Loading...
1999-06-29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 29, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN DANIEL STEC LEWIS STONE CHARLES MC NULTY MEMBERS ABSENT BONNIE LAPHAM PAUL HAYES ROBERT MC NALLY CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JOHN SALVADOR & KATHLEEN A. SALVADOR OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE 18 DUNHAMS BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 300 SQ. FT. SEASONAL HUNTING AND FISHING CABIN AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 4-1-11 LOT SIZE: 3 ACRES SECTION 179-16 JOHN & KATHLEEN SALVADOR, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Do you want to read the tabling motion on that one. MR. STEC-“Motion to Table Area Variance No. 25-1999 John Salvador & Kathleen A. Salvador, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Until no later than the June meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by the Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for tabling this application is to get an accurate map that both parties agree to, so that the Zoning Board of Appeals can determine the setback for the relief required. The parties involved are Kathleen A. and John Salvador, Jr. on Area Variance No. 25-1999, and the Town of Queensbury or its representatives.” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-1999, John Salvador & Kathleen A. Salvador, Meeting Date: June 29, 1999 tabled – April 28, 1999 “Project Location: 18 Dunham Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 300 sf seasonal hunting and fishing cabin and seeks setback relief. Relief Requested: Applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. It is apparent, based on the drawing developed by this office, that the amount of relief is actually, approximately 28 feet from the required 30 front setback. 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 inhabit the desired cabin in the chosen location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the cabin to a more compliant location; (westerly). 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 28 feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement 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 interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Septic Variance 3-1999 res. 1/25/99 approved AV 1- 1998 res. 1/21/98 12,320 sf single family dwelling – denied Notice of Appeal 2-1997 res. 6/25/97 – Appeal of ZA setback decision denied AV 89-1996 res. 10/23/96 – subdivision regulations – tabled AV 74-1996 res. 8/28/96 – subdivision regulations – withdrawn Site Plan Review 18-1989 res. 3/28/89 – 12 x 18 deck – approved Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. An accurate representation of Dunham Bay Road, located and prepared by a qualified party may be considered in order to be concise in granting relief. The 1993 Van Dusen and Steves map depicting the area of land claimed for road by use was prepared to be an 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) accurate representation of all those lands necessary for reasonable maintenance of the road by use known as Dunham Bay Road. Any relief granted for this proposal should be consistent with this map. Additionally, an accurate depiction of the existing New York State right of way for Route 9L may affect this proposal. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Salvador, and Mrs. Salvador. MR. SALVADOR-Good evening, gentlemen. My wife Kathleen and I are appearing once more before your Board in the matter of our application for rear yard setback relief from a Town road for our 300 square foot hunting and fishing cabin, an allowable use in a one acre Waterfront zone. I believe the notice of this meeting says the applicant requests relief, four feet of relief, from the 30 foot minimum front setback. We're seeking rear yard setback. MR. BROWN-I think the fact that it fronts on a right-of-way, or not a right-of-way but a roadway would be considered frontage. MR. SALVADOR-Well, our application was for rear yard relief, and that’s what was heard the last time. We are here tonight to record, while the public hearing remains open, the actions undertaken by us since this application was tabled on April 28, to present for the record data to substantiate the th accuracy of our setback determination, and to show that the map presented by the Town’s Planning Staff has no application to this variance. Finally, providing you agree with our conclusions, we will be seeking your approval for our four-foot rear yard setback variance. This re-appearance has been precipitated by a strong written recommendation, directly from the Planning Department Staff, during our April 28 public hearing that “an accurate representation of Dunham Bay Road located th and prepared by a qualified party may be considered in order to be concise in granting relief”. Further Staff wrote “The 1993 Van Dusen and Steves map depicting the area of land claimed for a road by use known as Dunham Bay Road was introduced on their own initiative”. Staff did not quit there. Additionally, they said, “An accurate depiction of the existing New York State right-of-way for Route 9L may affect this proposal”, as if to suggest that the depiction before you was inaccurate. A long debate ensued on April 28, wherein my impromptu arguments proved unpersuasive as to th the relative accuracy of our submission. The professional quality of our site plan was brought into question by the Planning Staff. Staff convinced the Board that dimensional errors in the location of roads or their right-of-ways on our plan could produce errors in the setback relief being requested. The record of April 28 shows that Mr. Stec said, “I have a suggestion. Maybe we could have Staff, th you know, table this and have Staff come back with an accurate map describing exactly where the road is.” Mr. Brown responded, “Well, I think you’ve got an accurate map in front of you depicting where the claimed road by use is. I think at one point the Town Highway Superintendent, Supervisor, Town Surveyor, all put their heads together and said, this is the map that depicts the area that the Town wants to claim as a road by use, and that’s this map.” Again, after much debate, public comment and rebuttal by us, Mr. Thomas introduced a motion to table variance 25-1999, with Mr. Hayes seconding, and I won’t bother to read that. You just read that into the record. This put the issue of accuracy squarely into our court. We felt the easiest way to comply with the resolution, that is get a map that both parties could agree to, the parties being defined as the Salvadors and the Town or its representative, was for Mr. Naylor to simply agree to our map being representative of the location of Dunham Bay Road. In the alternative, we asked him to lay out the centerline of the Town’s 17 foot wide, one way, shoulderless road. This letter was sent on April 29 with copies to th Mr. Chris Round and members of the ZBA. I trust you received your copies. Having received no reply, we sent a follow-up letter dated May 5 to Mr. Naylor, requesting he lay out the centerline of th Dunham Bay Road. Again, no answer. Again, I trust you received your copies. Our request of Mr. Naylor has not been misdirected, because the State Highway Law states that the Highway Superintendent of the Town of Queensbury is the proper representative of the Town in these matters. In fact, he is the only authorized representative. State Highway Law Article VII, Section 140, Paragraph One states “The Town Highway Superintendent shall have the care and superintendence of Town highways less than two rods in width.” A 17-foot road is less than two rods in width. A person would have to be living in a trench not to have heard Mr. Naylor, repeatedly, refer to Town roads as my roads. This statement has more meaning in the highway law than any of us want to believe. Dunham Bay Road is listed as a 17-foot wide, shoulderless road, on the inventory of Town roads which Mr. Naylor is required by law to submit annually, on January 1, to the Warren County Department of Public Works Superintendent. Section 140(1) of the Highway Law makes Mr. Naylor, and only Mr. Naylor, responsible for the care and superintendence of Dunham Bay Road. Not the Town Supervisor, not the Town Attorney, not the Town Planning Staff, and least of all not the Town Surveyor. Section 140 of the Highway Law, of course, deals with the powers and duties of the Town Highway Superintendent. Section 140(8) continues “The Town Highway Superintendent shall cause such Town Highways as have been laid out, but not sufficiently described, and such as shall have been used for 20 years, but not recorded, to be ascertained, described and entered on the record in the Town Clerk’s Office. Dunham Bay Road has not been recorded in our Town Clerk’s Office because it has not been sufficiently described, and State Highway Law Article VII Section 140(11) states, “The Town Highway Superintendent shall cause monuments to be erected or to be erected as the boundaries of Town Highways to be kept up and 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) renewed so that the extent of such highway boundaries may be publicly known and erected and established such new monuments as may be required by the County Highway Superintendent.” There are no survey monuments which identify the boundaries of Dunham Bay Road. How can the public knowledge of something that does not exist? As to why the County Highway Superintendent has not required new monuments, we will get to that later. State Highway Law Article VII, Section 149(19) states, “The Town Highway Superintendent shall have the power to hire an engineer, subject to approval of the Town Board.” We all know that Dunham Bay Road has never been ascertained, described and entered on the record in the Town Clerk’s Office. There are no monuments. An engineer has never been hired with the approval of the Town Board. On May 18, 1999, communication from the Town Clerk answering my Freedom of Information request of May 13 for th the record of an official filing of the Van Dusen and Steves map reads “The Town Clerk does not record maps”. As you can see, Sections 140(1), (8), (11), and (19) anticipates and puts in place the legal mechanism which authorizes the Town Highway Superintendent to address our request. As the countdown continued through the early days of May and the Town Board scheduled to meet on May 17, we attempted to take our case to the Town Board. Our request for their intervention went th unanswered. In order to demonstrate before this Board tonight that we have done all possible to establish the accuracy and the validity of our map, we filed a petition on May 25 in State Supreme th Court requesting that the court direct Mr. Naylor, the Town Highway Superintendent, to perform his duties in accordance with the State Highway Law, Section 140. This writ of mandamus seeks an order compelling Mr. Naylor to lay out the centerline of Dunham Bay Road. We asked that this petition be returnable on the 30 day of June, tomorrow, but the Court adjourned the matter until th July 15, 1999, and oral arguments have been scheduled for July 29, 1999. Since the tabling motion of April 28, the Town Board and this Board have granted setback relief on Hannaford Road, which th Van Dusen and Steves has been unable to map. The map states, “Status Unknown”. So long s the status is unknown, the map is incomplete, and therefore the application is incomplete. On Fielding Lane in the absence of Highway Superintendent being able to determine whether or not the Lane is a public thoroughfare or a private right-of-way, this Board granted 100% relief. This underscores the need to properly establish the location of the centerline of all roads. Otherwise, as in the case before you, Staff can simply arbitrarily move the roads. It may be necessary for us to amend our petition to prevent any further gyrations of this kind. On June 9, 1999, Dr. Marilyn VanDyke, the Queensbury Town Historian, addressed a letter to this Board raising issues which I would like to comment on for the record. Dr. VanDyke has advised that the Dunham Bay area is the scene of many early Native American hunting and fishing sites, and as such needs to be protected from unnecessary encroachment. She recommends an archeological study. We think the need for such a show- stopping attempt on this residential project to be precluded by previous Town Board actions, as well s similar study work undertaken at this site, at Dr. VanDyke’s request. Since this project’s inception, almost four years ago, and in full knowledge of what Dr. VanDyke talks about, that is Native American hunting and fishing sites in the Dunham Bay area, the Town Board undertook the process of amending the Waterfront zoning. I say full knowledge because the Town’s Heritage Trail map had been around for at least 10 years. It even hangs in the Assessor’s Office. The Town Board, since the institution of zoning in this Town, has always found there to be no adverse archeological impacts as a result of residential uses. I remind you that this is a residential project. These Waterfront zoning amendments always had the blessing of the Town Comprehensive Use Plan Committee, on which I had the pleasure of serving with Dr. VanDyke. More importantly, an archeological study was undertaken recently in this vicinity by the State Department of Parks, Recreation and Historical Preservation, at the request of the State Office of General Services, and as a part of a coordinated review for a wetland and waterfront permit, we received to place a high voltage cable and other utilities on the public lands submerged by the navigable waters of Lake George. In this regard, Miss Cynthia Blakemore of the State Historic Preservation Office attested that because no artifacts have ever been found within 500 feet of the project site, nor would one expect to find artifacts within 500 feet of the project site, no archeological study was necessary. That project site included Tax Parcel 4-1-11, the same parcel we are attempting to develop here. Dr. VanDyke’s second consideration is her concern for the visual and aesthetic effect of such a dwelling at this particular site. As for visual, we took this into consideration as we located the seasonal dwelling as far to the east as possible and behind an existing, nonconforming structure and boat docks. This seasonal 300 square foot hunting and fishing cabin, as we have positioned the structure, will not invade anyone’s view shed except for ourselves. Aesthetically, we can’t imagine the Native Americans having a residential dwelling for any other purpose than hunting and fishing. Under these circumstances, we do not feel an archeological study is necessary. Back to Staff’s comments of April 28. Again, the 1993 VanDusen and Steves map depicted the area of land claimed for a road by use th known as Dunham Bay Road. Claimed by whom? The town? Land cannot be claimed by the Town for purposes of a road. Lands not presently used by the public as a means of travel and yet required for purposes of a Town road can only be claimed by the Highway Superintendent, and only in accordance with Section 170 of the Highway Law. Section 170 of the Highway Law reads as follows: “Whenever the Town Highway Superintendent shall lay out any highway, either upon application to him or otherwise. He shall notify the County Superintendent whose duty it shall be to either make a survey or cause the same to be made. The Town’s Superintendent shall incorporate the survey in an order to be signed by him and to be filed and recorded in the Office of the Town Clerk who shall note the time of recording the same. Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special law, 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) work connected with laying out a Town highway may, pursuant to the eminent domain procedure law”, that’s here, “pursuant to the eminent domain procedure law enter upon any property for the purposes of making a survey, test pits, test borings and other investigations. The cost of such survey shall be a Town charge, payable in the same manner as other charges against the Town.” Again, only Town Superintendents can lay out highways. They must notify the County DPW Superintendent is to make the survey, or cause the survey to be made. The Town’s Superintendent is to sign the order and file with the Town Clerk, all according to the eminent domain law, and the Town pays the cost. None of this has ever been done for Dunham Bay Road. Back to Mr. Brown’s comments concerning the accuracy of our submissions and the accurate location of the State right-of-way. We would like to show that our site plan has since been certified, and I’d like to leave a copy of this with you. Although this is not necessary, it is not necessary for residential development to have a site plan certified. I have one here and I’ll give it to the Chairman. I also have a certification from my architect/engineer both engineering and architectural (lost word) attesting to that, if that’s necessary. I’ll leave these copies with you. MR. THOMAS-You said this was stamped? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. It’s down here. MR. THOMAS-Who is it stamped by? MR. SALVADOR-Okay? MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Our sealed site plan and the right-of-way drawings referred to on it have been used repeatedly as references for various permits and licenses we are required to obtain. Never, never have we experienced the local government questioning the accuracy of our maps. What I would like to do now is to show you a sequence of mappings that brings us to this map, and show you the continuity of the operation. I’d like to start with an 1811 map prepared by the Surveyor General for the State of New York, and the importance of this map is that the great lot lines of the French Mountain tract are on this map, and they are also on our map. They are our property boundary lines, in some cases. Okay. In 1930, 1931, Warren County undertook an appropriation of land for the improvement of a County road. This is a map through the Dunham Bay area. This map is referenced on a map that is referenced on our, there’s a map referenced here. That’s taken from this map. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and on that map there is that point right there this point right here? MR. SALVADOR-No, it’s not. I don’t think it is. It could be, yes. It is the same location. This may be a different size and length compared to this. This was mapped in 1930. This whole structure has been improved since that time. Now the importance of this map is this is a land-taking map, and lesspendence was filed in Warren County. The County took land under their powers of eminent domain to improve this road, and no one, no one can take this land through use from the County. You cannot gain a prescriptive right to the use of municipal property. You just can’t do that, and this map that Staff brings forward is an attempt by the Town to exercise their powers of eminent domain to take land on which to improve this road, this Dunham Bay Road, and in essence, 90% of the land they’ll be taking is County land. They just can’t do that. In 1928, the County prepared a map showing improved hard surfaced highways and other important roads, excuse me, 1938, and you’ll see here there’s no such thing as a Town road on this map in that area, Dunham’s Bay. County highways are numbered, but there’s just no Dunham Bay Road. There’s no Town road. This is 1938. MR. STONE-That’s a pretty big scale, though, John, isn’t it? I’m just asking. I mean, we’re going from here to here. That’s the County line. It’s pretty big. MR. SALVADOR-Well, the point is that the road, see this State highway? This is a State highway, okay, and County highways are listed, but it just says other important roads. There are no Town roads on this map in 1938. MR. STONE-That’s not a very good depiction of Dunham’s Bay. MR. SALVADOR-That’s the best the County could do. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. SALVADOR-In 1944, Dr. Fielding’s estate was settled and a map was filed. This map is on file with Warren County, has been since that time, and property boundaries, roads are there. What’s this say, “Old Road”, but not Dunham Bay Road. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. STONE-Is this the current 9L as it exists today? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. STONE-Well, what else would that be if it weren’t? I mean, just out of curiosity. MR. SALVADOR-It just says “Old Road”. MR. STONE-This is Alexy. MR. SALVADOR-No, it’s not there yet. Alexy isn’t there yet. MR. STONE-Well, what is this? MR. SALVADOR-This is just some on premises roads on the Fielding Estate. Alexy Road comes in later. It’s along in here. Alexy Road doesn’t gain its existence until 1962. What I’m trying to show here is there is a continuity to the mapping process. In 1956, the State Legislature passed a law requiring the mapping of the shoreline of Lake George. These maps were produced in 1958 by the Conservation Department at that time. You’ll see there these dotted lines. These dotted lines depict private roads, not the main highway. You’ll see the gray lot lines on here. MR. STONE-What are you suggesting that is, out of curiosity? MR. SALVADOR-It’s a dirt road. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Alexy Street shows up on that. It says Alexy Street right there. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I plotted that in. See the pencil. I did that. Okay. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-In 1961, Fred Alexy subdivided some land, deeded a road to a Town, and this is his subdivision back here. This is Alexy Lane, and you’ll notice the notation here. What does that say, Mr. Stone? MR. STONE-“Old Road”, well, “Dirt Road” MR. SALVADOR-“Dirt Road”. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Hardly a Town road. MR. STONE-Dirt roads can’t be Town roads? MR. SALVADOR-This surveyor is John B. VanDusen. He thought this was a dirt road, and he made this map, okay. New York State Highway 9L, he knew where that was. Okay. That’s mapped there. In 1966, the New York State Department of Transportation made this map. This is the right of way, the Route 9L right of way through there. This is nothing more than a plot of that land taking map I showed you, but the important thing here is it’s done by these four men. I found out they work for DOT, and that’s their map, and that shows the configuration. Again, Dunham Bay Road is not plotted. It’s not mentioned. Okay. MR. STONE-What is this gravel drive, just out of curiosity? MR. SALVADOR-It’s the Old Road. MR. STONE-It’s the Old Road. Okay. MR. SALVADOR-The best I can determine, the late 1960’s the County started making tax maps, and this is one of the very early additions of the tax map, and you’ll see down there there’s no municipal road plotted in here at all. MR. THOMAS-No, because it looks like the State right of way. MR. SALVADOR-This is right here. The right of way, no question. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. THOMAS-Yes, this is the right of way line, isn’t it? MR. SALVADOR-You’re absolutely right. MR. THOMAS-So that encumbers where that road is supposedly. MR. SALVADOR-That right of way is in fact owned by Warren County, and New York State DOT has been authorized to carry on the future maintenance jurisdiction of that land as it supports a road since 1936. MR. STONE-Yes, but it appears to be on your, going well on to your property. MR. SALVADOR-No question. You’re absolutely right. Most of that lawn area in front of us, the title of it is in Warren County, was in Warren County until the Supreme Court Justice, or an Appellate Division determined that it had been abandoned by the County. We don’t agree with it, but that’s the decision. MR. THOMAS-Would you say that that line on there is this line here? MR. SALVADOR-Was, but you see it’s a line of abandonment. This court decision decreed that that land has been abandoned. MR. THOMAS-Okay, but that line on that map. MR. SALVADOR-Is the same. MR. THOMAS-Is the same. MR. STONE-Who does it belong to, if it was abandoned by the County? MR. SALVADOR-Us, the underlying property owner. Who owned the land in the first place? Our predecessor owned this land, when it was being used by the public before 1931, as a road, but the public has abandoned that, so says the court in this decision, and so in such a case it’s abandoned to the underlying property owner. MR. STONE-And why do you disagree with that? MR. SALVADOR-Because the public, whether or not a land that has been appropriated can be abandoned through non-use, it just can’t be. Once land is appropriated by a municipality, only the municipality can, through a vote of its legislature, give up its rights. Just because the public doesn’t use it is not justification. It’s not like a road by use. Okay. In 1969, the Dunham’s Bay Boat Company filed for an easement with the New York State Office of General Services, and they called that road a highway. This is New York State 9L here. They just called that a highway. All right. The surveyor was John Van Dusen. MR. STONE-That’s in contradiction of what you’ve been telling us? MR. SALVADOR-It’s not a Town road. It’s a highway, whatever that means. Mr. VanDusen who mapped this, he said that was a highway. This is a map prepared in 1960 by John B. VanDusen, and he shows the dirt road to be abandoned. This is the dirt road in here, to be abandoned. You see this? MR. THOMAS-So that’s this line right here, on this map? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, it is. As a Town road to be abandoned, this is a Town road now. My point is it can’t be, but that’s what’s mapped. Okay. MR. THOMAS-So what’s this width here, from this dotted line down to this dotted line? MR. SALVADOR-That’s the width of the Old Road. MR. THOMAS-Which is? MR. SALVADOR-Well, you’d have to scale it. MR. THOMAS-One inch equals fifty feet. You think it’s an inch? MR. STONE-It’s close, certainly more than 16, more than 17. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. SALVADOR-I agree. Early in the 1980’s, the Dunham’s Bay Boat Company filed a site plan for an expansion of their facilities, and I think it’s John Matthews, called that area existing parking, asphalt. MR. STONE-John, when did this become an asphalt road? You talked about dirt road and highway and all kinds of names. MR. SALVADOR-We came here in 1973. This road was asphalt in this area, and our lawn was grass. MR. STONE-In 1973. MR. SALVADOR-That’s how we found it. MR. STONE-And is that prior to Dunham’s Bay Boat Company being there? MR. SALVADOR-No, not at all. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-When I was commenting on Mrs. VanDyke’s letter, I mentioned that the Town Board had full knowledge of the fact that certainly there had been an Indian settlement in our area. 125 is our site. This is the Town’s Heritage Trail Map. You can get them in the vestibule. 125 says Indian settlement. Now, Lew, all we have to do is find the tribe, and we can beat Bob Flacke (lost word) gambling casino. MR. THOMAS-What was Number 124, right above that? MR. SALVADOR-It was Bentley’s Bridge, and it’s been, it’s no longer in existence. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-You need a 64 Indian blood, John. th MR. SALVADOR-I’ll find it. I've just got to keep looking. We had this map prepared in 1991 by VanDusen and Steves, and it shows our waterfront area. It’s the same, this map is derived from that land taking map of 1931, this map. Okay, and you see here blacktop drive. In 1991, the Town Surveyor was not calling this Dunham Bay Road. MR. THOMAS-Again, this line right here is this line? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, it is. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-In 1992, the U.S. Geological Survey put out their grid. This is a photocopy of just the Dunham Bay area. You don’t see any municipal road there. Now I’m not saying that that’s conclusive evidence that it doesn’t exist, but we’re talking about depiction, okay. It’s depicted as. So this does not depict a Town road. MR. STONE-It doesn’t depict anything, though, John. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. STONE-Well, it doesn’t depict anything, but we know physically there is something there. MR. SALVADOR-Here’s a more recent photocopy of a tax map section of that area. See this. You don’t see any Town road, municipal road there. MR. STONE-Well, you’ve still got this though, right? MR. SALVADOR-No question. MR. STONE-Even though you said it was abandoned, it’s still there? MR. SALVADOR-I’d have to check the date of this and the date of that, and I don’t think they will pick up on this. I’m not sure the Town, the County tax mapping people. MR. STONE-Well, the County should know what they own. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. THOMAS-There it is right there, 32030. MR. SALVADOR-What did you say, Mr. Stone? The County should know what they own? