Loading...
1999-05-19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 19, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY LEWIS STONE PAUL HAYES CHARLES MC NULTY DANIEL STEC ROBERT MC NALLY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. THOMAS-And tonight the agenda isn’t in quite the order that it should be. We're going to go over the old business first, and then onto the new business. First on the agenda is William Hunt, Variance No. 12-1999. This is for a tabling motion, anyway. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA WILLIAM P. HUNT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE FIELDING LANE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RETABLING OF THIS APPLICATION IN ORDER TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AS REQUESTED. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 12-1-6 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 MRS. LAPHAM-“The Queensbury Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: March 17, 1999 Variance File No.: 12-1999 Area Variance Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 12-1999 William P. Hunt, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until no later than the March 19 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information th requested by this Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for the tabling of this application is for an accurate survey of the property lines and to determine whether Fielding Lane is a private right-of-way or a Town owned right-of-way. Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. th Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes” I have a letter from Mr. Hunt to ZBA members, from William Hunt “I would like to request that the action regarding my case be tabled until June 1999. I am working diligently to complete the process and get all the paperwork done. However, it is taking longer than I anticipated. I respectfully await your response.” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anybody have any problem tabling this for one more month, and only one more month? Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1999 WILLIAM HUNT, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until no later than the June 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 application is for an accurate survey of the property lines to determine whether Fielding Lane is a private right of way or a Town owned right of way. This tabling is only good until the second meeting of the June ZBA. Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. THOMAS-All right. One more month, and then that’s it for them. This thing’s been hanging around too long. AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-1999 WR-1A JOHN W. WEBER OWNER: JON BOUCHER RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. ALSO, APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-19.1 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-70 JOHN WEBER, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-“The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: April 28, 1999 Variance File No. 27-1999 Area Variance Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 27-1999 John W. Weber, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Until no later than the June 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 application is for the applicant to re-configure a home more closely suited to this lot. Duly adopted this 28 day of April, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: th Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-1999, John W. Weber, Meeting Date: May 19, 1999 – Tabled April 28, 1999 “Project Location: Russell Harris Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling and seeks relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief to develop a lot with less than the required 40 feet of road frontage per § 179-70, Frontage on public streets. The applicants’ lot fronts on a private right of way and has no frontage on a public street. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement may be interpreted as substantial, however, this is a pre-existing lot. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be attributed to the pre-existing non conforming nature of the lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 27-1999 res. 4/28/99 construction of dock approved Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant has proposed a conforming home on the lot and is only seeking relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. This lot appears to have been created in 1977. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Weber, is there anything else that you want to say? This is the new map that you gave us? MR. WEBER-Yes, that’s the downsized house that fits into all the, I don’t need a variance for the. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You meet all the setbacks, so you’re just looking for relief from the 40 foot road frontage. MR. WEBER-From the road frontage. MR. THOMAS-At least he’s got the setbacks. MR. STONE-Right. MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for Mr. Weber? The only thing we’re really considering is the 40 foot not on a Town, County or State right-of-way. If there’s no questions for him, the public hearing was left open, I believe. MRS. LAPHAM-As far as I know. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone like to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any new correspondence? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t know if this is new or not, because there’s not a date, Rita Arnstein. MR. STONE-That was read the last time. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Weber? Lets talk about it. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, first of all, even though it’s not on the agenda, I congratulate you for sizing the house to make it possible for us not to worry about setbacks. As far as the private road, I have to admit, I don’t really understand our Ordinance in that particular case. I mean, there is a right of way. You do have easement. It’s private. All of you understand that. I see no problem in granting this variance whatsoever. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with Lew. The applicant has made the effort to give us a compliant footprint, and this is a pre-existing nonconforming lot. So it’s going to have to be used for something, and in this particular case, I think it’s a good plan. So I have no problem with the application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with my other Board members. I think that there’s ample precedent in the past that we’ve approved this sort of relief. I don’t see this as any different than any other one. MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Nothing to add. I agree with what’s been said. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I tend to agree with the other Board members. Private rights of way are very common in the Lake George area. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with all the other Board members. There’s not much more I can say. Would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-1999 JOHN W. WEBER, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Russell Harris Road. The applicant proposes the construction of a single family dwelling and seeks relief to develop a lot with less than the required 40 foot road frontage. The applicant’s lot fronts on a private right of way and has no frontage on a public street. The benefit to the applicant would be he would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. There are no feasible alternatives, in that the lot does not front on any public street whatsoever. All the houses in this general section are on a private road, just as this one is, and there would be no difficulty accessing the property, either by emergency or other vehicles. The relief is not substantial, in my opinion, relative to the Ordinance. There will be absolutely no effect on the neighborhood or community, since this is the manner in which the homes are already accessed in that neighborhood. I don’t find that the difficulty is self-created. It’s a pre-existing nonconforming lot, and for these reasons, I move that this Board approve this Area Variance. It is 179-70, and he’s requesting 40 feet of relief. Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. WEBER-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-99 KAREN SABO APPEAL FROM ZONING ADMIN. DECISION/WAREHOUSE THE APPLICANT’S APPEAL CONCERNS PROPERTY OWNED BY STEVE AND DONNA SUTTON. APPLICANT IS APPEALING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION REGARDING A PROPOSED WAREHOUSE. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1060 STATE ROUTE 9, EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 9 BETWEEN MONTRAY RD. TAX MAP NO. 68-1-15 ZONING: HC-1A JOHN CAFFRY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Chris, are we going to let people speak at this one? MR. ROUND-It’s your discretion. You can either, based on the information you have, you can either re-vote. Our discussion was that the Board would benefit from, the members that weren’t here, would benefit from some level of presentation by the two halves of this issue, and, Chris, you and I discussed a five minute discussion or presentation by each of the members, with a chance to maybe re-address the Board on any rebuttals. MR. THOMAS-All right. Five minutes discussion, two minutes rebuttal for each side. That should take care of it. Okay. MR. CAFFRY-For the record, I’m John Caffry. I’m the attorney representing Karen Sabo who’s the Appellant on this appeal, and I also represent about 20 other families in the Twicwood neighborhood, some of whom adjoin the Suttons property, others who live in the general vicinity, and Mrs. Sabo is sitting here with me at the table. I know you’ve had the record from the last hearing presented to you, but I thought I’d just go through things again briefly for the benefit of the two members who weren’t here before. This is a proposed 7200 square foot warehouse. It would be over 30 feet high. It’s not just a little storage shed. It’s a very substantial structure. The question that’s before the Board on this appeal is whether or not this is a warehouse. If it’s a warehouse, it’s not permitted in the Highway Commercial One Acre zone, and you can’t make something that’s not a permitted use into a permitted use, just by calling it an accessory. If it’s a warehouse, if it’s not permitted, you can’t say, well, it’s an accessory warehouse and therefore we can allow it in this zone. We think it definitely is a warehouse. The definition of warehouse in your Code includes that it’s a structure used to store products for future transmission to another location. When this application first came in front of the Planning Board, on March 16 of this year. Mr. Sutton, the applicant, th described it to the Board, and I can quote from those minutes. He said “You have to understand the furniture business. It’s different than the gift business. If each one of you folks were building an addition on your house, and you were coming to us, we special order furniture for you. We don’t have it on premises to sell, but when it comes in, you might be doing three or four rooms of furniture. That’s bulky, big stuff, and all of you might be ordering at the same time, and you order it, and when it comes in, your home isn’t ready. The contractor’s behind schedule. We have to store it for you, and we have to store it without damaging it.” And then going on, skipping down a bit, it says “We’ve been very successful. We're doing bigger jobs all the time, and I've done a lot of research on this.” And then there was some questioning by Mr. Brewer, a member of the Planning Board. He said, “What’s the use going to be for the garage up on the hill? I know at one time, when you first started, that’s what you used to put the furniture in, wasn’t it?” And there was some further discussion, and Mr. Brewer said “You still, I’m sure you have plenty of use for it, but did you at one time put furniture in there, didn’t you, because you didn’t have room?” And Mr. Sutton said, “To sell or to store? Mr. Brewer-To store. Mr. Sutton-Well, that’s still where we’re storing furniture.” And the building they’re talking about building now is for storing furniture, just like the old building that they intend to replace with it, or replace with this new building. So we believe that it fits the definition of warehouse as something used to store products for future transmission to another location. This isn’t necessarily stuff that’s going on the showroom floor. It’s in transit. At the Planning Board, too, the applicant called this a warehouse, until members of the Planning Board questioned whether or not planning warehouses were allowed in that zone, and then they started calling it an accessory use, or something else, but up until that time, they were calling it a warehouse, and there is precedent on this question that we think should be binding on the Board, because it’s already been decided in the past, on Mr. Sutton’s property. Back in 1992, when I believe, Mr. Thomas, you were the only member of the current Board who was on the Board back then, Suttons came in to expand the former garage building that I was just discussing, from 1500 square feet to 3,000 square feet, and the purpose, as described at that time, in the 1992 Zoning Board minutes, was for furniture storage. They didn’t say warehouse or not warehouse. They just said furniture storage of any kind, and Jim Martin, who was the Zoning Administrator at the time, made a ruling that this was not a permitted use in the Highway Commercial zone, and there’s been no changes to the 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) relevant parts of the Zoning Ordinance since then, and nobody questioned Mr. Martin’s ruling. We have to assume that that’s what everybody understood to be a correct ruling at the time. So, instead Mr. Sutton came in and applied to the Board for a Use Variance and was granted that Use Variance. So even if the Board were to decide, well, technically this isn’t a warehouse, on that precedent, we still believe that it’s not a permitted use. We don’t think it’s a shed. We don’t think it’s an accessory use, for the reasons I just discussed. We don’t think it’s customary. I think if you go up and down Route 9 and Quaker Road and the other Highway Commercial zones, you might find a couple of businesses that have something similar, but the vast majority of them do not, and some of them might have been older buildings that were grandfathered. Across the street, there’s some storage at the Wood Carte, but that’s an attached building, and I've been told it may even pre-date the actual retail space there. Another necessary element of finding something to be an accessory use is that it be incidental to the principal use, and I have a hard time believing that a 7200 square foot structure is incidental to anything. I mean, that’s a major structure in and of itself. At the last meeting, Mr. Sutton’s attorney, M. O’Connor, and some of the others who spoke said, well, everybody, all retail businesses have some storage, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, right on down the line, they all have some storage, but that’s generally for the stuff that’s about to go right out on the shop floor. They’re not trans shipping stuff through the back room at K-Mart. It comes in, it’s going out on their shop floor, unlike what Mr. Sutton described to the Planning Board as his intended use for this building. They also felt that the arguments that we were making were too technical, that if the storage, the warehouse, whatever you want to call it, was attached to the retail store, well then it would be permitted. So what’s the difference if it’s detached? Well, I think there is a difference. The impacts are greater if you have two separate buildings. They take up more space. You’ve got more land area cleared. You have more pavement. You have more runoff. You’re going to have to clear out more trees. So you’ve got more impact on the neighbors, like my clients. So we think there’s a good reason for that, and in fact, in 1992, there was some discussion about that at this Board, and Ted Turner, who was the Chair of the Board at the time, said he felt that it was done for a good reason, that storage, separate storage buildings of this were not included as allowed uses in the Highway Commercial zone. Warehouses are allowed in the industrial zones in Town, Light Industrial. So they’re not allowed in Highway Commercial. You have to assume that when the Town Board wrote the Code the way it wrote it, there was a reason for it, and I think it’s up to this Board to follow the Ordinance and adopt it, or adopt an interpretation that upholds a difference between the two zones. We think that the resolution that Mr. McNally made the last time we were here, and was endorsed by three of the four Board members, was a correct statement of the case, and we would urge that the remaining Board members concur in Mr. McNally’s resolution, and I’d be glad to answer any questions, if any of the Board members have any, before Mr. O’Connor speaks. MR THOMAS-Are there any questions for Mr. Caffry? If not, whoever’s going to speak for the opposition. MICHAEL O’CONNOR MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Lapham, other members of the Board, for the purpose of the record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent Stephen Sutton who initiated, perhaps, the issue before the Board, in the sense that he made a proposal to build a freestanding storage building on his property. Mr. Sutton is with me. His wife who was also involved with the property is in the back of the room, and also with me is Tom Nace who was the engineer for the site project. I do note, for the record, that since the last meeting the application to build this building has been withdrawn, but we do think that this is a very important issue, and perhaps a dangerous precedent that we think is possibly being set. So we intend to fully address it as though we were building a structure tomorrow, although we are not planning to do that. I think the issue before the Board is may a retailer erect a freestanding storage building to store goods that he sells, and may he do this as an accessory use structure. That’s actually the issue, and I think that’s, if you read through all the different correspondence, that’s what’s before you. May a retailer erect a building to accommodate an accessory use, and in those questions, I don’t think you see anything about the size of the building, location of the building, or whether the building is detached or attached. On April 21, Mr. Stone was correct when he stated we’re not talking about the size of the st building, we’re not talking about the location of the building. Those issues, if you will, if they are issues, are site plan issues, and they’re addressed at site plan time. Mr. McNally asked or said, at least I had the sense, that you think every retail business is entitled to a building of this size, if requested, and maybe my first answer was yes, but I withdraw that yes, unequivocal yes, because I think it, again, is a question of separating, is it permitted, under the Zoning Ordinance, as a use, and that I say yes to. Is it permitted on every site along Route 9? That’s a site plan issue. That’s what we have site plan for. That’s why we’re required to go to site plan, and I think you have to separate those two things. This is a premise by premise issue. It’s not a blanket issue, in that automatically, because we say it’s an accessory use, you’re permitted to have it. If that were the case, site plan would be nothing. There would be no sense and no reason to go through site plan. I think, there are a couple of things I would simply say, though, as to what we propose, and just to get this out, because I also understand there were some questions. There are a couple of Board members that weren’t here, or weren’t there at the meeting. Basically, we proposed a freestanding building here, on the south end 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) of the property on the same parcel that the retail operation is located on, which is a requirement of the definition. I think we got sidetracked by some of the neighbors who had concerns that, again, I think would be addressed at site plan review, and I understand that some people had a good misconception as to where we propose the building, and what it’s relationship was to the adjoining residences. This is an actual topographical rendering, if you will, and it shows that the base of the nearest house is approximately at the height of the building roof, or the beginning of the building roof. You would be looking over this toward Route 9. This is not something, even though it is built to the 50 foot buffer, that is on a level, eye level, with the adjoining property. If you take the structure up at the window level, you’re actually above it. You want to take a look at it later. I don’t think it’s germane, necessarily, to the issue before us, because as I said, size of building, location of building, are site plan issues, and they aren’t necessarily related to the issue of the legal definition, or your interpretation of the legal definition of accessory use and accessory structure use, but I think that it’s good to take a look at that, simply to clear any questions that you might have. The issue before the Board is where a structure associated with the operation of a retail business, a structure used for storage of goods sold in that retail business, a structure used in support only of the retail operation, is such a structure permitted as an accessory use structure, notwithstanding that that structure and the approval of it, or final approval of it, is still subject to site plan review. Last month, we went way off course, and I think part of the problem is that much misinformation was presented to the Board. Much factual misinformation was given to you. I apologize in that I probably wasn’t fully prepared and wasn’t able to quickly set aside that misinformation, but I think it’s necessary to go back a little bit and take a look at what we had then. Mrs. Sabo was correct that on November 18, 1992, Mr. Sutton did seek a Use Variance for a freestanding storage facility. Staff, at that time, concluded storage facilities are not permitted as an accessory use in a Highway Commercial. What was misleading, and is still misleading about that, and was repeated again tonight, and I don’t mean to be sarcastic, but I thought, and sometimes I go astray, too, you know, fool me once but don’t fool me twice. On May, or on that date on Page 19 Mr. Caffry offered, they felt at the time it was not allowed in that zone, in 1992, and in answer to Mr. O’Connor’s question, I checked the zoning. It hasn’t changed in any measurable or applicable way since 1992. That is wrong. That is totally wrong. In 1992, in the 1998 Ordinance and the 1992 Ordinance, we had what you call and exclusionary type Ordinance. If you didn’t have the use listed, it was not going to be allowed. In Highway Commercial, under 179-23 D(2), Accessory Use had four uses listed. A, a loading facility, B, parking facility, C, signs, D, apartments. That’s all that was listed. That’s the law that was in effect when Mr. Sutton applied for the Use Variance for the freestanding storage building as an accessory building. After that application, the law was changed. If you take a look at the current law, Section 179-23, Subsection 2, all that’s the same, but look at A. We now state that in addition to five other particular listed uses, customary accessory uses, accessory use structures, incidental to a permitted use or existing nonconforming residential use are allowed. I’ll give you copies of everything I’m submitting. It’s tough to throw things at you at the last night. I've been thinking about this for about a week, and tried to figure out where to begin, particularly when I saw the note from Chris Round saying that there was only going to be limited discussion. There’s so much information here, with due respect, Mr. Chairman, to do it justice, I’m going to run a little bit over, and I beg for your indulgence on that. I will submit copies of all this information for you. I don’t think you had the facts when you looked at the thing last month. If you take a look at the minutes of the public hearing, in 1992, when that was changed, and I’ll only quote part of them, but I’ll give you the copies of the minutes I had, and our minutes are not apparently verbatim minutes. They appear to be summary minutes. There wasn’t a great deal of discussion when they made that change, but the change was, and the case law will tell you about the change, the law was to change it from being prohibitive to being all inclusive. When we use the language that we have now, and we did this through the whole Ordinance in 1992. They changed accessory uses in five other zones, as well as this zone, or four other zones as well as this zone, to make all similar like uses, so that you wouldn’t be limited, and this was the problem that we used to have. I think we ran into the problem with Fraternal Halls one time. We ran into the problem with Funeral homes. They weren’t specific listed uses. So we got away from saying that you’re only going to allow the specific listed uses. You’re going to be all-inclusive and hear some examples, and that was the intent of the change in 1992, and it’s a world of difference. I think if you look at the language, Paul Dusek was then Town Attorney, and he was asked to comment on it or to introduce it at the public hearing. Some of his comments, and I’ll give you his full comments, are “This is a broadening then, if you will, of the Ordinance, and basically to allow more accessory uses.” It’s a broadening of the part of the Ordinance to indicate a more general type of accessory use that would normally be found in your various zones. This is fairly new language. So when Mr. Caffry says there’s a precedent in 1992, lets throw the precedent out the window, because that’s before this went into effect and the new law is what you should be looking at. I’ll give you the copies of the minutes. Also misleading, and I don’t know if intentional, although in their FOIL request they were provided with the information I’m about to give you, they were quick to point out the 1992 application by Mr. Sutton, saying it should be held against him, and I wonder if the Board members are aware of the fact that there was a 1996 application by Mr. Sutton, which was provided, to my understanding, to them, that was not brought to your attention, and again, I apologize for perhaps not knowing all the history of this property when I sat here last month. Under the new Section of 179-23, Mr. Sutton made a site plan application for a new 1500 square foot freestanding building, to be used for the same purposes as the present building is being requested or 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) was being requested for. No variance was required. Mr. Martin, who was then the Zoning Administrator, I presume made the determination, in 1996, that it fit within the definition of Accessory Use, and if we’re going to use him as our guide, as was suggested a few minutes ago by the speaker that spoke before me, I think we would look at his interpretation of the new language of the new Section for Accessory Uses. It was not called a warehouse or a storage building. I will admit that. It was then called a receiving, unloading building, but the use was the same. Mr. Brewer, on Page 32 of the minutes of the 7/23/96 meeting, stated or asked, “Mr. Brewer-Basically just a warehouse.” And that was the conclusion that he reached after listening to the presentation by Mr. Nace. I've got the minutes of that meeting of 7/23/96. You want to talk about precedent? I think that’s the precedent within the Town of Queensbury is the precedent on this property. If you take a look at the building permit that went along with that, out of curiosity, it says, to construct or place a warehouse at the above location. Down further it says, type of construction, other none residential building, plans and specifications, 1500 square foot warehouse as per plot plan specifications. Proposed use, warehouse. If you take a look at the inspection tickets, and apparently they changed inspection tickets during the process, but the ones that had type of structure on there, there were six within the file, five of those six structure inspection tickets said type of structure, warehouse. One of them said