto the house. As I said, using the rule of 22% of square footage of your lot, you could build up to 10,000 square feet or 11,00 square feet, whatever the application says. We’re talking about 4,000 new living space. We’re talking about preserving 900 square foot of living space. So we’re not trying to be greedy and maximize the lot. We’re not trying to build a Taj Mahal on a postage stamp lot. This is a good sized lot. Is the request substantial? I don’t really think it is, and I say that because the end product here is not much different than the rest of the houses that are in the neighborhood. You can take a look at the tax map if you want, and you can see the various lots and the sizes on the lots. In fact, this particular area has maybe bigger lots than some of the others. You’re talking 100, 100, 118, 105, 132. I don’t know what that 50, 100. This one is a large one. This is Dr. O’Keefe’s, I think, 268, 100, 73, 98, 210, which is their adjoining Hughes parcel, the other way is 100, 75, 72. Now some of those could fan out. Some of them are a little bit bigger, but typically you measure the lots, and the impact by what’s visible from the lake. You go down in my area, and they’re all 50 foot. My house is on a 50 foot. My mother’s, two houses are on 50 foot. You get into the Lavoy’s, which are just in here. They’re both on 50 foot lots. So we’re not talking about something that is substantially out of character with the neighborhood. I didn’t put that before, but here’s an actual layout of the camp, and if you take a look at the picture, there’s a pretty good sized hill in there. To try and connect that, you’d have to really strip that lot, significantly, and I think you’d do more damage than not. This is just laid out to show you that we can comply. The other questions are, will the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions. Our answer would be no, and again, we’re willing to go through site plan review. There was approval of a septic system on this lot. We had a question with Staff where we first showed this septic system, because we were just trying to show that we had square footage, and part of the area where we showed the square footage was on an incline. So we flipped it and put it where it is now, and it fits. There really is not a significant problem with that. The perc tests that they had back then I don’t think are going to be a lot different than they will be produced now, and those perc tests will be satisfactory for a standard septic system. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) I think at that time they were going to use seepage pits instead of a drainage field. I don’t know what the Hughes are going to use. They’re going to have it designed and have an engineer tell them what’s best for the lot, and what’s best to maintain and what not, and that’s what they will propose. We expect no variances. We expect to request no variances for septic or setbacks. The proposed house will meet the setbacks. One neighbor had a question about, there’s a right-of-way that goes across the front of that lot that serves some of the homes. That’s been their way of access, even though if you went up and looked at it, before the Montgomery Ward shopping center was filled in, that ridge came all the way around there, and that’s why all those lots were 200 feet deep. They went to the top of the ridge, and the land behind them was a different ownership, a different parcel, but when they started that shopping center, they took out that hill, and then they’ve been working on it ever since. They finished it probably 10 years ago. I mean, all those camps, it was part of the Russell and O’Connor subdivision, which goes all the way from lands to the west of this, down to the beginning of Christensen’s lot, the last first lot of Christensen’s were part of that subdivision, and part of that layout. They were all 50 foot lots. Most of those lots had access by this 12 foot right-of-way across the front of them. Since they took that hill out, they’ve eliminated the need for it, except for a few people, but the question that was asked to us, are we going to do anything that’s going to interfere with it, and we aren’t. Our setback is 53 feet from the lake, and there’s plenty of room to accommodate what’s there now. I think that’s basically it. The question, to try to give you some idea of grading when we finish, here is a concept, if you will, of what the house will look like from the lake, and if you will take a look and find, there’s a fine line here that goes off about the bottom of the porch, on both ways, and that will be the final grade on the sides of the house. That will be an improvement from what’s there now. That’s actually a depression. So we will dig back into the depression to get back to where it’s solid ground, and we will put a basement in the front of the house. We will put the garage behind the house, and then we will build a story above that on the front, and will be filled in up to the top of that, and then we’ll build a story above that. It’ll give a flat area between our house and Mr. Ward’s house, which is the property to the east of our property. It will probably stabilize, to some degree, the bank that is to the west, which affects what is now their own property, the Flynn property, but is to the west of it. We’ve got a layout, if you want to take a look at what the inside of the house is conceived to be, we can show you that. I don’t what difference is makes, as to whether we build one or two houses or not, but we’ve got that for you. Staff comments I think went a little bit astray, when