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-I submit the County doesn’t want to know. MRS. SALVADOR-I have to add that on this one where Mr. Stone said it doesn’t depict anything, it depicts Alexy Lane. MR. STONE-I understand. No, what I meant, Kathleen, was that it doesn’t depict anything in that area. MRS. SALVADOR-But it depicts Alexy Lane. So if there was another road there, it would be depicted, also. MR. STONE-All I’m saying there is a road there. There is something there, that’s all I’m saying, and it doesn’t show there. I don’t care what the name is, but there’s physically something on the ground. MR. SALVADOR-What I’m trying to do, show here, is the continuity of mapping that brings us to the present day to establish the validity of our map and the accuracy of our map. That’s all I’m trying to show. In 1990, we got the surprise of our life. We got a letter from the Office of General Services telling us that the Lake George Park Commission had requested them to determine our need for a use and occupancy of State owned lands submerged by the waters of Lake George, and they say our subsequent investigation has resulted in a determination that the facility presently operates without authorization from the Office of General Services. That letter was precipitated by this letter from Mr. Henessy, or from Park Commission Staff to their counsel, Bartlett/Pontiff, and Staff says, I have received a request from Bill Henessy that we investigate the status of the referenced docks and communicate to the Office of General Services the Commission’s request that they take action to either have these structures removed from State land or else require a grant of easement for their continued use. We undertook, at that time, quite a lot of work, surveys, title search, that sort of thing, and the reason we did it was that in the letter we got from OGS, they said, after your application has been reviewed, you will be informed of the easement fee. Upon payment of the fee, an interim permit will be issued for occupation of the easement area. In the event that you do not apply for authorization to use the subject parcel, your installation will be treated as a trespass, and reported to the State Attorney General for appropriate legal action. Okay. Now, we were able to, with the help of Tom McCormack, in preparing this 1992 map. That’s exactly what he did. He did this map for us, in 1992, was to help support our position that we didn’t need an easement. We own the land, and that’s the map he prepared. That’s the map that’s referenced here, okay, and that’s the map, it’s got the same road information on it. I think you’ll see it referenced here. Okay. MR. STONE-This also says “Old Route No. 9L”. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. STONE-I mean, you will agree that that’s what it says? MR. SALVADOR-It doesn’t say Dunham Bay Road. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. We received, after submitting this, together with an abstract of title, we received this letter from the OGS. “After reviewing the documentations forwarded to you via cover 6/24/92, the Office of General Services recognizes that the land constituting Lots 11 and 12 of the French Mountain tract”, going back to the first plan I showed you, 11 and 12 of the French Mountain tract, was indeed conveyed in full fee simple estate. “The only exception pertains to the reservation of an gold and/or silver”. MR. STONE-Did you find that? MR. SALVADOR-Haven’t found it yet. “Except for these gold and silver rights, the State of New York has no other sovereign claim of right, title or interest in and to the land now or formerly submerged south of the respective or the boundaries of the aforesaid lots.” This map, this Coulter & McCormack map of 1992 was the basis for that, and that is the basis for this map. Okay. That’s the letter, the copy of the letter I gave your engineer. MR. STONE-All right. So what you’re saying, that what you laid out here is this road? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. SALVADOR-No, it’s this road. It’s 9L. It’s this. MR. STONE-But you said, this shows something here, though, John. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but this is 1992. This is before court decisions. MR. STONE-When was the court decision on that, this? MR. SALVADOR-I’d have to look it up, but it’s. MR. STONE-You were going chronologically, then you apparently jumped. MR. SALVADOR-I've got it. I can assure you it was after 1992. MR. STONE-It was after 1992. Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Now we applied to Mr. Naylor for a driveway access permit. We applied to him in 1992, and we used, because his claim was that it was a Town road. So we have to get permission to access it. So we submitted this drawing by VanDusen and Steves, where they showed, at that time, a blacktop drive. I had to write “Dunham Bay Road” under here, and this is where we have our driveway access, and that is the access, that is the parking area we’re using in this development. Again, no indication, no surveyor indication or knowledge that there’s a Dunham Bay Road, and I got approval of that finally in 1997, May 6, 1997, submitted the request in 1992. MR. STONE-Paul is fast. MR. SALVADOR-I understand. I have a copy of that map that you’re using, where Mr. Steves made some notes for me. Would you care to look at that? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. SALVADOR-In 1993. Again, there’s no Dunham Bay Road on there. MR. STONE-You mean as named as Dunham Bay. MR. SALVADOR-Okay? MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-One of the applications you referenced on that summary of permits granted for this parcel dealt with the subdivision application. This is the map we submitted for that subdivision, and you’ll see this is the same map as this. It’s got the same general, okay, and this is the macadam driveway. In 1996, Coulter & McCormack was calling it a macadam driveway. Now, I’m not trying to argue that Dunham Bay Road is not a Town road. That has been put to bed. The courts determined, based on Mr. Naylor’s testimony, it’s a Town road. That is not at issue here. The issue here is only Mr. Naylor knows where that Town. Other people have no idea. Okay. MR. STONE-Let me just ask a question, if I may. You seem to be placing great insistence on the words “Dunham Bay Road”. MR. SALVADOR-Well, that’s what he lists it as. MR. STONE-Okay, but was that named by the Town of Queensbury? MR. SALVADOR-I have no idea. It appeared one day. MR. STONE-Do you know when that sign appeared? MR. SALVADOR-The last few years. MR. STONE-Well, you’re being very exact, John. The last few years isn’t very exact. MR. SALVADOR-It can be established. I’d say three. MR. STONE-I mean, you’ve been leading us through this thing, and I appreciate that. I think it’s very informative, but your Dunham’s Bay Road, you keep saying it’s not listed, yet, there’s a sign, that somebody paid for, that was printed to say “Dunham Bay Road”. I’m just curious when that was authorized. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. SALVADOR-I can’t give you the exact date. I’m sure it can be established. Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Naylor has an operating budget. He’s authorized to go out and make signs. He doesn’t need somebody’s approval. He can do that. MR. STONE-He can name roads all by himself? MR. SALVADOR-I guess not generally, but in this case. MR. STONE-Well, John, you can’t be precise here and not be precise there. We’ve got to be precise and precise. Accurate and accurate. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. He did it. How he did it. More recently, again using the same map, the same map, okay, we made application to the Office of General Services for an easement for a high voltage cable on the bed of Lake George, on the public lands. This is the map we submitted, the same underlying map, you see, okay, and with the cross section of the bed, all the requirements we needed. We now have an interim permit, and we’ve done this work, part of it we’ve done. We're awaiting the easement which might take another year, but again, this is done. MR. STONE-But you have already marked it on the waters of Lake George. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. STONE-The public waters of Lake George. MR. SALVADOR-No, excuse me. MR. STONE-Where are the marks? Where are the buoys? MR. SALVADOR-The buoys are the property boundaries. MR. STONE-Right there. Okay. I haven’t gone out and checked the line, John. MR. SALVADOR-I haven’t finished the work. That’s what I did there. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-And by the way, I've really got to get cracking on this because one of the conditions of the permit is that we protect and absolve the State of New York from any harm that the public might have as the result of that high voltage cable. So we’ve got to do something about signage, signal, no anchor zone, something, and we’re working on that now. Okay. That brings us down to the map you have before you that is sealed. All I can tell you, there is an unbroken line from 1811, when the first mapping was done, down to the present day on that. Now I’d like to take a few minutes to address the issue of the map brought forth by Staff, and as I said in my presentation, I don’t think it has any place here. It was serving another purpose, and I don’t think that purpose has been fulfilled. The map that you have before you, it should really say “proposed”. When this map was made, this was only a proposal. I think that’s how you start out these things. All the maps I have that, you know, were just done to initiate something, they say “proposed”, and then when it’s finalized, it’s revised. This map doesn’t say “proposed”. From the get go it says, “claimed road by use area”. Now I tried to point out, you don’t have to claim a road by use. It’s already been claimed. If anybody’s going to claim anything, it can only be Mr. Naylor, okay, and it can only be through the DPW, and it can only be done by an engineer. If the engineer needs the assistance of a surveyor, he can get them, but that’s the procedure in the law. This map doesn’t say, it’s just a map made for the Town of Queensbury. The Town of Queensbury doesn’t do this sort of thing. The Highway Superintendent does. The north arrow is not dated. Mr. Brown will understand the importance of that, right? MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. This claim was never perfected. This claim was just set in a desk drawer some place, waiting for the day when it was needed. That was the purpose it was done, was to take land, in accordance with the eminent domain procedure, should have been, but it wasn’t done. The conditions on this map are those that existed in 1993. A lot’s happened to that road since then. It’s been made a one way road by the Town Board. Mr. Naylor claims only 17 feet today. Back then he was claiming more, but today it’s 17 feet, for what reason I can’t tell you, but that’s what it is. Usually in a land taking situation, the property owners, the fee title owners, are clearly shown. That’s 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) part of the requirement here. You’ve got to put the property owner on notice that you’re taking their land. There’s a process that you go through with this, and the abutting property owners, the underlying property owners are not properly shown, and I submit the largest single property owner on this map is the County of Warren, and they don’t even know it. There’s no reference on this map to the 1930 highway map. There is absolutely no reference on this map, and it should be referenced, and it does not reflect the recent court determinations I mentioned, okay. As I said, it doesn’t reflect the fact that it’s a one way road now. So, I just submit this map was prepared for another purpose, and the purpose has not been fulfilled, and it just has no place in our application. If the Town would want to move ahead with this condemnation and taking, there’s a way to do it. There’s a way to do it. I have a lot of other literature here. That cable easement we got was done in accordance with this program. You’ve seen this before. You’re all familiar with it, the Town Board is. I've got an emergency site location map done by the Lake George Association in 1982, no Dunham Bay Road. A tour guide to Lake George, Adirondack Mountains, Warren County, no Dunham Bay Road. Lake George Park Commission Boater’s Map, shows everything, where you can’t do what, you know how it is, all the things you can’t do, and there’s no Dunham Bay Road. This is an APA, Adirondack Park Open Space Protection Plan, no Dunham Bay Road, and finally the Heritage Trail Map. I think we’ve presented enough evidence to show that our map is indeed accurate. It does indeed represent the conditions as they exist today, and that the map brought forth by the Planning Office has no place here, and Mr. Naylor and only Mr. Naylor, not the Planning Office, determines where roads are located, in the law. There’s no foundation in law for Staff to be locating roads. MR. STONE-And we won’t know that until the middle of July, where that road is. Is that true? MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Naylor could go out tomorrow and lay out the centerline of that road, and our case would be moot. All we’re asking him to do is lay out the road, do his job MR. STONE-Determine where the centerline is, it doesn’t have to be in the middle of the road. You would agree with that? MR. SALVADOR-He knows where the road by use is, that’s his job. MR. STONE-Okay. So we don’t. Even if we accept your map, we still don’t know where the Town thinks it is. Where the Highway Superintendent thinks it is, knows it is. We still don’t know that. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I have taken information from his documentation and plotted that map. That’s the best, there’s nothing else available. MR. STONE-I agree, but we know, in many instances, that the center of the pavement is not the center of the road or the center of the right-of-way. We’ve seen this on a number of occasions. MR. SALVADOR-A road by use, generally, the public is going to be on the center of the, okay, that’s a road by use. MR. STONE-That’s why it’s generally, and that’s why you’ve gone to court to get Mr. Naylor to tell you where it is. I mean, if in fact that’s where it is, then we know what kind of relief we’re supposed to grant, but right now, as I understand it, we still don’t know what relief we can grant. MR. STEC-Right. I think where Mr. Stone’s going is, your argument is that we still don’t have enough information for this Board to take action tonight. MR. SALVADOR-No, that is not my argument at all. My argument is that you have utilized a recommendation from Staff, and a map that they brought forth to challenge the accuracy of our submission. MR. STONE-Okay. So we challenge your submission, which we could have done anyway, because you presented us a map that was not a Town map. Therefore, we could have said, without Staff saying anything, we want to grant you the relief. We don’t know what it is. Therefore, we can’t grant it until we know what it is. MR. SALVADOR-Why do we get treatment different from Fielding Lane or from Hannaford Road? MR. STONE-I don’t think this is different. MR. SALVADOR-Zero setback? 100% relief? Come, come, Mr. Stone. MR. STONE-Very different in the fact that one is there and one is not, for one thing. Fielding Lane is a problem that we discovered. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. SALVADOR-Simply because Mr. Naylor would not lay out the road, right? Doesn’t he have to lay out Fielding Lane? MR. STONE-He was. MR. SALVADOR-And what did he do? What did he do? MR. STONE-Nothing, I guess. MR. BROWN-Fielding Lane is a private right of way. MR. STONE-We have determined it’s a private right of way? MR. BROWN-Yes. It was in the notes in that meeting. MR. STONE-Well, we went both ways, I thought. MR. STEC-Right. I thought it was still unclear that night. MR. BROWN-It’s not listed in the Town Clerk’s Office as a Town road. It’s a private right of way. MR. STONE-All we said that you couldn’t be on the private right of way, because we can’t give away something that we don’t control. MR. SALVADOR-Well, then you should, Mr. Naylor should be made to take down his sign that says Fielding Lane, would give you the impression that it’s a public thoroughfare. It doesn’t say “Private right of way”, as they’re supposed to. MR. STONE-That is a point well taken. MR. STEC-Right. That we’re not empowered to enforce. I mean, again, that’s Mr. Naylor. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but in this case, I think we’ve brought forth enough evidence to show you that we have an accurate determination, based on Mr. Naylor’s documentation. Okay. He’s the one that told us 17 feet. He’s the one that told us one way, okay. MR. STONE-John, you have taken us through a very interesting history, and I appreciate it, and I applaud your ability to do so, but you have still given us, if this is that, this is that. We haven’t had a chance, we still have to rely on your interpretation of all of these maps to show that this line is on top of this line, is on top of this line. MR. SALVADOR-No. You’re relying on the fact that I have that certified. MR. STONE-Your drawing. MR. SALVADOR-Is certified. MR. STONE-But the language is that he certified what you said. He didn’t do it himself. He didn’t come out and do it. MR. SALVADOR-The certification holds that the Coulter & McCormack map is the underlying map, okay. That’s what is says. MR. STONE-Where did that letter go, have you still got that, from his surveyor? MRS. SALVADOR-Architect/engineer. MR. STONE-Architect/engineer. From Pennsylvania, by the way, which is always interesting. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, a business partner of mine, if you have to know. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. SALVADOR-Licensed in 50 states. MR. STONE-“Supporting this survey was data I received from Mr. Salvador pertaining to the insitu location and operating conditions of Dunham Bay Road”. MR. SALVADOR-That’s right. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. STONE-How can he call it Dunham Bay Road if it doesn’t exist? MR. SALVADOR-I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. MR. STONE-Well, you certainly wanted us to think that it’s never mentioned anywhere. MR. SALVADOR-My point was that others other than Mr. Naylor don’t know, but Mr. Naylor knows. Mr. Naylor’s obligated to know. Mr. Naylor has a duty to know. I can’t be responsible that other people don’t know, but Mr. Naylor is responsible. MR. STONE-And we’re waiting for Mr. Naylor to say yes or no or be told to say yes, I mean, that’s the purpose of your suit, which we appreciate. You’re trying to get him to come to the table. MR. SALVADOR-Would you like to join it? MR. STONE-We're not empowered to do that. MR. SALVADOR-I’ll take care of that. MR. STONE-I mean, I appreciate that fact that you’re trying to get him to tell us where it is and what he knows about it. I mean, I will, quite frankly, sit here and say I understand where you’re going. I don’t appreciate being singled out on this Board as someone who would seem to be you think against what you’re trying to do, because you certainly made that almost accusatory with some of the comments you made. I don’t appreciate that. MR. SALVADOR-As you move into the political arena, Mr. Stone, you better get used to this. MR. STONE-I have no problem, I've been in the political arena for six years. So I am used to, but I also believe that, until you know where I’m going, don’t tell me where I’m going. MR. SALVADOR-I would ask you that you approve our application, based on the fact that we do have an accurate map, and the fact that the information brought forth by Staff is not appropriate. The Town may have done all these things, as Mr. Brown said in the April 28 meeting, he thinks the th Town Supervisor, the Highway Superintendent and a surveyor got together and they brought this. They may very well have done that, it’s just not the procedure, and the map has no standing. MR. THOMAS-Didn’t you say it was July 15 the State court’s going to come back, and has until th then to tell Mr. Naylor, or they’re going to meet again to tell Mr. Naylor? MR. SALVADOR-No, it’s the return date. The return date is July 15. That means submissions on th the part of the defendants are due before the court. MR. THOMAS-And on that date the court isn’t going to tell Mr. Naylor to do it. MR. SALVADOR-No, then oral arguments are the 30 of July, and the court can take their own th sweet time. Judge Dyer sat nine months on interim motion once, on a case that I had before him. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll open the public hearing to anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. STEC-Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, re: John Salvador, Jr. & Kathleen A. Salvador, 18 Dunham’s Bay Road, “Dear Board Members: I am writing in response to John and Kathleen Salvador’s request for a variance to construct a 300 square foot seasonal hunting and fishing cabin at Dunham’s Bay. Since the site selected is immediately on the bay, one would have to question the disturbance to the land on which the cabin would be built. The Dunham’s Bay area is the scene of many early Native American hunting and fishing sites and as such needs to be protected from unnecessary encroachment. I would recommend an archeological study of the site prior to any building to determine the presence of these early Native American sites. A second consideration, although not necessarily historical in nature, would be the visual and esthetic effect of such a dwelling at this particular site. Some consideration should be given to these points, also. Sincerely, yours, Marilyn J. Van Dyke, Ed.D. Town Historian” That’s dated June 9, 1999, and June 16, 1999, from Mann Hughes Architecture, re: Architectural Engineer certification “To Whom It May Concern: This is to certify that the revised plans I prepared dated March 12, 1999, for the hunting and fishing cabin which John and Kathleen A. Salvador plan to build on their waterfront land were prepared utilizing local road and right-of-way information supplied in the form of a survey and map prepared 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) by the firm of Coulter & McCormack, licensed Land Surveyors, having offices in Glens Falls, NY. The referenced survey and map I used was dated May 18, 1992. Supporting this survey was data I received from Mr. Salvador pertaining to the insitu location and operating conditions of Dunham Bay Road. Corresponding references are noted on the plot plan submitted with Mr. and Mrs. Salvador’s application. Very truly yours, Warren C. Mann, R.A. and Professional Engineer” MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’m going to leave the public hearing open. Are there anymore questions for Mr. or Mrs. Salvador from the Board? MR. STONE-Well, I have a question on your local highway system data, and I don’t know what I mean by. MR. SALVADOR-It’s not mine, it’s Mr. Naylor’s. MR. STONE-But it claims to say two lanes. Is that correct, for Dunham’s Bay Road? MR. SALVADOR-It says two lanes? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I don’t know. MR. STONE-I mean, it’s a one-way road, but it’s got two lanes, both in the same direction? MR. SALVADOR-It’s highly traveled one way road, that’s all. MR. STONE-Because there are some roads with one lane, and I just wondered why it had two. MR. SALVADOR-You can see it is 17 feet wide. So you’ve got two eight and a half-foot lanes, (lost words). MR. STONE-I don’t think so. MR. SALVADOR-We received a variance for the septic system for this project, and that involved setbacks also, and the same map was used. There was no question, on the part of the Town Board or Staff, at that time, concerning the accuracy of the map. MR. STONE-That was setbacks on the south side though, was it not? MR. SALVADOR-No, the same road. MR. STONE-9L you were getting setbacks from. MR. SALVADOR-No. MR. STONE-For your septic system? Your holding tank up the hill? MR. SALVADOR-No. This holding tank is in the vicinity of the. MR. STONE-This one. I’m sorry. I forgot about that one. Okay. MR. SALVADOR-So there was no question, at that time from the Town Board, from Mr. Hatin involved with the Septic Ordinance, and the accuracy of the map was not an issue. The Van Dusen and Steves map, put together by the Town Supervisor, the Highway Superintendent and the Surveyor, was not at issue. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. or Mrs. Salvador? Well, the public hearing is still open, but we need to talk about it. Lets see where we’re going to go. Chuck, what do you think? MR. MC NULTY-On the one hand, it would be nice to have an accurate determination of what kind of relief is being requested. On the other hand, from my point of view, when I look at an application like this and try to balance the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to neighbors, I end up in a little bit of a quandary of definition of neighbors, whether it just means the people next door or how wide a range it goes, but it strikes me in this instance that the detriment to the neighbors of something like this being built in this particular location, this close to Dunham’s Bay Road, whether it’s 24 feet off of it or whether it’s 2 feet off of it, I have to come down on the side that I think the detriment to the neighbors outweighs the benefit to the applicant. So I’m reluctant to approve something like this, but I really would like to know how much of an extreme variance that we’re 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) being asked to give. If this thing is actually two feet off the right-of-way and we’re being asked for a 28-foot variance, then I’m definitely against it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-Well, I think Chuck makes a good point. Although, again, considering the amount of traffic that’s on Dunham’s Bay Road, I, personally, don’t have a problem granting some relief, but certainly less would be better, and I’d be more comfortable granting four feet than 28 feet from this setback. For me I guess the real question is, am I, or is the Board comfortable with granting relief with the question, in my opinion, still unresolved, and in that, apparently the Highway Superintendent has not located this road, I guess enough to satisfy me maybe, where it truly is. I don’t doubt the accuracy of the Salvador’s maps, however, those don’t reflect what the Town says. I think the applicant made a good point, that on Hanneford Road and Fielding Lane, that I guess in the past the Board has granted relief where, looking back now, perhaps we granted relief while the status of a road was unknown 100%. So, again, for an applicant to point that out for us, I don’t know if that’s necessarily a wise idea to go ahead and grant relief while an application is before us that we know the status is questionable. I mean, to me, those are the two issues. The one is the meat and potatoes of the relief that’s sought, and clearly, if this is a four-foot relief from the thirty-foot setback, I’m comfortable with granting relief in this case. The question is, do we proceed when the status of the road is not 100% out of doubt. So I guess I’ll have to listen to the other Board members and see if they’re comfortable proceeding with the status of the road the way it sits now, and not necessarily, because I don’t think it’s right, either, to have an applicant handcuffed in proceeding with action because somebody decides that they don’t want to go out and do the right thing and I think do something that’s certainly called for in their duties, but at the same time, is it responsible for this Board to act without having that piece of information, albeit to no fault of the applicant? So, I’ll listen to the other Boards members. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, obviously, it’s a very complicated issue, and yet not a very complicated issue. We all agree there is an old road. There is an old road, whether you call it Dunham’s Bay Road, whether you call it Old 9L, whether you call it Old Road, whether you call it dirt, whether you call it macadam, whether you call it, there is a road there right now. MR. SALVADOR-It is Dunham’s Bay Road. MR. STONE-Well, you avoided saying that for a long time. So I’m going to say, we agree there’s a road there, and that’s okay. The applicant also pointed out to us our past problems, if you want to call them problems. I believe he referred to a zero setback on Fielding Lane, and what is now known to be a private right-of-way, also on Hanneford Road, that maybe we didn’t know exactly where the road is. So I guess I’m saying, why should we compound a felony? If we’re going to be brought to task for what we did in the past, I’m not going to add to it in the future, and therefore, I want to know, from somebody in authority, the Highway Superintendent, where the road is, so I know exactly what relief is being requested, and what I can grant. I have been put on notice by the applicant that we’ve made mistakes. I don’t want to make anymore. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the other Board members. What’s the relief going to be? Is it going to be 28 feet or 4 feet? What if the map proves that, you know, if the map given by the Town proves to be that Mr. and Mrs. Salvador need a 28-foot setback, rather than a 4-foot setback, now what do we do? Well, I think we could withdraw the motion that gave them the 4-foot setback and I think the cabin would have to be moved either, A., to a compliant location, or, B., taken down. I think that’s been proven in court cases also, but until somebody can tell me exactly where that road is and how much relief, I’m not going to say yes or no to this thing. So, the only thing I would do is either, A., Mr. and Mrs. Salvador can withdraw it, or, B., we can put it on hold again until the issue of the road is settled. So, having said that. MR. STEC-Personally, I don’t think it’s right to ask the applicant to withdraw. I think, you know, this is due to no shortcoming on their part. I think it’s probably more pertinent to ask that we go ahead and table it until we get some sort of resolution, either voluntarily from the Highway Department or unvoluntarily from the Highway Department, but I don’t think it’s fair for us to ask the Salvadors to withdraw their application because of somebody else’s shortcomings. MR. STONE-It can be withdrawn without prejudice. If we’re table it, we’re talking two months. By the applicant’s own words, we don’t know when the courts will act. It could exceed the 62 days that we are empowered to table something. That’s the only. MR. THOMAS-When I said withdraw, that was just an option. MR. STEC-Sure, I agree. I just thought we should note for the public record. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. STONE-We can table it, and then the applicant has to come back within 62 days, and ask for a re-tabling. MR. STEC-Although where we are tonight, I don’t think we’re much further along than where we were the last time we heard this, in that we had asked for, and the applicant did more than his fair share of the load to try to an answer. It’s not his job. He’s not an employee of the Town, but he’s certainly gone more than halfway to try to gather the information, but the facts haven’t changed, in my opinion. We still have a question mark over where is the road. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. Absolutely, and until we know that, we can’t do anything. MR. STEC-I agree. MR. THOMAS-So, I will make a motion to table. MR. SALVADOR-Isn’t the option to table ours? MR. THOMAS-No, it’s mine. Ours. You can ask us if we can table it, but. MR. SALVADOR-On the contrary, we’ve done that once, as it was pointed out. Can you go beyond 62? MR. THOMAS-Beyond 62? I can keep pushing it beyond, every two months renew it. MR. SALVADOR-If you do that, in good conscience, what are you going to do to move this application? MR. THOMAS-We're powerless, because we’re not part of Town government. We are appointed by the Town Board as a separate body. MR. SALVADOR-That makes you part of Town government. MR. THOMAS-It says right in the rules and regulations of the State law, but I can’t do anything until Paul Naylor comes across. MR. SALVADOR-Who enforces your decisions? MR. THOMAS-The zoning enforcement officer, and he is part of the Town, but we direct him to do that. MR. SALVADOR-Why don’t you direct him to have Mr. Naylor lay out this road. MR. THOMAS-Because that’s not part of the Zoning Ordinance for us to direct the Highway Superintendent to do anything. MR. STONE-Can we write a note to the court? MR. THOMAS-We can ask Mr. Naylor. MR. SALVADOR-How would you like to intervene? MR. STONE-Can you speed this thing up? MR. STEC-I would say everything we’ve said tonight is probably going to go to the court. MR. MC NULTY-It strikes me that if we could even just put a request in our motion, to Mr. Naylor, which he, of course, can ignore, but at least that would let him know that this Board is interested in having that information. MR. STEC-Well, I just think it’s important, for the matter of public record, and certainly between this Board and the Salvadors, that we pass on and make it clear that this is not our doing, and there’s nothing we, we feel for their situation, but there’s nothing we can, this is out of our power. So I agree with you, but I think the Salvadors at least are owed that by the Board, as unfulfilling as those words might be for, you know, it does nothing to further where they’re trying to go with their application. MR. SALVADOR-And any commitments you feel you want to make with regard to communications with the court, you’d better check with your counsel. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. STONE-Well, I agree. I just wondered if we could. I didn’t know. We would do that, obviously. So we table it. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-1999 JOHN SALVADOR & KATHLEEN A. SALVADOR, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Until no later than the August meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by the Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for tabling of this application is get an accurate map that both parties agree to, so that the Zoning Board of Appeals can determine the setback for the relief required. The parties involved are Kathleen A. and John Salvador, Jr., Area Variance No. 25-1999, and the Town of Queensbury or its representatives. I would also ask that the Planning Staff forward a memo to Mr. Paul Naylor, Town Highway Superintendent, to ask him to lay out the centerline of the Dunham’s Bay Road, so we can proceed with this application. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes NEW BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-99 JOHN SALVADOR, JR. APPLICANT IS APPEALING THE OMISSION OF A DETERMINATION TO DISALLOW COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE STORAGE. PARCEL LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF 9L, NORTH QUEENSBURY TAX MAP NO. 10-1-19.2 JOHN SALVADOR, JR., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 2-99, John Salvador, Jr., Meeting Date: June 29, 1999 “Project Location: Dunham’s Bay Boat Company storage facility Description: The applicant is appealing the Zoning Administrator’s omission of a determination. Information Requested: The information requested is unclear. Supporting documentation/information may be helpful in determining what the appellant is seeking. Staff comments: On or about March 26, 1999 the appellant registered a complaint with this department regarding a dumpster on a parcel currently used by Dunham’s Bay Boat Company, for boat storage. After an inspection of the site, the enclosed correspondence was forwarded to Dunham’s Bay Boat Company and similar correspondence to the complainant. Apparently this appeal is related to the complaint and subsequent findings.” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Then there’s these two letters, May 6 and May 10. Mr. Roger Howard, thth Dunham’s Bay Boat Company, RD #1 Box 1370, Lake George, NY 12845 re: Commercial Boat Storage Facility, date: May 6, 1999 “Dear Mr. Howard: We have received a complaint regarding a change in the nature of operations at the above-referenced facility. I have reviewed the following information. Variance No. 254 for a boat storage building, sales office and showroom, denied September 21, 1972; Special Use Permit No. 35 for commercial boat storage, approved November 16, 1972; Site Plan Review No. 28-90 for exterior storage of 70 boats and 25 trailers, approved November 27, 1990. Each of the above referenced applications describes boat storage either interior or exterior. Activities such as maintenance, cleaning, painting of the stored boats was not included in any approvals granted. I have performed two site inspections of this site and I have not observed any deviations from any of the above-referenced approvals. If the nature of the storage facility has changed to include any of these activities, additional review, via site plan review, may be required. Should you have any questions or comments, or wish to view any of the referenced approvals, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Craig Brown, Department of Community Development, Code Compliance Officer” And a letter dated May 10, 1999, Mr. John Salvador, Jr., 2999 State Route 9L, Lake George, NY 12845, re: Dunham’s Bay Boat Company, Inc. Commercial Boat Storage Facility “Dear Mr. Salvador: In response to the complaint you registered with this office concerning the above-referenced project, I have reviewed the following information. Variance No. 254 for a boat storage building, sales office and showroom, denied September 21, 1972; Special Use Permit No. 35 for commercial boat storage, approved November 16, 1972; Site Plan Review No. 28-90 for exterior storage of 70 boats and 25 trailers, approved November 27, 1990. Each of the above referenced applications describes boat storage either interior or exterior. Activities such as 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) maintenance, cleaning, painting of the stored boats was not included in any approvals granted. I have performed two site inspections of this site and I have not observed any deviations from any of the above-referenced approvals. I have notified Mr. Roger Howard, Dunham’s Bay Boat Company, Inc., that if the nature of the storage facility has changed to include any of these activities, additional review, via site plan review, may be required. The existence of a property screen, trash receptacle does not, by itself, represent a violation or deviation from the existing approvals. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Craig Brown, Code Compliance Officer Department of Community Development” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Salvador. Before Mr. Salvador starts, the responsibility of the Zoning Board of Appeals in this case is to make a determination whether Mr. Salvador is right or if the Zoning Compliance Officer, by his letters, is correct. Right or wrong? MR. BROWN-The Zoning Administrator. MR. THOMAS-The Zoning Administrator. I’m sorry. MR. SALVADOR-Fundamentally, the reason we’re here tonight is because the Zoning Administrator has not made a determination. I have appealed Mr. Round’s omission. My notice of appeal is to appeal his omission, that is he has not made a determination, and I would ask you to make the determination on his behalf. He doesn’t seem to be able to act. Mr. Brown, I cannot appeal Mr. Brown. That’s my understanding. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. SALVADOR-I am not here to appeal his letters. Okay. That is not the point. MR. STEC-So, my question, if I may, would be, you’re saying if these letters that I just read into the record were signed by Chris Round rather than Craig Brown, you’d be satisfied? Maybe not with their content, but your appeal would be moot, if they were signed. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. STEC-You’re saying he’s not qualified to make the determination, Chris Round is. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Correct. MR. STEC-I just wanted to make sure I understood. MR. SALVADOR-So we are appealing Mr. Round’s omission. Okay I mean, the longer this goes on without a determination, pretty soon it’s going to be accepted practice. MR. STONE-Well, you do agree that Mr. Brown works for Mr. Round? MR. SALVADOR-I understand. The Zoning Regulations say you can only appeal Mr. Round’s determination. MR. STONE-So how can you appeal an omission? MR. SALVADOR-That’s allowed for in the regulations, it says omission. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re educating me. I appreciate that. MR. THOMAS-I knew. MR. STEC-Where is it? MR. THOMAS-Page 18059, 179-98. MR. STONE-I see the words. I still don’t see how you appeal an omission, since he doesn’t know about it. How can you appeal it? MR. SALVADOR-He has failed to act, and therefore you, as a quasi-judicial Board, can act for him, make a determination. MR. STONE-Okay. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. SALVADOR-Okay. The point here is that this is a residential zone. The site plans that have been approved for the activities on this site are very, very narrow in scope, very narrow in scope. In the beginning they were extremely narrow. In fact, they only allowed certain things, and therefore everything else is disallowed. To single out a few of these things, like painting and maintenance, well, none of that’s going on so everything is okay. What else is going on? So I think we’ve got to stick to the letter of the site plan, that it was a very narrow approval, to do only certain things, and everything else is disallowed. The other point I’d like to make is that commercial solid waste storage is not a use, within the terms of our Zoning Ordinance. How do you go to site plan and get approval to do that? I don’t see how that’s done, and that’s what’s being recommended. MR. STONE-You’re saying every dumpster is illegal? MR. SALVADOR-I’m not saying that at all. I've got a commercial dumpster on my property. I don’t think I’m running an illegal operation. MR. THOMAS-Did you get a permit for that? MR. SALVADOR-I didn’t need a permit, because I didn’t have to go to site plan to do the things I do on my property. The Dunham Bay Boat Company was required to go to site plan, because everything they were doing was a nonconforming use, and so the permits they got, the special permits they got, the site plan approval they got, was for certain, specific, narrow activities, and nothing else, and nothing else, and you can check those site plan approvals. Now with regard to this mess, okay, that doesn’t even meet the law for solid waste management. The County has passed local laws. I've got them here some place. Warren County passed Local Law No. 2 of 1991, Whereas a proposed Local Law was duly presented to the Board of Supervisors and considered by them, said proposed Local Law being entitled “A Local Law Requiring the Source Separation and Segregation of Recyclable or Reusable Materials from the Solid Waste Stream in Warren County”. Does that look like source separation? “The Declaration of Policy The policy of this Local Law is to require the source separation and segregation of recyclable or reusable materials from solid waste and to require the solid waste which has been left for collection or which is delivered by the generator of such solid waste to a solid waste management facility shall be separated into recyclable, reusable and other components for which economic markets for alternative uses exist.” This does not meet that Local Law. MR. STONE-And to whom was that, was that to apply to whom? MR. SALVADOR-Source Separation Required, effective April 1, 1991, Source separation and segregation of recyclable and reusable materials from solid waste shall be required by every person and business generating such waste in Warren County. Okay. Each municipality shall have full responsibility for adopting such local laws and ordinances required to implement the source separation, segregation and recycling effort. You see what the County did? They just transferred the responsibility right here. Each town, city or village within the County shall be responsible for the adoption, implementation, and enforcement of local laws, rules and regulations adopted by such municipality relating to the source separation and segregation of recyclable or reusable materials from solid waste. So not only do we have lack of enforcement in this Town, we don’t have, I don’t know about, we have businesses that are not performing their on-site management of waste in accordance with local laws, and we don’t have any enforcement. MR. STONE-Do you have a copy of that picture? I can’t see what you’re. MRS. SALVADOR-I just want to ask Mr. Stec something. You read the report from I believe Mr. Brown, his site inspection where he said a properly screened dumpster is not in violation or something. MR. STEC-“The existence of a properly screened trash receptacle.” MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. This is the properly screened trash receptacle. MR. STONE-That’s not how it looked today. I can tell you that. MR. SALVADOR-It was just emptied yesterday. MRS. SALVADOR-They knew this was happening. They emptied it yesterday. MR. STONE-Well, it’s emptied on a regular basis. MR. SALVADOR-Once a week. MR. STONE-Okay. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MRS. SALVADOR-This is not screened. MR. STONE-There was something over that today I can tell you, some kind of building type thing. That’s all I know of today was. MR. SALVADOR-This is not an issue that you can deal with, but I can tell you, the access to this site is over a private right-of-way. Now, I’m around early in the morning when they come to empty this dumpster, and I don’t know where my neighbors are, because they’re not going to be able to live with this. That vehicle has to back up that right-of-way to make this collection. He pulls up the road and he backs into that right-of-way, and backs all the way up the road with that reverse beeper on, all the way up there to collect it. MR. STONE-Okay. Having driven up there today, that’s his choice and not the owner of the property’s choice, I don’t think. You can drive, there’s plenty of room to turn around. MR. SALVADOR-Just a minute. Seven o’clock in the morning, with that beeper going, in a residential neighborhood, Mr. Stone, residential is the zoning, okay. Would you like that in your neighborhood? MR. STONE-I get it all winter long, in my neighborhood, by a private carrier who does back up in my vicinity on many occasions. I don’t get it in the summer because he has more stops, but I do get it. Having gone up the road, your case, in this case, would seem to be with Waste Management, because I don’t think you have to back up there, quite frankly, but that’s not the issue. MR. SALVADOR-So it’s the way he approaches, okay, the way he approaches. He’s coming in one direction and that’s the easiest way to get in there. It’s impossible to make practically a U-turn to get into that access. It’s a double solid line. You’re not supposed to cross that for any reason. Well, in any case, you have two problems. You have an enforcement problem, and you have the fact that this is going on in a zone where it’s not an allowable use, and they don’t have a permit, any kind of a permit to conduct this activity. Now this is a health hazard. You have garbage going into this dumpster. These people rent boat docks out to people who are required to carry their garbage in from the islands. You think they’d take it home with them? I can assure you they don’t, at least our customers don’t. Okay. Nobody leaves Lake George with garbage to put in their own home disposal system. No way. They leave it right here, and we know the game. So, you have garbage in there. How about disposable diapers? That’s a health hazard. MR. STONE-What you’d like us to do is ask the Zoning Administrator to make a decision, yes or no. So if he says, no, you’ll be back before us. If he says. MR. SALVADOR-Well, you have to be in the process. MRS. SALVADOR-Not only that. We are really the only people who live in that area, and we, right now, are operating a very successful resort, with many people who are paying good money to come to a clean facility, and then have to look through and see something like that and smell that. That’s totally unacceptable. MR. STONE-How close is it to your property? MR. SALVADOR-Close enough. We're an abutting property owner. MR. STONE-How close is the actual device of which you’re asking questions? MR. SALVADOR-Three hundred feet. MR. STONE-I would say more, but it’s certainly three to five hundred feet, yes. MR. SALVADOR-It depends on the wind direction, Mr. Stone, and the stench, okay. MR. STONE-And do you have one on your property? MR. SALVADOR-We sure do, and we have recycling on our property, in accordance with the law, and I can tell you, it’s expensive to operate. It is a gross pain, but we do it. MRS. SALVADOR-And it’s very, very dirty to have to clean out all those recyclables twice a week. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MRS. SALVADOR-And it’s something that we do, and they’re sanitized twice a week. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. STONE-As an aside, I wish you’d tell the Carters, for which I pay money and get no tax relief, as many municipalities do, when they take the paper that I so carefully sort and dump it into the back of the truck, along with the other garbage, I wish we could do something about that, quite frankly. MR. SALVADOR-Just enforce these laws, that’s all. It’s very simple. MR. STONE-Don’t pay my bill, that’s how I enforce the law? MR. SALVADOR-No. We have a built-in, this is the Zoning Ordinance. This is the Zoning Ordinance. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. and Mrs. Salvador? 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? MR. STEC-I don’t think so. No, no correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SALVADOR-I have one more comment. This is a technicality, but it’s a reality. The property on which the solid waste is generated is not the property on which the solid waste is delivered to. This constitutes a transfer station, under the local law. It’s a transfer station. You are at liberty to do anything with your own trash on your own property. You can bury garbage on your own property. There’s no law against that. You can’t deliver it to another piece of property for disposal. If you do, that property is conducting what is called a transfer station, and that’s also regulated by the DEC. So, if we go to site plan, if that’s what we go to is site plan, then we’re going to be talking about a transfer station. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. or Mrs. Salvador? I already closed the public hearing. If there’s no more questions, we’ll talk about it. Dan, you’re first. MR. STEC-You got me. I’m trying to look up transfer station. It’s not listed in our list of definitions, but the case at hand, I guess really the heart of the matter is, is Craig Brown authorized to act as the Zoning Administrator’s agent? And then the follow up would be, I guess really that’s it. Does his letter constitute a decision by that office? For lack of having the Code in front of me printed to that, I’d have to say, no, he is not the Zoning Administrator. So I would suggest that a quick clarification to this matter might be to simply request that Mr. Round actually provide his, now he may simply take that letter that Mr. Brown wrote and pen his own name to it, but it would certainly not be unclear anymore if we went and said that, yes, there’s been an omission. Whether or not the claims are substantiated, I don’t think the Board has any of the special use permits or site plan reviews in front of us to go through and say whether, to go ahead and make a decision. So I don’t feel comfortable, as a Board, with us substituting our decision for the Zoning Administrator’s. I suspect that the Zoning Administrator’s decision will probably closely follow Mr. Brown’s letter, but that’s not for us to say. So I’m comfortable in upholding the Appeal, and sending this to Mr. Round for his determination. I think that some of the points that Mr. Salvador raises are very valid, and I think that, upon further inspection, there may be other issues to come out of this, but clearly to me, the question tonight is, is Mr. Brown authorized, and to me, we don’t have any information to say he is. So I’d just as soon say, yes, lets uphold the Appeal, and request that Mr. Round act on it, and then see where it goes from there. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I’m very troubled by this whole thing, because I think it’s not a matter of fact. It’s a matter of personalities, quite frankly, and I don’t want to be in the middle of a personality factor, quite candidly. I think there is a situation. We’ve been here now for two hours and ten minutes, and we’re still talking about, even though one person was not mentioned in the first one, it comes into play, at least in the background that I personally have, and I say two hours and ten minutes, and we’re really talking a situation between two landowners, if you will. I think the owner of the dumpster, not the owner, the renter of the dumpster, because I assume it’s owned by the waste hauler, certainly can be asked to keep the area as neat as possible, but I do believe that, one, when you’re in business, whether it’s storing boats, and I know it’s very limited, but stuff comes on boats, and before you store them, the storer should be able to throw stuff away. Therefore, he needs a receptacle to throw stuff away before he puts these boats into winter storage, in particular. I really think it’s a non-issue. If the rest of the Board feels that we ought to ask Mr. Round, our Zoning 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) Administrator, to say the same thing that Mr. Brown said, so be it, but I would hope that he would, because I don’t think it’s really, I think we’re taking an issue that’s personality generated and trying to get us to make a decision. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, it’s hard to sort out the issues here, but from my viewpoint, I don’t think the issue is whether or not there’s a messy dumpster, and it’s not really even whether a dumpster is allowed there or not. It’s, did Mr. Round make an omission. Should he have made a determination in this case or not? That’s strictly what we’re supposed to be looking at, and it strikes me that he did not make a determination, and I think that’s what we ought to send back to him initially, is just we, if we agree, that he should make a determination. Once he does that, it may well be back in front of us again, if the applicant does not like the determination that he makes, but then we’ll have something a little better defined to act on. MR. THOMAS-All right. I think Chuck hit it right on the head. It’s not if it’s a messy dumpster, who owns the dumpster or whatever. It’s just, who should have signed that letter, plain and simple. So, I would say that, being that the Section 179-98 of the Zoning Ordinance says it’s up to the Zoning Administrator, the first three words, I think the Zoning Administrator should sign that letter, or he should sign a letter directing Mr. Brown to sign a letter, but Mr. Round’s signature should be on some kind of letter going out to, for the letters that were sent out to Mr. Roger Howard and to Mr. John Salvador, Jr. So, really, the bottom line here would be to uphold Mr. Salvador’s Appeal. Does anybody disagree with that? MR. STONE-As I said, if that’s the feeling of the Board, I certainly have no problem with doing that. I think it’s, the only question it gets into, then if we’re going to have a Code Compliance Officer, he’s got to have some independence, otherwise we don’t have compliance. I mean, we have a Zoning Administrator. He has to have a deputy who says, you’re wrong or you’re right, and the assumption, I understand what the law says, but the assumption is that if he disagrees with what’s being done, then he makes a further decision, but I certainly will go along with the Board. I don’t have any. MR. STEC-I agree with you, Lew. I just would suggest that Craig Brown should be, or whoever, should be designated in writing so that we can point to a piece of paper and say, the Zoning Administrator has designated the following one or two people to make these types of, and absent of Mr. Brown presenting us with a letter like that tonight, I think the safe thing to do or the prudent thing to do would be to uphold the Appeal and then maybe in the next week or two they’ll write a letter like that, so that the, or Mr. Round will start doing all these letters himself. MR. STONE-Or is there a job description of the Code Compliance Officer? Maybe that’s something that should be read into the record here. MR. SALVADOR-Change the Code. It’s very simple. MR. STEC-Right. MR. STONE-Or change the Code. MR. STEC-Right, just clarify it, right. That doesn’t get to the heart of the matter, but Chuck hit the nail on the head. The question here is who should sign that letter. MR. THOMAS-Right. All right. Let me try this motion and see what you guys think. MOTION THAT THIS BOARD UPHOLDS THE APPEAL NO. 2-99 OF JOHN SALVADOR, JR., Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Mr. Salvador’s appeal refers to Section 179-98 of the Zoning Code. This Board makes the determination that the Zoning Administrator make a decision as to the deviations, if any, of Site Plan 28-90. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Do you want to use the word “omission” or did you? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what Section 179-98 talks, I mean. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. THOMAS-Well, I referred to 179-98. MR. STONE-Okay. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-So, there we go. Okay, John? MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-1999 TYPE II SR-1A JOHN A. & PEARL K. RABINE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 669 UPPER SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,124 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 121-2- 12 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION 179-19 JOHN RABINE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-1999, John A. & Pearl K. Rabine, Meeting Date: June 29, 1999 “Project Location: 669 Upper Sherman, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1124 sf two story addition to an existing single family residence. Relief Required: Applicant requests 9.25 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the SR-1A zone, § 179-19. Additionally, since the existing structure does not meet the minimum front setback, expansion for a non conforming structure is also requested, per § 179- 79, A., (1) & (2). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to enlarge the existing single family dwelling. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 9.25 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 644 sf above the allowable 50% expansion (480 sf) may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 95-222 issued 5/18/95 porch addition Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. This application depicts the on-site septic system in the front yard. A site inspection revealed an in-ground pool on the opposite side of the home. This proposal is requesting relief in the only feasible yard. The size of the addition may be considered significant and perhaps a downsized addition would be a feasible compromise. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-Mr. Rabine, is there anything you want to add, tell us about, speak about? MR. RABINE-No, there isn’t. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You’re going to let the application, as written, stand on itself? There’s nothing you want to add to it, say about it? MR. RABINE-No, it would just give us more living space. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Living space above the garage? MR. RABINE-Correct. MR. STONE-The garage is 864 feet? MR. RABINE-Twenty-four by thirty-six. MR. STONE-864. So you’re going to do nothing to the existing house. MR. RABINE-No, remodel it when that’s completed. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. STONE-How are you going to get access to the upper portion of the garage? Where’s the stairs? MR. RABINE-There’s an addition in between the house and the garage. MR. STONE-Okay. The pool extends beyond the house right now. Is it supposed to do that? MR. BROWN-No. MR. STONE-No, it’s not supposed to. Okay. How did it get there? MR. RABINE-With a building permit. MR. STONE-To extend beyond the house? MR. RABINE-No, we just submitted a building permit and they accepted it, and we put a pool in. MR. BROWN-Do you know when that was? MR. RABINE-I’d say four or five years ago. MR. BROWN-I couldn’t find anything for a pool permit, but. MR. STONE-Would you look for it anyway? Because I’d like to see how it got to extend beyond the house. MR. BROWN-I’ll look again. MR. STONE-I mean, obviously we’re going to cover up that if we allow the garage to go in there, but right now it’s sticking out there where it’s not supposed to be. What’s that, I’ll call it “new” construction in the front of the house? MR. RABINE-Okay, that’s a porch. MR. STONE-Yes, but that was a ’95 building permit. MR. RABINE-Correct. MR. STONE-Still using the same permit? MR. RABINE-Almost finished. MR. STONE-How long does a building permit last? MR. BROWN-A couple of years, but you can get them extended. MR. STONE-Was it? MR. RABINE-No. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m done. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. STEC-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Rabine? If not, lets talk about it. Lew? MR. STONE-I really have no problem with this thing. I’m giving you trouble because unfortunately there had been some slips, as I viewed the property, but certainly the neighbor’s house on the east 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) side is far removed from any activity you’re going to have. Also, that person hasn’t shown up tonight. So if you consider the benefit to the applicant, that you’ll be permitted to improve it, you’ve got a .68 acre lot. While we recognize that there’s more than 50% expansion, I don’t really have a problem with the application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t have a problem with it, either. As Lew says, it strikes me there’s more than enough screening between this proposed addition and the neighbor next door, and as long as the neighbor next door hasn’t appeared to object to it, I presume that it’s not objectionable to them. So I think the benefit to the applicant certainly outweighs any negative effect on the neighborhood. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with the other two Board members. I think that clearly if the only immediate neighbor that could possibly have any comment about this was given the opportunity, and hearing nothing, I interpret their silence as approval, I think that the relief is not too significant, and clearly the benefit to the applicant outweighs any other impacts. So I think it’s a good project. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the other Board members. There’s really no impact on the person next door, that being on the east side of the property. This seems to be a reasonable request, and having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-1999 JOHN A. & PEARL K. RABINE, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 669 Upper Sherman Avenue. Applicant proposes construction of an 1124 square foot two story addition to an existing single family residence. The relief requested that I move we approve is that the applicant requests 9.25 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the SR-1A zone, Section 179-19. Additionally, since the existing structure does not meet the minimum front setback, expansion for a nonconforming structure is also requested per 179-79A Parts 1 and 2. In considering this Area Variance, we consider the benefit to the applicant to be to clearly permit the expansion of this home, and while feasible alternatives could include a reconfiguration or perhaps downsizing. The benefit was greater than any feasible alternatives. Nine and a quarter feet from the twenty foot minimum requirement is moderate. However, hearing nothing from the neighbors and from our own perceptions that this won’t have a negative impact on the neighborhood or community, while the difficulty is self-created, again, the overwhelming factor is that there are clearly no negative impacts on the community compared to the benefit to the applicant. So I move that we approve the variance. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. RABINE-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1999 TYPE II LC-10A KAREN SOMMER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 2066 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN 816 SQ. FT. GREENHOUSE AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK AND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 22-2-3 LOT SIZE: 1.45 ACRES SECTION 179-13 KAREN SOMMER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-1999, Karen Sommer, Meeting Date: June 29, 1999 “Project Location: 2066 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed an 816 sf greenhouse and requests relief from the setback and density requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 68 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum front setback requirement and 5 feet of relief from the 100 foot side setback requirement, as well as 18.55 acres of 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) relief from the minimum 20 acre density requirement of the LC-10 zone, § 179-13. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the greenhouse and operate a commercial enterprise, with Site Plan Review approval. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation to a more compliant location, however, alternatives to the density requirements appear to be limited to purchasing additional properties. It is unclear whether the applicant has pursued this option. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative dimensional and area requests may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects no the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. However, much of the difficulty could be attributed to the pre-existing non-conforming nature of the lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Petition for zone change P4-90 res. 5/14/90 Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The greenhouse, by size, is classified as a commercial greenhouse. Commercial greenhouses are listed as a Type II site plan review use. It has been determined that a parcel containing a residential use must have sufficient acreage, as called for in the zone, for any additional use requiring Site Plan Review. The applicants’ plot plan depicts a 192 sf “old” greenhouse on the property as well. In the 1990 petition for zone change the applicant requested the change from Rural Residential 5 acre to Land Conservation 10 acre, thereby self imposing much of the setback and density relief requested in this application. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STEC-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 3 June 1999 Project Name: Karen Sommer Owner: Same ID #: QBY AV 45 Area Variance No. 45-1999 County Project No.: June 99-39 Current Zoning: 22-2-3 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has constructed an 816 square foot greenhouse and requests relief from setback and density requirements. Staff Notes: A copy of the applicant’s site drawing is included with the summaries. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant should have secured necessary permits prior to construction of any facility. That issue notwithstanding, Staff questions whether there is any County impact from the provision of a greenhouse on this parcel. Staff recommends No County Impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-Is someone here to represent Ms. Sommer? Is there anything else you want to tell us about, add on? MS. SOMMER-Yes. I’d like to clarify one statement. I did not petition for a zoning change. I was asked and agreed to a zoning change by then, whatever her title was, Lee York, and at that point in time, I understood that there would be no substantial differences from my RR-3 or 5, whatever it used to be. I did not initiate that zoning change on my particular piece of property. MR. THOMAS-Who did you say asked you to? MS. SOMMER-I believe it was Lee York, possibly Pat Crayford. MR. THOMAS-Someone from Community Development. MS. SOMMER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-From the Town of Queensbury. Okay. Did they say why they asked you to change or petition or agree to a zone change? MS. SOMMER-I could be wrong. It may have been part and parcel of that Master Plan, was that 1988? MR. THOMAS-Yes, they were talking about it back then for an ’89 change. MS. SOMMER-And they did have some Land Conservation parcels, and I was just asked, when I asked them to explain possibly any differences in the zoning, and they said there would be no serious impacts, and other than the greenhouse, there hasn’t been. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. STEC-We see a lot of, applicant has constructed, as I call them, variance requests, and in fact it is basically a variance request after the fact, and usually the Board usually likes to ask, how did that happen or what happened where it’s constructed and now you realize that you need a variance? MS. SOMMER-What happened was one of the Building Inspectors is my neighbor, not negatively. I saw him socially, and he mentioned that he thought I would need a building permit, and I said, I think the Department of Agriculture governs that, and they don’t, but please check into it. So he said 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) he would, and a little bit of time went by, I can’t recall how much, but I passed him on the road one day and saw his break lights go on, so I called him down here, and he said, the good news is, you don’t need a building permit. The bad news is you need a variance. In the mean time, the cover was on the greenhouse and the seeds were started. I had gone to Craig explaining that when I was first told about this, I had a deal of courses in Albany, the last tail end of March, the beginning of April. So that’s why I’m here at this point in time. MR. STONE-It’s true that even if this were RR-5, you would still have the density requirement. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-It would be less of a variance. She’d only need another 8.5 acres, roughly, rather than the 18 or something like that. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You’d need another 8.55 if it was still RR-5. MR. STONE-Right. Yes. So I mean, it’s still a substantial, it would be a substantial request, regardless. MS. SOMMER-I don’t remember whether it was three, five. I can’t remember. MR. STONE-Well, it says it was five. MS. SOMMER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it was five. MS. SOMMER-I’m sure it was then. MR. STONE-Does the outside of a greenhouse have to be as messy as yours is? MS. SOMMER-Well, no. The answer is no. If you were there today, you saw the shovel. MR. STONE-I saw the shovel. Yes. MS. SOMMER-Well, it’s just difficult to get a lot of that kind of stuff done, for me personally, and a kid came up, a week or so ago on Sunday, which is why the shovel was there, and he got a flat on the wheel barrel. That was the end of moving the dirt pile. Is that what you were referring to? MR. STONE-Well, there were also some concrete blocks around. MS. SOMMER-That was supposed to go to the corner, too, but without a vehicle, it didn’t get there. MR. STONE-Okay. MS. SOMMER-And if you looked in, you saw the garbage bags inside. MR. STONE-I didn’t look in. No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? I've got one. The old greenhouse in the back corner? MS. SOMMER-It’s full of chipmunks and bird nests and junk. MR. THOMAS-So that means you might be tearing it down at some point in time? MS. SOMMER-Well, it was actually trucked there. I can’t remember how long ago, and, yes, I mean, I have no particular use for it. It’s plastic. I mean, the shelter itself is plastic. MR. THOMAS-Is it recyclable? MS. SOMMER-It’s greenhouse plastic, but I don’t know for sure. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. STEC-No. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Is your property back on the County line? Or is there land behind you? MS. SOMMER-The Dunham’s Bay Rod and Gun Club owns the land behind me, directly behind my back line? Yes. MR. STONE-You don’t know whether that’s in the other County or not? MS. SOMMER-I don’t think it is, to tell you the truth, but I do know that the line leaves, you know, that whole ridge. I’m not sure. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions? If not, lets talk about it. MR. STONE-I will repeat what Dan said. We really hate the “ed” after “construct”. “Constructed”, we really don’t like that, and obviously you were given information that wasn’t good information, but having said that, and I wrote down, it’s too much relief. I would like to see it back a little further off the road. I don’t know why you had to put the greenhouse there. The second use doesn’t really bother me that much. It’s certainly a large enough piece of property for what is a reasonably sized greenhouse. I do wish that, if I had my druthers, that you wouldn’t be 32 feet from the road. I would at least like it back beyond the front of the house, but, do I feel strongly enough to say, move it? I think I’ll just have to listen to my friends. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I, too, am bothered by it being as close at it is to the road, especially on that road, which is kind of a scenic ride. I don’t think I would be as bothered about the density problem if it were further back, maybe kind of behind the house, but I guess when I balance the benefit to the property owner with the detriment to the neighborhood, and the character of the neighborhood, I’m inclined to say I would like to see it moved back, and I would like to see the old greenhouse taken out of there, if this one is going to remain, even in a pushed back position. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with the other Board members. I think that, again, last week we kind of got ourselves caught up in the spirit of compromise. I’d be willing to leave well enough alone with the old greenhouse, myself. My main concern, really, is that I’d like to see it further back from the road, and then of course if we’re moving it a foot, we best move it back, perhaps 100 feet might be a little bit much, but we clearly, you get away from the five feet of relief that’s required from the side setback, and I could certainly let the, although it’s the most significant relief that’s sought, I’d be comfortable letting the density variance through, but I’d prefer to see the greenhouse further back from the road, but for me, the old greenhouse isn’t really a deal breaker, as far as, I think enough of a compromise would be to just move the greenhouse, but I realize that that’s not certainly a desirable thing from the applicant’s standpoint, but. MS. SOMMER-May I interject, if I could? MR. STEC-Sure. MS. SOMMER-It wasn’t an arbitrary positioning of the greenhouse. The shade is a very big concern, and last year, in another location and in the old greenhouse, I got stem rot. I lost, you know, a lot. The seedlings actually rotted at the base of the dirt, and what I actually do is grow the transplants that get put into the garden on Tee Hill and Bay, tomato plants, egg plant, peppers. That’s actually what I do in there. So last year we lost most of it, because of the shade that hit, it was early leafing, like this year. The leaves came out very early, and it was a very big detriment. I think probably it could be moved, because I think these last two years may be unusual, with the leaves coming out quite as early as they do. I mean, quite frankly, March 15, when I started it, we can often have snow piles or th actually snow, but this year we didn’t and last year we didn’t, and it caused a problem. MR. STONE-As I say, I didn’t notice where the trees were. I have to admit that. MS. SOMMER-Well, I don’t own the trees. The Dunham’s Bay Rod and Gun Club owns the back trees, not my shade trees. It’s the ones on the back line. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. STONE-And they cast a shadow all the way? MS. SOMMER-Yes, at 9:30 in the morning that whole south end is still shaded, or it was about four weeks ago. I don’t have anything in there now. It’s empty, but that was my big concern, was trying to keep the fungus out, because once you do get a fungus, then you do have a problem. MR. THOMAS-Were you done? MR. STEC-Yes, I’m done. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The applicant would need a variance anyway, seeing that the property is only 150 feet deep and both the front and rear yard setbacks in the LC-10 zone are 100 feet. So the applicant needs a variance anyway. As far as the side setback of five feet, I don’t think the Dunham’s Bay Rod and Gun Club is going to say anything, nor did they. As far as the density, that doesn’t bother me, either, but I would like to see that greenhouse go back farther, okay. How difficult is it to move that? MS. SOMMER-I don’t think it’s particularly difficult, except that now all the underlay is there, the gravel that Mr. Stone made note of. Maybe I can recycle it into a new spot. There’s, you saw it, the clay with the stone, and on top of that, it’s that black, little black, I don’t know what it is, but it’s black stone, that is on top of the bed where the brown stuff was. So there are two layers of different types of materials. I’m not quite sure what they are. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Because, you know, if you had to move it back, say 40 feet, how much cutting would you have to do, do you think, tree cutting? MS. SOMMER-I can’t cut anything. I don’t own it. MR. THOMAS-You don’t own what, the property? MR. STONE-She’s saying the trees are back here. MR. THOMAS-I mean, from where it is now, because right now it’s only 32 feet back. So if you moved it 43 feet back, which would be 75 feet back from the setback, or from the highway line. MS. SOMMER-Right, but then I would be too close to the trees to make it even. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you don’t want to cut the trees down. MS. SOMMER-I can’t. I don’t own them. MR. STEC-They’re off her property line, she saying. MR. STONE-She’s saying the trees are over here, Chris. MS. SOMMER-The trees are behind, let me see, they’re to the east. MR. STONE-To the east, between you and the hill, the ridge. MS. SOMMER-Between me and the ridge, yes. MR. STONE-They’re here. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So right now that house is sitting, the front of the house is sitting 32 feet, okay. So if she moves it back another 43 feet. MR. STONE-But she’s saying these trees are already casting a shadow on here now. MR. THOMAS-All right. I missed that part. MR. STONE-I can’t believe they go back that far. MS. SOMMER-It is amazing, it is. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, I have no problem with this, because of that, and the difficulties, and because the Town had asked her if it was okay to change that zone back in 1988. MR. STONE-Yes, you’re talking about the density requirement. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. THOMAS-Right, the density requirement and the zoning change, because it went from RR-5 to LC-10. The setbacks for RR-5. MR. STONE-Would have been 50. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-And 30 in the rear. So it would be only 18. MR. THOMAS-Eighteen. So, because of that, she screwed herself up here. Like I said, I have no problem where it sits right now, and because of things, of the trees that cast a shadow, and therefore you wouldn’t be able to use a greenhouse. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MR. STONE-What numbers did you come up with, two, two? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. STONE-Three of us said move it. We thought about it. MR. THOMAS-Because of circumstances and the existing conditions on the property, we aren’t going to ask her to move it back. MR. STONE-You’re not going to ask her to move it back. I hear the difficulty. It’s definitely, I’m just amazed that, even now, that you’re saying it gets some shade. MR. MC NULTY-I’m not sure if I’m comfortable, even, with where it is. MR. STONE-Yes. You might want to wait until we have six or seven of us. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to wait for a full Board? MR. STONE-Because if Mr. McNulty isn’t happy, that makes it three, one, which means, at a minimum, and I certainly would like, if possible, just as evidence of good faith, to have it moved back something. I think it’s an awful lot of relief, and while I recognize the fact that nine years ago it got changed, that was nine years ago, and other requests might have been made at this point in time, or in the interim period, to relieve some of that. MR. STEC-What they didn’t explain is we need four votes, one way or the other, not just a majority of those of us here, but a majority of the seven Board members. So if all seven of us aren’t here, in tonight’s instance it would have to be unanimous, yes or no. So, if one of us votes differently. MS. SOMMER-What you’re saying is I need to come back and do this again? MR. STEC-Well. MR. STONE-We promise Mr. Salvador won’t be in front of you. MS. SOMMER-You can’t make that promise. MR. STONE-Yes, we can. MR. STEC-A lot of it’s been read into the record already. So the second time, although, it would go a lot quicker, and you’d be likely to be right toward the front. MS. SOMMER-Are we looking like July? MR. THOMAS-Well, up to two months, 62 days. MR. STONE-It could be next month. MR. STEC-It could be next month. MR. THOMAS-But it just depends on getting all seven members here, or at least six. MS. SOMMER-Okay. MR. STONE-Right now you’re not changing. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MS. SOMMER-No, but I’m going to clean up the dirt pile, now. MR. STONE-But you’re not going to offer to change your application at this moment? You want to leave it as it is? MR. STEC-Right. If you said, hey, I’ll move it, we might be able to, the four of us. MS. SOMMER-And how much could I conceivably move it? Actually, even sitting here would be difficult to get, I can’t figure out feet. If I said 10 feet, which isn’t substantial to you, if you’re going to move it, it doesn’t matter how much you’ve got to move it if you’re going to move it, but it matters in terms of whether to bother to do anything with it, if I have to move it too far. MR. STONE-Well, if we vote you down, it comes down. MS. SOMMER-Yes, exactly. That’s my point. MR. STONE-So we’re talking keep it somewhere or not keep it, in a sense. MS. SOMMER-Yes, but I think that’s what we’re talking. How far would you like me to move it, and whether or not that could be feasible. MR. STEC-What was it in RR-5? MR. STONE-It would have been 50 feet in RR-5. MR. STEC-And it’s 32 now? So an addition 18 feet. MR. THOMAS-Eighteen feet. MR. STEC-I could live with that, myself, but the applicant’s absolutely right. If you move it a foot or 100 feet, it doesn’t make any difference if you’re moving it. MR. STONE-What does 18 feet do for you? MR. THOMAS-It brings it back to where, if that were still the RR-5 zone, it would bring it back to where it’s supposed to be. MR. MC NULTY-I guess I need to know where that places it, in respect to where the house is. MR. STEC-Well, the whole depth of the lot is 160. MR. THOMAS-The paved area on the south side is 47 feet. MR. STONE-So it would be just beyond the number three, there. Is that 47 to the back of that paved area on your drawing? I mean, this says 47. Is that to the back line? I don’t know what three, two and one are. MS. SOMMER-They may be for parking spaces. MR. STONE-Those are parking spaces? So this is 47 back to here? MS. SOMMER-Yes, the back line. MR. STONE-Okay. So it would be slightly behind the back line. MR. MC NULTY-It looks like it would be just about in line with where the front edge of the house stretches out. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-That would be better. MR. STONE-If you were willing to move it to 50, we could vote it right now. MR. STEC-Right. MS. SOMMER-I’ll move it. MR. STONE-Okay. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MS. SOMMER-And I’ll paint it. MR. STONE-Okay. I think it’s a good compromise, I really do. MR. STEC-Well, like you said, unfortunately, moving it a foot or 100 feet, it’s still the hassle and the same expense, but I think it mitigates the shade factor, which is integral to exactly what that structure is doing. MR. THOMAS-All right. Does somebody want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1999 KAREN SOMMER, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: 2066 Ridge Road. The applicant has constructed an 816 square foot greenhouse, and requests relief from the setback and density requirements. The relief required, in particular, is 50 feet of relief from the 100-foot minimum front setback, and 5 feet of relief from the 100-foot side setback, as well as 18.55 acres of relief from the minimum 20 acre density requirement of the LC-10 zone, Paragraph No. 179-13. The benefit to the applicant is the applicant would be permitted to maintain a greenhouse and operate a commercial enterprise with Site Plan Review approval. The feasible alternatives include, and in this case will include, relocation to a more compliant location, and we’re granting density relief in acknowledgement that there’s little else that the applicant can do to relieve this situation. The relief could be considered moderate to substantial, but it’s my feeling that there’s little else the applicant can do. This would probably produce minimum to moderate effects on the neighborhood, and the difficulty can be interpreted as self-created, however much of the difficulty can be attributed to the pre-existing , nonconforming nature of the lot. On that basis, I move that we approve a 50-foot relief from the front setback and 18.55 acres of relief from the 20 acre density, and 5 foot relief from the side setback. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-There you go. MS. SOMMER-Thank you very much for your time. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-1999 TYPE II SR-1A PAT SNELL-PICK ROBERT MACDONALD OWNER: PATRICIA SNELL-PICK 15 PHEASANT WALK APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18 FT. BY 39 FT. ABOVE- GROUND SWIMMING POOL AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REGULATIONS; POOL WILL BE SITUATED IN THE FRONT YARD. TAX MAP NO. 121-9-33 LOT SIZE: 0.60 ACRES SECTION 179-19, 179-67 PAT SNELL-PICK & ROBERT MACDONALD, Present STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-1999, Pat Snell-Pick Robert MacDonald, Meeting Date: June 29, 1999 “Project Location: 15 Pheasant Walk Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an above ground pool and seeks relief from accessory structure requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement. Also, the applicant is requesting relief to allow the pool to be placed in a yard other than those specifically called for. Both requests seek relief from the Accessory structures and uses, § 179-67. 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 a recreational area on their property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the pool to a compliant location. There appears to be sufficient area on the property. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate. However the request to place a pool in a front yard, virtually on the right of way line could be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The placement of an above ground pool in a front yard in close proximity to a public right of way would have significant visual impacts on the neighborhood and community. It appears, from the applicant’s plot plan, that there is adequate area for the pool to be placed in a compliant location. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right, and there’s nothing from Warren County on this one. MR. STEC-No. MR. THOMAS-Is the applicant here? Come on up here, we’ve got some questions for you. Is there anything else you want to say, add, tell us about this property? MS. SNELL-PICK-Yes. We have two proposals. I don’t know if you want both of those, but this proposal we made was for two feet from the side and ten feet from the back, and we talked with Craig Brown, I believe, after this was submitted, and he didn’t give us encouraging words, so we re- submitted another plan, and that was 10 feet from the side and 15 from the rear. MR. And that was supposed to be attached to the original. MR. STONE-You didn’t change the drawing. MS. SNELL-PICK-Yes, we did. MR. MAC DONALD-Yes, we did. MR. STEC-I have a revised drawing here, it looks like. It looks a lot like the other one. MR. STONE-It looks the same as the one I had originally. MR. STEC-The numbers are different. MR. THOMAS-Just the numbers are different. That’s all. MR. STONE-Yes, the numbers are different. MR. MAC DONALD-And there was an attached letter, also, to explain. MR. STEC-I’ll read the letter in. June 1, 1999, Town of Queensbury Code Compliance Officer, Craig Brown “Dear Craig: Attached are the revised map and building setback pages that you and Bob MacDonald discussed yesterday. They are attached to allow for a 10-foot side yard setback formally two feet and a 15 foot rear setback, formally 10 feet. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Pat Snell-Pick” And a revised drawing is included here. MR. THOMAS-All right. You want to put it 10 feet from that side line and 15 feet from the back line, is that what you’re saying? MS. SNELL-PICK-Yes, with the 25 feet from the road, and on the side would bring that even further in. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So instead of being 10 feet from the side property line. MS. SNELL-PICK-From the property line, but I’m saying from the road, where the road ends. MR. THOMAS-We don’t talk about that. We talk about the property line. MS. SNELL-PICK-Okay. MR. THOMAS-That’s where the relief comes from. MS. SNELL-PICK-Okay. MS. SNELL-You’re saying 10 on the side and 15 from the back? MR. THOMAS-Right. That’s what you’re saying. Okay. Is there anything else you want to say? MR. MAC DONALD-Yes. Anything that involves going into the trees is going to, of course, add to our budget and our costs, besides causing the, you know, it will effect the green area back there. It’ll effect our costs, and everything, that area of property is probably the worst part of our property, but 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) without any doubt anything would be an improvement. You can’t even grow grass there. I've put about 50 pounds of grass seed down there this year. I can’t do anything with it. I've improved everything else on the property. We would be treeing that whole area, so it would be shielded from the road, and we would also be putting a very nice fence across that, too. So it wouldn’t be seen, really, from the road, per se. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Is this pool free form? I mean, it’s not rectangular? MR. MAC DONALD-It’s oval. MR. STONE-But it’s approximately 18 by 39? MR. MAC DONALD-Yes, and when you went out, we provided three different sets of stakes, the smaller pool was if that would be more acceptable. MR. STONE-I didn’t notice them, but it was raining when I was there. MS. SNELL-PICK-There was an 18 by 33, an 18 by 39. MR. MAC DONALD-And a 15 by 30, I believe, and I staked each one of them off. MS. SNELL-PICK-We also, we didn’t want it right in back of the house because of the septic system, and we weren’t sure, we moved into the house about a year ago, and we didn’t get much information on the septic system, and how good that is, and we didn’t want to construct something on top of that and we were going to move it at some future date. So we wanted to use that side lot, like Bob was saying, that piece back there in that “L” seemed to be the most feasible. MR. MAC DONALD-And that area of the property is really an eyesore. It’s the only thing we haven’t really worked on yet. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant? MS. SNELL-PICK-The pool is really beautiful. It has a lovely (lost words). MR. THOMAS-Do you realize there’s buried utilities right there? MR. MAC DONALD-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Telephone, electric, gas, power. MR. MAC DONALD-Yes, it’s not, but we wouldn’t be on that line. I had the lines marked, the utilities, before that. They’re closer to the road, I think by 10 feet, that phone box and the tower box? Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. They sit behind the property pin. MR. MAC DONALD-Behind the property pin, but also closer to the road than where we would actually have the pool. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Is this water portion of the pool, or does this include the? MS. SNELL-PICK-Yes, no, the deck would be on the inner lot. MR. STONE-You wouldn’t have any surface around the pool? MR. MAC DONALD-It’s going to have a wooden finish all around. MR. STONE-All the way around? MR. MAC DONALD-All the way around the pool, yes. MR. STONE-So there’ll be a shoulder, if you will? MS. SNELL-PICK-Right. There’ll be a shoulder on the side in the back, but if there’s any space for sitting, that would be toward the inside of the yard. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. STONE-Where are you measuring from? MR. MAC DONALD-Where am I measuring from? MR. STONE-Where are you measuring to from the property line? To the wall of the pool or to the edge of the decking? MR. MAC DONALD-It doesn’t come with decking. We couldn’t afford it this year anyway. We're just going to do the pool, but it comes with an 18-inch lip all around it. MR. STONE-There’s an 18-inch lip, okay. MR. MAC DONALD-Yes, and then with the removable, lift up, turn up ladder, the spring ladder, you know, safety ladder, and then the side of the pool is completely enclosed in wood, so it has the wood grain effect on the side of the pool, not effect, it actually has a wood grain finish on the side. MR. STONE-So this is in ground and above the ground? MR. MAC DONALD-No, it’s above the ground. MR. STONE-It’s above ground. I’m sorry. I saw it deep and I read it wrong. Okay. It’s above ground. I’m sorry. MR. THOMAS-Okay. 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? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED WALT STEIN MR. STEIN-I’m Walt Stein. I live next door to the property involved. MR. STONE-Which side? MR. STEIN-On the. MR. STEIN-South side, on Lambert Drive. MR. THOMAS-You’re on Lot 32? MR. STEIN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STEIN-And with the pool coming that close out to the road, everybody, we’re feeling that it’s going to be a hindrance to people getting out of Pheasant Walk, and there’s a lot of children. We're afraid that’s going to be blocking the side of the, you know, the traffic, and also it’s so close out to the road, I don’t think it’s going to, it’s right up near the power lines, gas line, my property line, when we were there, they broke right through. I know exactly where the gas lines are and all that. So you’re almost on top of it at that point. MR. THOMAS-All right. Thank you. MR. STEIN-I also have, there’s a petition. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We’ll read that in in the correspondence part. FRANK KINEKE MR. KINEKE-My name is Frank Kineke. I’m President of Pro Craft Builders. I developed that parcel of land. I have relatives living next door to this piece of property. I own one remaining lot, which is about 250 feet away. I feel a pool in the front yard would really lower the property values and make it even hard for me to sell the one lot I have, or any other people doing it. I have no objection to swimming pools, and I have no objection to a swimming pool in the back yard. I feel there’s room for the pool in the back yard there. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The lot that you say, you still own one lot? 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. KINEKE-Yes, Lot 34 in the subdivision. I’m the cul de sac. MR. THOMAS-Lot 34, is that on Pheasant Walk? MR. KINEKE-It’s on Pheasant Walk on the cul-de-sac, in the end of the cul-de-sac. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So it’s the lot next door, right? MR. STONE-There’s a house on 34, so it’s. MR. THOMAS-Yes, not that 34. MR. STONE-So it must be down, it’s off this thing. It’s down here somewhere. MR. KINEKE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. KINEKE-That’s my daughter’s house right there. She didn’t want to make waves with the neighbors, but she sure didn’t want it in the front yard. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak in opposition? GREG FINNEY MR. FINNEY-Hi. My name’s Greg Finney. I live on 79 Lambert, which would be directly on the south side of the property. A few concerns. One is I agree with Mr. Kineke on the property values. It would look so out of place. Almost every house on the street has a pool, but they’re all in back yards, which gives plenty of privacy, and it doesn’t look out of place. It would just look so much out of place. I would be staring at this from my front window, or if I back out of my driveway, which is on a little slope, if I slid, am I going to hit the pool, how close is it to the road? They were saying they weren’t going to put a deck on this year, but next year they were thinking about it. How much bigger is that going to make the pool? They put the deck on, plus then they put the fence on. Now you’re just inching closer out to the road. I know the gas lines and stuff like that do run along the road. The gas lines aren’t right on top of the road. They are off the road a ways. So, how close, you know, do you want to be to these gas lines and stuff. That was my point. Plus, you know, I really don’t want to look out and see a pool in a front yard. I mean, there are other ways around it. I understand it’s expensive to have trees taken down. I had 50 of them taken down last year, but sometimes you have to wait a year to do it the right way. That’s all I have to say. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks. Would anyone else like to speak in opposition? SANDY WHELAN MS. WHELAN-I’m Sandy Whelan. I live on the corner of Quail Run and Peggy Ann Road. While I can understand the reason for Miss Pick wanting to have a swimming pool, I question where the location of the pool is. Her lot is basically the same size as my lot. I would have plenty of room for a pool. We’ve already went through this, trying to decide if wanted a pool or not. I know the land is big enough to support a swimming pool. My fear is that because of the location of the pool it will be a detriment for traffic safety. They have mentioned that they wanted to put trees in front of the pool to give it privacy. The trees they’re referring to are saplings right now. They’re not big. By the time they got full grown, you’d have another traffic hazard because the trees would be blocking more view. There is a small shed on the property. If they could move the shed, they could probably move the pool back farther, or they could take the trees out and put the pool in the back of the yard. Even though it doesn’t effect my property per se because I can’t see that far, I really do believe it would be a hazard. I know what living on the corner is like. There are people that, they go across your lawn, just for the sake of having some place to go. With a pool there, they’re going to be in jeopardy of having traffic accidents. Children may decide that they want to climb that fence to use the pool. I really don’t think it’s a safe issue at this point. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? DIANE OGDEN MS. OGDEN-My name’s Diane Ogden, and I live at 59 Lambert Drive, and I actually just heard about this through the mailing that came to my house, and actually there’s several houses beyond me to the south that got notices also. So obviously whoever mailed them was taking into consideration that people five, eight, ten houses away would be concerned about this, my guess would be from, you 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) know, how it’s going to look in the neighborhood, because obviously they’re not going to be sitting on their porch seeing it, but the concern is how it’s going to look for the neighborhood as a whole. I probably was about the third house in that area, not in the Pheasant Walk development, but in what they call Oak Woods, which abuts, I’m on Lambert, and we also have a 27 foot round above ground pool in our back yard. It’s not in the spot we wanted it because of our septic system. So we had to move it. We took down probably close to 50 trees to do it, some beautiful birch trees that we wanted to leave, but we gave that up to get the pool, and we don’t have a deck on ours, because we don’t like the way they look, and this is in our back yard. It’s also a wood grain pool. So my biggest concern is what it’s going to look like for the neighborhood. My other question, I haven’t talked with them about this, once the deck goes up, are they going to be sitting above the fence? I mean, are we going to see from the road, you know, from a privacy standpoint, it’s not something I would want, or do I want to watch them and you don’t normally hear of a pool going in a front yard. MR. THOMAS-I think a four-foot fence is as high as you can put in. MS. OGDEN-That’s what I thought. MR. STONE-And the pool is four foot high. MS. OGDEN-So when the deck goes up, the deck’s going to be above, when you’re sitting, you’ve got to be, your feet are going to be at four feet. Where is your body going to be? Above the fence? I guess I've thought about it. An in-ground I don’t think I’d really have a problem with, because with a fence it’s not really, wouldn’t be quite, such an eyesore. The other thing is, they mentioned not being able to do anything with that part of the property, and that’s very true. My actually friend owned that home, bought it from Mr. Kineke, and they never did anything with that area. I can remember some, they piled a lot of brush up there, and it sat there, and then they had it removed, but there was never any topsoil put on that property to make grass grow. We live in a sandpit up there, and we have worked very hard to get a lawn, because it’s all sand. We brought in, before we did our property, we brought in tons of topsoil, just to get grass seed to grow. It was a real struggle. So just grass seed doesn’t do it. MR. STONE-You should be aware that every neighbor within 500 feet of a project is automatically notified by the Town. MS. OGDEN-Okay. MR. STONE-That’s how most people find out that their neighbors want to do something, unless you read the newspaper every day, like maybe legal notices, but that’s. MS. OGDEN-And why is that? MR. STONE-So that you can come and state if you have an objection or if you agree. MS. OGDEN-For any project that goes on? MR. STONE-Any project. Any variance. MR. THOMAS-Any site plan. MR. STONE-Any site plan. MS. OGDEN-My other thing, I've lived up there a long time, and I am alone a lot at night, and I hear the teenagers that go through there, that have been drinking and horsing around in the summer time. I don’t sleep well because I am alone a lot at night, and I've thought about that when the garden went in, these poor people are going to lose half of their tomatoes, and it’s right there. It’s right on the road, but my concern more is from a visual standpoint. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in opposition? GEORGE CASSANT MR. CASSANT-Hi. My name is George Cassant. I live at 75 Lambert Drive. We sound like we’re ganging up here on our new neighbors, to be honest with you. We all have above ground pools in our back yard, and that’s pretty much all they’re asking for. We all moved to Queensbury because you people are a Zoning Board, and we all have a lot of respect for our homes and surrounding areas. I guess that’s about it. I mean, I don’t want our new neighbors to hate us. I guess that’s all we’re asking for is, we all put it in our back yards, one way or the other. That’s about it. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks. Would anyone else like to speak? Last chance. All right. Go ahead and read the correspondence. MR. STEC-All right. A petition dated June 29, 1999 “Dear Board Members: We the undersigned neighbors in the Pheasant Walk Subdivision want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed above ground pool to be installed at 15 Pheasant Walk. It is our fear that an 18 foot by 39 foot above ground pool would not only be aesthetically detrimental to the neighborhood, but also present a concern for road safety. Any car trying to turn onto Lambert Drive from Pheasant Walk cul de sac would have difficulty seeing approaching traffic coming from the south. As a result of these concerns, we would strongly urge the petition for this variance to be denied.” And we’ve got some signatures, forgive me, there’s a signature at 7 Grouse Circle, I can’t make out the name, Richard Wilson, and underneath Nancy Wilson; Dorothy Jones at 17 Pheasant Walk, Queensbury; Sandy Whelan and John Whelan at 79 Peggy Ann Road; and Dale at 10 Grouse Circle. Six names and addresses. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? No one has anymore questions for the applicant? All right. I guess we’re down to talking about it. MR. MAC DONALD-Could we make one comment? MR. THOMAS-Sure. MR. MAC DONALD-I’m amazed at the concern. I didn’t have any idea that this was going to create this much of a problem, but while all of these comments have merit, a lot of things can happen. The fact remains that that pool was set in from the street 25 feet from the street, and if you go into a major skid or anything or out of control of your car, that’s quite a distance, and you’ll have to go through a fence as well. The other thing is, when I walk out my front yard, coincidentally, and I look to my left, I see a swimming pool on the corner that is not in compliance, and it has a fence around it, right diagonally across the street. I walk out the back, and I see their pool in clear view, okay, the fellow behind me, and when I walk over to water my garden, I see another pool in full open view, and it has no safety precautions, and the kids are walking up and down the street there, too, you know. Nothing goes around the pool that’s diagonally across the street. MR. STONE-There’s no fence around the pool? MR. MAC DONALD-No, I don’t see a fence. I didn’t see a fence. It’s above the ground, but the point remains, it’s, obviously every pool is a safety hazard, you know, and it’s how you maintain it and what you put around it, but it appears that no matter what we do, we can’t satisfy it. We changed the requirement to make it more sensitive to the variance requirements, to move it in as far as we could, you know, from two feet to ten doesn’t seem like much, but that’s an 800% improvement to get it as far in as we can, you know, and yet utilize that piece of land that everybody agrees is an eyesore, and it would be much improved if we did the work that we proposed to do on it. So that’s really my only comment. MS. SNELL-PICK-The trees that we planted on the side weren’t the trees that we were planning on planting. We wanted to put additional trees right next to the pool, to block whatever view. Also, the gentleman at 79 Lambert, when he looks out of his front window, he’s going to see a pool one way or the other, whether it’s in a (lost words) right behind our house or it’s right there, because he’s got full view of our entire yard like everybody that goes by does, with a corner lot, there’s no privacy. So people are going to see us swimming. MR. MAC DONALD-But I never notice anybody else swimming, to tell you the truth, and I’m not sure if we’re going to put a deck on it or not, for our own privacy reasons as well. We don’t even have the pool yet, so we haven’t made up our mind. I don’t want to be in full view of everybody swimming either. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions for the applicants? If not, lets talk about it. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I have a basic problem with the pool in the front yard. I recognize that this lot is a difficult one because they’ve basically got two front yards, with the two streets, but given there’s at least a feasible place to move the pool either into compliance or almost into compliance, and given the fact, as we’ve noted at other meetings, that some lots are just not pool lots, too, I would like to see this pool moved into a compliant location. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with Chuck. We’ve had similar, one similar request that comes to mind recently, for a pool that was, I wouldn’t necessarily, for the purposes of semantics I won’t say the front yard, but not in the back yard. The zoning regulations talks that “pools may be erected only in the rear yard of such structure and shall be distanced not less than 20 feet from the rear lot lines or buffer zone nor less than 10 feet from the side lot or buffer zone where appropriate or principal structure attached or detached accessory structure”, and it goes on to say, “in no case shall the pool be any nearer to the lot lines abutting any public right-of-way than the required front setback for the principal building of the zoning district in which it is located”. I mean, while I certainly understand the applicant’s desire, and I think the lot is one such that it can be placed in a compliant location, and sometimes you’ve got to break a few eggs, and basically I think that cutting down some of the wooded lot is probably the only feasible solution, but again, I suspected that you were going to have, only because of the previous application that we had that was similar to this, although believe me, your neighbors are much nicer to you than the other neighbors, that basically I thought that generally speaking I think this kind of application usually raises a lot of eyebrows in the neighborhood because of the two concerns which I think you and I hit on is aesthetics and safety. Those were the issues that you had a similar kind of turn out, which is unusual for an applicant. So I think that the vein that runs through the community is that they’re concerned about not having swimming pools not having swimming pools near the road for those two reasons, and this is one of those clear cut kinds of wording in the zoning where this is a lot where you (LOST WORDS) You’re certainly entitled to a pool, but there’s certainly a way to get it in a compliant location that I think is very feasible. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, continuing where Mr. Stec left off, Number Three under pools, “Such use shall not adversely effect the character of the neighborhood”, and I think putting a pool that close to the property line on a thoroughfare is just too much to grant. As Mr. Stec said, we recently had another front yard pool, if you will, and none of us were in favor of it. A pool is an accessory use, and I know it’s a very wonderful accessory use, and everybody would like to have one if you could, but in that spot in the land of your property, I just can’t go along with putting one there. I think it’s just asking too much variance from our zoning code. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members, but I went down through the five questions we have to weigh for an Area Variance. “Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties be created by granting of the Area Variance?” I think it will be because of the pool being so close to the front property line. “Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some other means feasible for the applicant to pursue?” Yes, I believe it is, by cutting down some trees. Other residents in the area stated they had to cut down trees to get their pools in. “Is the requested Area Variance substantial?” It’s very substantial, seeing that this is a corner lot, and there are two front yards and two rear yards, and the applicant is asking for the pool in the front yard where it’s, according to 179-67, it’s not supposed to be. “Will the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood?” I think it will, being that close to the road, again, that someone not watching the road and coming up on that intersection, because they’re looking at the pool, there could be a danger at that intersection. “Is the alleged difficulty self-created? This consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals which shall not necessarily preclude the granting of an Area Variance” It definitely is self-created because the applicant could put the pool in the rear yard. So I can’t go along with this one. Having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-1999 PAT SNELL-PICK ROBERT MAC DONALD, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 15 Pheasant Walk. The applicant proposes construction of an above-ground pool and seeks relief from the accessory structure requirements. Specifically, the applicant requested 10 feet side setback relief and 5 feet of rear relief. Also the applicant requested that the pool be placed in a yard other than that specifically called for, namely a front yard, and in considering this request, we had to consider the accessory structure and uses, Paragraph 179-67. Obviously, if we were to grant this variance, the applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize a recreational area on their property. However, since there is a feasible alternative to the positioning of this pool, namely one that would be in compliance with 179-67, behind the house, it was considered that the front yard positioning is not satisfactory. The number relief is relatively insubstantial, but the most important consideration that we must face is the positioning of the pool too close to traffic, a roadway, and in the front yard. In addition, we are denying this Variance because it appears there would be substantial effects on the neighborhood if this pool were to be placed in the desired location, and the difficulty is self-created in that the lot is large enough, and there is a position on the lot where the pool could be placed in compliance with 179-67. With all these considerations taken into effect, I move we deny 46-1999. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-I’m sorry, the variance is denied. MR. MAC DONALD-I have one question. We would not have undergone this, had we not received all kinds of encouragement from the Township Office, because we went there first and told them what we wanted to do, and they said, we grant these quite often. We said what we were going to do. I had no idea that we were going to have half the neighborhood up in arms over this thing, and I had no idea that anything was going on in the neighborhood prior to tonight, but we thought that this was just a formality, filling this out and handing it in, and I had no idea the uproar that we were causing, but it was caused mainly by your offices here. We went and asked first. MR. STONE-Well, I can only say, for one, I can’t speak for the rest of the Board members, that looking at this property, I had no idea about what your neighbors thought. I wrote down, when I went there this afternoon, no, too much, much too much pool, wrong place. So I was prepared to vote no, regardless of whether the neighbors. MR. MAC DONALD-But who are the experts? We went through all of this, making the copies, revising, we went down to the Township, we did everything we were supposed to do, and we received encouragement. That’s why we went forward with it the way it was. Of course there’s other plans we could do. We don’t have to have the neighborhood telling us how to design our pool in our home, but we went diligently down to the Township with this. We discussed it with the people down here, and they said, well something like that needs a variance, but they encouraged us. They said, they grant variances all the time. MR. THOMAS-We do, but in certain circumstances, we don’t because we’re bound by New York State Law, like I said when I had my little piece to say. There’s five stipulations for granting an Area Variance, by State Law, and that’s an undesirable change be produced in the neighborhood, can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some other method, is the requested Area Variance substantial, will the proposed Variance have an adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and is the alleged difficulty self-created. We have to answer all five of those questions, one way or another. What the Staff says to you, I don’t know, because we aren’t part of Town government. MR. MAC DONALD-But can’t we handle that with the front office? MR. THOMAS-No, because they can’t tell you yes or no. We're the ones that say yes or no. MR. STONE-Also, we don’t know what we’re going to do until we sit at this table and listen to all the facts as presented. Sometimes, I mean, I can only tell you that sometimes I go, before I leave here, and I say to my wife, I’m not really happy with that, and I’ll end up granting it because I hear all the facts. Sometimes it’s just the opposite. What we hear are the only facts that we have to go on, plus this book, the zoning code of the Town of Queensbury. That’s what we have to use. MR. MAC DONALD-Thank you for your time. MR. THOMAS-I’m sorry. Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 49-1999 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A D’ELLA CADILLAC/OLDSMOBILE/ISUZU OWNER: MICHAEL & CARMEN DELLABELLA 92 & 233 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 104 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND A 280 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-8.1 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-11.2 LOT SIZE: 3.45 ACRES, 4.97 ACRES SECTION 140 FRANK DE SANTIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 49-1999, D’Ella Cadillac/Oldsmobile/Isuzu, Meeting Date: June 29, 1999 “Project Location: Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) proposes construction of a 104 sf freestanding sign and a 280 sf wall sign and seeks relief from the Sign Ordinance. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum setback requirement and 54 feet of relief from the 50 foot maximum allowable square footage for a freestanding sign. The applicant is proposing a 104 sf sign where a 50 sf sign would be permitted. Also the applicant is seeking 177 sf of relief from the 103 sf allowable for a wall sign at the proposed setback. The applicant is proposing a 280 sf sign where a 103 sf sign would be allowed. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and display the desired signs. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the signs to more compliant sizes. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 54 sf of relief from the 50 sf maximum requirement may be interpreted as substantial, however, the 177 sf of relief may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The request for an oversized wall sign appears to be somewhat mitigated by the existing Niagara Mohawk transmission line lying between this parcel and Quaker Road. This right of way allows for an increased separation from the drive lanes to the oversized wall sign. However, the request for a substantially oversized sign may have several feasible alternatives rather than increasing the size. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. STEC-“Warren County Project Review and Referral Form 3 June 1999 Project Name: D’ella Cadillac/Oldsmobile/Isuzu Owner: Same ID Number: QBY-SV49-1999 County Project #: June99-27 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a 109 sq. ft. freestanding sign and a 280 sq. ft. wall sign and seeks relief from the Sign Ordinance. Staff Notes: The applicant is proposing signage for the new dealership being constructed next to the existing D’ella facility. A copy of the applicant’s drawings of the signage is included with the summaries. The applicant is allowed one wall sign of 300 sq. ft. and is proposing multiple signage that comes in less than the maximum allowable. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from the number of signs and not from the square footage of wall signs. The applicant is allowed one freestanding sign of 64 sq. ft. and is proposing a variance to 109 sq. ft. Again, in conformance with past practices of the County Planning Board, Staff is recommending discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve due to unique circumstances of this application.” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board MR. STONE-In the Sign Variance application, Craig, it says allowed is 300. Now, is that input from you? MR. BROWN-No, that’s the applicant’s application. MR. STONE-Okay. So that was not commented on by you, the 300? MR. BROWN-We discussed it at the time the application was presented. MR. DE SANTIS-You said it was 103 allowed? That’s what I just heard them say. MR. BROWN-Right. You’d be allowed 100 square feet to start, and anything over 100 feet from the property line, you can incrementally go up 10 feet. Two hundred feet, you can have a 200 square foot sign. MR. DE SANTIS-Right. This is 225 feet from the property line. MR. BROWN-It’s 103 feet from the property line, according to the application. MR. DE SANTIS-You’re right. Excuse me. MR. BROWN-225 from the right-of-way. MR. DE SANTIS-I understand what you’re saying, now. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. DE SANTIS-Thank you. Good evening. My name is Frank DeSantis. I’m here on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Dellabella who own the property, and Mr. Dellabella is here this evening. If I may approach what I put up on the easel, what I've attempted to show here is this site, which I think you’re all familiar with. It’s next to the existing Della dealership, and it’s next to the existing Nemer Ford dealership, on what is the northerly side of Quaker Road, and then a black line I've shown the 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) outlines of the, the property line that the Ordinance utilizes as it’s starting point when it talks about variances and sign sizes. It needs to start somewhere, and in this case, the black line is the property line. This is the new dealership. I’m going to call it the Cadillac/Oldsmobile/Isuzu dealership, rather than say that multiple word times, those three words, I’ll just call it the New Dealership. The existing dealership, where you’re most familiar with. It’s been here for quite a while. It’s a Pontiac/Buick dealership, and it’s right here. The north is to the top of the page. The green line that I show here, that is the closest boundary of Quaker Road, of the actual right-of-way. So this is the highway. The area between the black line and the green line is not owned by Mr. and Mrs. Dellabella. It’s a power easement that runs the whole side of Quaker Road, and you can’t put a sign in there if you don’t own the property. So, in effect, the Town Ordinance says you must measure from your property line, but as we all know, in most cases, the property line abuts the highway. In this case it doesn’t. So two things happen. Because of the distance, you need a bigger sign so you can see it, and because of the distance, you can’t get a bigger sign, because you’re closer. The building exists. What this was was a renovation of an existing building. The structure wasn’t put there. So this distance that existed from the wall of the building, which I've also highlighted in green, and the black line, wouldn’t create or decrease or in any way effect. It always was there, from the property line, as was the distance from the highway. There was an existing sign right here, and I didn’t highlight it because I thought it would be a little confusing, and that sign’s been removed for safety purposes. Mr. Dellabella owns both of these properties. That’s what we meant by the adjoining owner owns both sites, and in reality, we’re looking for a variance on the freestanding sign because it’s over on Mr. Dellabella’s other property, the old dealership, and that’s this blue line. That’s the freestanding sign, and that sign is going to just have the three names on it, and Della Cadillac/Oldsmobile/Isuzu. That sign was put here because there’s a passageway that’s been created between the two lots, so that people can move from lot to lot, and also because there are utility pipes and wires that run another easement, that runs north and south right here, and to take it out of the turning area and move it over the line, we had to move it, and that’s the seven foot variance we’re talking about, the setback from the property line. Now this property line is between the same owner on both sides, that particular variance, so to describe that setback variance. It’s my understanding, or it was my understanding, I’ll refer to Craig on this, or defer to Craig, that that freestanding sign, as presented, other than the setback variance, was in conformity as to size. MR. BROWN-The 100 square foot sign? MR. DE SANTIS-The freestanding sign. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. DE SANTIS-Was in conformity as to size and height. MR. BROWN-Not size. MR. DE SANTIS-Okay. So you’re saying 64 feet was allowed? That’s what I heard here this evening. MR. BROWN-Well, maybe that’s what the County may have recommended, 64 feet would be allowed if it was 25 feet from the property line. Right. MR. DE SANTIS-From which property line? MR. BROWN-Any property line. MR. DE SANTIS-All right. Again, we’re seeing how the property line comes into play here, because the property line on this site is out here, and the property line that you’re referring to is the sideline. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. DE SANTIS-So what happens here is the necessity of the variance is seven feet because we own both parcels, also requires us to have a size variance, because we’re close to that line. MR. MC NULTY-How far from the front lot line would that sign be? MR. DE SANTIS-Well, I don’t have that exactly measured, except an inch is forty feet. So from this front property line, is that your question? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. DE SANTIS-About 45 feet, I’m guess, but that’s a little over an inch, 45 to 50 feet, which works out to be about 125 feet from the highway, because that’s the, the real impact, here, on what everybody sees is, I think, rather minimal for a couple of reasons. Number One, the sign is 150 feet 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) from the road, the closest sign, that’s the freestanding sign, roughly. The building’s farther back from the road. The wall signs farther away, also, what you have in this area is a whole series of similar signs. This isn’t an open field where we’re putting up one freestanding sign talking about auto dealerships. It’s a field of auto dealerships in which we’re putting up one freestanding sign talking about auto dealerships. Additionally, it’s replacing a pre-existing freestanding sign that talked about auto dealerships in the past. The wall sign, which is essentially a series of logos and the name Della, right on the building, much as there is the name Della on the old dealership right now, is simply logos that, they’re attached to the application, but I've got some better pictures, actually, ones that came from the manufacturer, I’ll pass around. They are the logos that you would probably recognize, the Cadillac logo and the Oldsmobile logo, that are on the front of their cars and on their keys and in all their advertising. There’s only two words. We're talking about the word “Della” and we’re talking about the word “Isuzu”. The other two signs are actually merely logos. Also, I’m fortunate enough to, I have a picture of this dealership’s actually in Jacksonville, NC, but these are replicas of the kinds of things you’re going to see attached. The Isuzu’s not there, but the Oldsmobile is, and so is the Cadillac. The largest of these is the Cadillac, of course. It is a round logo, and it is 59 inches in diameter, which is just a inch less than five feet. So somewhere about from the floor to about here or something in diameter, in both directions, and that’ll be 225 feet from the closest part of the right-of-way, or about 240 feet or so from the centerline of Quaker Road. So that’s quite a distance. It’s about 80 yards or so, and all of this is really caused, as I said, by this power easement that’s here, and that’s what the County saw when it took a look at the situation. MR. STONE-The freestanding sign, is it on the new property or the old property? MR. DE SANTIS-It’s on the old property. MR. STONE-It’s on the old property. That’s what I didn’t understand from Mr. Dellabella today. MR. DE SANTIS-Yes. To move it out of where the utilities were when they got there, and it’s close to the property line, and that’s what Craig’s talking about, you only need 15 feet, but the line’s right there, and we’re actually on the old dealership. MR. STONE-So it’s the old property that’s seeking the variance? MR. DE SANTIS-Yes, you have a combination, an interesting situation here. You’re actually granting a third sign to the old property, which has two currently, as I understand it, and that is a variance, and you’re granting a size variance to a permitted wall sign on the new property. MR. STONE-Question on the wall sign. Can we consider it as four small wall signs, versus one big wall sign, and grant the variance for the number of signs? Because the size will be quite small if you look at them individually, won’t it? MR. THOMAS-I think each one would be considered a wall sign. MR. STONE-Yes. Each one, that’s what I’m saying. MR. DE SANTIS-Yes. This is something that we talked over with, again, it’s sixes. We could come here and say, the Ordinance says you can come here and say, the Ordinance says you can have one wall sign. I want four. Okay. I need a variance. Or I can come here and say, one wall sign, that’s oversized if you treat it as all one panel, because it’s the same elevation as the building, and that was the choice we made. As I said, the number looks like a great deviation when you talk about the property line, but I think you need to take into consideration the physical characteristics of the neighborhood, which is an auto dealership surrounding neighborhood, and the power easement, which the applicant can do nothing about, and it truly is a hardship that, he’d love to have his sign closer to Quaker Road. If he owned this, he’d put the sign some place without a necessity of a variance and be a heck of a lot closer to the public. MR. STONE-My only concern is that we may not have advertised this correctly. MR. BROWN-Both tax map numbers are referenced in the advertisement. MR. STONE-They are? Okay. Thanks. MR. DE SANTIS-Yes, the one I read looked correct to me. MR. BROWN-Yes. If you look at the agenda, it’s got both tax map numbers on it. MR. DE SANTIS-And the agenda’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. DE SANTIS-But other than the size considerations, we’re not talking about neon lights flashing or all that kind of stuff, Las Vegas stuff. We're just talking about garden-variety signs. MR. STONE-Are we considering a variance of 37 feet from the highway, in the size? Because it could be 64. It’s far enough away to be 64 feet, far enough away from the road? MR THOMAS-Far enough back from the property line to be 64 feet. MR. STONE-The property line. MR. BROWN-Well, I scale it, I've got a 40 scale here. To the location it’s about 22 feet from the front property line. So, I didn’t identify it as front setback relief. I was using the 15-foot number to get relief from the 50 square foot. Again, it’s sixes. If you go to 25 feet, you need distance relief, unless size (lost word). MR. DE SANTIS-The property lines cause a number of questions here, and you get to pick what variances you want. Part of the property line is, it’s a real property line, but in reality, it’s an artificial property line because the same person owns both sides. MR. STONE-As I said to Mr. Dellabella, he could combine them for tax purposes, if he wanted to. MR. DE SANTIS-I’m sure he’s considered that, and he’ll make the decision he thinks is best. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. DeSantis? No? 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? MR. STEC-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. So we’ll talk about it. It’s Mr. Stec’s turn to start. MR. STEC-Typically, I’d say, hey, something like this is asking for an awful lot of relief, but there are clearly mitigating circumstances with the Niagara Mohawk right-of-way that certainly make it a lot easier for me to rationalize, at least in my mind, the reasonableness of the request before us. Clearly, there is a benefit to the applicant to maximize his signage, and we see that all the time with Sign Variances. However, what strikes me is that really the feasible alternatives are limited because of the distance, it’s really set back from the road, which, of course, is the purpose of signs is to attract attention and customers in that Highway Commercial zone. Again, I think we’ve addressed the relief. On its face it appears substantial. However, bearing in mind the intent of the guidance in our Sign Ordinance, I think it’s really intended with the fact that these sorts of properties are located directly on the highway, and that is not the case for this one. So, again, continuing on with the five criteria that we’re supposed to consider, the fourth one, effects on the neighborhood or community. Again, the applicant said it, I think perfectly, that it’s a sign identifying auto dealership in a field of auto dealerships. So I really don’t think that it’s going to detract from that neighborhood. It’s a Highway Commercial neighborhood, and in fact it’s an auto dealership neighborhood, and I’m not sure if I’d say the difficulty is entirely self-created because of that power line. So, in my mind all five of these, I think you could make a very strong argument that all five of these questions really point toward approving this. So, again, I know we’re defensive of our Sign Ordinance, and I think rightly so, but I think that there are mitigating circumstances here that really warrant approving this variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, basically I concur. The real problem is what variance are we granting? What relief are we granting? And that’s going to be a difficult thing to do, but certainly considering the right-of-way of Niagara Mohawk, which is quite wide and apparently going to be improved, if I notice you’re going to take something out of this right-of-way, you have already taken something out of this right-of-way to improve it. So it’s basically going to be green space underneath the poles, and the fact that both the freestanding and certainly the wall signs are so far back from the pavement, I don’t really have any problem with this thing at all. I think it’s a continuation of a good-looking piece of property. I think it will be a good-looking piece of property when it gets all done, and as I 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) say, the only problem I have is what relief are we going to be granting when we get going here? I’m done. MR. MC NULTY-I have to concur with the other Board members. It would appear to me that if the NiMo right-of-way will be included as part of the property, that most of these requirements probably would be met with the additional setback. So allowing for the extenuating circumstances here, I don’t see any problem with approving this. MR. THOMAS-All right. I don’t see any problem either. I agree with the other Board members. The two transmission lines that go through there are an encumbrance to this property, because most of the pole structures are single pole and three pole, and it does kind of give a visual impedance back onto the property. If they were setting back that far without the power lines being there, there would be really no problem doing this. I like the idea of separate logos on the building, plus the name on there, rather than one big sign. I think it makes the building look better, and it’s not as blaring as a single sign would be. So, having said that, I have no problem with it, and having said that, I’ll ask for a motion. MR. STONE-Well, lets decide, before we grant the motion, what relief we’re granting. I certainly agree with you that it ought to be, we’re granting four wall signs where one. MR. DE SANTIS-Excuse me. We have no objection to amending our application to say four wall signs instead of one. We talked with the Building Department when we came in. We haven’t changed our application, but I’m just saying that we were at sixes again over what was the proper priority of variances to look for. Was it the number or was it the size? And I don’t want to put words in Craig’s mouth, but he was of the, I think the leaning was that he’d rather give a variance to size than to number, but the Board may feel differently. I mean, we’re certainly within all the correct sizes, if you go to four signs. MR. STONE-All right. If you measure this from the outside diameter of the Isuzu sign to the circumference. MR. DE SANTIS-We come up with about 28 feet, and we’re using 10 feet for all the white space in between from the bottom of the lowest to the top. Yes, out of the 280 square feet, there might be 80 square feet of signage. I don’t know. I've never actually measured it. MR. THOMAS-Well, you say it’s five feet in diameter. MR. DE SANTIS-Well, see, yes, 59 inches is what I was told. MR. STONE-Pie R squared is the area, guys. MR. THOMAS-So what are we saying the sign is? MR. STONE-Pie R Squared. MR. STEC-So what’s the radius? MR. THOMAS-The radius is two and a half. So that would be 6.25. MR. STONE-Times three, 22 square feet, each of them. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. DE SANTIS-That’s the biggest, yes. MR. STONE-That’s the biggest. MR. DE SANTIS-So four of those is 88 feet, out of 280. So there’s 200 square feet of white space or 190 square feet of white space, and 90 feet of sign. MR. STONE-Craig, what’s a better precedent, number or area? Recognizing that there’s a tremendous amount of white space in our motion? MR. BROWN-I would think that the applicant may prefer that. If you limit them to the number of signs, and they want to add a logo, now they’ve got to come back. If you give them a box, now they’ve got the ability to put something else in there. It’s up to the applicant, but. MR. STONE-Yes, well, I would not like to see that box filled. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. DE SANTIS-No, we’re not going to fill the box. MR. BROWN-If you give them a size, they can fill the box. MR. STONE-Yes, if we give them a size, they can fill it up. MR. DE SANTIS-Well, I wouldn’t talk about more signs. I think we came an added another sign, that would change the copy on the sign, and that would, under the variance, trigger something. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. DE SANTIS-But what I’m concerned about is next year, I mean, the way these dealerships work, and we all know this, it’s public knowledge. If Cadillac decides to, I doubt Cadillac might, but Oldsmobile, that’s a new Oldsmobile logo you’re looking at. I mean, there’s a good example. That was not the Oldsmobile logo for many years, the one they’re now using with that Nike looking squoosh in it, okay. If two years from now they decide to change their logo again, to something else, they’re going to tell Mr. Dellabella he’s got to put up their logo whatever the heck it is. MR. THOMAS-Well, if it stays the same size, and we can give a variance for the numbers. MR. DE SANTIS-If we can fit it inside that, I mean, it may not be circular. I don’t know. MR. STONE-The problem is, if we give you 280 square feet, that’s it. MR. DE SANTIS-But this is the copy of the sign. We can’t change that, can we, Craig, without coming back? MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. STONE-Yes, you can. MR. BROWN-A copy change, yes. MR. DE SANTIS-That requires a permit, doesn’t it? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-To change the copy? MR. BROWN-To change the copy. Yes, not another variance. You just update the file. MR. STONE-But it requires a permit. So it’s out of our control. MR. DE SANTIS-I don’t know, if he thinks it’s a change. I don’t know if it is. MR. BROWN-It wouldn’t require a new permit. You could just update the existing permit with the new copy. MR. THOMAS-Just amend the existing permit without a variance. MR. BROWN-I mean, it’s sixes. You’re going to get a 280 square foot box, and pay two bucks a square foot for that, or you’re going to get four small signs and come back for a variance for a fifth sign if it ever comes. MR. STONE-Or, but he could change one of those signs. MR. BROWN-Or he could change one of the signs, if it fits in. MR. THOMAS-I think it should be number, then size. MR. BROWN-It’s your call. MR. STONE-Four with, and we will specify the size of these four. No more than whatever we came up with. MR. STEC-Twenty, rounded off, twenty square feet for. MR. DE SANTIS-Well, that’s smaller than the other one. Did you do the math yet? I don’t have a calculator, so I’m going to rely on you. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. STEC-We're talking about a five foot diameter sign. The radius is two and a half. It is 6.25 times 3.14 equals 19.625. So 20 for the big one. MR. STONE-Twenty for the biggest one. MR. STEC-Is Cadillac the biggest? MR. STONE-Yes. You said the Cadillac was the biggest. MR. STEC-So 20 for each of the three logos, and then that gives them a little flexibility, and then the wording. MR. DE SANTIS-Lets just do it this way. I understand your concept, and I don’t have a problem with that, but please give me a little leeway here, rather than 19.67 feet. MR. STONE-We’ll say about 25 feet. MR. THOMAS-Twenty-five feet per logo. MR. DE SANTIS-If I had 100 square feet of sign, would I need a variance, Craig? MR. THOMAS-For the number you do. MR. STONE-You’re only allowed one wall sign. MR. DE SANTIS-What’s the distance for no variance, without the number, if I was just asking for the number? MR. BROWN-103. MR. DE SANTIS-Without a variance. MR. BROWN-You mean if you bring all the logos together? Is that where you’re going with this? Yes, 103. MR. DE SANTIS-Well, then give me 103. That’s 25 feet of sign. MR. STEC-Just to calculate where we’re at, and then maybe, like you said, all right, it comes out 19.6. So we call it 20, call it 25, or whatever we decide, just to find out, hey, how big is the largest logo. It’s 20. MR. STONE-Yes. If you want to say four wall signs totaling no more than 103 square feet, that’s not a problem, right? MR. THOMAS-How big is the wording “Della” on there? MR. DE SANTIS-Just the lettering? I've got it measured out on the application. Craig’s got it. MR. BROWN-Yes. There’s actually a sign permit here some place. MR. DE SANTIS-I think if you said four signs, not to exceed 103 square feet, I just want a little flexibility if they change something. I don’t want to go through this process every time the auto dealers change something and add a border or something, and they direct him to do this. I mean, he’ll file the permit for the change of copy. MR. STONE-If I were writing the motion, I would say we’re granting you four wall signs, three of which to be automobile logos, and one Della. MR. THOMAS-At how many square feet? MR. DE SANTIS-Not to exceed. MR. STONE-Total not to exceed 103, all four. MR. THOMAS-That way you can shuffle them. MR. STONE-Is that satisfactory? 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. DE SANTIS-That gives him some flexibility without having to go through the process again. MR. STONE-And then the other thing is what relief are we granting on the other one, on the freestanding? We're granting size relief. It is a new sign? MR. DE SANTIS-There was an existing freestanding sign which was removed. That was right in front of the building. MR. STONE-Most of the sign is the same? MR. DE SANTIS-Yes, it was right smack in front of the building, and we took it down. It said Baker Pools for a while, the sign. MR. BROWN-It would be for size and for a second freestanding sign on the existing dealership parcel. MR. STONE-There we go. MR. BROWN-And for setbacks from the side property line, proposed at eight feet. It would be seven feet of relief. MR. STONE-And we can do this in one motion, or should we do it in two? MR. BROWN-Yes, it’s one application. MR. THOMAS-Do it in one. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DE SANTIS-I think the record accurately reflects your motion. MR. STONE-Okay. I move we grant Sign Variance No. 49-1999 to Della Cadillac/Oldsmobile/Isuzu on Quaker Road. This variance is being granted to two separate parcels, one Tax Map No. 59-1-8.1. That’s the Oldsmobile one? MR. BROWN-That’s the existing one. MR. STONE-Okay. The current Oldsmobile dealership, and Tax Map No. 59-1-11.2, which will be the site of the new Cadillac distributorship. MR. BROWN-No, I’m sorry, that’s backwards. 11.2 is the existing. MR. STONE-Okay, 11.2 is the Oldsmobile, I mean, the Buick/Pontiac property, and 59-1-8.1, which is the new Cadillac/Oldsmobile/Isuzu property. MR. BROWN-That’s right. MR. STONE-The applicant proposes construction of 104 square foot freestanding sign, and four wall signs, totaling an area of 103 square feet, three of these signs to be automobile logos, and one to say Della. In granting this variance, this variance grants three wall sign relief from the normal one which is allowed, and it uses the existing square footage. Is that correct? MR. BROWN-I don’t think so. MR. STONE-You’re the one who said 103. MR. BROWN-I’m going to hesitate to offer any information here that, you know, you may want to get from somebody else, but I’ll give it a try. I think if they’re not going to have a freestanding sign on the property, they’d be allowed two wall signs. So you’re only going to give them relief for two of the signs. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DE SANTIS-What’s the size, then? Does it effect the size? MR. BROWN-I think they may both be able to be 100 square feet. MR. DE SANTIS-Without a freestanding? 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. BROWN-Without a freestanding. MR. DE SANTIS-So just make it 200. Just change the 103 to 200. MR. BROWN-You’re allowed two 100 square foot signs. For a total of 200. MR. STONE-We're granting two relief. We're granting relief of two wall signs. MR. BROWN-You want to allow them four signs? MR. STONE-Yes. We want to allow them four, but they’re allowed two now, two without a freestanding sign. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. And how much can the two be? MR. BROWN-A total of 200. MR. STONE-A total of 200. So we’ve got relief of 100 for the four. Is that correct? They’re allowed two at 100? MR. BROWN-They’re allowed two, each can be 100, if they don’t have a freestanding sign. MR. STONE-Each can be 200. MR. DE SANTIS-So allow me four at 200, instead of four at 103, and you’re right where you were under the Ordinance. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 49-1999 D’ELLA CADILLAC/OLDSMOBILE/ISUZU, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: The application involves two parcels, Tax Map No. 59-1-11.2, the Buick/Pontiac dealership, and Tax Map No. 59-1-8.1, the new Cadillac/Oldsmobile/Isuzu dealership. The applicant requests a second freestanding sign on Tax Map No. 59-1-11.2, a sign to be 104 square feet, and this sign will be 8 feet from the property line. Therefore, we are granting 7 feet of relief. In the second portion, since the Tax Map No. 59-1-8.1 will not contain a freestanding sign, the two wall signs are permitted with a total square footage of 200 square feet, and the applicant is requesting two more with an area of 200 square feet. Therefore, the relief would be to two wall signs of 200 square foot total area. In granting this Sign Variance, we recognize that the applicant would be permitted to construct and display the desired signs on the two parcels of land, and while we considered that feasible alternatives may include downsizing the signs to more compliant sizes, we took into account the fact that these signs will be considerably far back from the actual roadway, because of the Niagara Mohawk easement that goes between the property and Quaker Road, and while the relief of two wall signs and a second freestanding sign may be considered moderate to substantial, when all the factors are considered, it is a reasonable variance. The nature of the neighborhood is such that, as has been described as a field of automobile dealers, and therefore minimal effects on the neighborhood will be anticipated as a result of this action, and while this difficulty may be considered self-created, the fact that the properties are located behind the Niagara Mohawk easement and well off the Quaker Road surface is a mitigating factor. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. DE SANTIS-Thank you very much. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 52-1999 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A JEFF BAUER, THE SUN COMPANY, INC. SUNOCO GAS OWNER: ATLANTIC REFINING & MARKETING CORP. 532 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RECONFIGURATION OF EXISTING SIGNAGE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW FREESTANDING SIGN AND 4 WALL SIGNS AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 98-1-3 LOT SIZE: 0.66 ACRES SECTION 140 TODD MARKAVITCH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 52-1999, Jeff Bauer, The Sun Company, Inc. Sunoco Gas, Meeting Date: June 29, 1999 “Project Location: 532 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a new freestanding sign and 4 wall signs and seeks relief from the sign ordinance. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief for three additional wall/canopy signs. The sign ordinance allows for one wall sign. The applicant is proposing one Sunoco wall sign, two Sunoco canopy signs and one Mini Mart wall sign. Relief is requested from the Sign Ordinance § 140-6,B(3)(c). Additionally, relief for the freestanding sign may be requested. It is unclear whether or not the price panel was included in the 35 sf calculation provided in the application. If the total square footage exceeds 64 sf, relief may be considered. (64 sf max. at this proposed setback) Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and display the preferred signage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to a lesser number of signs. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Three additional signs above the one allowable may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR29-1988 – res. 11/22/88 AV 1443 – res. 11/88 Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Given the existing uses in the immediate neighborhood and a recent sign variance granted for Hess, this proposal does not appear to be significantly out of character with the area. The applicants’ proposal calls for (4) signs totaling approximately 75 sf of signs where 1 sign of 100 sf would be permitted. Again, if the freestanding sign totals more than 64 sf, size relief may be considered. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. STEC-From the Sear Brown Group, a letter dated May 17, 1999, to Mr. Chris Thomas, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, re: Sunoco Gas Station at 532 Aviation Road “Dear Mr. Thomas: As a follow up to our first letter regarding Sunoco’s new look re-image program at the above referenced location, we are respectfully submitting drawings for a building permit for the proposed improvements. We have enclosed the following information as part of our submittal. 1. Site Plan showing general site and proposed re-image features 2. Proposed color canopy configuration 3. Proposed color building band configuration 4. Miscellaneous details 5. Sign Variance application 6. $50 application fee The re-image program generally consists of graphic design upgrades of the building band, canopy band and pump dispenser panels. The buildings will be painted. Concrete mats are to be cleaned and repaired. Also, the pavement is to be repaired, seal- coated and re-striped. Please refer to the scope checklist for detailed improvement information. We have enclosed color graphic sheets, referred to as “Antista Fairclough Reference Drawings” to show design intent. A building band summary and a sign summary chart explained the existing and proposed area comparisons. We are available to discuss the re-image designs over the phone or in person if required. We are submitting these drawings in anticipation of possibly being required to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals during the month of June, depending on the outcome of your review. Please let us know if and when we are on the agenda. Please give us a call if you have any questions or concerns regarding our submittal. We look forward to working with you to implement Sunoco’s re-image program. Sincerely, John W. Hotto” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 3 June 1999 Project Name: Bauer, Jeff Owner: The Sun Company ID Number: QBY-SV-52-1999 County Project #: June99-17 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to re-configure existing signage. Applicant proposes a freestanding sign and 4 wall signs and seeks relief from the Sign Ordinance. Staff Notes: A copy of the materials from the applicant’s application is included with the summaries. It appears that the applicant is attempting to conform to a corporate change in logos and images. That issue notwithstanding, Staff does not identify any reason for the applicant to deviate from signage allowed by the Queensbury Sign Ordinance. Staff therefore, is recommending that the Planning Board adhere to its previous practices regarding Queensbury signage and therefore recommends this project for discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Deny” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board MR. THOMAS-Okay. Since the County denied it, we need five positive votes to override them, and I don’t think I’m going to get it tonight. So what I’m going to do is hear it and bring it up to the point of a vote, and that’s as far as I can bring it. MR. MARKAVITCH-And is it going to get tabled? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it’ll get tabled until we get five or more people up here. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. MARKAVITCH-Okay. Good evening. My name is Todd Markavitch. I’m with the Sear Brown Group, and I’ll be representing Sunoco tonight. Basically, I come before you, I don’t know if you’re familiar with the site at all. May I approach? Basically what we’re looking to do is pretty much update the existing signage. In essence, we’re really not adding any signage, just a new standard that Sunoco’s come out with, and we’re trying to follow that. Basically, to give you a little background, Sunoco have implemented this new re-image program. It consists of basically beautifying their sites. They do some seal-coating, concrete curb work, painting, you know, minor things like that, maintenance issues, and along with this, they do have a new trade mark design for their signage and what not. I don’t know if you guys were given the color graphics. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. STONE-No. MR. MARKAVITCH-Okay. You should have been given some of those. Basically, a little imagination, using our site, this is pretty much what we’re looking to achieve. It’s a little colorful. In essence, right now as you can see on the photos I've given you, there’s a Sunoco, a diamond and a Mini-Market sign on the building itself, and we’d be looking to basically switch that out with the Sunoco text that you see on the new graphics there. We would also be looking to switch out the two canopy logos, the two Sunoco diamonds, with the new Sunoco text as well, and implementing the new graphic, I don’t know what you want to call it, the Horizon Graphic. Also along with this we’d be doing dispenser upgrades. They’d be getting full graphics as shown in the picture, and the goal post as well, the size will not be changing on the goal post, just the panels themselves are going to be switched out, and that’s pretty much what we’ve come for tonight to request. There were some signage calculations done, I believe, on the site plan. Basically, we’re actually reducing the amount of square footage that’s out there right now. I’ll give you the exact number. Currently right now we have approximately 219.5 square feet, and we’d be looking to reduce it to 214 square feet. So it would actually be a reduction in signage, and considering the actual characteristic of the neighborhood, I’m sure you’re well aware there’s a Hess Express right across the street, as well as a Citgo adjacent to our property. So we feel that this really wouldn’t be a detriment at all to the community. Like I said, we’re pretty much matching the existing signage, just basically an upgrade is what we’re looking to achieve, and that’s pretty much it. Although I would like to possibly amend my application, if that’s possible. MR. THOMAS-What do you want to change? MR. MARKAVITCH-I believe on the original application we were proposing a new Mini-Market sign. MR. THOMAS-Yes, a 15 square foot Mini-Market sign. MR. MARKAVITCH-We're actually going to be wiping that out and currently there’s an existing 24 Hour sign on the building. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. MARKAVITCH-Which we would want to keep, but just change the face of it as well. So that would be the only modification. MR. THOMAS-How big is that 24 Hour sign? MR. MARKAVITCH-I believe it’s 19.5 square feet, 17.5 square feet. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and that 15 square foot Mini-Market sign, you’re not going to put that on? MR. MARKAVITCH-That’s correct. We no longer want to propose that. MR. STONE-The 24 Hour sign will be where it is, on the lower wall? MR. MARKAVITCH-Yes, and actually, I could show you. Basically, this is kind of what we’re looking to switch. It’s a new program. They just want to insert new panels into it, just an ATM. MR. STONE-So it’ll be changed to an ATM sign? It won’t be a 24 Hour sign? MR. MARKAVITCH-Right. It’s going to be the same size. It’s just going to be a switch of the panel, basically. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. STONE-When we’re considering a sign with color like this one, is the sign the whole length, now that they’ve? I mean, it’s not like putting, like Hess with the white, with Hess on one end and then white with the green stripe. It’s more white than color than this one. What’s the sign? MR. THOMAS-The sign is the letters. MR. STONE-Just the letters? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-I often wonder about that. Because with Hollywood, didn’t we consider the whole thing? MR. STEC-Yes, I think we did. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but they had a border around it. That’s why we considered Hollywood. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think in this case we’d have to consider just the lettering the signage. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-The one you referred to had actual lighting, the mountain range, and it was actually part of the sign. I’m assuming just the Sunoco here, if anything, is going to be illuminated, and not the whole canopy. MR. MARKAVITCH-That’s correct, just the actual sign boxes on there. MR. STONE-So those signs, Sunoco is in relief, it’s not painted on? The Sunoco on the canopy, is that painted on, or are those lifts? MR. MARKAVITCH-That’s actually a sign box that’s going to be back lit. MR. STONE-It’s a sign box. Okay. MR. MARKAVITCH-It’ll be flush with the existing canopy. MR. STONE-So it’ll be cut in? MR. MARKAVITCH-They’ll cut it in. They’ll have to do a little. MR. STONE-So it’ll be flush, the actual Sunoco will be flush, there’ll be a sign box, okay. MR. MARKAVITCH-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Questions? MR. STONE-We have a very basic question. Who owns the property? MR. MARKAVITCH-As far as, I believe our records show it was Sun Company, Inc. MR. STONE-The report in the newspaper is that it was sold to Pyramid Company. MR. MARKAVITCH-Okay. I’m not aware of that. I can look into that. MR. STONE-I mean, this has been going on for a year, and the property was sold, when did we hear it was sold? MR. BROWN-I’m not sure of the date. MR. STONE-But I mean, it’s six, eight months. Because there was a big expansion for our Mall up there. Supposedly they bought, well, it was reported that they bought that property, and they bought the Howard Johnson’s next to it, and the restaurant next to that, and then they finally ended up buying the Mini-Mart, the Citgo to the east. So it’s very surprising to me to hear that, in lieu of all the information we’ve heard about this big expansion, that you’re claiming that Sun still owns it, and you’re going to spend a lot of money on it. I’m kind of confused. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think we’ve got it listed as Atlantic Refining and Marketing. MR. MARKAVITCH-Okay. That could be, that’s possible because Sun. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. BROWN-It’s still not Pyramid. MR. STONE-So title hasn’t changed, as far as we know. MR. BROWN-Not that we’ve been notified. It may have changed at the County, and we don’t get updates sometimes for months. MR. THOMAS-Well, lets go on the premise that Sun Company owns it. So, are there any questions for the applicant? No questions? I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MR. STEC-I think we read in the Sear letter. There’s no other external. MR. THOMAS-All right. There’s no correspondence. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Did we determine the square footage of the goal post sign, as they call it? What is that square footage, including the prices? MR. MARKAVITCH-We have the square footage as 70 square foot per sign face. MR. STONE-We only consider the one sign, right? So 70 is six more than, well, how far back is that from the property line? MR. MARKAVITCH-It’s actually 25 to the post. MR. STONE-So it’s six foot of relief then. MR. MARKAVITCH-But like I said, this is, we’re just looking for a change of panel, as I believe there was a variance already granted for it. MR. STONE-You’re talking the same sign, then? MR. MARKAVITCH-Yes, just a panel switch. MR. STONE-Did you give us a picture of what that’s going to look like, the goal post sign? MR. MARKAVITCH-Yes, it should be up there, yes, it’s in there. MR. STONE-Here it is. So this isn’t going to change very much, this appearance? MR. MARKAVITCH-No. Basically, if you have the existing sign code. You’re talking about, it’s such a minor change, Sunoco tweaked it a little bit. MR. STONE-Of course, I have to admit, I never realized the arrow pointed into the building. MR. MARKAVITCH-It always does, yes, I found that out. So basically it’s just going to be a switch, and they’ll probably switch out the panels as well. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MARKAVITCH-It’s going to be red, the same color as shown on there. MR. STONE-I like these prices better than those prices. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? I’m not even going to talk about it because we have to table this because we don’t have enough members here to vote on it, because the County turned it down. So, do you have any questions of us? MR. MARKAVITCH-Would we automatically be put on the next agenda then? 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. THOMAS-Yes, we’ll put it on for the July agenda. We’ll put it on the first meeting. MR. BROWN-The 21. st MR. THOMAS-Yes, the 21. st MR. BROWN-The third Wednesday. I think it’s the 21. st MR. THOMAS-Put it on there first thing. MR. BROWN-Yes, Old Business, sure. MR MARKAVITCH-Okay. I appreciate that. Do I need to present again? MR. THOMAS-You don’t need to present again, really. There’ll be other Board members here that may have questions for you. MR. MARKAVITCH-Okay. That’s fine. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s the only thing. We don’t usually have four. We do apologize for that. I, personally, apologize. MR. MARKAVITCH-That’s understandable. Not a problem. MR. THOMAS-So if you can stretch out a week from that Wednesday, the track opens in Saratoga. All right. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 52-1999 JEFF BAUER, THE SUN COMPANY, INC., Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until no later than the first meeting of July of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The reason for tabling this application is to get five or more members of the Board present to vote, because the Warren County Planning Board has denied the application. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-I’m sorry we have to hold you up like that, but the rules are the rules. MR. MARKAVITCH-That’s okay, no problem. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1999 TYPE II SR-1A WAYNE & DAWN VIELE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 1 ROBERTS COURT, SOUTHERN EXPOSURE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 774 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GARAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACK RELIEF. CROSS REF. SUB. 4-83 TAX MAP NO. 150-1-6.69 LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES SECTION 179-19, 179-7 WAYNE & DAWN VIELE, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-All you need to do is read the tabling motion in, Dan. MR. STEC-Town of Queensbury, to Wayne & Dawn Viele, P.O. Box 930, Glens Falls, NY 12801, “Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: June 23, 1999 Area Variance No. 43-1999 Wayne & Dawn Viele Tabled Motion To Table Area Variance No. 43-1999 Wayne & Dawn Viele: Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Until no later than the August meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by this Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for tabling this is to have a full Board present to hear the applicant’s statements. In this case, 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) the other two Board members will have to read the notes and be brought up to speed that way. Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. rd McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally” MR. THOMAS-Okay. The applicant has asked to have this put on tonight because they want to make a decision to go ahead with this project, if we approve it or disapprove it, or they may withdraw their application. Those are the three things that can happen. So, the applicants are here. I did leave the public meeting open. So I will be taking input from the public, both pro and con, and right now it’s up to the Vieles to tell us whatever they want in addition, if they’ve made any changes to their application. MRS. VIELE-Yes. We're going to give you two different proposals. We're either going to make the RV garage door smaller, which would be 10 by 12, or we’re going to make that whole end the 900 square feet that we’re allowed and put a 14 by 14 door on it. MR. THOMAS-Do they make them that big for residences? MRS. VIELE-Aesthetically, we wanted to keep it this way and make the RV garage door smaller, so that it looks more in proportion with the two car garage door, and then make the RV garage door a 10 by 12, ten foot high by twelve foot wide, or if that is not what we can come to an agreement on, then we don’t need a variance to go the full 900 square feet, and we’re going to put a big garage door right smack dab in the middle of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The garage door for the separate one, as shown on the picture, what size is that door? MRS. VIELE-The smaller one? MR. THOMAS-No, the large one, where the R V is going to go. MR. VIELE-Twelve by twelve. MRS. VIELE-Twelve by twelve. MR. THOMAS-That’s 12 by 12. MRS. VIELE-We were going to shorten it to a 10 by 12. MRS. VIELE-And that is facing Roberts Court. It’s not facing Hudson Pointe. That is on Roberts Court. MR. STONE-And what’s the size of the other one, the lower one? MR. VIELE-Sixteen by eight. MRS. VIELE-Yes, eight by sixteen. MR. STONE-And you’re talking about one at 14 by 14? MRS. VIELE-Well, if we can’t propose, tonight, make the RV garage smaller. MR. VIELE-See, we can stay in compliance without going variance, merely by using the garage that’s closest to the house, put an extremely larger door in that, possibly a 16 by 12, okay. I don’t choose to go that route, but. MRS. VIELE-That’s what we’re being forced to do. MR. VIELE-Kind of between a rock and a hard place. MR. THOMAS-How would you, what size would the garage be, dimension wise? MRS. VIELE-Nine hundred square feet. MR. THOMAS-Nine hundred square feet. How long and how wide? MR. VIELE-It would be 24 feet wide. Half of the 24 foot width, which would be 12, would be a full 40 feet deep. MRS. VIELE-And we’d put the RV in there. 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. THOMAS-And then the rest of it would be to make up to the 900 square feet? MRS. VIELE-Right. MR. THOMAS-How long is the garage for the RV depicted on that picture? Is that 40 feet deep? MR. VIELE-Forty-three feet deep. MR. THOMAS-Forty-three? Okay. MRS. VIELE-And I brought you a definition of “Automobile”. MR. STONE-Where did you find it? MRS. VIELE-Right in the Internet. MR. STONE-I only talked to the County Sheriff. I’d like to see what it says. MRS. VIELE-I can read it to you. MR. STONE-Please, I’d appreciate it. MRS. VIELE-“Automobile – any self-powered vehicle capable of being steered by the operator and designed for use on a roadway or street. The term is used more specifically to denote any passenger vehicle designed to carry two to ten people. Larger vehicles designed for more passengers are called Omni-buses or buses, and those designed to carry freight are called Trucks. The term ‘Automotive Vehicle’ includes all of the above, as well as certain specialized industrial and military vehicles.” So ours is called an automobile. MR. STONE-Not by me it’s not, but I hear what you’re saying. MRS. VIELE-By definition it is considered an automobile. MR. STONE-Well, it’s interesting, it’s an interesting aside, because I did talk to Motor Vehicles. It is not defined in the Motor Vehicle Code. I talked to the County Sheriff. MRS. VIELE-You may have this. MR. STONE-I didn’t know you were going to be on the agenda or I would have brought what I had. I know what the dictionary says, and it’s close to this, but that’s not the. MRS. VIELE-I got that out of my kid’s Encartia Encyclopedia, in the computer. MR. STONE-Good. MR. STEC-If I may interject a thought that I had, because I think the flavor that I got last time is one of the things I think a lot of the neighbors were concerned about was the aesthetics or the size of that RV door, and again, I’m thinking, all right, RV is not the kind of automobile that you’re commuting it. It’s something that you’re going to be moving in and out infrequently, and I think that there might be a way to put up a façade or to dress the top of that door so that it looks like a regular garage door. MRS. VIELE-That’s why we’re bringing it down to 10. MR. STEC-Or putting in something that you can remove when you want to use the door, but like a façade that covers the top portion of the door, so that, to look at from the street, it doesn’t look like a big garage door. It looks like a two-stall next to a one-stall. Just a thought that I had. Certainly I understand your desire to want a, although. MR. VIELE-It’s definitely our desire, but I don’t want to detract from what you just said. I’d be happy to do something like that. I don’t want this to look any larger than it is myself, but I do want to house my RV on my property. I have a right to do that, and as long as I can stay in compliance to do that, I should be able to do it, and I’m trying to make this thing work and make it look right. If anybody’s got some other input, I’d be glad to listen to it, but I don’t want to just be mowed over here. MR. STEC-Well, I know that we’re missing the input of, well, I could sense last time that Jaime Hayes was certainly understanding exactly where you’re coming from, and he’s not here to speak 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) tonight, and he and I didn’t speak about this, but I gave it a little bit of thought later on, and I mean moving so that you don’t need the two feet side setback relief, that is a big improvement to the application. MRS. VIELE-Right, and we are facing Roberts Court. We are twisted so that the front of our home is on Roberts Court. We aren’t looking at Hudson Pointe Boulevard at all. MR. STEC-Well, you know, the square footage from the 900, we’ve talked about that one before in applications, and we’ve deviated from that. Now, I’m not going to speak for the rest of the Board for as far as how much above the 900 is reasonable, but clearly I think that a lot of what’s also contributing to this, besides the two foot setback relief which you are will to yield on, might be just the height of that door I think is a big concern to your neighbors, and like I said, I would just suggest some sort of wood paneling that it removable when you want to, so it’s a hassle to access the door, but for the period of time that you’re not using the RV, it looks like a normal door, and then you just go up there on a ladder and remove this section of paneling that makes it look like house siding. It might be something that you’d also want to consider. It was a thought that I had that I said, hey, maybe this will keep everyone happy. Certainly, you know, we’ve talked about the size of the square footage of garage before. MRS. VIELE-We're more than willing to do that, but nobody wants to work with us. So if we can’t get it in this way, or in some compromising way, then we will go the 900 square feet that we are allowed, and put the large garage door, to enable us to get our motor home in. MR. STEC-Is it feasible, now this might be a little bit more complicated solution. Is it feasible to have the mirror image design of the house and the garage on the opposite end, you know, just take it and flip it? MRS. VIELE-You couldn’t get into it that way. MR. STEC-All right. MR. VIELE-There’s also a view there that we’re trying to capture with the home. MRS. VIELE-From West Mountain we’re trying to capture, because it’s all glass on that side of our house. MR. STEC-Certainly. All right. I see your point. MRS. VIELE-That’s where our Great Room is, and we would want to keep all the glass there. MR. STEC-Absolutely. I’m big on glass myself. Anyway, I thought about this, because it bothered me that, although it’s unusual in the sense that I haven’t seen one before, you know, I think the concern was largely the size of that door was I think, offensive, I think. MRS. VIELE-Well, that’s why we said we would make it a smaller door. We would make it a 10 foot high by 12 foot wide. MR. STONE-How big is this vehicle? What’s the minimum opening? If you were trying to get a, win a car at a hockey game, what size could it get into? MR. VIELE-Eight foot. MR. STONE-Eight foot wide by how long? MR. VIELE-Thirty-six. MR. STONE-Thirty-six. That’s the minimum. MR. VIELE-They did go all the way up to 43 feet. MR. STONE-But you’re talking eight by thirty-six. You have one? MRS. VIELE-We have one that’s 36 feet. MR. STONE-Thirty-six, okay. MR. THOMAS-And how high is it at the highest point? MR. VIELE-It’s about 11’ 6” to the top of the air conditioners. 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you’d need a 12 foot door to get it in. MRS. VIELE-Right. MR. VIELE-Or 11’6”. MR. THOMAS-Well, you get a little snow in there or something, you’re going to be ripping that air conditioner off. So you’re talking about a door 12 foot high and 10 foot wide? MRS. VIELE-Right. MR. VIELE-I did check some firehouse doors on the way over here. MRS. VIELE-Yes, we did. We took some measurements of West Glens Falls on Van Dusen and on Veterans Road. Van Dusen Road was 14 by 14 and Veterans Road was 12 by 13. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicants? MRS. VIELE-I mean, aesthetically, we want to keep it like this. We don’t want to have to go the 900 square foot, and plunk a garage door in the middle of it. MR. STONE-What are these three garages, they’re going to be 1326 square feet. MRS. VIELE-1326, right. MR. VIELE-It’s not like the whole RV garage is out of compliance. It’s 400 square feet of that garage that’s out. MRS. VIELE-Yes. If you take the 1326, take the 900 from that, we’re only 400 square feet over. MR. STONE-That’s 50%. That’s a number that we talk about on many occasions. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Right. MRS. VIELE-Otherwise we have to go the full 900 square feet, and they’ll still get the large garage door. MR. VIELE-It’s actually going to be bigger, because I have to make it wide enough to get a car inside the motor home. MRS. VIELE-And they’ll still have that large garage door that they’re worried about. MR. VIELE-And I don’t even have to come before the Board to do that. MRS. VIELE-Right. MR. THOMAS-That’s absolutely right. MRS. VIELE-And they’ll still have that large garage door coming down Hudson Pointe Boulevard. MR. STONE-Well, but it’s also possible, and I’m not suggesting that the people in this room consider it, that the definition of “Automobile” be desired from the court, because we mention the word in the thing. We don’t define it. The Motor Vehicle Code doesn’t define it. I know what the dictionary says. The dictionary says basically the same thing, but I think I know what an automobile is, and an RV is not an automobile, in my experience, and it’s a few years of experience. We should have asked Mr. D’ella Bella what he considered an automobile. So, you can get the 900 square feet without a variance, and if you store that in there, you might be subject to somebody saying, you’re in violation of the zoning code. Is that correct? I mean, they could ask for an interpretation of what an automobile is, what an RV is. Is it an automobile? I’m just saying, it’s a possibility. MR. THOMAS-No, I don’t think that’s going to happen. That’s cutting real fine hairs here. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Lets get moving on here. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Because I've still got the public meeting. 58 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MRS. VIELE-I mean, and we’re within the deed restrictions of keeping it inside where no one can see it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, and plus there’s the shrubbery there. I drove down through there again today, and those arborvitaes go around the corner and start down Roberts Court. MRS. VIELE-And there’s a lot of deed restrictions that are not being met inside Hudson Pointe at all. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. I've got the public meeting open. I left it open. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. THOMAS-You spoke last week? JAMES MC CARTHY MR. MC CARTHY-Yes. I also wrote a letter, and I want to go over some other questions that have come up by some of the homeowners, and perhaps you could ask Mr. Viele himself. MR. THOMAS-Well, he’ll listen, and then when you guys get done, he’ll come up and answer them. MR. MC CARTHY-Okay. We know he’s in the construction, and we know he worked out of Stephanie Lane, and he kept his construction equipment at that site. James McCarthy. I live on Hyde Court in Queensbury, and we’d like to know, our big fear was that he’s going to store construction equipment in this RV garage, and this is going to destroy the residential character of the neighborhood. So we’d like to have him state for the record exactly where his construction equipment is now and where he intends to store it in the future. We also are aware that the McDonald property, which is the subdivision that we’re talking about here, the Southern Exposure, has deed restrictions, and we are made aware that one of the deed restrictions is that the dwelling have a two car garage, maximum, and we don’t understand how he could propose something with a garage containing two cars plus an RV. It seems like that is a violation of their deed restrictions. If they had an RV and they couldn’t put in the garage, they couldn’t leave it on the site. RV’s are not allowed to be left on the site unless they couldn’t be garaged. .So you can’t use the excuse, that, well, if I don’t have a garage, it would be parked outside. That wouldn’t be in compliance with their deed restrictions. MRS. VIELE-I don’t think we’re talking about deed restrictions. MR. MC CARTHY-Could I finish, please? MR. THOMAS-We’ll let him speak, then you can come back up later. Okay? MR. MC CARTHY-Finally, we want to emphasize entirely, this is a self-created situation. If they simply just followed along the Planning Board requirements and the deed restrictions, there wouldn’t be a problem here, and I would want to ask you if a letter from Mr. Tim Tyree is going to be read into the record? Okay, and would you give an opportunity for other homeowners to speak at this time? MR. THOMAS-Sure can. MR. MC CARTHY-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-To answer your question about the deed restrictions, there’s nothing the Town can do about deed restrictions. Absolutely nothing. Okay. Who’s next? HARRY TEGLER MR. TEGLER-It’s like old home week here. My name is Harry Tegler. I live at 50 Kettles Way in Hudson Pointe. I’d just like to bring out a few points that we may have or may have not discussed last week, and I have to refer to my notes, so please give me a little bit of time. The Hudson Pointe community was created with a blank forest. There was nothing there. The 80 plus homes that are there now, and the 200 residents or constituents of the organization are in full compliance with any zoning laws or building codes. The place is a model community. From what I understand, or what I've been told, it took the Planning Board, the Michaels Group, Niagara Mohawk, Mr. McDonald, in excess of five years to develop this community, with the addition of the green space, the 95 acres along the river, the hiking trails. So, in that, the advertising by Michaels Group, which was 59 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) sanctioned by the fathers of Queensbury, enticed us to come up here. A lot of us are retired. We came up here to live a nice life. You entice us with your schools and your environment, and we feel we’re getting in here now and we’re being betrayed. You’ve brought us all up here. You’re established in the community, and now you’re saying, well, the model community you bought into, we’re going to deviate from that, and honestly, it’s not fair. Just a few other notes. Again, the leaders of the community developed this, and you’re slapping your own Planning Board in the face by approving this. The Boulevard, you’re all familiar with it, we light it and maintain it, and we’re trying to make it a pleasant area. What I’m asking is, we’re not asking to change any laws. We're not asking you to deviate from any laws. We're not asking you to rezone any laws. We're just asking you to hold up the laws that you’ve got there now, the laws that were put into effect to make a model community, to hold them up. Don’t vary them. Don’t be the first one to blacken the Board. We’ve got a good community there. The last thing, please keep in mind, the petitioners don’t even have a hole dug. There’s no hole. There’s no foundation, there’s no cement poured. Yes, they’re looking for everything. They’re telling the Planning Board, they’re telling the Town of Queensbury, they’re telling the Zoning Board, they’re telling the 85 people plus that are in Hudson Pointe, we don’t give a damn about you. We want to build our house the way we want to build it. Well, let them build it, but let them conform to the building codes. I just want to, before you make your decision, please think. Please think of the rest of the community. I thank you for the time. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? DORIS BLANCHUTE MRS. BLANCHUTE-My name is Doris Blanchute. I live at 163 Hudson Pointe Boulevard, and I pretty much wrote down my thoughts, so that I could keep them straight. First point is that the Town Government plan ensures that social and economic needs are balanced against environmental and aesthetic concerns. Zoning Ordinances regulate land use and structures, etc., through local requirements. A variance is therefore an exception from Zoning Ordinances. The property owner must show that the variance will not cause an undesirable change or detriment to the neighboring properties. I feel that the proposed building will lower the property values, because of the size of the proposed garage, which, by the way, I think they said is 36 or 40 feet long, and I was looking at the floor before noticing that these tiles are approximately 12 inches, and I counted from the back wall where it starts, up to here, that’s about 36 feet. That’s pretty long. That’s a very large size garage in length. The second point I wanted to say is that the benefits could not be achieved through other means. I feel that this proposed garage is not necessary, as there are places that could be leased for the purpose of storing this RV, as many boat owners and RV owners already do now. The variance would not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. These are the proposed questions that the Planning Board or the Zoning Board has to ask or answer. I feel that the proposed oversized garage would be a hindrance to the community and detract from the residential appearance from the neighborhood, both driving into and out of the neighborhood by way of Hudson Pointe Boulevard, which is the only thoroughfare into the community. Now, it was stated that the house is on Roberts Court, but the garage is right on the corner of Roberts Court and Hudson Pointe Boulevard. When you look to Roberts Court, you see the side of the garage. When you come up and down Hudson Pointe Boulevard, you look directly at that house, at that garage. So it is in full view, the garage, of Hudson Pointe Boulevard, as you enter and exit. The next question, is the difficulty suffered by the property owner seeking the variance is not self-created. This is a self-created problem because he chooses to build the structure, and finally, the requested variance is not substantial. The impact, both visually and the potential to effect the property values of all homes in the area will be impacted by this oversized structure, and it is substantial. I also question the future use of this garage, should the RV be sold or the home be sold. I want to be assured that there will not be any commercial vehicles permitted to be used in this proposed garage, through any kind of commercial business by these owners or by future owners, and that there will not possibly be any leasing of this space to any commercial vehicle. I don’t think that approval of the variance meets the reasons required through the test questions for the approval, and I therefore request that the variance be denied. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? GISELE MARTINEAU MS. MARTINEAU-Hi. I’m Gisele Martineau and I live at 26 Hyde Court, and I’m not as well prepared as they are, but we just heard of this today, late today, that this was happening. I missed the last meeting. I think a lot of us didn’t know, and if more people had known earlier, there’d be more people here. I guess I feel that as an Association, we put a lot into keeping that first impression of Hudson Pointe to be a very pretty one, and I think that that would definitely adversely effect the feeling of nature when you come in, to see this big structure, and it’s not just the size of the door, but the size of the garage and the square footage, and I definitely agree that a two car garage seems sufficient to me, or maybe a three car, normal sized cars, but not getting into an R V situation. So, I’m concerned about my property value, too, and just also the peacefulness when you come in. Thanks. 60 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Anyone else? TOM FAKE MR. FAKE-Hi. My name is Tom Fake, and I have a hard time saying this, because Wayne, I just found out about this at 7:30 tonight, and I know Wayne, okay. So I have a hard time saying, I've known Wayne for 20 years, and I live on Chapman Court, and the only thing I have to say about it is that that property of the MacDonalds is taking advantage of Hudson Pointe, okay. When I bought into Hudson Pointe, I didn’t know that was in Hudson Pointe. Anytime anybody asks me about why are these houses different than the rest of Hudson Pointe, it’s kind of ridiculous. I say, well, it’s not Hudson Pointe, but the sign is right here. That’s Hudson Pointe. So anybody builds in the houses are getting the advantages of what we’ve done, of what we’ve tried to achieve. Now, the reason why I built in Hudson Pointe was of the planned community, that I wasn’t going to have somebody putting an RV next to me, excuse me, but that’s why I moved there, because that was said, this is not going to happen. You’re not going to have a guy park a boat there next to your house. You can’t hve a dog shed that’s half the size of your own house. These type of things are not going to happen. Well, okay, I’m not into the type of thing where I’m going to tell everybody how to live their lives or expect me to be told what I can do. Well, when I come into a community and expect this is the way it’s going to be, that the houses that we have no control over, which we don’t really, but to be fair to everybody else in there, they should try to be at least a little bit synergistic to what’s existing, so that the rest of the property values are not adversely effected by such a, just a different type of home. I’m not saying that it has to be exactly like Hudson Pointe’s doing. That’s not fair. That’s not right. By being close to it, the other two homes that the MacDonalds properties have done are not looking like Hudson Pointe homes, but they look in the same type of theme, the upper middle class high end type of house, that people have paid their hard earned money to go into Hudson Pointe for. Because if I knew this was going to happen, I wouldn’t have come in. I wouldn’t be living in Queensbury anymore. I’d go to Lake George or some place else. I built in Hudson Pointe for a reason, that I knew that when I built my house there, I was protected, and my values would be going up, and I wouldn’t have to worry about somebody building something a whole 100% different than I did next door to me. I moved out of a section of Queensbury up in Country Colony because that’s what happened to me. I’d work all day long, bust my tail to improve a property, just to have my next door neighbor park his truck on his lawn next door to me, and I couldn’t do a thing about it, and that’s why I moved out of there, and that’s why I moved into Hudson Pointe, and I think Wayne’s a hell of a person, and we can work with him, and this could be fixed, but as it is now, this is something that I want to try to avoid, and it breaks my heart to say, I wish it wasn’t Wayne, but this is what happens, and I worked hard to get what I have, and I don’t think, I think the other homes are proof that it can work together with MacDonalds and Hudson Pointe, if you work together, because they are, they’re beautiful homes they’ve put in. That brick home and the other one, I forget the name of the street, the cul de sac that they put in, they’re excellent homes. They’re beautiful. They are a plus to the neighborhood because, again, it’s a different design, but it goes along with what we were doing, and again, that’s my point. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? DOUG MOIR MR. MOIR-My name is Doug Moir. I live on Hudson Pointe, also. First of all, it’s past my bedtime. It’s late. I don’t like this. I've got to be at work at six in the morning. I don’t think this is fair. I’m up here because I’m saying I don’t want this here. I don’t know whose stamp is on that drawing. I’m an engineer, licensed in the State of New York. There’s a couple of things they could do there. It doesn’t have to be an overhead garage door. It could be barn doors. It could be made to look like a house. I don’t want to get into it. I’m tired. It’s late. I just don’t want it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak? ED MR. Good evening. I’m Ed I live at 26 Hyde Court in the Hudson Pointe development, and although it’s not shown on the picture, because we’re only seeing the front elevation and the rear elevation, if you picture a side elevation with a garage door that’s going to be somewhere around 12 feet high, as proposed here, you’ll also have an eaves somewhere around 12 feet off the ground, which means you’ll be facing a wall that’s 12 feet high, and 36 to 43 feet long, as you enter the development or leave the development. So basically you’re going to see a wall. I mean, people could put windows in the side to resemble a living space, but at the same time, it seems a rather unbalanced design to have such huge expanse of siding facing you as you’re coming down the road going into a purported nature preserve. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak? 61 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MARGARET RICE MS. RICE-Hi. I’m Margaret Rice. I’m from 49 Kettles Way, and I do not feel a variance should be approved because of the previous statements, and it would decrease the value of my house, I feel. Also, when I moved up here from the City, I thought it was absolutely beautiful. I went in and saw Hudson Pointe, it was absolutely gorgeous, even during the winter. So now you’re going to have this house built, and you’re going to see an eyesore. You’re going to see this big house, and I think that it’s going to take away from the open space and from the beautiful sight as you go in there, and that’s all I have to say. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? FRED LEFTON MR. LEFTON-My name is Fred Lefton, and I live at 4 Chapman Court in Hudson Pointe. Virtually every single point this evening that was mentioned about the massiveness, the size of the overhead door, the depth of the garage, and its location in relationship to the property are my concerns. I believe it sits awfully close to the Boulevard. The Boulevard is our pride and joy here in Hudson Pointe. We decorate it. We take care of it. We have it well maintained. It’s our entry way into the community. It says something about the community itself, the way we feel about it, the way we care about it, the people in that community. The house itself, up until the point that additional garage is on the end there, I think it’s an attractive home. I have never objected to that. It is that large overhead garage door. I did look at the plot plan. I did see how the house was oriented. I wish it was capable of being moved just further into the cul de sac, that might have resolved some conflict and problems, but the size of the lot and the orientation, the way the house has to sit on there, does not allow for that. I believe that we will be seeing a very large structure awfully close to the Hudson Pointe roadway, and that it would detract from the entryway and the way people perceive our community, and therefore, I object to the additional structure being built to this house. That’s it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks. Anyone else? MR. MC CARTHY-I have just two points I’d like to bring up. I kind of challenge the credibility of the petitioner. As one of the members of our organization said last week we were here, and she said she needed a garage door 12 foot high, because the motor home was 11 foot 6 inches, and it’s on the record, if you’ve typed them up yet. Now she’s telling us she can do it with a door of 10 foot. Something doesn’t meet. MR. THOMAS-No, she said 10 foot wide, 12 foot high. MR. MC CARTHY-No, no. Last week the door was 12 foot high. MR. THOMAS-It’s still 12 foot high. MR. MC CARTHY-Okay. I’m sorry. I apologize. The second thing is, there’s 17 homeowners here represented. We made phone calls for an hour. We talked to 19 homeowners, and only two couldn’t make it because of prior agreement. So within an hour’s notice, everybody you see in this room is here. That’s how strongly we feel about this situation. Again, I want to thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anyone else? ROBERT MAC DONALD MR. MAC DONALD-I’m Robert MacDonald, and we designed Southern Exposure. Southern Exposure is not taking advantage of Hudson Pointe. Hudson Pointe came to us and wanted AUDIENCE MEMBER-Point of order, please. This is the section against the proposal. He should have spoken in the section for the proposal. MR. THOMAS-How do you know what he’s going to say? MR. MAC DONALD-I’m just answering their questions, the mistakes that they have put out in front of this Board. MR. THOMAS-Go ahead. MR. MAC DONALD-Hudson Pointe took advantage of Southern Exposure. Hudson Pointe wanted a grand entry boulevard to get into their establishment. We told them, go somewhere else. Our subdivision is complete. We would rather not go through this. They came back to us several 62 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) times. We said, okay, what are you planning on doing? They went through 14 lots in Southern Exposure to put this boulevard in. There’s no questions in it. We helped them design the boulevard. Many of the things that were in there. We told them put the green space in, we told them to put the lights in. In fact, there’s a lot of shrubbery that was supposed to have been put in there, that never was put in there. No, Southern Exposure has never taken advantage of Hudson Pointe, and like I said before, if it wasn’t for Southern Exposure, Hudson Pointe wouldn’t exist. Now, I think things are going, the only thing that the Vieles are here looking for is a variance for a 400 square foot garage. Okay. The sixteen-foot door has nothing to do with this. They can put in a 900 square foot garage, with a 16 by 16 square foot garage door. There’s no variance against that. They don’t even have to come here for that. They can put that 900 square foot garage on there, with that door, and it’s worse than this. They went out of their way, it cost them a lot of extra dollars, to put this in there the way they’ve done it, and they’ve done a good job with it, and that house will stand up pretty much to any house in Hudson Pointe, and also, the garage restrictions in Southern Exposure says a two car attached garage. It doesn’t say, less than two or a maximum of two. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Well, what does that mean? MR. MAC DONALD-You can have more than a two car garage, as long as you. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Point of order, he should have been on in the first session. MR. THOMAS-You’ve already had two chances to talk, okay. I don’t care if it’s pro or con now. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Following procedure? MR. THOMAS-It doesn’t matter. MR. STEC-It doesn’t matter. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Where are we? MR. THOMAS-Go ahead, Mr. MacDonald. MR. MAC DONALD-The only thing I’m bringing up is these people can put any 900 square foot garage, with a bigger door than what they’ve got. They designed something to try to fit it into the community. They’ve gone out of their way, at extra cost. Yes, they’re going to have 400 square foot more. That’s the only thing they’re here for is the variance for 400 square foot more, not the door. That has no bearing on the door, and it has no bearing on other things. Southern Exposure taking advantage of Hudson Pointe, it just doesn’t jive. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak, in favor of or against this application? Make sure we cover everybody here. Okay. Is there any additional correspondence? MR. STEC-Yes. I have a letter dated June 29, 1999, from Timothy and Mary H. Tyree, 53 Kettles Way, Queensbury, NY, re: Application of Wayne & Dawn Viele Zoning Board of Appeals “Dear Chairman: I am writing the Board to express my objection to the scheduling of the Area Variance application of Mr. & Mrs. Viele at tonight’s meeting. While I did not receive prior written or verbal notice, I believe that the scheduling of this matter is in violation of the code of the Town of Queensbury, Section 179-91 (A) and Town Law Section 267-a (7). It is my understanding that Jim McCarthy was notified via telephone at noon today. I am writing to object the Board’s proceeding without formal notice and/or publication to the surrounding property owners. This notice is being sent to the Board on behalf of my wife and I, as members of the Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association. Thank you. Very truly yours, Timothy J. Tyree” MR. THOMAS-Is that all we got? MR. STEC-That’s the only new one that I see. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak before I close the public hearing? Has everybody said what they want to say? All right. I’m going to close the public hearing, no more public input. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Mr. and Mrs. Viele, you’re up. MR. VIELE-First of all, I’d just like to go back over to the plan, if I may, and just show the people out there what you’re going to see when you come into the Hudson Pointe Boulevard. I don’t think this thing is projected properly, and it may be partially my fault. So I’d just like to show you the 63 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) elevation, when you come into Hudson Pointe. If you were to stop your vehicle in front of this lot on the corner of Hudson Pointe Boulevard, I want to show you what you’re going to be looking at. It nowhere near resembles a garage. MRS. VIELE-And there are windows all along the side. It’s not going to be a wall. MR. VIELE-This is the portion of the house you see from the back, coming from Corinth Road, okay. This is what you’re going to see facing west from Hudson Pointe Boulevard, nothing that resembles a garage here, as far as I’m concerned. MRS. VIELE-It’s all windows. MR. VIELE-It’s all incorporated with the house. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anything else? MRS. VIELE-The only other option we have is the 900 square feet, with a bigger garage door. MR. THOMAS-There was a question about where the construction equipment is stored and do you intend to store it on this property. MRS. VIELE-We have never stored construction equipment. MR. VIELE-I've got a truck that has tool boxes on it, and everything that I have, as far as construction goes, I don’t want you to get the impression that I’m out building houses every day, or anything like that. I’m a small builder. I do kitchen/bath makeovers, specialties, you know. MRS. VIELE-Bathrooms, renovations, upgrades. MR. VIELE-I’m allowed a workshop, just like everybody else. I have a lot of different hobbies that I keep busy at, and I just want everybody to know that this is not going to be used for backhoes. This is not going to be used for bulldozers. It’s not going to be used for trailers. It’s not going to be used for. MRS. VIELE-Dump trucks. MR. VIELE-Anything like I've been accused of or submitted to here. MRS. VIELE-We're not in excavation. We're not in home building, we’re in renovations. MR. VIELE-It’s a very basic, small operation. I own one pickup truck with toolboxes on it. For the last 15 years, it has gone in the garage at night, and nothing will change. MR. THOMAS-What about materials you use. Where are they stored? MRS. VIELE-On the job. MR. VIELE-On the job. MR. THOMAS-They’re on the job, and I don’t bring anything home. MRS. VIELE-Because we don’t do that. We do bathrooms and renovations and that type of thing. So we go and get the materials and bring them to the job. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicants? Is there anything else you want to add before I start? MR. VIELE-No, other than we have had estimated appraisals on the home, and none that reflect any kind of degradation of anything in that community. MRS. VIELE-And the reason we haven’t started yet is because we’re waiting for this mess to clear up before we start, because once we start doing foundations and concrete, it will cost us more money to stop and then have someone come back and do the RV garage, if we could have that passed. So that’s why we haven’t even started yet, and we’ve been appraised at $230,000, after the building of this home. First New York Mortgage has had it appraised. With land and home, it has been appraised at $226,000. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions of the applicant before we talk about it? All right. Lets talk about it. Lew? 64 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) MR. STONE-Well, first of all, let me say one of our speakers talked about the notice. I, too, am a little annoyed that I didn’t know about this until seven o’clock tonight. If we’re going to have new things on the agenda, if we’re going to bring them back up, I’d like to know so that I can do what Mr. Thomas did and go look at it again if I was so inclined. Having said that, I really haven’t changed my opinion on this thing. I think a 900 foot garage is a big garage. I understand that if you’ve built a 900 foot garage, you can put a different door on it, but I still suggest, looking at the Code, that an RV is not allowed in a private garage, and I’ll go further to say that, it says in our Code, “Private Parking Garage – An accessory building or structure attached or detached…to shelter no more than three automobiles”. Now, we have a definition of “automobile” that you presented to me, and I've looked up in the dictionary, and I don’t think it’s extremely clear, but in addition to that, we also have a definition of a public garage which is used for the storage of motor vehicles. So, there is a distinction made in the Town Code, automobiles versus motor vehicles, and an automobile, as some WAG said many years ago, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, and I think I know what an automobile is. An automobile, you said this definition was two to ten, and that’s fairly recent, when we get into these big vans that we have, but I don’t think an RV is an automobile, but that’s not the point here. The point is you’re asking for relief of 426 square foot relief on a garage when 900 is more than adequate for a garage. If you choose to go to the 900, and put in a door that’s very large, that’s up to you. You have to live in the neighborhood. You have to live with your neighbors. As I suggested earlier, I think there might be some relief to those, if they chose to fight it, but that’s not up to me. All I can say is, yes or no, versus an addition of 426, and to me, I think it’s much too big in this day and age, where I think 900 square foot is more than adequate for a home of your size, and any home in Queensbury. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I end up being torn. A lot of the comments that we heard from the neighbors are not going to be effected whichever way we go, because we can’t dictate architecture, and we can’t tell people not to park their RV’s in the garage if they can make them fit in. On the other hand, I think the neighbors clearly feel this is going to change the character of their neighborhood, and I’m inclined to agree. I think it’s also going to have an adversely detrimental effect on the neighborhood, given the reaction we’ve seen. So, I’m going to be inclined to deny. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I haven’t really changed how I feel. Although I’m not strongly or as strongly opposed as I was, the more I thought about it, only because I know that we’ve approved garages, well, you know, larger than 900 before, but I think in this case, really, we’ve got to go the full Monty here. One hundred-foot isn’t going to do them any good, as far as storing an RV. So I don’t think there’s really a feasible alternative, as far as compromise. It’s the whole kit n’ kaboodle or nothing, really and I just think that, although I think that the proposal, I do think the applicant bent over backwards, and I really don’t, I don’t share the, well, I don’t live there, but I don’t share the concerns that the neighbors have as energetically as they do, but I do think that, all in all, really what we’re talking about is 50%, roughly, increase from the maximum allowed, and while we’ve gone larger than 900 before, I really can’t recall going as large as this before, and certainly not in a lot location that’s as visible as this one. So, again, for me, the relief is too substantial, and apparently the neighborhood feels very strongly, not to say that this Board is going to turn it over to mob rule, either, but clearly, valid questions have been raised as far as, could it impact the neighborhood. Clearly, the neighborhood feels it will. So, again, I don’t think that this was an unreasonable request, and I do think that the applicant should be applauded. I do think that they tried to accommodate their neighbors at every turn, and I think that they really got undeserved harsh treatment, but on the face of what they’re asking for, although I fully appreciate the arguments and their sincerity, I just think that the 426 is just a little more than I’m prepared to go. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll agree with the other Board members. I think this request is just a little more than could be palated by the homeowners, and I think the homeowners have spoken. They’ve said what they wanted to say. Even though this subdivision is not part of the Hudson Pointe Subdivision, it’s in a subdivision by itself, there seems to be a lot of talk that they want to have the houses more or less conform or stay in the same look. So, having said that, I’ll ask for a motion. Does anyone want to make a motion? MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1999 WAYNE & DAWN VIELE, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 1 Roberts Court. The applicant proposes construction of a 774 square foot attached garage addition to a single-family dwelling and seeks relief from the allowable square footage requirements for garages. The applicant is proposing two garage areas totaling 1326 square feet, and would be requesting relief of 426 square feet from the 900 square foot maximum allowable for private garages, per Paragraph 179-7. If allowed, the benefit to the applicant would be that the applicant would be 65 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/29/99) allowed to construct the desired addition in order to store their recreational vehicle. Feasible alternatives could include relocation of proposed structure to a compliant location. Other alternatives are simply to comply with the requirements. The relief requested is substantial compared to the Ordinance, since it’s 426 square feet over the allowable 900 square feet. Moderate effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of an approval of this action. An additional garage, especially one of this size, may have considerable visual impacts on the neighborhood. The difficulty we’ve considered to be self-created. In view of all these facts, I move we deny this application. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-Your variance is denied. I’m sorry about that. MRS. VIELE-That’s okay. I wouldn’t want to live in that development anyway. They’re a bunch of immature people. MR. STONE-I move we adjourn. MR. STEC-I second. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 66