storage building. These are not necessarily real heady to read or whatever, so I’ll submit those directly to the Board now. The Certificate of Occupancy that was issued on December 11, 1997 said this structure may be occupied as a warehouse, location: 10 Route 9, Suttons Market Place. You didn’t have all the information last month. You really were lead astray, and I can understand the hesitancy of some of the members to make the decision that I was asking to be made, based on that information, and I’ll tell you honestly that you have a very nice letter/memo, and you have six or seven cases cited in that letter/memo. I think it’s questionable at best to give opinionated sites, and not supply you, who are looked upon as being lay people, with full text of those cases. If you notice that letter of April 21, 1999, there are no quoted citations with regard to the case sites that are placed in there, and I think, and I will submit copies of all six cases or seven cases, whatever there is there, for you to take a look at. I‘m not sure how we got to where we are or how they were even used. The first case is an Exxon versus Board of Standards, and I think the last time I cited a case in a zoning hearing or whatever was when we started talking about Otto vs. somebody, and you had the three standards, and Chris probably remembers as much as anybody, for Use Variances, and we all thought we were very up to date on cites. I quickly learned that that’s not the appropriate way to do it. I think we’ve got to talk about our Ordinance, and the interpretation, particularly, of our Ordinance, because each of these cases has different, separate Ordinances, but this case was cited as saying, the precedent is binding on the current question, and he was referring to the 1992 decision, which was wrong by itself, because we’ve had a major change in the law, but I've got the case here, and I read it in full I don’t see that in there. I don’t even see that as an issue in this case. What I find interesting in here is some language which I think you’re all aware of. The court which heard the petition held that the Board has interpreted the zoning resolution too strictly and arbitrarily. Zoning Ordinances that are in derogation of common law must be strictly construed against the zoning authority. In construing the zoning regulation, the issue is not whether the use is permissible, but rather whether it is prohibited, and with our type definition now of accessory use, we don’t have the prohibition that we had prior to the 1992 change. For any uses accessory thereto speaks insofaras the expressed accessory use is concerned, not in terms of exclusion or limitation, but rather inclusion. The statute expressly permits any accessory uses. It goes on, and I’ll give you this, maybe you’re going to take some time. Maybe you aren’t going to make the decision tonight. Maybe that’s what you’ve got to do, and I don’t mean to bore you. Somebody, when they saw my presentation, said I’m going to bore you to death reading the six cases. I’m not going to read the six cases, but it says, nowhere does it say that accessory uses, and this is in the context of an automotive service station, must relate directly to the care and maintenance of automobiles. Zoning regulations, and this is what we all preach, may not be extended by implication. If it’s not prohibited, it’s permitted, and that’s a basic tenant of zoning. There are six cases. The next case is a citation that says that, I won’t go through them, but one interesting one is put forth as a theory that this structure is not an accessory structure, and it relates to a case that was a proposed tower for an amateur radio station, or amateur radio use of 170 feet in a residential lot, and the court said there that that was not hardly accessory to the residential use or character of the neighborhood. I ask you to take a look at these cases each. The other was a heli port pad, on top of an office building in a busy area. One other that was cited at the very end of the letter that had to do with proposed warehouse is 7200 square feet, such a large structure, more than 50% of the principal structure, can hardly be called minor and incidental. First of all, and then it cites a case. Now the case stands for a different principle. The principle there was that there was not proof that the person needed all the parking areas that he had applied for. So therefore they were not accessory. I think Mr. Sutton’s testimony is that he needs the space that he was going to build to support his retail operation. It’s a different theory. It’s a different result entirely. Also, what we propose, 7200 square feet of storage, isn’t more than 50%. Now Tom has done a study of the buildings and what not. There are 27,480 square feet of buildings and usable retail space on that site. We're talking 7200. Admittedly, not all of the 27,000 square feet will be supported from the storage that goes on in this building, but this building, as it’s proposed, will only support the activities that are on site, that are related to the retail operation. I think you’d find it interesting to go through those cases. I apologize if I sound harsh with regard to Mr. Caffry. I am just trying to state my case in the manner that I think is appropriate. I think you were given, 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) unintentionally or whatever, poor facts, poor law to rely upon. I think what you’ve got to really take a look at is the memo that Staff gave you. As I understand it, Chris gave you a memo. I have it. That supported his determination. It was like a two step determination, if you will, and I don’t necessarily mean to speak for Chris, but as I understand it, in looking at 179-23, and looking at determination of accessory uses under 2(A), if you look at that sentence, and you apply standard English construction, sentence construction, it says, “Customary Accessory Uses and”, you’ve got to stop right there, because it says Customary Accessory Uses. When you take a look at what we’re talking about, we’ve got a retail operation, storage of goods that we sell is what we propose and what we claim and argue is the Customary Accessory Use. I don’t think you can combine the word “customary” beyond the “and”, and there’s another reason for that, and if you take a look at the actual definitions of “Accessory Use” and “Accessory Use Structures”, you’re going to see how I’m supported in that argument. I know that some Board members got hung up on that. Well, where else have you seen these? Due to my lack of knowledge, I didn’t know, right on this site there is one. We’ve got a picture of that one here today. We talked about the one at the Yamaha place, North Country. We have two picture. I have a picture of the 1500 square foot building that was built under the permit in 1996, with the occupancy permit of 1997. We have two pictures of the Yamaha operation, which has a freestanding building that was built behind it for storage of goods that they sell on premises, and we have a copy of, or picture of the building behind United Rental. The permitted use, in retail, is the driving force. That is the principal use. It’s retail sales, and I don’t really think there’s any question about that, and I don’t think there should be any question, under any interpretation that I can find, or case law, I find none that contradicts it. The storage of goods is not a necessary evil to support retail sales. Our definition of what we are going to store there are going to be duplicates of items that we have on the floor. I believe, and Steve is here, that all items, when they come to the premises, will come through this building. They will be uncrated. They will be inspected. If they need to be touched up, or if they need to be sent back, the decision will be made in the building we’re talking about. So all items on display will come through this building, perhaps maybe not yard furniture or something like that, it comes directly at the right time of the season, it may go directly to the yard. I’m not sure the minute part of their operation. Items that are duplicates will be there. Special items or special order items will go there. Seasonal will go there. The special order items, that’s part of the sale. We have to be able to guarantee to the customer that the goods will be on our premises and can be delivered when they’re ready. We can’t dictate, necessarily, when they’re going to deliver. They’re going to tell us, okay, we’re going to buy that outfit, or that set. We want to take delivery at the end of July. We're going to have the addition done. We’ve got to have it on hand. We've got to inspect it. We’ve got to have it ready to go. That’s part of the sale. The driving force here is the retail sale of furniture. I don’t know if there’s anybody, and people said they went around Town. There’s no, I’m not aware of any furniture store, whether it’s an enlarged retail store or larger department type store, or freestanding furniture store, that doesn’t have storage, and that’s basically what we’re talking about here, the accessory storage to the retail sale of furniture. There’s going to be no outside storage. All sales are retail. There was an issue there about, are we into wholesale sales. We sell retail, even to commercial accounts. Sometimes we have good orders, or good sized orders, but they’re still sold as retail accounts. There will be no storage of vehicles. There was a question in the earlier part for some of the Board members that we were going to store vehicles in the building. Therefore it was a warehouse. That is not the case. The accessory use is incidental and subordinate to the principal permitted retail sales. There is no excess storage, as I indicated in one of the cases that dealt with, was there excess parking spots being permitted, and therefore it wasn’t accessory. The proof, I think, before you, is that this is necessary for the existing operation of the furniture store that’s there. I presume that there’s some hope that there would be some expansion of sales to support it, but that’s a natural expansion of sales. It’s not, we’re building something that we can do five times the sales we’re doing right now based upon storage, and Steve’s here to correct me if I’m wrong. This storage is subordinate and of minor significance. I don’t know how you make a judgement contrary to that. Again, it’s not the size of the building. It’s not the location of the building, and it’s really what you’re looking at is the use of the building. I said before, and I think one of the Board members was particularly hung up on customary incidental. Take a look at the definitions. If you agree with me that storage of furniture for sale by a furniture store is an accessory use of a furniture store, then look at accessory use structure, and there they don’t talk about any customary building, or any customary structure. They talk about any building or structure affixed to land or a portion of the main structure or any movable structure in excess of 100 square feet that is located within a required shoreline or incidental and subordinate to and associated with the permitted principal use. It’s on the same lot. It is certainly associated with the principal use, permitted use, the retail sale of furniture. MR. MC NALLY-How do you reconcile 179-23 (2), it talks about accessory uses and accessory use structures, and it does use the word “customary” in that Section? MR. O’CONNOR-Because I think by sentence structure, where it is used, customary relates to customary accessory use, and, it doesn’t relate, and it doesn’t repeat to customary and accessory use structures, and also if you look at the definitions, look at the actual definitions. MR. MC NALLY-The definition is what you’re just discussing. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-But my point is, if you look at the actual Zoning Ordinance that refers to this MR. O’CONNOR-Okay, but the adjective is before “Accessory Use”. MR. MC NALLY-So you would limit it to the accessory uses and not to accessory use structures? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. O’CONNOR-There was also an issue about density, to some degree, I’m not sure I understood it. I tried to ask the question, and I didn’t get the question asked, or I didn’t ask it, it was something about principal permitted buildings and the number of principal permitted buildings. We, in that application, were not asking for any variance from that. We believe that we fully comply. I think if you take a look and you go through all the definitions, you’ll find out that, in the commercial building area, you’re allowed 11,000 square feet, is considered a principal building, and we do comply with that, if you take all the buildings on the site, and you put them together and you claim even none of them were accessory, although some of them are clearly accessory. The other issue, and I’m not sure, Mrs. Lapham, you kind of referred to something about being non conforming, and it was kind of like building on a nonconforming. We are a permitted use. In all instances this particular application, if it were before the Board or before the Planning Board, complied. There was no nonconformity that was being claimed. We were making the application as a matter of right, saying that it was a permitted accessory use structure. So it wasn’t similar to what arguments I think we’ve been discussing in prior cases with regard to nonconforming structures and expansion of nonconforming structures. So that’s my presentation. I think if you look at the facts, actual use and operation of the building, you will find that you should support the determination of Mr. Round. It’s the same determination that, apparently, was reached by his predecessor when we made our application in 1996 for a site plan review, and I’d stand for any questions you have. I have one question of Mr. Caffry, too, that I don’t know if I can ask directly or not directly. Does he represent anybody who lives on Oakwood? MR. THOMAS-He’ll answer that when he comes up. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. I ask that as of record. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions of Mr. O’Connor or Mr. Sutton or Mr. Nace? Okay. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Mr. Caffry, is there anything you want to conclude? MR. CAFFRY-I’d like to ask the Chair, since Mr. O’Connor went over five minutes, that I be allowed more than two to rebut him. MR. THOMAS-I’ll give you five to rebut him. MR. CAFFRY-I don’t think anything he said changes what my closing comments were when I was up here, whether it was 20 minutes ago or whatever, that Mr. McNally’s resolution that he made last time was a good resolution, and it should stand, and I’m going to go through what Mr. O’Connor said, basically in the order he said it. It may not all fit together well, but that’s how my notes are. First of all, to copy from the movie ad last year, size does matter, because an accessory use has to be incidental. If it's a little storage shed, that’s one thing. When you’re talking 7200 square feet, that is not incidental. That’s a principal, major use in and of itself, and he said while the total of all the structures on the property is 27,000 square feet, so that this isn’t over 50% of the size of the principal use to which it relates, they have two or three different principal uses there. They have the building that has the restaurant and the gift shop in it, and they have the furniture store. So that’s two or three different uses. This is to be used, as far as everything I've heard, only for furniture. So it’s incidental to the furniture store, or it’s claimed to be incidental to the furniture store. The furniture store is under 14,000 square feet. So this is more than half the size of what it’s supposedly incidental to. Mr. O’Connor said that, while we got sidetracked by some of the neighbors with site plan related issues, and of course he proceeded to discuss them anyway, but I didn’t hear Mr. McNally’s resolution or any of the comments that the Board made at the last meeting. I didn’t hear any of you being sidetracked. I think the Board, when it voted last time, focused on the real issues, is this an allowed use, is it a warehouse? The resolution did not get into site plan related issues, the height of the building and stuff like that, and it’s just not relevant here tonight either, other than the overall size of the building, as to whether or not it’s incidental. As to whether or not this is a retail 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) operation, as Mr. O’Connor said, they do sell to commercial accounts. Mr. Sutton, last time, mentioned that they’ve sold to the Cresthaven Motel for five units. There was just an article in the paper about that. The Cresthaven has built five units so far. They intend to build 40 or 50, and it said Suttons will be supplying the furniture. So these are major commercial accounts. This just isn’t just retail, walk in, walk out, and if you look at the definitions of retail and wholesale in your Ordinance, there is a difference. With regard to any zoning change that may have occurred in 1992, I haven’t seen what Mr. O’Connor submitted. If I was wrong about that change, then that’s my fault, and I apologize to the Board. I thought I had checked that stuff, but I don’t think it changes anything. They didn’t, when the Board went through, if they wanted to clarify this question that had happened in front of the Zoning Board in 1992, and I don’t know the dates on these zoning changes that Mr. O’Connor referred to, but this was November of ’92, that Mr. Sutton was in here, but if they wanted to do what Mr. O’Connor thinks they did, they could have said, warehouses are allowed. They could have said, detached storage buildings are allowed as customary or accessory uses. They didn’t do that. They just said that accessory uses are allowed. They did not specifically list warehouses, and they could have. They didn’t list outside storage, and again, even if that precedent isn’t as strong a precedent as I might have thought before, Mr. McNally said in his resolution that wasn’t the real basis for his resolution. He thought it might have some effect, but it wasn’t really what he based it on. MR. STONE-Let me just correct you, Mr. Caffry. That was not the resolution. That was his comments. The motion was very simple. This was not in the motion. I mean, he did make a very long, and a very interesting narrative, but that was not the motion, just for the record. MR. CAFFRY-Okay, but I’m going on, because he made the motion, and that was the grounds for the motion, which three of you. MR. STONE-I made the motion. MR. CAFFRY-Okay. I’m sorry. MR. STONE-But the motion was a very simple one, to agree or disagree. That’s all the motion was. MR. CAFFRY-All right. In the 1992 public hearing Mr. O’Connor talked about, I don’t think that’s determinative because we think this structure is still a warehouse. Okay, and I believe that’s what the Board, three of you felt last time. So that regardless of what changes may have occurred, this is a warehouse. Warehouses are not allowed as a principal use. They’re defined as an allowed use in the Light Industry zone, and they’re not allowed here, and that definition has to be there fore a reason. The difference has to be there for a reason. With regard to the 1996 application, we did get that under the Freedom of Information Law, absolutely, and what the Planning Board approved, in its resolution, was a 1500 square foot receiving/unpacking building. That’s quite different from what we’re talking about here. We didn’t get any minutes. We filed a FOIL request, or Mrs. Sabo did. We didn’t get any minutes with that. So we don’t know what discussion was had. Apparently, Mr. Brewer made an offhand comment and called it a warehouse, but this is called a receiving/unpacking building. There was no discussion, like Mr. Sutton made earlier in March in front of the Planning Board, about trans shipping these goods, and I’d like to file those minutes with you, when we’re done for the record, since Mr. O’Connor filed some minutes. That’s a very different thing, a receiving/trans shipping building, or a receiving/unpacking building is not something for shipping of goods to other places. You unpack them and you put them on the retail floor. So I don’t see that as being a precedent at all. The fact that the building permit and the CO called it that, I don’t think, are determinative. Those aren’t Zoning Ordinance things. Those are building code things. That’s an entirely different thing. It’s not controlled by the Zoning Ordinance definitions, and again, it seems to be an entirely different purpose for that building. With regard to the citation of cases in my letter, first of all, my understanding is none of you even had time to read it before you voted last time anyway, and I don’t expect Board members to read cases. Those were in there really for the benefit of your attorney, Mr. Schachner, and that was faxed to him in advance of the meeting. I don’t know if you had a chance to look at them or not, but I don’t see what that has to do with the resolution that this Board made last time, or at least that was voted upon, and then Mr. O’Connor states, and I, with all due respect, think he misstated the Code, as to, if a use is not prohibited then it must be permitted under your Code, and I think that’s quite wrong. Your Code says, Section 179-12C(3), under the heading of “Non-permissible Uses – Any use which is not a permissible use by right or by site plan review in a given zoning district or which is not an accessory use to such a permissible use or site plan review use shall be a non-permissible use and shall be deemed prohibited in that zoning district.” And warehouses are not permitted in the Highway Commercial zone, and thereby they are non-permissible uses. With regard to the photographs he submitted of a couple of other businesses that have detached buildings, we have no, those were mentioned before, at the last meeting. There weren’t photos, but those same buildings were mentioned before. We have no evidence before us as to whether or not the use they’re put to is the same as the other buildings, or the building that Mr. Sutton wants to construct. We still think there’s no more proof before you tonight that it’s customary and incidental, any more than there is with, than there was at the last meeting. There’s 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) really nothing new there. As far as Mr. O’Connor talking about the uses that this building is going to be put to, it seems that every time we appear here, that list expands. When it was in front of the Planning Board, it was just for large orders that they couldn’t fit anywhere else. Now all of a sudden everything’s going in there. On the issue of the number of principal buildings allowed on the property, again, that’s not the issue here tonight. If they re-file they’re application with the Planning Board, we’ll take up with the Planning Board whether or not they are allowed, what their buildings are, how many are principal buildings, how many are not. We don’t think that that’s an issue that this Board needs to address here, and it really shouldn’t have any effect on this, and lastly on the question of accessory use versus accessory use structure, I think the two definitions have to be read in conjunction. If you were to say that any structure could be built for an accessory use, regardless of whether it’s customary, regardless of whether it’s incidental, on any zone, then you might as well just toss out the whole Ordinance, because everybody will be coming in claiming everything is customary, or everything is incidental to the main use. Now, what if Mr. Sutton decides he wants to put in a sawmill and make his own furniture, in a Highway Commercial zone? If it’s a warehouse, it’s allowed where warehouses are allowed. It can’t be brought in to this zone by calling it an accessory use structure, and when you think about it, in theory, if you want to follow Mr. O’Connor’s line of logic on that, let him build a building that looks like a warehouse, and then it would be an accessory use structure, and he says it doesn’t have to be customary, but in order to actually use that building, it then, you look at what’s the definition of accessory use, and that says it has to be customary, it has to be incidental. So I think it’s splitting hairs to look at the differences in those two definitions. It just gets beyond the point of common sense. I think any use has to, any accessory use has to be customary. It has to be incidental, and to conclude, I think there’s two separate reasons to grant this appeal and decide that this building is not allowed. One is, if you find that it’s a warehouse, it’s not an allowed use in that zone. That’s pretty simple. I think that was the gist of what Mr. McNally was saying the last time. The second is, if it’s claimed to be an accessory use, it’s only permitted if it’s customary and it’s incidental, and if you find it’s not customary, or if you find it’s not incidental, then it’s not a permitted accessory use. So I think there’s, either of these is enough. If it’s a warehouse, or if it’s not a customary and incidental accessory, then I don’t think it’s permitted in this zone, and does anybody on the Board have any questions? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Mr. O’Connor asked if you represent anyone on Oakwood Avenue. MR. CAFFRY-It’s possible some of the people in the group may live on Oakwood Avenue. I don’t see what bearing that has on anything at all to do with this. The majority of my clients live on Twicwood, and are well close enough to the site, and the fact, where some of them may live, I don’t think is relevant at all. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I don’t think it’s Oakwood Avenue. I think it’s Oakwood Drive. MRS. LAPHAM-Mr. Caffry, the last thing that you read, the last page that you read, could you bring that here so I could just look at it again. The last thing that you read verbatim. MR. CAFFRY-From the Code? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, I think so. I wanted to just take another quick look at that. MR. CAFFRY-It should be in your Code book, and I would like to file these March 16, 1999 Planning Board minutes. MR. THOMAS-Mr. O’Connor has again asked if you could specifically say yes or no that you represent anyone on Oakwood Drive. John, Mr. O’Connor has asked if you could specifically say yes or no to representing anyone on Oakwood Drive. MR. CAFFRY-I believe so. I can’t say 100% for sure. I don’t have. MR. BRAY-No. MR. CAFFRY-No? Okay. Mr. Bray says no. He’s the organizer, so to speak, of the group. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That’s all we want to hear. Yes or no. MR. THOMAS-Are you all set, Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Mr. O’Connor. We're running a little farther than we should be. So, if you could keep it brief. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. O’CONNOR-I appreciate that. I’ll try to. I think the reference to 179-12(3) really begs the question. It does not specifically say any use which is not listed. It says any use which is not a permissible use by right or by site plan review in a given zoning district, or which is not an accessory use to which such a permissible use or site plan review use shall be non-permissible. The question is still yours. Is this an accessory use? That Section adds nothing to it at all except a little bit more cloud and misdirection. MR. STEC-I was going to ask the question, when this was brought up, that I would say, since we’ve got Mr. O’Connor here right now, I would say that the issue is that they’re arguing that this is their right, and that’s why it’s not prohibitive. That’s their argument. MR. STONE-Well, I have a long comment that I will make when we’re done, because, frankly, the more people talk, the deeper I dig and the more convinced I am, as I look in my bible, that a warehouse is not permitted, but we’ll get there. MR. O’CONNOR-My point, I think, is that a storage building is, and what we are using this for is the same thing that we used the 1996 building for, as a receiving and unpacking building. The idea that this is something that is used for interim storage and then transport some place else is not a factual issue. Those goods, anything that goes into that building are goods related to sales, made on the sales floor of the retail sales operation. I don’t think it’s unlike anything else that sells high-ticket items or large items. When they are delivered, they are held, and then they are delivered. We deliver on our own vehicles. We don’t use, we deliver from our site. Everything comes into our site and goes out of our site. It’s no different than the 1996 building. Now terminology is different. That’s granted, but I think you’ve got to look at the use of the building. Steve, do you want to say anything? STEVE SUTTON MR. SUTTON-I would just like to say that, going back to the ’96 building, I call it a warehouse every day. Go out to the warehouse and get the boxes, go out and get the bags, go out and get the T- shirts, go out and get the gifts. I call it a warehouse, and blame me for not being up on what the zoning says. I told Tom Nace that I wanted to build a warehouse. I didn’t tell him I wanted to build a storage building, but that’s because I didn’t understand the definition of the two. I certainly wouldn’t have applied for a warehouse, thinking, if I had read the Zoning Ordinance. It’s the English language. I send the guys out. We warehouse in that shipping/receiving, we buy a season’s full of boxes, gift boxes for Christmas. We buy bags. We buy all kinds of things that we warehouse in that shipping and receiving. I call it a warehouse every day, but that’s my fault, I guess, but it’s a storage building. Call it whatever you want, and I think everything we’ve talked about, the meeting that we were here a month ago, I felt didn’t stick to the issue. They were all planning issues, site plan review. That’s what I felt that we were at a month ago. We didn’t stick to the Use Variance. It’s my fault I called it a warehouse, and I’m here just to clear up the concept myself. So the next time I can come back, I’ll be more careful, but most people, when they think about bringing in boxes for the season, or Christmas trees, or wreaths, they think, I’m going to throw it in the warehouse. I don’t say to my help, I’m going to throw it in the storage building. So that’s where the term “warehouse” came from. I could have just as easily, on that plan, put proposed storage facility. So we’re arguing over a definition back and forth here, and, truth be known, if that building wasn’t where it is, we wouldn’t be arguing at all because it wouldn’t have come here. So, I’m a little confused why we’re not at site plan and why we’re here, because when I re-apply, it’ll be for a storage facility. So I think it’s a permitted use. We need the storage. It’s a hardship not to have it, and I would like to think that that community is going to support Sutton’s, for what we do for the community. I know it effects a few neighbors, the way we’ve proposed it right now, but call it what you want, it’s my mistake for calling it a warehouse. Thank you. MR. O’CONNOR-The last comment I’d make is I would just address the slippery slope argument, that if you allow this, what are you going to see down the road. Take a look at the cases that we submitted in full to you. There are distinctions made. If it’s not accessory to the principal use, it’s not allowed. I think one of those cases disallowed a proposed gasoline sales, as accessory to a milk product/convenient store. You have to show that it is accessory, subordinate, and connected to the principal use on the property. You can’t just go off and branch off into a new arena, manufacturing of furniture, and stick that in the building and call that an accessory use. So, I think you have a good understanding of the issue. I think we’ve presented to you what we think are the fair facts that you should consider, the precedents that you have. We’ve all of a sudden forgotten about, we don’t want to talk about precedents because we don’t want to use the 1996 ruling as something that would permit you to go in our particular way. I have nothing else, unless you have any questions of me. MR. THOMAS-Any questions? MR. STONE-I have one question before I get to speak, eventually. This is the Code book of the Town of Queensbury, do you agree? This is what I’m supposed to use in judging whether or not to give a variance or whether or not to make this decision? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. O’CONNOR-Right. Yes. MR. STONE-Thank you. I just want to ascertain the book is the book. That’s what I use. MR. O’CONNOR-That and the case law that goes with it. It’s not by itself. MR. STONE-I believe you said we are lay people, doing a job. We are not lawyers. This is the book that we use. Well, some of us are. MR. O’CONNOR-I think, Mr. Stone, what I have to say is tempered also by precedent. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is that it, Mr. O’Connor? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, sir. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. I’m sorry this went longer than we were hoping it would go, but I think this is a very important decision to be made, because it will have resounding effects on the community in the future. Well, lets talk about it. Jaime, what do you think? MR. HAYES-Well, I’m happy to go first, in this case. Like a hole in the head, but I think in this particular case, we’re charged, tonight, with making a very narrow decision, as to whether Mr. Round made the right choice as to the definitions of accessory use and principal use in this circumstance, and what defines each of those two things. I think we have to fight straying into matters of good taste and the good idea that are legally left with the Planning Board, and for good reason. Section 179-7, Accessory Use, defining accessory use as a use customarily incidental and subordinate to the character of the permitted use or principal building, and on the other side, you have Section 179-7, defining principal use as the main or primary purpose for which land or a building is used or occupied or maintained. Is it a warehouse as a principal use, or is this incidental and subordinate ancillary use to his business? In my mind, when I think of a warehouse, I think of a site that is not the principal place of business of the things that are being stored in there, i.e. these items are being transported to some other site, which is the principal use or the principal endeavor of that business. So I guess really, in short, I can live with the fact that this is an incidental use to a furniture business. Having furniture out back, to bring forward, when somebody buys a piece of furniture, to me, is a use that is subordinate and even necessary to the furniture business. When my wife forces me to buy furniture, we go and get it and we want to get it and we buy it. So I think that in that particular case, I think it definitely is a natural extension of the business, if it’s on that site. If it wasn’t on that site, and I’m presuming, Mr. Sutton, that you don’t have other furniture stores, because if you did, I would think completely the opposite that, in fact, it would be a warehouse, because you would be supplying other places of business, which is, in my mind, what the definition of a warehouse is. MR. SUTTON-And I would agree with you. MR. HAYES-I have a business that has a warehouse which is in a Light Industrial zone, and our business is at other places in the community. So it is a warehouse, and that’s where warehouses belong, in Light Industrial facilities, but if I went in to buy a t.v., which is a high ticket item like the ones that you sell, at a business, and they had a storage building out back that contained t.v.’s, I would think that that would be a natural and subordinate use to the building or the business that they were in, and that was selling t.v.’s, and I would not have a problem with that. I guess where I will listen to the rest of the Board is as to whether this is incidental, being the size of the warehouse that you’re choosing to building. I want to hear what the other Board members have to say, because the idea of incidental does have a definition, in my mind, where there’s a threshold that could or could not be exceeded, and I would like to listen, but as far as Mr. Round’s decision to define this as an accessory use, I agree. So, I would listen to the rest of the Board members as far as the other small part of the definition, being the incremental use, or incidental use. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m still uncertain why we’re even discussing this. It struck me a half an hour into it, that there was no application pending, and without an application pending, as far as I’m concerned, the issue is moot, and I think it’s a waste of this Board’s time to have to make a decision, and more importantly, we might make a decision that does have precedential value, that someone’s going to walk away from here regretting. If there’s a deficiency in how this Code is written, that’s a problem for the Town Board to rectify, and if we’re forced to make a decision and an interpretation, then we will, but my first thought is, it’s an important decision, and that’s why the Town Board should be doing it, if there is no application. If another applicant wants to come in front of us, and give us this same issue, well, God bless them. Then we’ll do it, but until then, I don’t see why we should have to. This is a tough issue, but I do agree with both applicants that we’re talking about what is a warehouse, what’s not a warehouse, and what’s an accessory use structure and accessory use 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) and what’s not. There’s no question in my mind this is a warehouse. Under the definitional sections, 179-7, it’s for the storage of products for future transmission, and to say from one place to another, well, it’s going from one place to another. Most storage and retail establishments in our community are on the same premises, in the sense of the same building. I really don’t know too many buildings that have a separate warehouse. A couple have been identified. Most don’t have them. Even the furniture store across the street on Route 9 is a single structure. So, in my opinion, this proposal is clearly what meets the definition of a warehouse. A provision is made for warehouses in a Light Industrial zone. I don’t know how in God’s name you can have a warehouse permitted in one zone, and then say, since it’s not stated in another zone, it can be included as an accessory use. To do justice to the Ordinance, you have to say, if it says warehouse in one, and it doesn’t in another, that means that in the other place, warehouses are not permitted. You have to read the entire Ordinance as a whole, in order to do justice to it, and you parse it too finely when you’re trying to, you know, shoehorn a warehouse into a Highway Commercial zone as they’ve done. So I don’t think that this is an approved use, and then you’ve got to figure out whether or not it’s an accessory use, and that comes down to it. An accessory use is customarily incidental and subordinate. That’s under 179-7, it’s under 179-23-2. I know we have a difference of opinion as far as whether that adjective “customary” applies to accessory use and accessory use structures, but I think it does, and the way I read it is that’s what it does, because I think that’s what the Ordinance was intended as. When you go back to 1992, the Use Variance was required. In 1996, I don’t see that anyone ever challenged it. If no one challenges this kind of a thing, just as the citizens of Twicwood apparently challenged it, it doesn’t ever get to this Board. So the fact that it never got to this Board is of some weight, since the Building Department did make determinations, as did the Planning Board, but that’s why a decision was made in ’92 different from ’96, and maybe different from 1999. It’s of some value. I don’t see it as determinative. This is a 7200 square foot facility. The furniture store is 14,000 square foot, ballpark. That’s a 50% size. Mr. Sutton said if truth be known, he wouldn’t have called it a warehouse had he known the effect it would have been, but it is the placement of it, in many respects, that has caused this problem. Your existing 1500 square foot structure that you use for a structure is down toward Route 9, away from residential areas, no one gave a damn, excuse me. That’s why no one opposed the application in 1996, because no one cared enough since it wasn’t of concern to anyone. Now, you’re proposing a 7200 square foot accessory use structure, right on top of a residential zone, and we’ve got 50 people here tonight that are opposing it. So again, that just points to me how the issue is in front of us, if there’s an application. If there’s not, well, such as life, but I haven’t heard anything to change my mind, that this is not a permitted, that this was a correct decision, Chris, and I do see something of a slippery slope argument. If 1500 square feet is fine, is 7200 square feet fine? Is 10,000 square feet fine? Is 20,000 square feet fine? I think the natural extension of this argument is that anyone could come here and say, I can build any size warehouse I damn well please on a retail establishment, as long as I can tie it in to an existing use, as some benefit or use that can be of benefit to the primary use of the property. I don’t think that’s the intent. Do you disagree? You mentioned that earlier. MR. O’CONNOR-You asked me a question, so I’ll answer it, with the permission of the Chairman. I’m not saying it’s as of right. That’s what is decided. The size issue is decided at site plan. MR. MC NALLY-It is, but the question is, you’re saying as of right. MR. O’CONNOR-The right to build a storage, I think you have a right to build an accessory building for storage purposes. MR. MC NALLY-Right. You have the right, the use right, under the zoning code, to build a warehouse for any retail establishment on the same site. That’s what your position is. MR. O’CONNOR-Warehouse storage building, yes. MR. MC NALLY-Whatever you call it, and then site planning goes into the size and things like that. MR. O’CONNOR-And that would determine the size. MR. MC NALLY-But I don’t see it that way. I don’t see it that way. MR. O’CONNOR-Where do you cut it off, at 100 square feet? MR. MC NALLY-Well, I don’t know. That’s why they use the word “customarily incidental and accessory”. MR. O’CONNOR-But, see, that’s not in the Ordinance, and you’re extending the Ordinance, which is prohibited. MR. MC NALLY-But it’s our judgment what is incidental and what is not incidental, and, you know, it’s like the word “reasonable”. You can’t define it, but you know in front of you whether or not 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) something is reasonable or not, and this is not incidental, is what I’m saying. This goes beyond incidental. So I’d be opposed to it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-Well, I was going to say, as the sole dissenter last time, that threw us into this, I would say that I almost felt bad, but I don’t, and I don’t because I don’t share the concerns of the citizens that spoke out against Chris’ determination. I certainly feel for the concerns, as I did last time. I haven’t changed my feelings there, but I think that most of the concerns that I heard last time were site plan issues, but I’ll disagree with Bob that I do think, we started down this path, and we’ve invested a lot of time, ourselves, the Board. This is the biggest turnout I've ever seen for a Zoning Board meeting in my nine month tenure here, but I think that it’s important that we proceed, and I don’t want to shirk this issue back off to somebody else and say, well, this one’s too hard for us or it’s not appropriate for us. I think it is appropriate. This is one of our functions of the Zoning Board is to hear these sorts of appeals. So I think it is important. I think it’s timely. I think we are the experts on this, and I think that we’ve, not only are we the experts by definition, but we’ve been here for all the discussions so far. So I think it’s important for us to carry the ball over the line and get a resolution on this. I don’t see anything in the zoning code that’s specifically, and I heard it numerous times, and it bothered me, and I was thinking, gee, I must be missing something, but that says warehouses, and I think that this is a warehouse, storage shed/warehouse, but I don’t see anything in Highway Commercial that says a warehouse is not permitted. I followed through the articles. I found it very enlightening that, in my opinion, the change that occurred between 1992 and 1999 is very significant. Paul Dusek clarified it. He said, this opens it. We’ve passed it through here. We did read it. So Mr. O’Connor isn’t making things up. We’ve seen it here on the Board, that this was decided that they were going to allow accessory uses to broaden the scope of what was allowed. So you start looking at, and I think that a lot of what we are talking about is semantics, and what are the words here. I think that this is exactly what we’re talking about. Definition of warehouse starts “A building...” and then the rest. The definition of Accessory Use Structure, “Any building or structure”, and then the rest. So in my logic, a warehouse is a subset of accessory use structures, and I think it’s very important for us that we are to disregard site plan issues. That’s why there’s a site plan, or a Planning Board. By law, that is their job. It is not our job to draw the line and say, 7200 feet, 500 feet, 100 feet. That is that Board’s job. That’s why they exist. So, the site, the height, the size, the location, the smell, the noise, all valid concerns, all appropriate concerns, for the Planning Board, not for the Zoning Board. The question is, in accordance with 179-23(2)(a) “Customary and Incidental”, that’s what I said last time. I think I hit the nail on the head last time. Is it customary? Apparently there’s precedent in Town. There’s precedent all up and down Route 9 from Montreal to New York City for storage buildings of this nature. There’s precedent on that very site. Then the question, and I think it’s in the minutes last time, the question I had is incidental, because, and I think Jaime started hitting on that. At what point do you say, well, this isn’t incidental anymore, and the question that I come up with is, if the Suttons weren’t retailing furniture, would they store furniture, and the answer to me is, no. Now, I can’t read their minds, but to me, that’s not the flavor of what’s going on here, and I think Jaime started touching on that. I think that, if he had several other stores, or if he was brokering this stuff or wholesaling it to other stores, then that clouds the issue, but to me, it’s clear that if somebody is retailing stuff out of their property, that they’re going to be storing some stuff somewhere. All right. I think it’s very important, and I like to think, I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, that it was an honest omission, but to me, to make the statement that no significant changes were made to the zoning code was misleading, and I think that that evidence that we’ve seen tonight only hardens me on my previous position, that this is entirely allowed. It’s been talked about. The arguments that were brought forward about what Jim Martin said in the past, and the precedent and the arguments as far as what was written, they were, there’s evidence contrary to that, that we saw tonight, and to me, that only makes it even clearer to me. I think that this is a very clear issue. I think that the concerns that the public has are appropriate for a site plan review, for the Planning Board, but to say that a retailer is not allowed to have a storage building is ludicrous. The issue of where, how big, smell, noise and all that stuff is Planning Board business, and that’s why we have two Boards. So, to me, this is not a difficult issue anymore, and I support the current and the previous Zoning Administrator’s decisions. They’re the experts on this as well, and I think that, in this case, he had it right. Now, am I saying that, if I lived in Twicwood that I wouldn’t be sitting out there with you or that I wouldn’t, yes, I’d be with you, but I’d be there on Tuesday nights, not Wednesday nights, and that’s, to me, this is crystal clear. It really is. These concerns are appropriate for the Planning Board, and that’s how I feel. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m abstaining on this. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I wish I were as sure as Mr. Stec that it was a clear issue. To me, it’s somewhat cloudy. I realize last time I was hung up on site plan issues. However, I still feel that this is a 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) warehouse, and it is not an accessory structure, and it is, therefore, not permitted. While I sympathize with Mr. Sutton’s need for it, and I’m not saying that maybe, in future cases, well, actually, one of the reasons I feel this way, strong, is I feel each case should be argued on a site to site merit, and if we make a resolution here tonight, based on something that isn’t even being put forth, as Mr. McNally pointed out, that could set a precedent for something that I don’t necessarily want to do in the future, and so I will not support the Zoning Administrator’s decision in this case. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Headline. I haven’t changed my position, but let me tell you why I haven’t changed my position. I think I said at the last meeting, that one, warehouse is defined in the bible. Mr. O’Connor agreed this is the book I have to work with. Two, in Light Industrial zone, warehouse is used for Type II use, I mean, in terms of Planning Board. In Highway Commercial, it does not mention the word “warehouse”. In addition, again, as I said earlier, the more people talk, the more I read. Maybe I should say I should read earlier, but it says in 179-23(2)(a), Accessory Uses, “Customary Accessory Uses and Accessory Use Structures incidental to a permitted use or an existing nonconforming residential use”. It also says, in 179-26, “Accessory Uses”, and I will quote the exact same words, “Customary Accessory Uses and Accessory Use Structures incidental to a permitted use or an existing nonconforming residential use”. The exact same language in both areas, but in the Light Industrial zone, warehouse is a Type II permitted building. Therefore, warehouse is not in a Highway Commercial. In addition, it’s interesting to note that both of these definitions were amended by Local Law No. 10-1992, on November 23, 1992, both Section D’s were amended at the same time. Therefore, the Town Board, to ask Mr. Hayes said it should be left to the Town Board, in ’92, the Town Board did decide that warehouse is not a word to be used in Highway Commercial. Therefore, I can’t go along with the Zoning Administrator. MR. THOMAS-Well, I've been sitting here listening to both parties, both sides, and it’s a comment Bob made about no application. I think we’re making a determination of Mr. Round’s decision. We're not making any determination on any application, okay, and what Dan said, a warehouse is, or an accessory use is a permitted use, but this is being called a warehouse. It is not an allowed use in this zone, but it would be if a variance were applied for, a Use Variance was applied for and granted. So, a warehouse could be in there, but it would have to go through a Use Variance, as did the 1992 project. As far as the definition of warehouse, it is real clear, in the Zoning Ordinance, that is for temporary storage to hold products or articles for future transmission. That’s what was said at the Planning Board that this was going to be used, and it was also said again tonight that this was going to be used for storage, that people ordered and could not pick them up, or was going to be stored there until they were picked up. So, I would have to disagree with Mr. Round, as much as I hate to. I will have to disagree with him. So, having said that, I will ask someone to make a motion. MR. STONE-I’ll make the same motion we made the last time. MR. BROWN-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, there’s a letter of public comment. Would you like to get that on the record? MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. Is that a new one? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. This is one of May 18. th MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-Dorothy H. Lake, 9 Oakwood Drive, May 18, 1999, Chris Thomas, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals and “To Whom It May Concern: A letter was placed in my mailbox on Oakwood Drive dated April 28, 1999, addressed to “Dear Neighbor” from Dana S. Bray stating his objection to the construction of a warehouse proposed by the Suttons on Route 9. The information did not seem of direct concern to me since my property does not abut the site in question. But a second letter arrived May 11, 1999, the tone of which was vituperative and the final sentence imperative “…WE MUST STOP THEM FROM DOING THIS.” What in the world is going on? The Suttons have worked hard to build a unique business which has brought prestige to the Town of Queensbury. They have identified and developed a market for slightly up-scale merchandise, tastefully displayed, and realistically priced which serves the local populace and attracts seasonal residents and visitors who make their operation a destination point in visits to the area. They have not only weathered the market fluctuations of the overall economy, but have prospered and grown by improving their property and expanding their services. This kind of business most communities would welcome and work hard to keep. As a retired commercial Realtor based in Albany, I am familiar with buffer zone concerns between commercial and residential areas. Understandably, residents resent the intrusion of structures which block their view and pollute with noise and light. But the Twicwood property abutting Sutton’s holdings are separated by a dense stand of tall pines and tall deciduous trees. The elevation of the residences on Twicwood would seem to place them well above the buildings on Route 9. From the road, it is easier to see Skateland on the opposite side 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) of Route 9. In my opinion, the proposed building and its use will do nothing to interfere with the “quiet enjoyment” of the residents on Twicwood Lane. I ask the Board to consider that public funds are spent to attract business to Queensbury from other areas. The success of those ventures are limited at best. Look at the empty malls as proof. The Suttons are local people who have invested their considerable time, efforts and money in establishing a business in Queensbury. In reviewing their request to improve their property, the Board has evidence of over twenty-five years or more that the expansion will enhance the business community. If, as Mr. Bray states in capitalized letters, “THEY ARE LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT,” the Town of Queensbury can only hope it is true. As a taxpayer in the Town of Queensbury, I ask the Board to work with the Suttons. I am sure the end result of their expansion will not devalue the Twicwood properties. Respectfully yours, Dorothy H. Lake” Robert Faughnan Julie A. Faughnan, 18 Twicwood Lane, Queensbury, NY “Dear Board Members: Our Family lives at 18 Twicwood Lane, located directly behind the proposed Sutton’s warehouse. We oppose this project due to the following facts. 1. We have 3 young children between the ages of 7 months and 10 years old. The proposed warehouse has a truck loading dock, which means there will be trucks in and out of the property. Since the property is located directly behind our home this poses a threat to the lives of our curious young children. 