they’re talking about a concern with the wetland. We dug out a copy of the wetland map. I believe this is a current wetland map of the area. The only State designated wetland is Wetland GF-17. That is probably 2500 feet from our nearest boundary. That’s conservative. It’s probably further than that. The area on the back side of Mannis Road is not a State designated wetland. It was, at one time, a wet area, and it probably still is wet area and it probably does fit the qualifications of Federal wetlands, but I think Craig and I and Chris Round all agree that when we talk about setbacks, it’s not from that type of area, because a Federal wetland can be a teacup or it can be a number of acres. So, when we got into definition of setbacks from wetlands, we’ve kind of agreed, I don’t think we’ve agreed, but I mean, it’s a Town procedure that’s from State wetlands. The Hughes actually own the area that a lot of people think is the wetland. That’s this pond area, not in the same ownership as here, or I don’t know if it’s the same ownership as your father’s main camp here. Is it the same ownership? Okay. This is Mud Pond. This area her was filled in, I think, to a great degree with the excess boulders that they didn’t crush when they took all that gravel out. Kids still go up there and look for frogs and snakes and whatever else. Not that it’s binding on you, but I’ve got a 1982 map that shows the two separate maps, separate ownership. That’s what was anticipated. That’s what I think the neighborhood expected, and there’s a 1988 map which shows the same thing., and this was , apparently they were all, they were in this Russell and O’Connor subdivision all 50 foot lots. This actually shows those subdivision lot numbers. You’ve got tax searches on the two parcels, but I’m really not arguing that we’ve got two separate grandfathered parcels, which would be the other tack, come in and ask for you to give us approval to subdivide and maintain them as two separate parcels forever. We are willing to concede that we will treat this parcel of land or these two tax map parcels as one parcel, which I think is of significant benefit, even to the neighborhood, and that, basically is our spiel. I’ve got deeds. I’ve got abstracts. I’ve got all kinds of back up information, whatever you might need. MR. THOMAS-All right. Any questions for the applicant or Mr. O’Connor? MR. STEC-I’ve got a question. I understand that you want to keep the two together, but it sounds like you’ve indicated that this could have been avoided if you had gone the other tact of saying, we’re going to call them two separate lots or put them in two separate names. I just don’t understand why you didn’t go that route? MR. O’CONNOR-I think it’s their desire to control who’s that close to them. MR. STEC-Then my follow up would be, later down the road, if they change their mind or decide, somebody, 20 years from now, a new owner decides that they want to split them, how easily would that be accomplished? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MR. O’CONNOR-They’d have to come back for variance, and you would be the determining factor to that, or your successors would be. MR STEC-Because that was my only thing. I was just trying to understand why you took the tact that you did, not that I have a big problem. I understand what you’re trying to accomplish. I was just trying to understand why you’re going about it that way. MR. O’CONNOR-Do you want to comment on that? DR. ROBERT HUGHES DR. HUGHES-Well, if you would prefer that way, we could, but like you said, I think it could have gone either way, and we really do care. We want to (lost words) better for the community. That’s why we took that tact. MR. STEC-I just, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t have put one lot in your name , the other lot in your wife’s name, and then that way, you’d say thy were two separate lots. MR. O’CONNOR-There’s, arguably, Mrs. Smith didn’t. See, Mrs. Smith appeared on this, took a deed from the Trustee in bankruptcy in 1985, even though it was a mis-described parcel, and we went back to Swan, in 1996, and got a corrected deed from Swan directly to the Hughes, but the cards are on the table. We’re not trying to be cute with it, and we anticipate that you’ll respect that, and I don’t mean that facetiously. I mean, there are a lot of different ways of doing things. We may be back to you for something, and we want you to know that this is how we deal with it. MR. STEC-I was just trying to learn, because, again, if it was me, I would have said, gee, if I can avoid going, and if I’m within my rights to put one in one name and one in the other spouse’s name, and avoid the potential of having to come before a Board that might not see or appreciate your candor, that if you could have gone the other way and avoided this, I’m just trying to understand, because I don’t know. I mean, I appreciate your straightforwardness about what you’re asking for, but I was just curious. MR. THOMAS-The existing camp, does that have a kitchen in it? CLAIR HENSLER MS. HENSLER-A sink. We don’t have a stove. We have to cook outside. MR. THOMAS-Okay. No kitchen. What about the septic system on the existing camp? Is it operating, working? DR. HUGHES-It’s been there a while. It’s quite elevated because the camp itself is quite high, and it is working pretty well. It’s only used several weeks of the year anyway. No laundry there. MS. HENSLSER-No dishwasher. MR. THOMAS-Is there any thought of tying it in to the new septic system? DR. HUGHES-It would be a long run, because it is quite a big lot. MS. HENSLER-That’s all part of the engineering that we want to have done. I mean, we’re trying to do this as environmentally consciously as we can, and we are working with an engineer to do that. We want to keep as much of the land the way it is. I don’t want to take down more of the trees and do things like that. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-What are your plans for the summer house? Guest house or rental property? MS. HENSLER-Just a guest house if family comes to visit. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anion wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t think so. No. MR. THOMAS-No correspondence. I’ll close the public hearing. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I think I mentioned to you before that I was going to abstain. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I do see the two lots as being able to accommodate two homes, irrespective of the one acre zoning, and they are actually two lots, but for that 179-16, you wouldn’t be here today. The current use on the one property to the west is minimal. I see no reason to have to tear down an existing structure, just because an adjacent lot was purchased, it’s deemed (lost words) when in fact it’s not. I don’t really see any substantial effect on the neighborhood. As I understand it, you have some general ideas on how you’re going to build the house, but the setbacks and what not won’t be met. You have no real plans of asking for anything unusual, and if you do, you’ll come back. I don’t see it as a self-created problem in some sense, either. It’s the Town that created it. They’re requiring adjacent lots to be deemed together, and I think that they should be allowed to use their land. I don’t see any feasible alternatives. So I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think Bob hit it right on the head. I think, essentially, that outside of that Section, we are looking two lots here, and that the idea of adding this particular camp to one of those lots is entirely consistent with the neighborhood, as I’ve been through Glen Lake, and with other variances that we’ve approved, in fact. I also feel that, based on the pencil drawings that we have, that without any opposition from the neighborhood, it’s my feeling that the construction looks like it will be well done, and the applicants have expressed a desire to maintain the property as naturally as possible. So I only see it as a benefit to the neighborhood in the long run. A lot of my other concerns are alleviated by the fact that the applicant has agreed voluntarily, which they have been above board with their entire application, to submit to site plan review, and that is going to address all the issues that I would otherwise fully investigate, and consider in my decision to vote for or against the variance. So I think the bases have been touched in this case, and on balance, I think I can go with the applicant. I think that their desire to have a camp that’s, or a home that’s usable entirely and for their families outweighs any or small negative impacts on the neighborhood. So I could go with this. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with my fellow Board members. I feel that we are essentially talking about two lots, and I commend the applicant on their integrity, because they could have certainly skirted the issue by putting deeds in two separate names. I don’t ever mind sparing a few minutes of the Board’s time, when people want to be up-front. So, don’t get me wrong at all. I was not encouraging you trying to get around the Board. Our Board’s time is valuable, but I think you guys went about this whole situation the right way, and that makes it easy, but again, I agree that I don’t think that this is self-created. I think that this is a glitch in how we treat the two lots that happen to be owned by the same owner, and I’m put even further at ease by the applicant’s willingness to submit to a site plan review. So I have absolutely no problem with this variance request. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t know as I’ve got much to add. I basically agree with what’s been said. I think if these lots were smaller, I might have a problem with it, but given their size, I don’t see where I’ve got a real problem with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. I think this was very well thought out, very well done, very well presented. As mentioned before, the applicant has stated they will submit to site plan review. I did ask the question about the existing septic system, and I think that they will be looking at that, because Ms. Hensler stated that she is concerned about the environment and the property itself, and also the existing building is holding that hillside up, and to take that out of there would cause not only damage to this property but adjoining properties, because it sits 55 feet away, almost 56 feet away from the west property line, and over time, that could start deteriorating that bank and start it running, especially in a heavy rain. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1999 DR. ROBERT HUGHES CLAIR HENSLER, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Mannis Road, Glen Lake. The applicants propose the construction of a second single family residence on property that they own on Mannis Road in Glen Lake. They are requesting, and this motion is to grant them relief from the requirements allowing only one family dwelling per lot, and for .81 acres of relief from the requirement allowing one principal building per acre, pursuant to Section 179-16A, Subsection 3 and b. I move that we approve the application upon the grounds that the relief requested is consistent with the neighborhood, and a benefit to the neighborhood. It is not a substantial change, given the existing properties in the immediate vicinity. The two properties are essentially pre-existing separate lots, and but for the effect of Section 179-16, the applicants would be entitled to develop with single family dwellings each. The effect on the neighborhood is minimal, particularly given the size of the property and the frontage that each lot will have. The difficulty is not self-created, since the Town, in large part, created the difficulty where there were previously two existing lots by passing 179-16 in recent years, and I see no other feasible alternatives. Given that the applicants have proposed going through Site Plan Review, and given these other factors, I move the approval of the application. Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. STEC-I have a question. Do we want to make it contingent upon site plan review? MR. THOMAS-Bob mentioned it. MR. MC NALLY-I mentioned that the applicant had consented to it. MR. STEC-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Is that correct? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, it is. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. BROWN-I think that Mr. O’Connor touched on the point that the lots are considered, the two lots are considered one for zoning purposes. They still maintain separate tax map numbers. Maybe the motion could consider consolidation, so future re-sale couldn’t occur. Maintenance of the new home, future sale, not that they have any intent of that, but future sale of the existing summer camp could potentially lead to another house the same size on the property that has the existing summer camp. Consolidation wouldn’t allow that. It would require subdivision, in the future, to do that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there any problem with that, Mr. O’Connor? MR. O’CONNOR-I think we’re into right field again. The same as when we were talking about setbacks from wetlands that aren’t there. The tax map indication isn’t the issue of whether or not we could subdivide. By law these lots, at least in the front part, have been joined. If we were going to ever create a lot less than one acre, we would probably have to come back for a variance. MR. BROWN-I don’t think they’re joined, other than they’re considered together for zoning purposes. They’re not legally joined as one lot. The tax map numbers aren’t consolidated so that it’s now a one 9 acre lot. Now it’s still two less than one acre lots. MR. O’CONNOR-I can tell you the day after we get the building permits, the tax map numbers will be consolidated. They’ve been charged as two primary lots, which Bonnie can tell you increases your assessment, and we will ask for the tax map numbers to be merged into one lot, but I’m not stipulating that some future owner would never come back here and say, now’s the time to subdivide these things. I haven’t heard anybody ask me to do that. MR. MC NALLY-No, that wasn’t the sense of my motion. I do still look at it as two lots, even though for zoning purposes they’re joined along that one short distance. MR. O’CONNOR-And I recognize probably to do that, to successfully pass somebody who is reviewing the title that knows what they’re doing is going to tell you, you’re going to have to get a variance, because the end product is going to be less than an acre. We’ve got 1.19 acres. We’re in a zone that says WR-1A. Someday we may get somebody to change that, but. MR. MC NALLY-Are you saying you’re going to join the two lots? You’re not making any promises as to what happens in the future? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MR. O’CONNOR-I think the two lots have been merged already, by that Section, which I think is a quirk, but that’s like, you own land in the APA. This is where this comes from. They’re merged. You don’t have to draw deeds. You don’t have to tell people to give you one tax bill for six parcels. The APA comes along and says, they’re merged. MR. BROWN-I think they’re merged only for the purpose of development. MR. O’CONNOR-Development includes sale, Craig. MR. BROWN-I mean, potentially, you still have two lots. You could sell the stone house lot as a separate lot now, as long as you don’t develop on it. MR. MC NALLY-I think, maybe we’re arguing about something, my motion doesn’t include that provision. MR. O’CONNOR-I didn’t understand the provision in part, and maybe that’s why I reacted so strongly. I apologize, but we’re creating issues that we don’t have to create, I think. MR. THOMAS-But there’s going to be one tax number at some point in time for these two lots. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, there probably will be. MR. THOMAS-And that tax number will include 1.19 acres. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, I anticipate, yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any other questions on the motion? Everybody understands the motion? I’ll ask for a second. MR. HAYES-I second. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Lapham ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Craig, is it my understanding, if I have two tax map numbers, I don’t need to come to you to subdivide it? I’ll be here next month with Ruth B. O’Connor’s two parcels. MRS. LAPHAM-The Smiths on Hillman Road, about five to seven years ago, there was a whole Zoning Board meeting because it had been two separate parcels, husband and wife joined them together thinking their tax assessment would go down. Their tax assessment didn’t go down, and they had to sell the whole thing, and then the people that I sold it to wanted to divide it, and there were two houses there already. MR. O’CONNOR-I want you to figure out how you’re going to be like Solomon. I have 100 feet of land on two pre-existing 50 lots, two houses on them, one which is considered a two family, and I have three sisters that need to take those two pieces equally, and I want you to decide that. Nobody up to this point can decide it. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-1999 TYPE II LI-1A MIKE BAIRD OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 126-1-36.2 LOT SIZE: 1.37 ACRES SECTION 179-26 PLINEY TUCKER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-1999, Mike Baird, Meeting Date: February 17, 1999 “Project Location: Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a single family home in violation of the setback requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 3.4 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement of the LI-1A zone, §179-26. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain and inhabit the constructed home in the current location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to the acquisition of additional lands and reconstruction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 3.4 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood are 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.): BP 92-144 - 7/22/92 Commercial Addition BP 94-371 - 7/13/94 Garage Demolition BP 98-507 - 8/21/98 Construction of a single family dwelling SP 62-90 - res. 8/20/91 30 x 60 Commercial Addition to Sign Business AV 30-90 - res. 4/25/94 Setback relief for Commercial Addition Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Removal of the residence near Corinth Road is slated to take place after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence. The “front” house is currently located 15 feet from the property line. The new “back” house will increase the sideline setback by 11+ feet. Apparently the error in determining the side setback occurred as a result of a previous survey, on which the western property line may have differed from the current survey prepared for the new construction. SEQR Status: Type II” MRS. LAPHAM-Any County? MR. THOMAS-No, it didn’t go to the County. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR.. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Tucker, do you want to tell us anything about this, how it happened? . MR. TUCKER-In 1992, this land was zoned residential, because there’s a 1988 Land Use Plan. It was Light Industry before that, and Mr. Baird put an addition on his business, the existing metal building that you see there, and I did the foundation work on that, and we took, at that time, all the measurements off of a fence that’s shown there. It borders Mr. Ball’s, Roy Ball’s property, and he’s been there since the patent for Queensbury was given. So when we started this house, I looked back on the payrolls, it was August 25 of last year, and Mr. Baird had told me at that time that he wanted th to be in the house by Christmas. So we started clearing the land, and we notified the surveyor that we were going to build a house, and we wanted him to come and plot it out, and he didn’t come and he didn’t come, and finally I asked Mr. Baird to get a hold of him and explain to him what we were doing, and he told Mr. Baird, no problems. So we went ahead and September 22 I got the plot nd plan, and by that time we were putting the roof on the house, and the foundation was all in and everything, and we lacked what they said we lacked on that side, and I looked at the plot plan, and of course he’s got the zoning down here, and he’s got the zoning at one acre Suburban Residential, the zoning on the plot plan, which requires a total of 30 feet total setbacks, 10 foot minimum on side yard. So, what he was telling us was true, with the zoning that he thought applied, and that’s the reason that it happened. MR. THOMAS-Any questions for Mr. Tucker? Well, I’ve got one. You were in this right from the start, right? MR. TUCKER-Yes, sir. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Who got the building permit? MR. TUCKER-I filled it out and it was made out to Michael. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does the building permit have to have a zoning classification on it? MR. TUCKER-I knew that it was. MR. THOMAS-LI-1? MR. TUCKER-Yes. I knew it was that, but I assumed the surveyor knew it was that, too, and I’ve done this lots of times, you know, you go ahead and. MR. THOMAS-On the surveyor’s say so, that everything’s within? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MR. TUCKER-Yes. From setting the addition to his business from that fence line, and we didn’t have any problems with that, but I wasn’t involved in getting any variances or anything for that. I just had the contract on that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. TUCKER-But this original house, I filled out the building permit. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for Mr. Tucker? No? I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL H. NAYLOR MR. NAYLOR-Paul H. Naylor, Division Road and Corinth Road. I don’t think Mike should be penalized for somebody just making a mistake. I’m just glad to hear people do make mistakes. I thought we were all perfect, and I just wanted to let you know that. So, I have no problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anyone else like to speak in favor of? Anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Tucker? If not, the only thing I have to say is, sometime, what was it in August or September? MR. BROWN-It was never passed. MR. THOMAS-It was never passed by the Town Board? It wasn’t incorporated into it? I thought it was. MR. BROWN-It was discussed, but it was never passed. MR. THOMAS-Never passed. MRS. LAPHAM-I read or heard that the one story frame residence in the front is going to be demolished? MR. TUCKER-Yes, ma’am. MRS. LAPHAM-That’ll actually be an improvement. It’ll make a lot more space. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. TUCKER-The zoning won’t allow it. It’s a nonconforming use. He was allowed to build a new house with the assumption that the old one would be removed. It was to be done as soon as he received the CO, but we’re into winter weather now, and we’ve got an extension until spring. So, we can do a better job of taking it down. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? No? All right. We’ll talk about it. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think it’s a pretty easy one. I think it was an honest mistake, and 3.4 feet relief from the 30 foot requirement is very minimal, and the benefit to the applicant is self-evident. So I don’t have a problem with this application. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree. I think it was just an honest mistake, and again, 3.4 feet is not significant. I don’t have any problems with it, either. MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I concur with what’s already been said. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I agree, and also we have precedent with one other property on Cronin Road that this happened to, and it was determined that it was an honest mistake, and was proven to our satisfaction it was an honest mistake, we did allow it, and I’m in favor of allowing this one. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-In the words of our own most recent last member, “Ditto”. MR. THOMAS-I agree with all the other Board members. This was an honest mistake. It’ll be an improvement to the property, and we hope the same surveyor won’t be doing anymore mistakes like this again. MR. TUCKER-They all make them. Like Mr. Naylor said, we like to think we’re perfect, but we’re not. MR. THOMAS-So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-1999 MIKE BAIRD, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Corinth Road. The applicant has constructed a single family home in violation of the setback requirements, and the applicant requests, and I move that we approve, the 3.4 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement of the LI-1A zone, Section 179-26. The benefit to the applicant is obvious, in that he would be permitted to retain the use of the home which has been constructed. There are no real feasible alternatives. The relief sought is very minimal. There are no negative impacts on the community. In fact, it’s an improvement with the removal of another structure, which is actually closer to the side property line. The difficulty is self-created, in that it was an honest error made by a surveyor, and we recognize that these things occur from time to time, and I move that we approve the relief sought. Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. TUCKER-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome, and I would also ask that you talk to Mr. Round and have him talk to the Town Board about what we submitted. Mr. Tucker is here tonight as a contractor, not a Town Board member. So that’s why I can’t say anything to him. MR. TUCKER-It’s in the system somewhere, but I can’t tell you exactly where. We’ve got a lot of things like that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. It’s more or less a housekeeping. All right. That takes care of that. Now we have to do notes, at some point in time here. CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 16, 1998: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 16, 1998, AS TYPED, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Stone 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/17/99) MR. THOMAS-I can only get three for the other one. That’s not enough for the January meeting. Okay, and then one other thing left. We didn’t have enough people last month for elections. There was a nomination for myself put out for Chairman. Is there anybody else that would like to nominate someone else for Chairman? If not, the only name in contention for the Chair of this committee is Christian G. Thomas. Would you take a vote yes or no. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Thomas ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. THOMAS-Thank you very much, gentlemen. The only other thing, too, is the Vice Chairman. The only name so far has been Lewis Stone. Would anyone else like to nominate another person on the Board for Vice Chairman? Okay, if not, the name of Lewis N. Stone is in for Vice Chairman of the committee. Take a vote. AYES: Mr. McNally, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. THOMAS-The Town Board has to formally appoint me again. Every year we go through this. This is just taking a poll as to who the committee would like to be Chairman. So, it’s up to the Town Board to officially appoint me. MRS. LAPHAM-They don’t do anything with the Secretary? MR. THOMAS-No. You were already voted in last month. Does anybody else have anything for the good of the Board? If not, I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MR. HAYES-Second. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 29