2. Development of this warehouse will require leveling of the Sutton’s property including the ground, trees, plant growth, etc., between our home and Route 9. This along with the truck traffic will increase noise levels and decrease the aesthetic value of our back yard and overall property value, creating difficulty and hardships for future re-sale. We care very much about our children, most certainly about their safety and the opportunity to be able to provide them with a quality education. Most Americans trust that their homes equity will grow rather than diminish and rely on this growth as a source of college funding, we are no different. Sincerely Yours, The Faughnan’s” MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. ROUND-Mr. Thomas, I’d like to offer a few comments myself. No one’s asked for an insight into my decision making process, and I think that’s what’s in question here tonight. MR. THOMAS-Absolutely. MR. ROUND-One, the purpose of the Zoning Board, one of the functions, is perfection of the Zoning Ordinance. It’s difficult for the Zoning Ordinance to address all issues, to be exhaustive in a list of uses, to be exhaustive in a list of prohibited uses. So that’s what we’re here tonight. We're trying to perfect our Ordinance, and that’s a difficult task for everybody involved. I’d like to touch on a couple of the major points that were made, that were Section 179-12A wasn’t referenced, but Section 179-12C(3) was, and I’ll just read, 179-12A is general interpretation and application of regulations, and I’ll skip down. It says, “The restrictions and controls intended to regulate development in each district are set forth in the attached schedules, which are supplemented in other sections of this chapter. The identification of particular uses allowed as permitted uses, accessory uses or site plan review uses is for illustrative purposes.” I interpret that as a listing of uses in a particular zone is not an exhaustive list of all uses that are allowed in that zone. 179-12C(3) Use Regulations Non-Permissible Uses “Any use which is not a permissible use by right or by site plan review”, that does not say a list that is not, that does not say that a use that is not listed in that particular section of zone, is prohibited, or if it’s omitted from that list, that does not mean it’s not allowed. I can say this a couple of different ways, and they’re all confusing, but just because it doesn’t appear on the list doesn’t mean it’s prohibited. The other point I’d like to make is because a use is listed as a principal use in another zone, does not preclude it from being an accessory use in a zone, as well. That judgment is left to the Zoning Administrator, whether it’s an accessory use or whether it’s incidental, I think, is the primary question here. Our Zoning Ordinance is a listed use. It’s a prescriptive use Ordinance. New Zoning Ordinances are impact based or threshold based, and allow some discretion, provide some more guidance on when is something incidental, when is it not incidental, when is it accessory, when is it not accessory. So I rely on, is this a customary use, you know, customary, I've heard people, does customary mean it has to be illustrated within our community on a regular basis? I don’t know that that’s the case. Customary may be beyond our geographic area. It may be related to industrial practices nationally, or on a different economic scale. So I didn’t rely too heavily, you know, are there 10 warehouses associated with retail uses in the Town of Queensbury to make a judgment on customary. I’ll just give you that, that’s the insight. You can make your own judgment. There was a change, in 1992, to allow customary and incidental uses. I should read this, a use, I’ll read from the HC-1A Section. Customary Accessory Uses and Accessory Use Structures incidental to a permitted use or existing nonconforming residential use, they didn’t use warehouse in there, because again we would have fallen into that pit fall. If they try to be exhaustive of what was accessory or incidental, we would have omitted something else, again. So they use broad language, and I think the meeting minutes from the Town Board, from the attorney at the time at the Town Board meeting, reaffirmed that. It’s difficult. You have to use broad language at times. You have to use narrow language at others. So that, again, that’s what I based my decision on. I think the commercial use definition itself, commercial use, “Any use involving the sale or rental or distribution of goods, services or commodities, either retail or wholesale,”, and it goes on, but 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) distribution of goods. So is a warehouse prohibited in this zone because it’s a distribution of goods, and distribution of goods as it relates to a warehouse use is only allowed in Light Industrial? I don’t think so. Distribution of goods, the retail store itself could be called a distribution facility because people are coming in and taking items out. So, if you go that route, I think you’re pigeonholing yourself again. It is a difficult decision. It’s not something I made lightly, but it wasn’t something that, I respect all the residents here and their concerns, and I believe there are site plan uses. The precedent you set tonight to say warehouses are not allowed in retail uses, is every bit as difficult a precedent that I’m going to have to deal with in the future, that other businesses are going to have to deal with, just as the reverse is, that warehouses are allowed uses in the retail district. I was more comfortable allowing the flexibility, and allowing my judgment to make those judgments when is it incidental? Well, if it’s a 30,000 square foot facility, incidental to a 5,000 square foot retail facility, then I hope you value my judgment to say that that’s not incidental, or a manufacturing facility associated with a small retail facility, you’ve got to give your Zoning Administrator some flexibility, and I don’t think the judgment that I sense you’re making tonight is going to allow me any flexibility. If you go forward with that decision, I suggest that you ask the Town Board, you ask them to direct me to revise the warehouse definition, to revise our Ordinance, which we are undertaking as well, since a part of this is academic. We will be revising our Zoning Ordinance. We will be developing an impact based Ordinance, if we have the support of our community. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. MR. STONE-Chris, just a comment. I mean, I certainly appreciate your thinking and how you got there. MR. ROUND-I respect everybody else’s opinion here as well, that’s why you’re here on this Board. MR. STONE-I understand that, but I guess I would much rather err on the side of caution, that is somebody wants to put a warehouse in a Highway Commercial, they come and get a variance. MR. ROUND-A Use Variance is going to be a very difficult test. This individual here, well, can I sustain my business without a warehouse? Well, he has been. Well, can he continue to, well, how are you going to put financial standards together that says, that’s going to entitle this person to a Use Variance, but if you went for the reverse decision, and somebody challenged my decision, they would have the opportunity to challenge my decision again, that this particular warehouse in another location is not incidental, and that I've erred in my judgment, they would have the recourse to go forward. If we’re not allowing that use, a retail business would have to go through an Article 78 proceeding, would have to, it would likely be shut down. You’re closing the door on opportunities for businesses. MR. STONE-I don’t see it that way. MR. MC NALLY-See, Chris, I would just as soon you made all the decisions. MR. ROUND-I understand that. I would just as soon you did, too. MR. MC NALLY-But your point that when they brought in the statute is well taken, because they did, but the issue still boils down to, what’s a customary, accessory use or an accessory use structure? They may have included it, but what the heck is it? And it’s our sense that a warehouse is not, and I’ll go back to what I said before. We don’t have to decide this thing. We're being forced because someone wants us to have a decision here. I mean, this is something the Town Board should address, but, hey, it’s in front of us. MR. ROUND-Well, then I would be very narrow in your decision that you make tonight, in your motion tonight, how you reference that motion, whatever it is, that it’s not broad and all encompassing, and that it relates to some thresholds that you might offer in your resolution. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what we did the last time. MR. MC NALLY-If we make a motion to deny, if we make a motion, in other words, against the warehouse, it’s basically it should be phrased, if I’m not mistaken, that we reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator. So we don’t have to get into square foot and stuff like that. MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NALLY-The only decision we have in front of us is whether we should reverse your decision. MR. O’CONNOR-You’ve got to give a reason. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. MC NALLY-Reasons, yes, but we’re not going to have a blanket statement that 12,000 square foot buildings that are warehouses are not permitted in this zone. Then we’ll give our rationale, as it relates to this particular case. That, I would think, gives you flexibility, still in the future, on a different case. Am I wrong? MR. ROUND-I’ll see how it comes out. MR. STEC-Mr. Chairman, the flip side of that coin is we could have a motion supporting his decision with provisions, or clarifying that this is not, to remove the burden of the slippery slope, that we’re setting a dangerous precedent, we could justify a decision to support his ruling in this matter, however, and then phrase the motion such that it’s clear that it’s not intended to give everyone free reign to run around and put up 100,000 square foot, 50 story warehouses. MR. STONE-No. I think we have a yes or no. We can make a motion yes or no, but it’s yes or no. MR. THOMAS-In the past when we’ve done these, it’s been to either uphold the Zoning Administrator’s position or to uphold the applicant’s request to deny the Zoning Administrator, his decision. So we really don’t get into specifics in either way. It’s just either yes, it’s a yes or no kind of thing. MR. MC NALLY-Do we give our rationale? MR. THOMAS-We already have. It’s just a yes or no, because the rationale that we’ve all talked about has already been spoken, and it’s part of the record. Does anybody else on the Board have any questions? Would someone like to make a motion? MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, before you make a motion, I’d like a point of procedure, if I might. I would ask Mr. McNally whether or not he would like to consider abstaining in this particular vote, because as I understand the opposition, it is a Twicwood organization. Mr. McNally lives on Oakwood Drive, I’m told, and I would respectfully ask that he consider abstaining. MR. THOMAS-I think Mr. McNulty lives on Oakwood, not Mr. McNally. MR. O’CONNOR-I’m speaking directly of Mr. McNally. I think you had a letter from somebody that had some concerns about that. For the purpose of the record, I make the statement. MR. MC NALLY-Let me address your concern. I did think about it very seriously. Oakwood Drive is not part of the Twicwood development. It’s outside the Twicwood development. It was done by Mr. Ruggles. We're the next development over. I am not within 500 feet of Sutton’s market. I’m well beyond that 500 foot margin, and I can’t see Route 9, let alone any part of Mr. Sutton’s property, because it’s over the next hill. I have no personal property interest or any other interest in Twicwood. I see no reason why I should have to withdraw. MR. O’CONNOR-I make the statement for the purposes of the record. As I understand it, solicitations were made for support for the opposition on the drive that you live on. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I've neither supported any group nor have I responded to any group, anymore than I responded to telephone calls from counsel from both sides of the applicant and the opposition. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. That was the purpose of the telephone call. MR. MC NALLY-I know. MR. THOMAS-Go ahead, Mr. Stone. MR. STONE-I move that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals not uphold the determination of the Zoning Administrator in regard to the warehouse application, I want to be specific in terms of, well, shall we go the other way, supports the appeal. MR. HAYES-I don’t think you can use the word “warehouse”. You just say. MR. THOMAS-You can’t, no. MR. STONE-No, I don’t want to use the word “warehouse”. I move that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals upholds the appeal in regard to the determination of the Zoning Administrator in regards to the former, the withdrawn Sutton application. Well, I’m just trying. MR. HAYES-Just uphold Appeal No. 1-99. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Yes, uphold Appeal No. 1-99. MR. STONE-That we uphold Appeal No. 1-99. MR. THOMAS-All right. Say it again, for the record, to make sure it’s straight. MR. STONE-Motion that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals supports, is that the word, upholds the appeal of Karen Sabo, 1-99, of the Zoning Administrator’s determination. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That’s it. Right there. MR. O’CONNOR-That’s exactly what Chris said. That’s a broad brush. MR. STONE-You think that’s a broad brush? MR. THOMAS-Not when you reference the appeal. MR. STONE-It’s the appeal. MR. O’CONNOR-Look at the appeal, the language of the Appeal. It doesn’t reference solely the size. It says, this proposed use of the warehouse. It says storage and retail area is prohibited. MR. THOMAS-No. We're going to go with that right there. That’s the motion. I’ll ask for a second. Is anyone going to second the motion, or would you like it changed, or re-worded? MR. STONE-Change it? MR. MC NALLY-Could I hear your motion one more time? What exactly is it that you’re saying? MR. CAFFRY-Can I make a suggestion, since Mr. O’Connor seems to feel free to interject. Could you vote to grant the appeal of Mrs. Sabo, and reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator, that she appealed from? I think that’s clear. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, I would be happy with that. MR. THOMAS-All right. Try it. MOTION THAT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTS APPEAL NO. 1-99 OF KAREN SABO, DISAGREEING WITH THE DETERMINATION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. MC NALLY-So, in other words, you’re saying that the motion is to reverse the decision of our Zoning Administrator? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I’ll second it. AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-There we go. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JIM VARANO VARANO CONSTRUCTION OWNER: MARK AND LAURA SPRINGER 64 ROCKHURST ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE AND THE SHORELINE AND WETLAND REGULATIONS. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND FOR RELIEF 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SEPTIC VARIANCE TOWN BOARD RES. NO. 18.99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 1/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 15-1-44 LOT SIZE: 0.09 ACRES SECTION: 179-79, 179-16 JIM VARANO, PRESENT; MARK SPRINGER, PRESENT MR. STEC-Mr. Chairman, before you get started, I feel that I should recuse myself from the next application because Mr. Springer and I are friends and co-workers. MR. THOMAS-Okay. This was tabled. MR. STONE-This was tabled in January. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Yes, the Board of Health had to take care of this one, for a septic variance. MR. STONE-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. That’s what I thought when I read it at home. “Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: January 20, 1999 Variance File No. 4-1999 Area Variance Tabled Motion To Table Area Variance No. 4-1999 Jim Varano Varano Construction Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until No later than the March 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 we’re tabling this application is to have the applicant provide an adequate assessment of the septic system in the form of a drawing showing the relationship of the entire system to the house and the lake, and also dimensions on the existing building and the proposed addition. Duly adopted this 20 day of th January, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally Sincerely, Bonnie Lapham, Secretary” MR. THOMAS-Okay. The reason this went beyond the March tabling was that the Town Board, sitting as the Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury, had to decide on a variance for the septic system, and they didn’t do that until the 3 day of May, 1999. rd STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-1999, Jim Varano Varano Construction, Meeting Date: May 19, 1999 tabled: January 20, 1999 “Project Location: 64 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2 story addition to a single family nd dwelling and is requesting relief from the setback requirements of both the Shoreline and Wetlands regulations and the WR-1A zone. Additionally, the applicant is seeking relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 11 feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirements, 11 feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement and 1 foot of side setback relief 15 foot requirement. Also, the applicant is requesting relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements to have a 27% total after construction, as compared to the required 22%. Additionally, relief is being requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, § 179-79, the current structure is in violation of the front, side and shoreline setback requirements. 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 occupy the desired addition. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to no construction, as any expansion of this structure would require some relief. A downsized addition, more than likely, would not be feasible to the applicant. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The dimensional relief may be interpreted as minimal to moderate, subject to an accurate survey. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood in the form of visual impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? While the proposed expansion may be interpreted as self created, the pre- existing non conforming nature of the parcel and structure may contribute to the difficulty. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 36-1992 – res. 4/22/92 construction of dock SP 17-1992 – res. 5/19/92 construction of dock – denied SP 36-1992 – res. 7/21/92 – construction of dock SP 6-93 – res. 3/2/93 reconstruction of dock. SP 50-1995 – res. 9/21/95 2 nd story addition Septic Variance – Town Board Resolution 18-99 Staff comments: Minimal to moderate aesthetic impacts on the neighborhood and community may be anticipated as a result of this action. It is apparent that the original intent of the subdivision of Rockhurst envisioned small lots with seasonal camps. The use of these properties has changed to year round conversions and 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) expansions of the original camps. The undersized lots do not appear to be able to adequately support the development without several forms of relief. SEQR Status: Type II”. MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anything else you want to say, Mr. Varano, about this application? Because we asked for additional information as to the setbacks. The septic was taken care of by the Town Board of Health, and we did ask for better drawings. MR. VARANO-That’s correct, and we have, I think, made pretty much the drawings that you needed, and at the time, I guess there was a switch from this Board to the Board of Health, for who was responsible for the septic, but that issue has been handled, and now we’re back here. So, at this point here, we’re right back where we were back on January the 20 with the exception that we’ve th been over a few hurdles here. MR. THOMAS-Okay. This drawing that you have, that you submitted, this is the dimensions for the house? MR. VARANO-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-What’s the height at the highest point? MR. VARANO-There’s actually, if you’re looking it at it to the right. MR. STONE-You’ve got 18 to the eaves, on the road side, but it’s on whatever the pitch is. MR. VARANO-The pitch is a 5/12, I believe, on the upper level. I would have to guess at that being probably, I don’t think there’s any determination of that being, it changes because of the ground conditions. They do start to slope off in the back, but I would think they’re both, 21, 22 feet. MR. STONE-The scaffolding that’s been there, that’s been there for? MR. VARANO-Since January. MR. SPRINGER-December. MR. STONE-Just sitting there. MR. VARANO-December, actually, yes. MR. SPRINGER-About nine years, if you ask me. MR. VARANO-It’s a permanent fixture. No, we’re taking that with us. MR. STONE-Craig, in my packet, I have a map made for Robert and Cheryl Pagettielli? MR. SPRINGER-That’s the previous owners. Correct, and I purchased the property from them in August of ’96. MR. STONE-Okay, but I see a patio here, and I know there’s stairs that seem to be the closest point to the lake. MR. SPRINGER-There is a patio back there, and there are maybe two or three stairs that lead to the deck, which is alongside the shoreline, and then there’s the docks that go extending out from there. MR. STONE-How close is that deck along the shoreline to the water? MR. SPRINGER-I would say it’s a good maybe 15 feet away. MR. STONE-The concrete patio? MR. SPRINGER-The concrete one? I’m sorry, there’s a wooden one there also. The concrete one, I’m guessing maybe 25 feet. MR. STONE-From the lake? MR. SPRINGER-Somewhere thereabouts. Maybe I’m off. MR. STONE-I would say three or four. MR. VARANO-Three or four feet? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. STONE-Yes. MR. VARANO-No. He’s closer. MR. STONE-I was there today. MR. VARANO-You’ve got the wrong residence. There’s a concrete patio out in the back of this house. There’s at least a minimum of 20, 25 feet. MR. STONE-No, but there’s one in the corner of the lot, down by the dock. MR. SPRINGER-That’s the wooden one. MR. STONE-And how many feet is that from the lake? MR. SPRINGER-Approximately 12, 15 feet. MR. STONE-I think I had the right house. 64? MR. SPRINGER-Sixty-four, correct. MR. STONE-I believe that’s what I went to. Did you guys see that? Did you go out by the lakeside? MR. MC NALLY-I did. I didn’t notice, though. MR. HAYES-We went up in the winter. MR. STONE-Yes, well, I did, too, the first time. That’s why I went back today. I didn’t have to go through the snow. MR. SPRINGER-I thought you meant the concrete one. The concrete one is further out. MR. STONE-I understand that. I realize that. I was just curious about the one, because building anything close to the lake requires some informing the Town, normally. MR. SPRINGER-That was there when I purchased the property. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SPRINGER-Both of those. MR. VARANO-What confused me was being three foot of concrete patio. MR. STONE-Well, three foot of some kind of platform, which is right down next to the, you have a dock that goes all the way across the water line, pretty much, and back from that on the southeast corner there is a wooden deck. MR. VARANO-Wooden deck, that’s correct. MR. STONE-Which is very close to the lake. That’s all, but you said it was there when you bought it. So we can’t hold you up on it. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-Just so I understand your plans, on the Rockhurst Road side of the building, you’re proposing to raise the eaves of the roof four feet, according to that plan? MRS. LAPHAM-Right. MR. VARANO-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Then you’re raising the peak from the existing portion about, what? MR. VARANO-A foot. MR. MC NALLY-And you have no idea how tall that peak is at that point? MR. VARANO-Right now? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. MC NALLY-As it will be. MR. VARANO-From the ground or from the second floor? Because there is a second floor there now. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, but from the ground. MR. VARANO-From the ground. MR. MC NALLY-If you know. I don’t want you to guess. MR. VARANO-Yes. I don’t know. I just don’t know what that is. If you want a guess, I can guess it, at 18. MR. MC NALLY-And on the lake side, you want to blow up the roof and raise the roof eave a foot or two? MR. VARANO-One foot. MR. MC NALLY-One foot. MR. VARANO-It gives it a little bit more, being five foot, you can walk over there. It gives you a little bit more head room. MR. HAYES-It was essentially complete, that room. MR. VARANO-That room is being used as it is right now. The thing of it is, if we’re doing that, we might as well take the foot. MR. STONE-In other words, the knee wall will be raised? MR. VARANO-The knee wall that’s there now at five foot would be nicer to be at six foot. You could walk right over to the wall. MR. STONE-And then on the Rockhurst Road, you’re going to go from zero to four. The question I have, Craig, is it says the Floor Area Ratio is going to increase. How do we determine that? Do we have a formula for it? Knee wall area? I mean, they’re not changing the. MR. HAYES-Essentially make that room usable where it wasn’t before. MR. STONE-They’re going to make it usable. Does that count? MR. BROWN-Yes. That area there on the front side, the Rockhurst Road side of the building, previously was an unfinished storage area, and now the application is presented. MR. STONE-Okay. So inside you know it’s going to change. MR. BROWN-Yes, and just, while we’re on Floor Area Ratio, in the file, I’m not sure if you all had copies of the updated worksheet. The notes mistakenly said 27% total. It’s going to be 29% total when they’re done, as opposed to 22, just so if you include it in the motion, they’re accurate. MR. MC NALLY-I see there was an approval of a second story addition back in ’95? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Was that on the portion? MR. BROWN-To the south. MR. MC NALLY-To the south. MR. BROWN-The second story, yes. MR. MC NALLY-That second story. MR. HAYES-And that’s going to remain higher than this portion, even now, basically, right? MR. SPRINGER-That’s correct. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. VARANO-As a matter of fact, the only way to that higher area is by going upstairs into what now exists as the lower area that we’re going to raise up a foot. If you go up that stairs, you see that area that’s going to be raised up a foot is where you’d walk to the top of those stairs to get to the other area. So that helps you make the turn without ducking your head around the corner. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-What is it going to be used for, more living space, a bedroom? MR. SPRINGER-Just a little bit more living space. Currently, I would guesstimate maybe 60% of that square of the corner of the house is living space, and we have a couch, a love seat and a television, an end table and a reclining chair packed into that area, and opening the ceiling up and changing the configuration and the pitch will allow us to gain a little bit more elbow room, so that we can actually spread out a little bit more. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions before I open the public hearing? I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-But it was all back in January. MR. THOMAS-Okay, yes, it’s all been read in. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, there’s a letter from John Richards, addressing a condition of the septic variance, as it relates to the restriction of the use of the area, which states that it can’t be used as a bedroom area, and Mr. Richards is representing Mr. Springer, and he’s in the process of presenting a deed restriction, or amendment to the deed to that effect, if that’s going to address the usage of the room for you, that they have agreed that that area wouldn’t be used as a bedroom area. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. SPRINGER-That agreement was struck at the Board of Health meeting a couple of weeks back MR. HAYES-Mr. Richards is your attorney. MR. SPRINGER-Correct. MR. STONE-But did we agree at that meeting, because I was present at that meeting, that somehow the Town is going to be able to enforce this deed covenant? MR. BROWN-That I don’t know. Off the top of my head, I’d have to say, no. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I would, too. MR. STONE-I raised the point at the Town Board meeting, but I didn’t get very far. MR. BROWN-It’s another broad brush. MR. THOMAS-All right. There’s no other correspondence. The public hearing is closed. Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t know. I’m torn two ways with this. I hate to see anything that adds to the canyon effect up in that section driving up the road. On the other hand, it doesn’t strike me that this is really going to make a significant amount of difference to the appearance. It’s not going to raise the top of the roof very much, the ridge. So I guess, balancing the effect on the neighborhood versus the benefit to the applicant, I’m inclined to approve. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I’m inclined to approve, simply because I feel that I hate to approve anymore further congestion to Rockhurst which is already beyond belief, however, the damage has been done years ago. This raising a roof one foot from the non lake side is not going to make it any worse than 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) it already is. So I’d be inclined to vote for this variance, as opposed to someone who is spreading sideways. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I don’t agree. I have the same concerns as Bonnie does. I mean, Rockhurst is. MRS. LAPHAM-A disaster. MR. STONE-Your word. I didn’t want to use it, but I’ll say disaster. You did indicate, the applicant did indicate a recent purchase of this house. I’m a firm believer that the Zoning Board of Appeals is not here to rectify bad decisions made by others. You bought a small house on a small lot. As far as I’m concerned, that’s what you bought. It’s there. It’s usable, and I just feel that any more incursion on the lake, because it is going to be higher, in terms of visibility from the lake, it is very close to the lake to begin with. It’s certainly very close to the road. It’s going to be higher on the road side, and while it’s not going to increase the canyon aspect that much more, it is going to contribute to it. It’s another four feet of elevation, from someone who is driving down the road and seeing this building. Therefore, unless I hear some very compelling reasons, I’ll be forced to vote against this variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, the benefit to the applicant is pretty obvious, and it seems pretty reasonable to me that you want to finish that room in a way that makes it livable. I don’t think there’s going to be much, if any, impact on the neighborhood, in this particular case. While I agree with Mr. Stone’s concerns about that area, and Bonnie’s, too. Obviously, that’s overdeveloped by anybody’s definition, but in this particular case, and in previous cases, small amounts of relief to perfect these properties for their owners, we’ve approved them in the past, and I think that particularly a one foot raise on the lakeside of the property, which is my concern because I think the views for the people on Rockhurst are out toward the lake. They’re not toward each other. I mean, it’s a very narrow strip of property. That’s where your views are, and there’s been other second story additions there. So I think, in the balancing test, I think it falls in favor of the benefit to the applicant, in this case, because I don’t think there’s a great impact on that neighborhood, particularly since you’ve solved the septic issues, because, clearly, those could have a very big impact on the neighborhood, but if they’ve been solved satisfactory to the people that evaluate those things, then I’m okay with it, and I’d be in favor of the application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. McNally? MR. MC NALLY-I agree with Jaime. The damage to this area was done many, many moons ago, and the applicant is proposing something which is going to have a minimal effect on the surrounding homes in Rockhurst, and I don’t see any significant effect on Lake George itself. At the same time, this will give them the elbow room that they need, and I would suggest maybe we make it contingent, also, if we can, on their not using this area for sleep space, but to be used as living area, if that can even be done. MR. THOMAS-It’s going to be in the deed. MR. MC NALLY-We were just talking about how that may not be enforceable. MR. THOMAS-Yes enforceable. How would ours be enforceable. MR. HAYES-You’re right, it’s a very legitimate concern. MR. MC NALLY-The question is how many occupants are in that building. That would be of concern to me. MR. SPRINGER-There’s two. MR. MC NALLY-I know, but when you start making, what happens is, these places are all, the are above the garage is turned into a sleeping area, and the basement is turned into a sleeping area. Everything’s turned into a sleeping area, and you’ve got 15 people on less than a tenth of an acre lot, and that’s not right, but to the extent that we can insert any contingency, I think we should. MR. THOMAS-All right, and Dan bailed out, so it’s down to me. I agree with the other Board members, that are saying that this is a good idea, that we should grant this variance. I think the effects on the neighborhood will be minimal. As Bonnie said, the canyon effect, it’s been there a long time, and I don’t think we’re really enhancing it anymore, and also like I think Bonnie said, the view, no, it was Jaime, said the view of the neighbors is out toward the lake, not toward the center, and anyone driving down that road that’s going to be lake watching or gazing around is asking for 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) trouble because that’s a very narrow road. They’ve got to be watching what they’re doing, where they’re going. So I have no problem granting this variance. Would somebody like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1999 JIM VARANO VARANO CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: 64 Rockhurst Road, on Lake George. The applicant proposes construction of a second story addition to a single family dwelling and is requesting relief from the setback requirements of both the shoreline and wetlands regulations, and the WR-1A zone. Additionally, the applicant is seeking relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements. Specifically, the applicant requests 11 feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirements, 11 feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement, and 1 foot of side setback relief from the 15 foot requirement. Also, the applicant is requesting relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements to have a 29% total, after construction floor ratio, as compared to the required 22%. Additionally, relief is being requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, Section 179-79. The current structure is in violation of those same front, side and shoreline setback requirements. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to perfect the home, in particular that room, in a way that would better suit the use as he has put forth. Feasible alternatives are extremely limited in this particular neighborhood, because of the size of the lots and the nature of the buildings that are already there. I think it’s a very minimal project, and therefore there aren’t many alternatives whatsoever. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I don’t think that it is, being that essentially the lot is already there. So the setbacks are as they were. There’s no additional encroachment, dimensionally, and as far as the Floor Area Ratio requirements, this room was already there. It’s just being perfected, and therefore, counted in the Floor Area Ratio. So I think it’s minimal compared to the Ordinance, even though 29% on a 22% ratio could be interpreted as moderate. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t anticipate major impact on the neighborhood whatsoever. The lifting of the roof is only a few feet. In particular, it’s only one foot on the lakeside, and I think that, as has been mentioned, that people’s views are out toward the lake. So I don’t think it’s going to negatively impact neighbor’s views of the lake, in this particular neighborhood. Is the difficulty self-created? It could be because he’s choosing to raise the roof when he doesn’t necessarily have to, but it is a pre-existing, nonconforming structure, and that’s really the reason for the request. So I think it’s a pre-existing condition, and therefore, substantially not self-created. So I would move for its approval. I’d like to add the condition that the applicant agree not to use this perfected room, as we’re calling it, as an additional bedroom or sleeping room, versus the use that we’re approving which is perfecting his leisure area, for this applicant and any other future applicants. Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff for a minute. Craig, Number Three in your notes, is the relief substantial, you say, “Subject to an accurate survey dimensional relief”. You’re saying the numbers that we put in the motion may not be correct? MR. BROWN-No, I think that was prior to the time I saw that survey. MR. STONE-Okay. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Stone MR. THOMAS-That’s five to one. It looks like you got it. MR. SPRINGER-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1999 TYPE II WR-1A JOHN STAALESEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,626 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING (870 SQ. FT.) CAMP. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ALSO RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE AND WETLAND REGULATIONS. CROSS REF. SPR 15-99 TAX MAP NO. 43-2-1.1 LOT SIZE: 1.42 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79, 179-60 RON RUCINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MRS. LAPHAM-“The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: April 21, 1999 Variance File No. 18-1999 Area Variance Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 18-1999 John Staalesen Introduced by Lewis who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: This project is tabled for 62 days until the first meeting in June, unless the applicant decides to come back sooner in one of the May meetings. Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-1999, John Staalesen, Meeting Date: May 19, 1999 Tabled: April 21, 1999 “Project Location: Glen Lake Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 3626 sf addition to an existing 870 sf camp, construction of a new drive and parking areas, construction of a new sewage disposal area and on site stormwater management. Relief Required: Applicant requests 13 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of both the WR-1A zone, § 179-16 and the Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, § 179- 60. Since the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements nor will a portion of the addition and the proposed expansion is well in excess of 50% of the existing floor area, relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure is requested, per section 179-79. The allowable 50% expansion to the existing camp would be 435 sf. The applicant is requesting 3191 sf of relief from the 50% requirement. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to significantly increase living space of the existing camp while maintaining its present location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include removal/relocation of the existing camp, reconfiguration of the design to a compliant location, a smaller floor plan, maintain the existing camp and construct the new home in a compliant location, (requires variance) and no construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 13 feet (26%) of relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirements may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. Approximately one quarter of the proposed addition is within the 50 foot shoreline setback. An additional 3191 sf of living space when compared to the allowable 435 sf, is substantial, (733%). 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.): Site Plan Review 15-99 4/27/99 pending Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated even with this modified layout. Given that there is an existing camp to which the applicant is proposing an addition, there appear to be alternatives to this proposal. A 870 sf camp within 25 feet of the lake has far less impact than a 4500 sf home will have. It appears that a comparable size home may be relocated to a compliant location on the property. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay. That does it. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Rucinski. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, good evening. This drawing shows the revised footprint in the red line, in relationship to the setback lines shown in dark blue. The yellow represents the existing camp. This yellow represents the existing bunkhouse, which will be removed, and most of this concrete that is, concrete deck that’s in this area, will be removed, with the exception of a walk to the dock. The revised setback to this shoreline is 37 feet, which is approximately the setback of the adjoining camp, which is the only neighbor, and the setback over here is 38 feet to the closest point. Again, with the curving shorelines, some of this comes closer to being 50. In rearranging the house plan, we’ve still physically connected them, and so that the space can be used as I've discussed last month, and I’ll stop there. MR. THOMAS-Is the existing camp, was that built on a slab, or does that have a foundation under it? MR. RUCINSKI-It has a foundation that actually has a basement with a ceiling of, what, maybe five feet or something like that. MR. THOMAS-Just a crawl space. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. The floor, well, it has the furnace and what not down there, but it’s about six inches below the water table. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. STONE-How wide is this connecting wall going to be? And I’ll tell you, I’m prejudiced by what seems to be it’s a way to connect these two with a minimum connection so that you don’t have two principal houses on the same property. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, it’s going to be used as a single family residence. MR. STONE-The whole thing. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. STONE-I know, but this hallway that you show, where it’s connected, how big is that hallway? MR. RUCINSKI-Well, it’s part of the porch, and the decision hasn’t been made yet whether that’s a glassed in porch or a screened porch. If it’s a screened porch, then we’ve got a hallway that’s about five feet wide. If it’s a glassed-in porch, then walk through the porch. MR. STONE-Okay. So, on the porch side, it may or may not be glass or walled? MR. RUCINSKI-Right, it may be part of the porch. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for Mr. Rucinski? 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? MRS. LAPHAM-Not since April. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Rucinski? If not, lets talk about it. Bonnie, you’re up. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, all right. I mean, I have to applaud that they’ve made an effort to try and bring this more into compliance. I’m still not happy with the two houses and the huge footprint. The new house, the new improved septic system, even though it is very large, I have not a real problem with that. It’s maintaining the camp. I see no reason why we need to have the two structures. I do agree with the Staff Notes where it says there’s far less impact with the camp doubled than adding the camp to a 3,000 square foot house. I think I would have less problem, and since it is a great flat lot ready for building with the perfect view, I still don’t see why the house can’t be situated in compliance, as great flat lot ready for building with the perfect view, I still don’t see why the house can’t be situated in compliance, as close to compliance, or in compliance as possible, and the camp be gone, and that’s my opinion it’s a way of keeping two houses, and I just would not be in favor of it at this time. MR. THOMAS-What if they were to take that existing camp and move it back, attach it to the house somewhere else? MRS. LAPHAM-All right. I could probably deal with that more favorably. MR. THOMAS-That’s why I asked if there was a foundation under it or not. MRS. LAPHAM-I have trouble with it the way it is. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I’m pretty much along the same lines as Bonnie. I think this is a, it’s a wonderful lot. I mean, it’s an absolutely delightful place to be able to build. I think there’s ample place to set this thing back and not lose any of the view of the lake, which I think is obviously very important. It does seem to be, as it apparently seems to Bonnie, that this is a contrived, I applaud the change. I mean, obviously, work has been done to make this more acceptable to us, but I still think there’s a contrivance to put these two structures together when it seems to me that they’re really going to be separate homes, almost. I mean, you can say what you do inside, but I, too, would prefer that either the existing camp be gone or, as Mr. Thomas suggests, that maybe find a way to move it back, because I think the impact, with the camp as close to the lake as it is, and then the massive house to the rear, I think it’s going to be a very, very busy location and going to have a tremendous impact on the visual impact from the lake. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with my other Board members. I think, while I applaud, also the changes that have been made, I still have the sense, in an overall way, that you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too on this particular, with this particular design, and while we’ve approved expansions of nonconforming structures, I, myself would have a big problem, and I do in this case, with expanding a nonconforming structure substantially into the CEA, you know, the 50 foot setback, you know, expanding it toward the lake. It’s one thing when an applicant says, we want to expand a nonconforming structure and we want relief, and we’re going to do this as an expansion in a way that doesn’t ask for further relief, but in this particular case, even the expansion is going into the shoreline setback, and I think that that surely pushes the weight of our test into a much bigger negative impact on the neighbor than I could go for, and in that way, I think it fails. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. McNally? MR. MC NALLY-I agree with the other Board members, that this is an imminently buildable, flat lot of large size, and that there are lots of feasible alternatives that would provide for construction of a new building which in large part I think this is what a plan is for, that would meet the setback requirements of a lakeshore property. As it exists, and as it was initially proposed, I find that the applicant is asking for very substantial relief relative to the Ordinance. While I can understand their desire to get as close to the lake as possible, on balance, there would be substantial effects to the neighborhood, and it would be at the cost of the surrounding community members. Therefore, I can’t support this application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree 100% with my other Board members. While it is a big improvement from the first swipe that he took at it, the five tests that we’re to apply to it, the benefit to the applicant is obvious, but the other four, the feasible alternatives, substantial effect on the neighborhood, and the fact that it’s self-created difficulty, weigh against this project. So I’m still opposed. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I have to agree. It strikes me that there’s no compelling reason not to make the structure set within the setback requirements. It looks like there’s adequate room to do it. I suspect that one of the reasons they would like to have it further forward is to improve their view, but nevertheless, the setback is there for a reason, and I’m inclined, in this case, to say that it should be in conformity with the setback. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the other Board members. I think that this building could be pushed back to the 50 foot setback on the front. I could see where there would be a problem maybe on the side setback to the lake, on the west side, and I really don’t understand why the applicant wants to keep the existing building there. It’s a very small. MR. RUCINSKI-It’s 600 square feet of very usable space. MR. THOMAS-Well, I’ll grant you that, but the fact is, if you took that down and added it on to the house, because you’re way under the. MR. RUCINSKI-If we take it down and add it to the house, we’re adding $40,000 to the cost of the house. MR. THOMAS-For that 600 square foot? MR. RUCINSKI-It’s going to be $50, $60 a square foot, as opposed to, perhaps, $10 or $15 a square foot remodeling it inside, with some new finishes. MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other Board members that I can’t, you know, there are alternatives that the applicant could do. He could push this back farther. MR. RUCINSKI-If we can push and shove the floor plan, so that the basic new construction is within the setback lines, and the only thing that’s violating those setback lines is the connecting link, is that acceptable, and it literally, at that point, becomes a connecting link. MR. THOMAS-I, myself, wouldn’t have a problem with it because the camp exists there now, and if we can get the new structure conforming, at least the setback from where the dock is. I don’t know if they’re going to be able to make the setback from where it says the existing concrete dock that’s 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) out there in St. Mary’s Bay. I don’t know if they’re going to be able to get the 50 feet on that, because right now it’s sitting at 38. MR. STEC-I’d be more inclined, myself. To me, the bay there, near the shed to be removed, that, to me, is something that is easily eliminated. I would have less difficulty with a basic connection. I’m not asking you to build a pipe from one to the other, but clearly, I think that that footprint, that one bay on the one corner closest to the dock is something that could be eliminated, that would make this more attractive to me. It’s an improvement from the last one, but I've got a problem with that bay because, again, there’s no geological or geographic reasons, other than view aesthetics. MR. STONE-You’re talking from the lake. MR. STEC-That jut that sticks out there, the bottom right corner. MR. STONE-Yes, you’re talking the main lake. MR. STEC-Yes. That bothers me. MR. HAYES-You’re talking about the solarium. MR. STEC-Yes, the solarium. MR. STONE-Yes. You’re saying Bay, because St. Mary’s Bay. MR. STEC-No, the bay window in the house, the solarium. MR. STONE-The bay window. MR. THOMAS-But pushing this back, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the septic system, so they can keep an acceptable septic system, I would say slide it north and west a little bit, so you can get into that 50 foot setback, or most of it anyway, then I wouldn’t have a problem whatsoever with putting a connecting hallway. MR. RUCINSKI-Then why don’t we table it tonight. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to table it? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Come back with another one. Do you want it for one month or two? MR. RUCINSKI-Do the same thing as you did before. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-But the old one can go, right? This one is dead. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1999 JOHN STAALESEN, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Until no later than the July 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 application is for the applicant to re-figure the proposed building into a more conforming setback. Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-So you’re still alive. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1999 TYPE II WR-1A IRENE MORGAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 8 REARDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW DWELLING AND SEEKS SETBACK 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) RELIEF. CROSS REF. SEPTIC VARIANCE TOWN BOARD RES. NO. 17.99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/8/99 TAX MAP NO. 44-2-25 LOT SIZE: 0.247 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 IRENE MORGAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-1999, Irene Morgan, Meeting Date: May 19, 1999 “Project Location: Reardon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new single family residence. Relief Required: Applicant requests 5 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179- 16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the chosen single family dwelling in the desired location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the structure to meet the setback requirements. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 5 feet of relief, on both sides of the proposed structure, from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV67-1990 – res. 9/19/90 Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The average lot width of this parcel is 62.76 feet. This width requires a sideline setback of 20 feet. Five feet of relief on both sides may be interpreted as moderate. SEQR Status: Type II” MRS. LAPHAM-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 8, 1999 Project Name: Irene Morgan Owner: Same ID #: QBY AV 30-1999 County Project No.: April 99-25 Current Zoning: Waterfront Residential One Acre Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new two story, 2372 square foot dwelling. Proposed side yard setbacks of 15 feet, when there are 20 feet required. Site Location: Bay Road to Tee Hill Road, Tee Hill Road to Reardon Road, “Y”, second house number 8 Tax Map No.: 44-2-25 Staff Notes: The applicant is proposing to construct a new structure on a lot which is 179 feet deep and tapers from 75 feet down to 49 feet. The applicant is proposing a 28 foot wide house and as such requires setback variances from the side yard setback. Staff feels that the issues presented by this application are of a local nature, since the property does not directly front on Glen Lake, but is one lot removed. Staff, therefore, recommends No County Impact.” Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mrs. Morgan. MRS. MORGAN-That was downsized so it’s no longer 28 foot wide, and it’s no longer the 2300 and something square foot. You see it on your new. MR. HAYES-1750, is that what it is? MR. STONE-It’s 26 by 26. MRS. MORGAN-It’s 26 by 36. MR. STONE-Thirty-six. I’m sorry. MRS. MORGAN-And then with the 14 by 24. I think it comes out to about 2200 something. MR. HAYES-2208. MRS. MORGAN-We downsized because of the septic variance. MR. THOMAS-Can you tell me how long you’ve owned this property? MRS. MORGAN-Since 1990. MR. THOMAS-Since 1990. Do you know what the Area Variance requested in 1990 was? It looks like it was late 1990 that it was asked. What was that for? MRS. MORGAN-That was, I was going to demolish the house then and build, I think it was a 28 foot wide, but I just dropped it because I had a house in North Carolina that didn’t sell, and so I didn’t have the money to build. So I just dropped it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So it’s to do the same thing, nine years ago. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MRS. MORGAN-Right. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-So the only one you’re impacting, I know, the septic variance, is your own well? MRS. MORGAN-Right. MR. STONE-And you agree not to sue yourself if we don’t, so we’re okay. MRS. LAPHAM-Plus, she was given clearance for that, too. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-The driveway’s going to be right on the property line? MRS. MORGAN-No. MR. STONE-Or is it a couple of feet? MRS. MORGAN-The driveway is eight foot wide. It’s not very far. MR. STONE-Two feet, about two feet. MRS. MORGAN-Right. MR. STONE-Two to three. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it depends. MR. STONE-We don’t have any restriction on where driveways go, do we? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. HAYES-It’s not a structure. MR. THOMAS-Are there 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? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARGARET WALLACE MS. WALLACE-I’m Margaret Wallace. I live at 12 Reardon Road in Queensbury. MR. STONE-Left or right looking at it? MRS. LAPHAM-I was going to say, are you next door? MS. WALLACE-One lot, the corner house. MR. STONE-The corner house, so to the right as you look at the house? MRS. WALLACE-Yes, one lot removed. MRS. LAPHAM-On the same side of the road as this? MS. WALLACE-Same side of the road, yes, and I do support and look forward to these neighborhood improvements that Irene has laid out. She gave me a copy of this, also, and she has made some accommodating changes here, and she’d like to build a modest, two story house, and I hope that she can get the necessary approvals to do this. I support it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any questions? Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this application? JEFF LUNO 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. LUNO-My name is Jeff Luno. I live on 12 Reardon Road Extension. As you face the property, I am to the left. I built a house there two years ago, and I’m not here to oppose or here to support. Even though I have no major objections, I have a couple of questions, and I apologize to the Board not getting these answered ahead of time. My first question is, is there a setback requirement for a septic system or a leach field? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it’s 10 feet from the side property line. MR. LUNO-Okay. I noticed it wasn’t 10 feet, and I didn’t know if it was different than the 20 foot setback, and you’re saying it is not. It is different, it’s 10 feet. MR. STONE-The variance she needed was from her own wells. MR. LUNO-I understand that part, but she only is required to be within 10 feet of the property? MR. THOMAS-Ten feet of the property line, yes. MR. LUNO-Okay, and the dimensions have changed a couple of times, and I guess I have to applaud Irene for that. She’s trying to make some adjustments, and I just want to make sure that what we’re approving tonight is the 26 by 36 structure. Is that correct? MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-It has it right here on this map. MR. LUNO-Okay, and those are my primary questions, and the only thing I would say is that the 26 as measured is exactly fits, without an inch to spare within the 15 foot, if you allow the variance. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s a little more than an inch to spare on that east side. MR. STONE-Well, she’s still seeking five foot. I mean, it’s a 20 foot requirement. It doesn’t fit. MR. LUNO-No, I’m saying with the five feet on each side, it just barely. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it does fit. MR. STONE-We could give relief of 4 feet 11 inches or 4 feet 12. We're very flexible that way. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions? MR. LUNO-None from me. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this application? Would anyone like to speak opposed? ROBERT BARBER MR. BARBER-My name is Robert Barber. My spouse, Jane, and I reside at 17 Reardon Road, and we also have the residence at the corner of Reardon and Tee Hill Road, and a large parcel of property going to the lake, as you come in, as you go to the right to the property in subject of discussion this evening. We are definitely supportive of the changes that are about to be made, and think it’ll be a tremendous addition to the community. It’s a very close knit community, and Irene has been a good community member, and we think it’ll be a great addition. We're very supportive. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone like to speak opposed? SHERMAN WOOD MR. WOOD-Good evening. My name is Sherman Wood. I live at 6 Reardon Road, the house that borders the driveway. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-It’s on the east. MR. STONE-To the right looking at the house. That’s the easiest way. MR. WOOD-I thank the Board for letting us be heard on this issue. As a resident of the community and a full time occupant of my residence, I would like to express, for the record, that there is no one 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) more excited than I about the new dwelling proposed to be constructed. My family has lived here for more than three years next door to the existing camp, and at times the camp has been vacant but it has also been utilized as rental property to at least five different tenants. During that period some of the tenants did not take much interest in the up keep of the property with the exception of the last tenant who did make an effort to keep it nice. The property at times has been neglected, there have been parties, traffic comings and going all hours of the night, beer cans and debris stored and left in the yard. The homeowner Ms. Morgan has periodically checked on the property and addressed some of these issues but not as consistent or as timely as a neighbor would like. So to build a new dwelling would certainly be welcomed and its enhancement of the esthetics of a neighborhood. On the other hand to construct an even larger dwelling to be utilized as rental property would be counter productive and be detrimental to the neighborhood. I base this on the lack of commitment of the previous renters. LETS FACE IT RENTING IS A RISKY BUSINESS! I am concerned with the following: Aside from the conversations with some of my neighbors who share my enthusiasm for a new dwelling, I ask the question AT WHAT COST?! First, the proposed drawings: Have they been reviewed and approved by the Planning Board? If not when will they be reviewed and approved and if yes, which ones have been reviewed? There have been three proposals submitted and the most recent was Yesterday May 18, 1999! The proposal calls for a 2-story, 2,208 square foot dwelling with a 308 square foot carport which replaced the two previous proposed drawings that included a 24 x 24 garage, that’s part of the scale down that Ms. Morgan did work on, and I also commend her for that as well, in one plan and a 20 x 24 in the other plan. The drawings lack detail in content, does not address drainage issues i.e.: STORM WATER run off, buffers, landscaping, etc. The drawings have changed three times in the last 24 hour period. Have these latest drawings been approved? Ms. Morgan stated that she has yet to consult with a builder. That would be helpful in the process in determining the type of dwelling appropriate for the size of that lot. The proposed house is beautiful but it appears to be TOO BIG for the size of the lot. Has the Planning Board reviewed this? And the reason we are here today is to consider providing a variance for this large home. Again I request the Planning and Zoning Board review this issue. I am aware of the right of homeowners to occupy 22% of their lot, but shouldn’t it blend in with the make up of the other homes? Shouldn’t every option be considered before granting a variance? Has there been an alternative cure sought? The proposed drawing illustrates a paved driveway which measures more than 120 feet long and 8 feet wide and at least 10 feet wide at certain points. This driveway will run parallel the entire length of our property line with no buffer proposed in this drawing. Our concern of a vehicle veering off the driveway causing property damage or personal injury is a serious issue which needs to be addressed especially since it is proposed that the grade will be elevated to match our grade. The drawing fails to address the drainage of the lot and specifically the STORM WATER DRAINAGE from the driveway, this is a major concern not only as it applies to our property but as it applies to the recently adopted Town of Queensbury Glen Lake Watershed Plan. This plan was created and supported by the Town of Queensbury and the Glen Lake Protective Association. Storm Water Runoff is a primary concern in the plan and is specifically addressed under Goal 4.5 New development on page 31 item three, bullet #two, page 32 Town Board Resolution and page 33 Resolution 454.97 introduced by Connie Goedert and seconded by Betty Monahan. I can see several potential modifications made to the proposed plan that will protect the lake, maintain the consistent esthetic flow of the neighborhood without infringing on the bordering properties and comply with all codes and variances and still provide Ms. Morgan with a beautiful home. How one builds or utilizes their property is solely the homeowner’s business. As long as it does not break any laws, infringe on neighbors, cause negative impact on the community and complies with the Town, County, and State Codes. And if a homeowner chooses to rent their property it is also their business as long as what I previously mentioned applies. However when Variances are requested for reasons like providing reasonable accommodations for the occupying homeowner, and they do not cause negative impact in the neighborhood such variances should be given every consideration. But when they are for reasons like creating unnecessary hardships and causing negative impacts on the environment, or gaining a profit by renting or selling it sheds a different light on things, I am confident that the Board would not approve variances without proper research. Please consider the individual benefit vs. the community detriment, the undesirable change in the neighborhood character, the substantiality of the request, and the adverse effect or impact. In closing, I've already stated that I would love to see the construction of a new dwelling. However, I am concerned with the multiple submissions, numerous changes and the unknown status of the drawings. There are no action plans for dealing with storm water run off, excavating, landscaping and buffers between properties. I request the Planning and Zoning Board carefully review the proposed size of the dwelling and investigate how it fits in with the existing character of the neighborhood. At this time there are too many issues that have not been addressed therefore we cannot in good conscience support the setback relief for Ms. Morgan. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I think I can get one question answered for you. This is in a CEA, so it has to go before the Planning Board. MR. BROWN-No. MR. THOMAS-This isn’t in the CEA? 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. BROWN-It is, but that only relates to expansion of nonconforming structures. This is new residential construction. MR. THOMAS-Well, we can send it to the Planning Board, can’t we? MR. BROWN-You can do whatever you want. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Well, he raises an interesting point. I mean, it’s something we haven’t really considered very often, when somebody wants a variance for a. MR. BROWN-Well, currently, the Town is looking at adopting stormwater control regulations, which haven’t been enforced yet, or adopted yet. So it is something that’s going to go hand in hand with the Glen Lake Watershed protection, but as of yet there are no standards for residential stormwater control. MR. STONE-Yes, but if someone comes in, lets say they had a one acre lot, in a one acre zone, and take the waterfront out of it, somewhere else, and they want to build a house, they build a house. Who looks at drainage? Conforming house, get a building permit to build. Nobody looks at it? Okay. MR. BROWN-Yes. There are no stormwater regulations to govern how you would look at it, currently. MR. THOMAS-But there will be. MR. BROWN-That’s the plan. MR. BARBER-Mr. Chairman, two residents, myself and the gentleman next to me, have, in fact, put the drainage in for our house in order to avoid the situation that we’re discussing, and I did it voluntarily, some years ago, when the Town forced you to do it, so there is some extension by the Town to have residents do that, and in view of the situation here, there’s significant property in front of the applicant, and there’s already a drain there, that actually comes back to her property, not going toward the lake. Also, for point of record, the applicant, or actually the person objecting, is basically not an owner of record but a tenant. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else that you’d like to add, sir? MR. WOOD-May I approach? MR. THOMAS-Sure. MR. WOOD-For the record, I’m submitting a letter from my mother and father-in-law who are the homeowners, the deed holders, but we also live with them. I’ll submit this as well. MR. STONE-Just for the record, they own the property? MR. WOOD-That’s correct. MR. STONE-So you’re not technically, well, you’re renting. MR. WOOD-We're not renting. We live in the home. MR. STONE-You live in the home. Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anything else you want to add, sir? MR. WOOD-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak? MS. WALLACE-If I can address the driveway issue, if you were just over there, the driveways are very close to the property line, and as a neighborhood, we spent last August, and part of September, well, actually we started in June, improving my property line and Woody’s property line with this rock wall, because the driveway, his driveway, is right on, it’s a little bit further. Maybe it’s four feet from the property line. So I don’t see the driveway being right on the property line as a big issue, 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) because we’ve already taken care of that once, as a neighborhood, to everybody’s satisfaction, I think. Right? Is that to your satisfaction? MR. WOOD-If we’re talking about the other side. MR. STONE-The other side. MS. WALLACE-Right, I know, but that, I’m sure, can be solved as we solved that one. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-In the spirit of neighborhood cooperation. MS. WALLACE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, would you like to read the letter in that was submitted in the public comment. MR. THOMAS-Yes, this one here. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. May 18, 1999, Town of Queensbury Board of Zoning Appeals, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY, 12804 “Dear Sirs: Based on the information obtained from the Town of Queensbury and a review of the three different proposed drawings submitted by Ms. Morgan, we do not at this time support the five-foot setback relief requested by the applicant. Furthermore, we empower our daughter Marilynn J. Wood and our son-in-law Sherman Wood to represent us in our absence at this variance hearing and all other hearings pertaining to this property. Respectfully, Jane McDonough Martin McDonough 6 Reardon Road Ext., Queensbury, NY” MR. THOMAS-All right. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Is this property going to be rented? MRS. MORGAN-I’m going to live there part of the time. I can’t live in two houses all the time, but I’m going to be living there. MR. STONE-Well, when you’re not living there, will it be rented? MRS. MORGAN-My son might be staying there. He’s living in Vietnam right now. They’ll be home. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-So the current application is the 26 by 36 two story home, and then you’ve got a 14 by 24, one story addition to the front of that facing the lake, and then a deck within the 30 foot front setback, and the septic system that you’re proposing is a lot smaller than in your initial plans? MRS. MORGAN-Right. MR. MC NALLY-And Frank Hardick approved that. MR. STONE-Because the house was a lot smaller, too. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, I noticed the change. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-There’s no problem putting a deck within the 30 foot setback, is there? MRS. MORGAN-We only put the six and a half (lost words) something because we’re allowed up to 100 square foot. MR. MC NALLY-I understand. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. STONE-How close is the deck, Craig? I don’t have it on my thing. MR. BROWN-The deck appears to be about eight feet over the line, I would think, maybe 22 feet, to the front setback, and I discussed this with Mrs. Morgan, and both Dave Hatin, yesterday or the day before, I guess, when you resubmitted the plans, and at that time, Dave suggested that if the deck is less than 100 square feet, it’s not required to meet the front setback, but I’m not sure if I would agree with that, since it’s attached to the principal building, it becomes part of the building, and probably should meet the setback. MR. STONE-I mean, steps are included. I mean, not here. If you just a series of steps, that’s the closest point. MR. BROWN-Yes, I think, I mean, steps, probably we wouldn’t get into calling steps a violation of a setback, if they go up to your front door. If it’s an area that you can utilize for whatever, you know, the deck area, we’d probably call that a structure. Steps are technically, or not technically, but historically we haven’t really given a hard time about. You need steps to get into your house. You don’t need the deck. That’s probably where we’ve made the determination. MRS. MORGAN-Well, in essence, it’s a walkway with steps going up either side. MR. STONE-Yes, I've seen that in the picture. MR. BROWN-I think if you want to, since the advertisement for the application referenced Waterfront Residential setbacks, if you want to give a relief from the front setback, as part of the application, you could do that to cover it, or not. MR. THOMAS-How much relief would we have to give? Do we have a measurement on that? MR. BROWN-Well, I don’t have the correct scale to do it, but I would guess that it’s probably, say, 22 feet from the front property line. MR. THOMAS-It’s an eighth inch equals a foot. Haven’t you got an inch ruler there? MR. BROWN-No, I have an engineer’s scale that doesn’t have 80 scale on it. MR. THOMAS-Has it got a 40 scale on it? MR. BROWN-I don’t think it’s the same. MR. STONE-I've got an eighth, Craig. MR. BROWN-I’d scale it at about 24 and a half feet, maybe. MR. STONE-Well, of course, the old question is, where does the roadway end? MR. BROWN-Right. MR. THOMAS-Well, this is a stamped survey. MR. BROWN-It’s not a stamped survey. MR. STONE-It’s a septic system survey. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. BROWN-It appears as though it was created from a survey map, but. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, W.J. Roth Associates, 1990. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it shows 24 and a half feet. Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, it’s time to talk about it. Lew, you’re first. MR. STONE-Basically, I have no objection. I note Mr. Wood’s comments, and I think we can certainly request in our motion that adequate note be taken of stormwater, and possibly a barrier along the driveway. It’s not really our call, but we can say something along that line. In terms of seeking to minimize the impact on the land, Mrs. Morgan certainly has reduced the size of the house, reduced the size of the septic system. The only person that she is encroaching upon, in terms of the septic system, is herself. Five foot of relief from the 20 foot side setback for a lot of this size, I don’t believe, is substantial. If, in fact, we need relief from the front, again, since it’s from the road and not 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) from the lake, I don’t have the kind of problem I have when we’re talking house to lake. So, in all, I think the balancing act of benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community, since the bulk of the community has no problem with it, Mr. Wood, I don’t think, has a real problem with it. He just wants assurance that there is adequate protection, both for his property and for the environment around the lot. I certainly would be willing to approve this variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with Lew. I think Mr. Wood’s comments are duly noted, and I think that if everyone that came to speak at these proceedings was as well prepared as he was that everything would be a lot easier, and we could stay much more on point, but like Lew, I think that, in this particular case, the balancing test, five feet of relief is minimal, in my opinion, for sure, and I don’t see how anybody, if I was in that neighborhood, I would be helping them dig the foundation for this, myself, because I think it is a substantial improvement, and improves the neighborhood, that property, and the surrounding properties. So the benefit on the neighborhood is certainly positive in my opinion, and therefore, I think the test is complete, and I would be in favor of the application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I think Mrs. Morgan has done a good job downsizing the house to meet the limitations of the small lot. So I’m generally in favor of it. I don’t think five feet on either side is much of a variance to ask for, given the unique nature of the property. You made a comment, though, Chris, about site plan review. Can we send it to site plan review? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we can send it to site plan. MR. MC NALLY-We can actually, just by asking them? MR. THOMAS-Yes, making it part of the variance. MR. BROWN-I think if you do that you’d want to give them some direction as to what to look at, rather than just to send it to site plan review. MR. STONE-You can send Mr. Wood’s letter. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-But we don’t tell them what to do. We just tell them, if there’s something there that they think there’s a problem with, they should address it. MR. BROWN-You could refer that to them, based on your concerns regarding. MRS. LAPHAM-Drainage. MR. BROWN-Drainage, stormwater. MRS. LAPHAM-Runoff. MR. BROWN-Just to give them some direction, rather than have them review the whole project, have them review specific aspects of it. MR. MC NALLY-But I’m generally not opposed to it, no. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with my fellow Board members. I think that, again, using the balancing test, while there are some concerns as raised by Mr. Wood, I think the benefit to the applicant and the minimal amount of relief sought, outweighs any potential negatives by this. So I’m in favor. MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree with what’s been said. Though I’d prefer not to have to grant variances, this is kind of a difficult lot, and I don’t think the amount of setback relief that’s required is substantial by any means, and it’s certainly going to be an improvement to the neighborhood. So I think there’s positive benefits, both to the homeowner and to the neighboring homeowner. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. I essentially agree with the other Board members, in that I do not have a 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) problem with this project. I think it’s an improvement to the neighborhood. As Jaime said, I’d be out there helping them dig if I lived next door, because it’s such an improvement over what’s there now, and then I would probably, because of Mr. Wood’s comments which do make a lot of sense to me, would suggest site plan review, based on the potential stormwater problems, and potential stormwater regulations that Queensbury may be having. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. This is a good project for this lot. I do take Mr. Wood’s concern, and also like the other Board members, for the runoff, the stormwater runoff, because that seems to be a big thing that’s coming up, and that there are laws pending on it. Other than that, I think it’s a good project. It’s been downsized, and I have no problem with the five and a half feet of relief from the front property line setback for the porch, or the deck as it’s called on the print, and as long as the building will not be over 28 feet in height for the WR-1A regulation. Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1999 IRENE MORGAN, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Reardon Road. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new single family residence. The applicant requests five feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Paragraph 179-16. Benefit to the applicant would be that the applicant be permitted to construct a chosen single family dwelling in the desired location. Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the structure to meet setback requirements. The relief is not substantial relative to the Ordinance, five feet on each side and five and a half feet relief on the front. The effects on the neighborhood should be minimal, and some of them positive. The difficulty can be interpreted as self-created, but the size and shape of the lot contributes to part of the problem. On that basis, I move that we approve this request. Further, refer this proposal to Site Plan Review for review of stormwater runoff and whatever provisions might be necessary to accommodate that. Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There you go. MRS. MORGAN-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA DAVID & JANE HOPPER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 35 HANNEFORD ROAD PILOT KNOB ROAD, FIRST BOATHOUSE ON LEFT APPLICANT PROPOSES RECONSTRUCTION OF BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. 21-99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/12/99 TAX MAP NO. 19-1-8 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60, 179-79 FRANK DE NARDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT;JANE HOPPER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-1999, David & Jane Hopper, Meeting Date: May 19, 1999 “Project Location: 35 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes reconfiguration of an enclosed peaked roof boathouse to flat roof/sundeck boathouse. Relief Required: Applicant requests 13 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Wetlands and Shoreline Regulations, § 170-60. Additionally, neither dock on the property conforms to the above referenced section, the applicant requires relief for the expansion of a non conforming structure, § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to reconstruct the existing dock to the desired configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may appear to be limited. Neither dock is in conformance with the regulations, therefore, a smaller proposal or a relocated proposal would still require relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 13 feet of relief from the 20 foot 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. However, the pre-existing non conforming nature of the 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) structure may be a contributing factor to the difficulties. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan Review 21-99 construction of covered boathouse – pending Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, § 179-60, B.(1), (b), (1), states that no E shaped docks shall be constructed on lots having less than 150 feet of shoreline frontage. The application depicts the lot as having 100 feet frontage and 2 – E shaped docks, one of which appears to be over an extension of the property line. Also, since the property has only 100 feet of frontage, only one – 700 square foot would be conforming. The existing square footage of dock space depicted in this application is approximately 1008 sf. The total square footage decreases with the proposed reconfiguration, but only to approximately 962 sf. The majority of the proposed reconfiguration takes place within the 20 foot setback. The development of a new use in this area, in the form of a sundeck appears to be a significant request. SEQR Status: Type II” MRS. LAPHAM-“Warren County Project Review and Referral Form 6 of May 1999 Project th Name: Hopper, David & Jane Owner: Same ID #: Queensbury Area Variance 39-1999 County Project #: May 99-25 Current Zoning: None Available Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicants propose to reconstruct boathouse with sundeck. Applicant seeks relief from height and setback requirements. Site Location: Pilot Knob First boathouse on left Tax Map No.: 19-1-8 Staff Notes: The applicant is proposing to have a 7.4 side yard setback in lieu of the required 20 feet. A copy of a letter is attached from the applicant, in addition to a copy of the site plan drawing. It appears that the existing structure extends past the applicant’s property line, and the removal of part of the structure will correct that problem. Staff is recommending discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with the stipulation that there be no land bridges, and that the Town resolve, to its satisfaction, the property line issue relating to this project.” Terry Ross, Warren Count4y Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. and Mrs. Hopper, is there anything else you want to say, tell us about, add? MRS. HOPPER-I guess the one thing that keeps being brought up is the property line. When my husband and I bought this property, we investigated this. These docks have been as they are for 41 years. We went to the Lake George Park Commission to find out what the status of this docking complex was. The Lake George Park Commission said that these docking complexes are grandfathered. They have been there for 41 years. The property next door to us has changed hands three times since these docks were built. We went before the Park Commission in January. They did extensive research on these docking complexes. They not only gave us a hardship because of the financial aspect of it, but also it’s a very unique part of the lake. They’ve said in their recommendation for giving us our variance from the Park Commission, that they found unique and particular conditions as removal of the dock would contribute, would disturb the water line, the water quality, and result in a financial hardship. They gave it to us on three levels. The part of the lake that these docks set in is silt. It's not hard like a lot of the main lake is. To remove any part of this docking complex would greatly disturb the water quality in Warner Bay. This comes from the Park Commission. MR. THOMAS-Okay. What about the fact that the extension of that property line goes through that dock there on the north side? MRS. HOPPER-The north side dock is not attached to the land, and when this dock was built, this docking complex, it was 41 years ago, sir. MR. DE NARDO-Every dock on Pilot Knob Road, right down the line there, folks have been down there, every single dock is over the property line, and to make this one an issue, every dock along there will have to be made an issue. MR. STONE-Well, it looks like, to the south, that’s not true. MR. DE NARDO-Yes, it is, according to the Lake George Park Commission. MR. STONE-I’m looking at your drawing. MR. DE NARDO-Well, if you run the property lines out, and you put their degree lines on there, the 90 degree angle on it, every dock along there, a lot of these docks are not conforming now to this map. They’ve been changed over the years. DAVID HOPPER MR. HOPPER-Exactly. The dock to the south of us is nonexistent. The property only has 40 feet, the property directly to the south of us. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. HAYES-This is Hansen? MR. HOPPER-Yes. The Park Commission has disallowed a dock there because they only have 40 feet, but they also. MR. STONE-I see, it says “proposed dock”. MR. HOPPER-Yes, exactly. MR. DE NARDO-What we’re looking for here now is really, the dock, I don’t think the dock should be part of the issue here. We are already taking half of the dock away. We're taking the side cover off. There’s a lean-to right now, and to appease the neighbors to the north, we’re removing that lean-to, and the only thing we want to do is raise the roof line to a flat roof, with a rail around it. MR. STONE-But you have nonconforming docks, whether they’ve been there 41 years, they’re nonconforming. I mean, that doesn’t say we’d make you take them out, but they’re nonconforming. Therefore, anything you’d do to them is why you’re before us. It requires a variance. MR. DE NARDO-Right. MR. STONE-I have a number of questions. Are you a Class A Marina? Do you have a Marina permit from the Park Commission? MRS. HOPPER-No. MR. STONE-How many boats do you own? MR. HOPPER-Right now I have two boats. My sons each have one boat, and we have other rental property that’s not 35 Hannaford Road, but Number 36 Hannaford Road that parks boats there. MR. STONE-So you are renting docks? MR. HOPPER-No, sir. I’m renting a dock with the building that is Number 36 Hannaford Road. MR. STONE-Is that a para sail boat that’s docked there right now? MR. DE NARDO-No, that’s my boat. MR. STONE-What is it for? MR. DE NARDO-It’s a work barge. I’m a dock builder. My name is Frank De Nardo. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DE NARDO-I just happen to have it there right now because I've been waiting to get to work there, for three months. MR. HOPPER-Exactly. With reference to the north dock, we don’t intend, the north dock is the one that’s listed as a nonconforming dock. We don’t intend to do anything with that but rebuild it exactly in kind. We're not going to alter that nonconforming dock, in any way shape or form. All we’re going to do is resurface it. The boathouse is on the next pier south, and that’s the pier that we’re seeking the relief of the 20 foot setback. MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. HOPPER-And our relief is less than what you folks have on record. Frank, do you agree? MR. DE NARDO-7.4 feet from the property line. MR. STONE-But that’s the contention. I mean, the one that’s on the other property, lets just talk about the property line. The dock that you’re talking to modify is not in conformity. It is within the setbacks, though. MR. DE NARDO-Right. We're looking for the relief. MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-You’re asking our permission for you to expand a nonconforming use while you maintain all the other nonconforming uses. Is that what you’re saying? 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MRS. HOPPER-No. We're limiting a nonconforming use. We're taking part of it down. MR. STONE-You’re taking a roof off. MR. HAYES-The lean-to. MRS. HOPPER-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-That lean-to, no one can get under on one side anyway. So, sure. It doesn’t look like a great structure to begin with. MRS. HOPPER-Well, it’s not. MR. MC NALLY-It’s not much of a concession, to be honest with you. MR. DE NARDO-Well, to the neighbor it is. MRS. HOPPER-Yes, to the neighbor, it’s a big. MR. DE NARDO-I've recently spoken to the neighbor in the past couple of days, and he’s happy with doing that. MRS. HOPPER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-As I understand it, then, you want to raise the roof of the existing boathouse, and it looked like it was 11 feet, from your drawing, from the top of the wall. MR. DE NARDO-No, it’s 11 feet to the mean water mark. MR. MC NALLY-So you’re talking 11 feet from the water height. MR. DE NARDO-It’s 11.6, on the date of the drawings, for the Park Commission’s readings at Roger’s Rock. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, but we don’t have them here. Do you have something that shows that? MR. DE NARDO-We should have a copy of that. MR. MC NALLY-I've got a handwritten drawing like this. Is that what you’re looking at? That’s what you’re referring to? Okay. So the deck that you are proposing is going to be at the peak? MR. DE NARDO-At the peak. MR. MC NALLY-At the same height of the peak of the existing structure. MR. DE NARDO-Correct, and then the railing would be three feet higher. MR. STONE-The mean low water mark, for the record, is 317.74 feet above sea level. That’s the Salvador line, yes. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. HOPPER-We have a letter from our neighbor on the south side of us in favor of our project. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We’ll catch that in the second. Well, if you want to bring it up now, we’ll read it into the record. Go ahead and read the letter. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. 5/17/99, To Zoning Board of Appeals “We support the applicant’s proposed reconstruction plans. Yours truly Tim and Bruce Hansen Lot 19-1-7, 33 Hannaford Road south adjoining neighbors” MR. THOMAS-Is there any other correspondence in there? MRS. LAPHAM-I think that was it, because I had that letter. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. THOMAS-Okay. So we’re all set there. No more? MRS. LAPHAM-No more. All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Yes, the cost that you talk about incurring, was to do exactly what? MR. DE NARDO-To remove the cribs on the north side, and move them over to the south side, when we install them into the lake. MR. STONE-Okay. Which cribs? MR. DE NARDO-The whole north U shaped, the one that’s over the property line. MR. STONE-The whole? MR. DE NARDO-That whole section, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. What would it cost, since we’re talking money, to get rid of the northern most crib? MR. DE NARDO-That would be it. MR. STONE-No, you said both, I thought? MR. DE NARDO-That’s the whole section. That’s one big crib. It’s all one huge crib. MR. MC NALLY-How much money are we talking about? MR. DE NARDO-I believe it was $11,820. MR. MC NALLY-And that was to remove the crib. What’s the water depth there? It was pretty shallow. MR. DE NARDO-Excavation. MRS. HOPPER-One other point that Frank made, the settling. We are not sitting on a hard pan of the main lake. We are sitting in Warner Bay, which is five to six feet of silt. So if you move this boathouse, or if we try to move this boathouse over, it’s not going to settle correctly. It’s going to take years. One of the years it’s going to go this way, or it’s going to go. Am I correct, Frank? MR. STONE-That’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking if you took out that four foot six inch wide dock, or crib, and left the rest of the U there. MR. HAYES-So take the “J” out of the “U”. MR. STONE-Yes, half the crib. I’m not talking about rebuilding. MR. DE NARDO-Well, this crib wraps around, it’s all interconnected. It’s a solid oak crib on the bottom. MR. STONE-You just can’t cut a saw and cut part of it off? MR. DE NARDO-I've never had success in doing that, in taking something (lost word) apart, and being in a swamp like that, the environmental impact alone is why the Park Commission went against it. MR. STONE-Taking the wood off the top and leaving the crib? MR. DE NARDO-You’ve got to remove the structure. If you’re going to remove it, you can’t just leave it. That becomes a. MR. STONE-Hazard in navigation? MR. DE NARDO-Yes. Believe it or not, that’s their terminology. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. STONE-But with the flanking on top, it’s not a hazard to navigation? MR. DE NARDO-No, it’s a dock. MR. MC NALLY-In two feet of water. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DE NARDO-That’s the way they wrote it. I didn’t write it. MRS. HOPPER-I think that the Park Commission, when we went through them January, February and March, they went over three times to look at this complex, and their experts, this is what they came up with, gentlemen. MR. DE NARDO-Those cribs are probably about nine to ten feet deep right there, in that silt, and over the years they’ve settled probably a foot and a half, just sitting there. MR. STONE-If I step into the water off the dock. MR. DE NARDO-You’ll go up to your neck in mud. MR. STONE-I’ll go up to my neck in mud. Okay. MR. DE NARDO-Actually, just south of there, the stake docks, those poles that go down into the lake are 18 feet long and they’re still settling. So, feasibly build a new crib on the other side and get it right would be astronomical. MR. STONE-That was not a suggestion that I’m making. I’m just wondering about other alternatives. I hear the building problem, and I certainly, I for one, like the fact that you’re going to take off that cover. That certainly makes it look a lot better. MR. DE NARDO-Aesthetically, it’s going to be absolutely wonderful when it’s all done. It’s going to enhance the neighborhood quite a bit. MRS. HOPPER-It’s all going to be cedar. It’ll be as conforming to the natural beauty of the Adirondacks as we can make it. It will have no aluminum. It will have no neon. It will have only cedar. MR. STONE-But you have to understand. I’m concerned, you’ve got 100 foot frontage here, and you’ve got room for four boats or five boats or six boats. I’m very bothered by that, personally, I mean. MRS. HOPPER-Well, we have two. We have two sons, and we said we have a cottage that adjoins our property. We have our house and then we have a cottage in the back that’s a separate property. So we utilize our docks. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. MC NALLY-But you’re asking to increase the intensity of that usage, by providing an area where people can congregate, and socialize, and meet, and otherwise utilize that frontage even more than it’s currently being used. MRS. HOPPER-Well, you can’t swim in Warner Bay, as we just explained to you, because of the sediment in the lake. It’s a non swimming area. The only use I would have of my waterfront is to be able to sit down there, read a book, look at the mountains, that’s about the only way I could enjoy it. MR. HOPPER-And it would get us off of the Pilot Knob Road, which the docks are pretty much a couple of feet below Pilot Knob Road. You sit on the dock and the cars go by, and you get the fumes and the noise and we can just elevate ourselves to an area where we can. MR. STONE-It’s interesting. I have to admit that I come, well, I come with open mind, but with a slight negative bias to begin with. I have never heard about the problem of swimming in Warner Bay. I've been on the lake for many years. MR. DE NARDO-You could swim anywhere in Lake George, but the last place I’d swim is in that end of Warner Bay. It’s really bad in there now. There used to be an old mill there at one time. It’s just solid silt. You can’t go through that area right there without hitting your prop. You’re going to trim up all the way. You can see just by looking. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. STONE-I don’t go there by boat. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. I think it’s Jaime’s turn. MR. HAYES-Well, I guess we have a quandary here, because there has been some reservations expressed about expanding the usage of a nonconforming structure, even though there seems to be a trade off with removal of the lean-to. My own personal feeling is that I have very little experience with the docks and the goals of the APA and the Park Commission in these particular formats, and knowing that I have had little experience, I guess my inclination is to go with the recommendations of the Adirondack Park in this case, and lean in that direction, being that they have a wealth of experience, trained professionals. They have a historical knowledge of Warner Bay, and I certainly believe what you say, but I believe even more what they say because that’s what they’re there for, okay. I mean, so, in this particular case, it seems to me that removal of that bed, which is the obvious solution, is not a feasible one, based on some superior knowledge to my own. So knowing that, to me, I think that it’s, I think I’m okay with the project, based on the fact that I think it will be an improvement to the neighborhood, the removal of that lean-to, because before I even knew what, I came the other way by accident, and before I even knew what property we were talking about, that lean-to was an obvious eyesore, in my mind. If I had a dock next door, I wouldn’t find it attractive. So I guess in this particular circumstance, the benefit to the applicant is obvious, and the impact on the neighborhood seems to be the smallest, and possibly an improvement, the smallest by the APA standard, by their opinion, and I guess that, in my mind, is the prevailing fact I would consider in this circumstance, based on my own particular lack of knowledge. So I intend to listen to the rest of the Board, because I haven’t had a lot of experience in these dock matters, but that’s where I stand right now. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I wouldn’t be normally opposed to something like this, except for the fact that this frontage is fairly well congested, fairly well used, and the applicant’s asking us to use our discretion, which we don’t have to exercise, to grant them an expansion of a nonconforming use, without really making any concessions regarding our concerns about the intensity, the proximity to the property line that they’re proposing to build the new structure, and the possibility that this frontage is actually going to be increased in usage. I’m very troubled by that. I’m not sure I want to exercise my discretion in your favor without some concessions. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? MR. STEC-Well, again, I’ll echo what Jaime said. I’m certainly lacking in experience with dock issues on Lake George. However, based on what I've heard tonight, I think it follows that the reasoning behind what’s said about leaving the cribbing in, and I agree that the removal of the lean-to, while on the surface it removes part of a structure, which is an improvement, but also it’s a win/win situation, in that I don’t think the applicants are necessarily giving up something. I think it improves their lot to remove it, but I think I can be okay with leaving the cribbing, and I think based on the nature of these docks, I think I’m okay with the side line setback relief that’s sought, and really my concerns are more geared toward the increased use, the fact that I think that there will be more people there in the proximity of that busy section of road. The applicants, we’ve asked about that, and I think they’ve answered as best they can, but if I have a concern, that would be it, but I think right now, and I’ll have to listen to the rest of the Board, but if I had to vote right now, I think I’m okay with this. It’s not wonderful, but I think I could be in favor of this. MR. HAYES-I have one question. If we approve this, they have to go back at the Lake George Park Commission to get this approved? MR. STONE-No. It’s approved, pending our, they approved it pending. Molly’s letter says it there. They have to go to us, but if they go to us and we give approval, they’ve given approval, based upon. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think the Park Commission won’t issue a permit until they get our approval. MRS. HOPPER-Correct. MR. HAYES-It doesn’t say that, though. They would do that if they get our approval, or they just say that they’ve got to get our approval before they’ll address it? MR. STONE-No, no. They’ve addressed it. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think they have to get our approval before the Park Commission will issue a dock permit. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. STONE-They’ve approved it, but the permit won’t be issued until. I do have a question, before we go further. It says 13 feet of relief, how do we figure that since the rest of the dock is already, or is that only the 13 feet, I guess it’s 13. MR. BROWN-For the new construction. MR. STEC-Because the old crib is existing nonconforming. MR. STONE-Yes, but we have to grant that relief, don’t we, if we’re going to? MR. HAYES-It would seem like you would. MR. THOMAS-On this drawing right here, you can see where the property line, this is the property line, this is protected. This is 13 feet in here, or this is 7 feet in here. MR. MC NALLY-To the footprint. MR. STONE-Well, but we’ve got this down here. MR. THOMAS-That seven feet is from here to the end of the crib. MR. STONE-No, but here’s the crib, which is encroaching on it. MR. THOMAS-That’s existing. MR. STONE-Yes, but I thought when we gave a variance, we reflect what’s existing. MR. MC NALLY-The boathouse is a structure. MR. BROWN-I think if you’re going to grant relief for the expansion, you specify where that is, and I think that’s the seven foot setback they’re requesting. MR. THOMAS-Yes. This right here. MR. STONE-Okay. Yes, well, I see that seven feet, yes. Okay. Sometimes it seems we do one, and sometimes it seems we do. MR. BROWN-If I could just interject a couple of things. For accuracy, the drawing that you looked at before, it depicted 11 foot 6 to the top, and then a 3 foot rail. The height requirements for a boathouse is 14 feet. I mean, if the applicant wants to stick with 14’6”, you need to grant relief for that. If they want to drop it down to 14 feet. MR. DE NARDO-The drawing is 14. MR. BROWN-I thought it said 11’ 6” to the floor and then a 3 foot rail? MR. STONE-It says 11’ 6” on this thing. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I've got 11’ 6” on this one. MR. STONE-Plus three. MR. THOMAS-I've got 10 foot on this one. MR. DE NARDO-It should be 11 to the deck. I've got 11 on this one. MR. THOMAS-I've got 10 on this one and 14 to the top of the rail. MR. DE NARDO-Fourteen to the top of the rail. MR. THOMAS-On this drawing. There’s no date on it. MR. STONE-I've got one here that says 10 proposed, plus 3, but then 11’ 6” existing. I thought you’re making it higher. MR. DE NARDO-It’s 11 to the deck. MR. THOMAS-All right. So it is 14 feet to the top of the rail. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. DE NARDO-To the top of the rail. MR. BROWN-Evidently, yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. BROWN-And also, I have one more thing. If my understanding of the Park Commission’s regulations and provisions they make for adjoining property owners are correct, the Tills, if they’re the current property owners, since there’s a dock in there reparian rights area, and even in violation of the setback, I think they’re within their rights to request the Park Commission not allow the Hoppers to store a boat in that area. You may want to consider that as part of a middle ground concession for the relief they’re requesting. You may want to consider that in your approval. I’m just throwing that out there. MR. STONE-You’re saying in the northerly most. MR. HAYES-You’d be deactivating that slip then, basically. MR. BROWN-Exactly, for boats. I mean, they could still use the dock for whatever purposes they want, but the actual storage of the boats in the slip or on the north side of it, if they’re willing to do that. That’s up to them. MR. THOMAS-We’ll kick it around. MR. HOPPER-The property has changed hands, and like Frankie said, he talked to the new owner, a Mr. Harris. Mr. Till sold to Mr. Harris, just like Mr. Harris, Mr. Harris and Mr. Till both knew when they purchased these properties, of these pre-existing conditions, and when we went before the Park Commission, basically Mr. Harris said we strongly object to any action that would permit this encroachment to continue, but then he went on to say that we would not oppose any reasonable application for modifications for docks located in front of the applicant’s property, which is what we have before us this evening. We're looking for a modification to a boathouse that is not on the same pier as the nonconforming dock. MR. STONE-The whole dock is nonconforming. MR. HOPPER-The only thing else I have to say is that you referred to it as expansion, and al we’re really seeking to do is build the boathouse the same height, the same width, the same everything except from a gable to a flat roof. MR. STONE-Technical term when we say “expansion”. You’re expanding your nonconformity. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s larger. It’s just that it’s been changed. MR. HOPPER-It’s not larger. MR. STONE-No, I understand that. MRS. HOPPER-I would interject one more thing to you gentlemen. MR. STONE-You did say it was going to be higher, though, to put a boat in there. That’s why I’m not sure where these numbers come from. You said it was going to be higher so you could put a boat in there. MR. DE NARDO-The way the dock is set up right now, to raise Mr. Hopper’s boat inside it would not be enough room, the way the rafters and everything are inside, and to jack the boat up inside. So what we’re doing is we’re bringing the flat roof up, the lifting beams will be on the flat point, instead of the sides. Your peak comes down like this. So you could be gaining that extra height there, so he can raise his boat up inside it for storage in the winter. MR. HAYES-I’m not saying I oppose the application, but what Bob said is true, though, by making the sun deck, you’re essentially utilizing a second story that wasn’t being utilized before. That’s got to be expansion of a usage. MR. STONE-How are you going to get up there? MR. DE NARDO-Stairs along the back side. MR. STONE-Define “back side” for me. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. DE NARDO-Road side. MR. STONE-Road side, okay. MRS. HOPPER-We own a motel, gentlemen. We want privacy. That’s why we bought this property. We want to get out of the nuthouse, and I want a book, and I want peace and I want quiet. I’m not looking to put a bunch of people up there. I’m looking to put my body up there with a book. That’s about as honest as I can get. MR. STONE-But you do have a number of boats there already. I recognize it’s nice to have your family close, so they can use the boats. MRS. HOPPER-That was one of the things that was attractive about the property, though, sir, is the fact that we have two grown sons that have boats, and this was a windfall. This was lovely. This was very nice to have this, so we could afford them a place to park their boat. I mean, I must admit, that was one of the charms this property held for us. MR. HOPPER-It would be a major improvement to the area. MRS. HOPPER-We’ve got some pictures if you want to refresh your memories of what this looks like. MR. STONE-We’ve all been there. MR. HAYES-Yes, we have to visit this. MR. DE NARDO-Just to get off the Pilot Knob Road there, I mean, that’s a 70 mile an hour road. MRS. HOPPER-Yes, they fly by there, guys. MR. DE NARDO-Way up on top of the roof there would be a lot better. MRS. HOPPER-I intend to retire at this property. MR. STONE-Well, as Mr. Brown said, are you willing to give up putting a boat in that northern slip? MR. HOPPER-It wouldn’t be a major problem, but it would be a problem, but like Frank, today, talked to Mr. Harris over there, and if you look at this photograph here. MR. DE NARDO-See, actually, that slip right there is only good for a rowboat anyway. MRS. HOPPER-Yes. MR. DE NARDO-That was built back when boat were narrow. MR. MC NALLY-So it wouldn’t be too hard to make that concession, then. MRS. HOPPER-No. MR. STONE-Or limit it to a rowboat. MR. DE NARDO-It’s limited to a rowboat right now. I mean, you can’t put a full sized boat in there. Anything with an eight foot beam will not fit in there. The slip is just too narrow. MRS. HOPPER-Wouldn’t even attempt it. MR. DE NARDO-The slip is eight foot, and with the fenders, the posts on the inside, that would be bringing it down another seven inches. You’d have to have a rowboat to go in there. MR. HOPPER-I don’t think we’d have to have a stipulation with that, because if the neighbor objected, he’s entitled to go to the Park Commission and say we’re infringing on his reparian rights, and that would be the end of it. We’d have to abide by it. MRS. HOPPER-Pull it out. MR. HOPPER-But as long as we have a neighbor that doesn’t object, I don’t see why we can’t utilize that dock. MRS. HOPPER-We would put something small, a rowboat, if that’s what Frank says fits there. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. HOPPER-And I would assume any other owner that purchased after the existing owner would have the same right to object to reparian rights. So that’s pretty much a given now. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I left off with Dan. Down to Chuck. MR. MC NULTY-Well, this strikes me as an overall improvement to the current situation, and it doesn’t strike me that this is a situation where raising the size of the roof to make a flat roof is going to impede anybody’s visibility or anything. So I think sum total it’s probably a positive trade off, and I’m inclined to approve. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Normally, I would certainly object to an encroachment on somebody else’s property line, and I would object to giving so much relief in the lake. However, going by the Lake George Park Commission’s recommendations, I guess I would hesitate to remove anything, if it’s going to totally disrupt the waterfront, and I also do not believe, as a sun deck owner, that it places that much more stress or strain or more people than would be there originally. Having done the same thing that they’re doing, the people that, all the people that were normally there on the bottom were still there, but they just moved to the top. It didn’t necessarily add any more or less. So I really don’t have a problem with the sun deck. I’d kind of like to see a limit on that dock, and I’m glad to see the north side canopy thing or lean-to or whatever you call it is coming down. So, I probably could go along with this. Especially when we kind of limited that last crib, too. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Lew? MR. STONE-I certainly, as you may have heard earlier, have a biased, positive biased, toward the lake. Not only do I live on it, I have many other interested in terms of the lake. However, having said that, I am disturbed by the number of docks on this property. I hear you, 41 years ago, and I know it was a much more liasee faire attitude about the lake. We never knew as much as we know now, and it’s a constant battle to educate people as to the fact that the lake needs protection. Having said that, I don’t really have an objection to it, with the provision that, obviously, you’re going to take down that cover, and maybe the thing is self-limiting, in terms of what boat you get in there. I guess I would like to limit it, and the other thing, basically, those are the two things that I would like to see. I mean, I would just like to see the fact that you might consider that only your sons use the other dock, so that it’s only family, rather than the possibility of renting. One of my biggest concerns about lake property is that we know a lot of docks are being rented. That’s why I asked you, at the beginning of this meeting, of this application, do you have a marina permit. There are many people who rent more than one or two or three docks, and don’t have marina permits, as Frank is shaking his head, and this is a goal of mine. At some point I’d like to see this stopped, but if you were willing to stipulate that your family are the users of the dock, it would help me a great deal. You said that you also have a rental property or something? MR. HOPPER-Yes. MRS. HOPPER-It came with the main house, which we intend to inhabit, and then it came with an adorable cottage, which we have already re-painted and made. MR. STONE-So you have two on the same piece of property? MRS. HOPPER-It’s two separate deeded pieces of property for two separate deeds, which is a novelty. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HOPPER-I think that’s how come they came to have the docks that they have today, is because both pieces of property utilize that docking complex. MRS. HOPPER-Exactly. MR. STONE-Is it in the deeds? MR. HOPPER-No, there’s two deeds. One deed for the cottage and one deed for the main house, but they were both owned by the same owner. MRS. HOPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes, but if you were to sell that cottage. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MRS. HOPPER-No, no more renting. MR. STONE-There’s no covenant in that deed that they have an easement to use the dock? MR. HOPPER-No. MRS. HOPPER-No. MR. HOPPER-There’s nothing, but assuredly, that would make our property more valuable, if we ever did decide to sell that little cottage that sits on Hannaford Road, that has no lake front, that we could sell one of the docks with it, and I’m sure that would enhance the value of that little cottage, but we don’t have any plans to do that to date. We're just strictly looking at this project as a retirement home for when we sell our business in Lake George village and go some place where it’s quiet. MRS. HOPPER-That’s why we took Hannaford Road, because it is very peaceful up there. MR. STONE-Not when they build all those houses back behind you there. MR. HOPPPER-The only other thing I might add, sir, is that I've been coming to Lake George for all my life. My grandfather bought a piece of property here in 1917 on 9L, one mile up from the Canteen, and I've always been on Lake George, and I share your concerns with the environment and the lake. We're not people that came from out of state and just want to use and abuse. We live here. MR. STONE-I understand, and I appreciate that. MRS. HOPPER-This is home. We’ll take good care of it. MR. THOMAS-I haven’t got any problem with this application, as the others have said, and I agree with the other restrictions that the north crib not be used for anything bigger than a rowboat, and the other docks be used by no one else other than family members, and/or family members. MR. STONE-Well, the rental, that’s family users, or do you rent it? MRS. HOPPER-No, that we rent out, that little cottage. MR. THOMAS-Yes, except for the rental property that the dock would have to go with it. MR. STONE-One boat? MRS. HOPPER-Well, they have the option of one dock, which would be two boats. They would have the option of bringing two boats. MR. STONE-The whole southern dock they have the option of? MR. THOMAS-Well, you could put one on either side. MRS. HOPPER-Yes, one on each side. MR. STONE-It’s a 10. You don’t get two boats in 10. MR. DE NARDO-There’s a crib under water on that side. MR. THOMAS-Is there? MR. DE NARDO-Yes. So you’re not putting one on the south side. The north side is shallow, it’s a beach. MR. HAYES-So they get the southern “E”, then, the people. MR. STONE-Well, then where do your sons put their boats? MRS. HOPPER-They put them in the slip. We have ours in. MR. DE NARDO-One on the south side of the barge, or the boathouse. The north side of the small “E” shape, it’s too shallow to put a boat in there without beaching it. MR. STONE-So there’s four boats, plus the rowboat. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. HOPPER-It’s her rowboat. MRS. HOPPER-I don’t operate anything powerful, gentlemen. Believe me, if I can row it, I move it. If not, I go with him. MR. THOMAS-All right. If there’s no more questions for the applicant, would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1999 DAVID & JANE HOPPER, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Pilot Knob Road. The applicant proposes re-configuration of an enclosed peaked roof boathouse to a boathouse with a flat roof/sundeck. Since the existing boathouse already encroaches upon the setback zone, as well as part of the northerly part being on another piece of property. The applicant requests 13 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the wetlands and shoreline regulations, 179-60. Additionally, neither dock on the property conforms to the above referenced Section. Therefore, the applicant requires relief from the expansion of a nonconforming structure, 179-79. In considering this variance, we recognize that the benefit to the applicant would be that they would be permitted to reconstruct the existing docks in the desired configuration, therefore putting a sunroof on top of the dock, and allowing them to be higher than the existing road, to get away from noxious fumes and to minimize sounds. In considering this application, we agree that feasible alternatives are limited, since neither is in conformance with regulations, and therefore, a smaller proposal or re-located proposal would still require relief. In addition, we are told that the lake bottom where these docks are does not permit ready new construction of the crib dock, because of the silted nature of the bottom. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 13 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial, but since the existing dock has been in existence 41 years, and therefore nonconforming, it’s existing nonconforming, it’s really not substantial. The applicant, having agreed to take down a boat cover over the northernmost slip, would minimize the effects on the neighborhood, and actually would make a positive contribution to the appearance of the dock. We recognize that the difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. However, the pre-existing, that is 41 years nonconforming nature of the structure, may be a contributing factor to the difficulties. In seeking this variance, the applicant stipulates that the cover on the northern dock will be taken down, and that only a rowboat be on the outside of the northernmost pier, and that in the slip that a minimal size boat be used, not a cruiser. In addition, the applicant notes that the southern dock is related to a rental property that they own, adjacent to their home, and that it is used by the people who rent the property, they do not rent the dock. The dock comes along with it. Having said all that, I move that we grant Area Variance No. 40-1999. Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. BROWN-Just one question. In the limiting of the boats on the north dock, do you want to include the slip on the north side of the dock, or just “in the slip”? MR. STONE-Yes. Do you ever put anything on the northern, outside of the slip? MR. HOPPER-We're thinking that the slip is part of our dock complex, but the north part of that pier would be the one that would be the rowboat, and that would be the one that would only enable the neighbor to basically say that we were infringing on his reparian rights. MR. STONE-What goes into the eight foot six slip that’s covered now? MR. HOPPER-Yes. We had one of our kids’ boats in there. MR. STONE-I was just told that’s too small for a large boat. MR. HOPPER-Yes. It wasn’t a large boat. It was a very small boat, a small fishing boat. It was a 14 foot, but a narrow beam. MR. DE NARDO-Like a rowboat with a motor. MR. STONE-Are we happy with a rowboat with a motor? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. HAYES-It’s fine by me. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s the concern, we thought, and you didn’t (lost word) us of it. We thought that we were limiting the actual used slip to the rowboat, not the outside of the dock. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MRS. HOPPER-I’m thinking the outside of the dock. I’m thinking you gentlemen are talking about between Mr. Harris’ property and ours, because that was the concern that you couldn’t put two boats in there, and we agreed with you that it would. MR. STONE-Well, the slip is primarily on his property, too. If you want to talk. MR. HOPPER-A portion thereof. MR. STONE-Seven feet, two inches, as I read this thing, about seven feet is on his property. MR. HOPPER-We’d still like to utilize the slip, but we’d stipulate that we wouldn’t put anything larger than a rowboat on the northern side next to his property. MRS. HOPPER-Yes, we would not infringe on that. MR. STONE-Don’t say next to his property, because it’s on his property, his reparian property. MRS. HOPPER-That’s the only part that he has a problem with. MR. HOPPER-Yes, he doesn’t even have a problem with that now that Frankie talked to him the other day. There’s room for two boats in there. MRS. HOPPER-But we have spoken with our neighbor extensively on this, and he does not have a problem with that. In fact, he’s now looking to do something with his boathouse. So I’m sure he’ll be before you gentlemen not too much longer. MR. STONE-Well, let me re-state the stipulation, and we’ll see if it flies. That only a rowboat be on the outside of the northernmost pier, and that in the slip that a minimal size boat be used, not a cruiser. MRS. HOPPER-Bingo. That’s fine. That’s reasonable. That’s good. MR. HOPPER-We can live with that, because our neighbor, his property is right on the line. He has no setback. So I’m sure he’ll be here. MR. DE NARDO-He’ll be here in about another month, too. MR. HOPPER-Another month, because Frankie’s going to build his. AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There you go. MRS. HOPPER-Thank you, gentlemen and lady. Thank you. MR. HEWLETT-And, yes, Warner Bay is all silt. I grew up there. You can’t keep a dock from settling in that Bay. Just in the narrow bay, just in the five mile an hour bay, not the main part of the lake. We grew up right at the base there, where the peninsula narrows into the five mile an hour bay. The five mile an hour bay is, and you can’t swim in it unless you don’t mind leeches. If you keep a bottle of salt down there at the table, you’re all right, or down there at the dock. MR. MC NALLY-You know what struck me, though, as hard as it is to build docks there, there’s a dock every 10 feet, and if you looked up and down that, half are new and half are old. MR. STONE-Yes, but what you’ve had there is, and that’s the problem with the lake, is silt coming off of 9L, that corner, it’s got to. MR. HEWLETT-That and just the standard north wind. It’s a catch all for the north wind in through there. MR. STONE-There’s a lot of deltas on the lake, Bob, there’s a number of them that are getting very, that’s what I've been working on all day, writing the grant request. MRS. LAPHAM-Across the way at the Castaway Marina, it’s all mucky in that area. MR. HEWLETT-Well, it’s similar over in there. That’s further out on the lake. 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MRS. LAPHAM-Because my parents used to keep a boat there, and it was really gross, I thought. AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1999 TYPE II HC-1A THE ESTATE OF ROGER HEWLETT GERALD HEWLETT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 58 DIX AVENUE ROUTE 254 EAST TO CORNER WITH DIX AVENUE RIGHT ONTO DIX AVENUE, RIGHT ONTO TRIANGLE PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 6-1999 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/12/99 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.221 LOT SIZE: 11.011 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-70 GREGORY HEWLETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-1999, The Estate of Roger Hewlett Gerald Hewlett, Meeting Date: May 19, 1999 “Project Location: 58 Dix Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes subdivision of lands and reconfiguration of a previously approved subdivision lot. Relief Required: Applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement of § 179-70, Frontage on public streets. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to create the desired lots in the preferred configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration to allow all lots road frontage. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood 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.): Subdivision 10-1993 – res. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. This property appears to have the ability to be configured to give all lots road frontage. The reconfiguration of a conforming lot to a nonconforming lot may impose a burden on the lot in the event of future development. SEQR Status: Type II” MRS. LAPHAM-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 6 of May th 1999 Project Name: Estate of Roger and Gerald Hewlett Owner: Gregory Hewlett Queensbury Area Variance 38-1999 May 99-23 Heavy Highway Commercial Queensbury Applicant proposes to subdivide a parcel and requests relief from frontage requirements. Zero feet proposed, 50 feet allowable by easement. Site Location: Route 254 East to corner of Dix Avenue, right on Dix Avenue, right onto Triangle Park Drive Tax Map No. 110-1-1.21 Staff Notes: A copy of the applicant’s site drawing is included with the summaries. The parcel in question to be created is the 4.189 acre denoted on the drawing. New York State Real Property Law prohibits the creation of a landlocked parcel. However, they do allow that a deeded easement is sufficient access. The Town of Queensbury is taking this a step further and requires direct frontage on a property on a town, County or State Road. Staff is of the opinion that since this parcel meets the requirements of the New York State Real Property Law that there are significant issues with County resources. Staff would question, though, the possibility of creating deeded access through the parcel to Quaker Road. Staff recommendation, therefore, is for No County Impact, as previous stated. However, if any Board members would like to comment on access to Quaker Road, either as a condition of the No County Impact or the as a matter of discussion, this item can be removed from the No County Impact List and discussed.” Terry Ross” MR. STONE-I’m confused. You’re going to have to explain what piece of property we’re talking about. MR. HEWLETT-That’s all right. I kind of figured that. Should I bring a map up there? MR. THOMAS-We’ve all got a map. You can hang that one up there. You can probably see it. MR. STONE-How did your parents by all this land? Your grandfather? MR. HEWLETT-Actually, my dad bought this. My grandfather thought he was crazy. This was actually purchased, this 40 acre parcel, was purchased in ’79, and it was just the farm land, and nobody thought that anything was going to happen out that way, and everybody basically told my father he was crazy to buy that land, and obviously, it’s been broken up a number of different times. This parcel, in here, was originally subdivided from, each of these have been individual subdivisions. This was subdivided from the original 40 acre parcel, and it is deeded, or was deeded, to Key Lock Mini Storage, which is a general partnership owned by the Estate of Roger and Gerald Hewlett. This parcel and this remaining parcel here remained as their land holdings, also. This one that they operate a business on, this one which is vacant land, okay. What gets confusing is this parcel here, Key Lock’s, was subdivided, and this map does not have the proper drawing on it, hence the word 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) “Void” down here. There was a corrected one. We had this one re-drawn for you folks, with the darkened lines to show what we were doing for this application, and they failed to put this subdivision line back in, Coulter & McCormack. If you have, there is a version of it that has the subdivision line in there. That shows the actual line in there, but when he did the re-draw, he forgot to put that in. Do you have the original? MR. STONE-We don’t have it. We’ve got a chain link fence, that’s all we’ve got. MR. HEWLETT-This is the Town of Queensbury Subdivision map, when it was subdivided for the sale of the Brown parcel. This is focusing on just this area here. Okay. This here, and this shows that subdivision. This was sold to Brown Associates, and this shows a subdivision, and again, we just recently did this map, just for the purposes of this application, and he failed to put that line in there. MR. THOMAS-So that line really goes along the chain link fence? MR. HEWLETT-Basically, it follows that chain link fence. Okay. It’s just not properly noted on that map. MR. STONE-And this is Key Lock Storage? MR. HEWLETT-Right, and at the time that we subdivided this, that we sold off this parcel, this parcel here, the Brown Associates, to keep our frontage requirements, we attached this road to this Key Lock parcel, because this parcel is still one whole parcel is still one whole parcel, okay. Is everybody following me so far? MR. STONE-It’s one whole parcel? Okay. MR. HEWLETT-Okay. MR. HAYES-You’ve got the frontage on Quaker at that point. MR. HEWLETT-Right. We have frontage here, on Quaker Road, and so to allow frontage on this roadway, for this parcel here, this Key Lock parcel, we allowed frontage here. Now there was an easement given to Brown Associates for usage of this roadway. There’s an easement for this parcel, for usage of this roadway, because this is the primary roadway. This is an undeveloped parcel at this point. MR. STONE-It is undeveloped. Where is Garden Time? MR. HEWLETT-Garden Time’s right here, lands of Troelstra. In between Garden Time and Barrett’s is this parcel here. Most people don’t notice it when they drive by. Nobody notices it when they drive by. What we’re looking to do is we’re actually going to be selling this parcel here, okay, this parcel that we currently operate, Northern Ladder and Scaffolding. In doing so, we want to give them the roadway to basically maintain, and what we’re doing it a switch. Currently, this parcel owns the roadway and this parcel has an easement. With this sale, this parcel will own this roadway. This parcel will have the easement, but in doing so, this parcel no longer has it’s 40 foot of frontage. So we’re requesting a variance to allow this parcel to remain with no owned frontage but the frontage by easement. MR. STONE-Finally I can understand it. MR. HEWLETT-Is everybody clear? It is confusing. MR. THOMAS-How wide is that road that goes in there, between those two lot lines? MR. HEWLETT-The road in here, this road in here? About 30 feet. MR. THOMAS-Between the lot lines. It says 50 feet, I see it. MR. HEWLETT-Well, 50 foot of frontage. It’s 30 feet for the road itself. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. HAYES-So it’s a good sized road. MR. THOMAS-Why can’t you deed that over to the Town? 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. HEWLETT-We wanted to. Paul didn’t want it. Paul doesn’t like dead end roads. Because it comes into the parcel and stops, he was not interested. In addition to that, he wanted, actually, who was the gentleman before Paul? MR. THOMAS-That’s 18 years ago. MR. HEWLETT-Maybe it was Paul, then. Previously, we had talked to them about seven or eight years ago, and they wanted this road to be torn up and re-developed or re-installed to DOT specs, in order for them to take over. We put it off. It was re-done a number of years ago, and we went back to them just recently and they said no, they don’t want it because it’s a dead end road. MR. STONE-I didn’t get down the road to the right. Does that go back out to Dix? MR. HEWLETT-This road goes back out to here. MR. STONE-It does? Okay. MR. HEWLETT-And we own this road and this parcel. This parcel here that’s undeveloped is owned by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Government. MR. STONE-Is it all wetlands? MR. HEWLETT-No. Actually, it’s going up for public auction this month, it just recently did. MR. STONE-You can get it back for a song. MR. HEWLETT-No. We're looking to sell things here, settle an estate, not make an estate more difficult. MR. STONE-Okay. So the mini storage, or Key Lock, that’s the lot you’re talking about? MR. HEWLETT-That’s the one that we’re requesting a variance on this. MR. THOMAS-And that’s owned by the estate? MR. HEWLETT-It’s owned by both the estate, as a general partnership with my grandfather, Jerry. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So it’s not going to leave the “family business”? It’s still going to be part of the family business? MR. HEWLETT-Yes. MR. THOMAS-One of the businesses of the family. MR. HEWLETT-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So the owners aren’t complaining that it’s going to be landlocked. MR. HEWLETT-They’re not here to complain, no. MR. THOMAS-I did see on the authorization form there there was a Linda Hewlett? MR. HEWLETT-Yes. She’s the Executrix. She’s my father’s widow, and she’s the Executrix of the Estate, but if you’ll notice, there’s also a letter of agency in there, signed by both her and Jerry, appointing me agent. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I did see that, but the name Linda came in there, and it said something, as attorney. MR. HEWLETT-Attorney In Fact. MR. STONE-Attorney In Fact. MR. THOMAS-Attorney In Fact, yes. MR. HEWLETT-The Executrix, she also has Power of Attorney to sign on his behalf for business affairs. So in some areas she’s signing as the Executrix for the Estate, and in some areas she’s signing as the Power of Attorney. It gets confusing. 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. THOMAS-I guess. Are there anymore questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Not that I can see, no. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Hewlett? All right. If there’s no questions, lets talk about it. I think it’s back down to Bob. MR. MC NALLY-This isn’t that much different from that property we had on Lake George. It wasn’t on a Town Road, but it had a right of way that was more than adequate to get police, emergency customers or what not to the property. So, I don’t see that as being a very difficult thing. I don’t see much, on balance, to harm the neighborhood. I’d be in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with Bob. I think that certainly we’ve demonstrated a willingness, in the past, to grant relief for lots that don’t have road front, as long as they have access, and I don’t think it’s any different than anything I've seen before, and no one’s complaining. It’s really more of a housekeeping issue, I think, an administrative issue, than a change to the way that things are. So I’m in favor of granting it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I've got nothing to add. I think I basically agree. I don’t see a great deal of difference between this and the other one that we did a couple of months ago. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-There isn’t even a difference between what is proposed as to what already is except a legal deed change, is what it seems to me, right, or you’re changing from one lot having a deeded right of way to owning it to the other one, and you’re just flip flopping them back and forth. I don’t think there’s any change from what’s already being done. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I've got no problem. Just a quick question. The back lot, was that developed before the 50 foot requirement? MR. HEWLETT-The back lot, the very back corner? That was the first parcel. That was the parcel that we developed for our own use right from the very beginning when the whole 40 acres was purchased. So that was done back in ’79. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HEWLETT-As to whether or not the zoning laws were such that then, I couldn’t honestly tell you. It wasn’t even really an issue because they owned the whole 40 acres. They just chose to use that back corner. MR. STONE-I have no problem with it. As somebody said, it’s hard to, the right hand can’t complain to the left hand too often, and as long as the road is there, I certainly would think you ought to keep pressing the Town to take it over. MR. HEWLETT-We intend to do that. MR. STONE-It would make it a lot easier if they did. MR. HEWLETT-Depending on what happens. What Paul Naylor said is if at some point we want to give them that with the whole loop that comes through that other parcel, then he would take it over, but with the Army Corps of Engineers property potentially selling and the potential for somebody to be able to connect those two parcels and make one large one, we don’t want to give up the road at this point and have it be forever separated, until we know where that’s going. 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) MR. STONE-Okay. You mean the back one that’s on Quaker? MR. HEWLETT-The Quaker Road one. If somebody did buy, because as I understand, that public auction has already occurred, did buy that six acre parcel from the Army Corps, they would probably be interested in our 5.35 acres of undeveloped land with the roadway separating it at this point. MR. STONE-Why did the Government buy it, just out of curiosity. MR. HEWLETT-They were going to make an engineering facility out of it. It was going to be used, and they just never did anything with it. MR. STONE-Well, okay. MR. THOMAS-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think everything’s been said. The fact that they did try and turn the road over to the Town and stuff, I mean, they’ve taken the steps. I don’t think this represents a change, and all the usual things that we’re concerned about when granting this type of relief I think are in place. Easement agreements are in place, and they’ve obviously been functioning, whether it’s for this property, the other one, or back and forth. So I have no problem with the application. MR. THOMAS-All right. Everything’s been said. It’s just a matter of, like Bonnie said, paperwork. I don’t see a problem. Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1999 THE ESTATE OF ROGER HEWLETT GERALD HEWLETT, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 58 Dix Avenue. The applicant proposes subdivision of land and reconfiguration of the previously approved subdivision lot. The relief required is 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement of Section 179-70, Frontage on a Public Street. The benefit to the applicant, it would allow the applicant to create the lots in the desired configuration, and essentially switch an easement and a road frontage between two lots owned by the same family. Feasible alternatives really appear limited due to the plans that they have for the future of these lots. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 40 feet may be interpreted as substantial, however, the effect on the neighborhood and community is deemed minimal, that no objections are noted from the community, and in fact the nature of what occurs on this parcel really doesn’t change. It’s more or less a paperwork kind of drill that’s involved, but the difficulty is self-created, but weighing the five tests that we use for Area Variances, I move that we approve the variance sought. Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There you go. Does anyone else have anything for the good of the Board? I’ll make a motion we adjourn. MR. BROWN-I think you need to do some minutes, don’t you? MR. STEC-Yes, we’ve got a lot of minutes. MR. THOMAS-I think we’ll wait until next week. MR. BROWN-You’ve got everybody here. MR. THOMAS-I know. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STEC-Mr. Chairman, I won’t be here next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 58 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/19/99) Chris Thomas, Chairman 59