Loading...
2000-08-16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN PAUL HAYES CHARLES MC NULTY ROBERT MC NALLY NORMAN HIMES CHARLES ABBATE ALLAN BRYANT CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2000 BARBARA JONES OWNER: ELLA M. DANAHY ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: INDIANA AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 16’ X 76’ MOBILE HOME ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 127-8-20 LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 BARBARA JONES, PRESENT MR. STONE-This was heard last month. The public hearing is still open. Please read the tabling motion. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. “The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following, RE: Area Variance No. 62-2000 Meeting Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 62-2000 Barbara Jones, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Indiana Avenue. That this be tabled in view of the fact that we have questions to ask the applicant. That we table it for approximately 32 days or to a meeting during the month of August. Duly adopted this 26 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. th Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone” MR. STONE-Mrs. Jones, come forward, please. Are you feeling better tonight? MRS. JONES-Yes, much better, thank you. MR. STONE-Good. I know I wasn’t here, but I realize you were not well during the evening. Have you had a chance, at all, to read any of the conversations that went on, by the Board, any of the minutes since then? MRS. JONES-Not since then, no. MR. STONE-Okay. Why don’t you start out and tell us about your application, what you’d like to do. MRS. JONES-Well, I’m in the process of purchasing the property on Indiana Avenue, and I found a trailer that was an 80 foot trailer, I guess 76 feet, and I needed a variance for my setbacks of seven feet instead of ten. So it’s three feet on each side. MR. STONE-You have not purchased the property? You have a contract to purchase? MRS. JONES-No, we haven’t closed. Probably next week we’ll close. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. JONES-In the meantime I was trying to find a trailer and get everything all set to put on the property, and have everything taken care of ahead of time. MR. STONE-I’m, obviously, at somewhat of a disadvantage. I was not here last month. Any questions for Mrs. Jones? MR. MC NALLY-How old is the trailer? 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MRS. JONES-The one I was, I was looking at a Year 2000, and now I’m looking at one that’s a ’95. MR. MC NALLY-Is it set up somewhere else? MRS. JONES-The one I’m looking at now is a repo, and it’s in Malta, in a trailer park, or not a trailer park, but a mobile home dealership has it. MR. STONE-You say you’re now looking at a different one. Is this the one, the application calls for a 16 by 76, or are they both the same size? MRS. JONES-No, this one is now 14 by 80, or 76. MR. STONE-It’s a 14 by 80. MRS. JONES-Seventy-six with the trailer hitch off it. MR. STONE-So it’s even more encroachment. MRS. JONES-It’s a little bit smaller, by two feet. MR. STONE-Well, it’s 80 she said, from 76. MR. MC NULTY-Well, that’s with the trailer hitch on it, like she said. MRS. JONES-That’s what they say. It’s 14 by 80, and then they take the trailer hitch off, and your actual size is 76 feet. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. JONES-They explained that to me that way. So you have to go from one end of the trailer to the other. MR. STONE-So, from outer wall to outer wall, it’s 76 feet? MRS. JONES-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-May I ask who’s sitting beside you? MRS. JONES-This is my fiancée Marcel Rolands. MR. MC NALLY-What kind of foundation do you want to put something like this on? MRS. JONES-Cement. MR. MC NALLY-Is there a slab there already? MRS. JONES-No, I’ll have to put one in. MR. MC NALLY-And you’ll have to put in a new septic system, I take it? MARCEL ROLANDS MR. ROLANDS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-There was no prior set up on this lot, was there? MR. ROLANDS-No. MR. STONE-I don’t know if it came up last time, but in looking at your drawing, I’m confused as to what the setback from the street is on this particular thing, because I see 30 and another 30, and I see the house next to you is 29, and you seem to be closer than that. So can you provide some clarification, in terms of the drawing that you submitted? MRS. JONES-Well, I did the best I could, with some help from people. I’ve, in fact, had it put back 35 feet on the drawing, instead of 30. MR. STONE-Is that going to be to the stoop, or to the main wall? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MRS. JONES-From the stoop back. MR. STONE-So you’re proposing to place the stoop 35 feet from the property line, from the roadway? MRS. JONES-The trailer, and I was going to put an extra five feet back in case I want to put a small porch on the front of it. MR. HAYES-Is she going to make it with her septic setbacks on, if she does that, Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes, I think so. MR. MC NALLY-I’m not sure I understood what you just said. MR. HAYES-She’s talking about doing 35 feet back to the front of the porch, if she puts a porch on. MRS. JONES-Right. MR. MC NALLY-That’s those stairs or what not that’s shown in the front? Is that stairs there or whatever it is? MRS. JONES-No, they just put stairs on it. MR. ROLANDS-They come with stairs, that you walk in. MR. MC NALLY-But on your drawing, you’ve got something right in the middle, in the front along Indiana Avenue. It looks like a set of stairs or, is that the porch that you’re telling me? Right there? MR. JONES-Probably. MR. STONE-We need more than probably. MR. MC NALLY-I’m just curious. That’s all I’m asking. MRS. JONES-Yes, if it’s there, then that’s what I have on there. MR. MC NALLY-So those are the stairs? MRS. JONES-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So the setback from your property line is 30 feet to the front of those stairs, then? MR. STONE-Or is it 35? MRS. JONES-It’s 30 from the road to the porch, and then 35 from the trailer back. MR. HAYES-What’s the front setback? MRS. JONES-Thirty feet. MR. STONE-Thirty feet. MR. HAYES-So you understand it’ll have to be that to be permissible, the 30 feet. MRS. JONES-I know that, yes, and more if I want to put a porch or something on the front. I was told I have to figure in the setback even further. MR. STONE-You’re talking a porch that wouldn’t be any wider than five feet? MRS. JONES-Yes, just something small. MR. STONE-Just something longer, extending out from these steps. MRS. JONES-Yes. MR. HAYES-So the trailer itself is going to be like 35, then. MRS. JONES-Right. So I was trying to figure that in also. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. MC NALLY-And when you measured this, you measured this from the pavement, I take it? MRS. JONES-I also measured it from. MR. ROLANDS-I measured from the (lost words) and I measured it from the center of the road. Someone said the center of the road. MRS. JONES-No. John Mallaney has a stake from the starting line of my property. MR. ROLANDS-But I measured both ways. MRS. JONES-And we measured from there. That’s where I measured, from his. MR. MC NALLY-That 30 foot’s from the pavement itself? MR. ROLANDS-Yes. MRS. JONES-No, it’s not, it’s from the starting line, from the pavement in, and then the 30 feet. MR. HAYES-Just as long as you understand it’ll have to be 30 feet from the actual property line, not the road. MRS. JONES-Right, from the property line, 30 feet from the property line. MR. STONE-The closest part of the building, whatever it is, can be no closer than 30 feet. MRS. JONES-Right. MR. HAYES-Do the stairs count? MR. STONE-The stairs count. MR. BROWN-Yes, open stringer steps we probably wouldn’t count. If it’s an actual deck with a covering on it, we’d require that to meet the setback, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. We just want to be sure, because it’s listed a couple of ways here, that’s all. Does anybody else have any questions, based upon? MR. HIMES-Ma’am, you mentioned somewhere in the notes of the application here, on the matter of you needing a 76 foot trailer because of your family. Could you tell us a little bit about what your family consists of, and so on? MRS. JONES-Okay. Well, it would be myself and my boyfriend, and I have a son that is 30 years old, and he’s a little bit retarded, who lives with me, and I need a little space in the trailer. I have a lot of grandchildren that come to visit, and my family comes to my house. I need room to be comfortable. MR. STONE-Let me read something to you. As you know, in your absence, we did go through the application. We did open the public hearing. There was one piece of correspondence. Is that the only one there was, from Kelly Smith? Okay. There was one. Let me just read it, so that you can have benefit of it. From Kelly A. Smith, 258 Corinth Road, “This letter is in response to the letter sent from the Town of Queensbury about a Public Hearing Notice. The property involved is Tax Map location 127-8-20. The applicant, Barbara Jones, would like to put a mobile home on a lot size of .18 acres. I would like to express my opinion. This lot size is too small for the proposed mobile home. This will not provide a good quality of life atmosphere for anyone. Both the applicant and the neighbors will be affected. While there are many mobile homes in that area, adding more mobile homes on a cramped lot space will ultimately diminish the value of the surrounding properties. Please consider my comments as you look at the overall picture and goal for growth in Queensbury. Sincerely, Kelly A. Smith” Do you have any comments? MRS. JONES-She has a right to her opinion. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s your comment? MRS. JONES-Well, we have relatives, of course, that live up in there, and I know, from touring the streets up there, that there are small mobile homes put on smaller pieces of land than what I’m proposing to put mine on, and I probably will even put a fence up. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. ROLAND-And my dad’s very ill, and I want to be close to him anyway. There are smaller trailers, like she’s saying, there, on that road. You just drive by. MRS. JONES-And they put them in sideways, and they’re dividing up lots and putting two homes on one piece of property. What street was that other trailer, Michigan? MR. ROLANDS-Michigan, yes. MRS. JONES-That that Sherry there had. To me, that doesn’t look half as nice as I intend to make my property look nice. MR. STONE-Are you suggesting there are pieces of property that haven’t gotten a variance to do some of the things? MRS. JONES-No, she got her variance, Sherry, from Valued Mobile Homes to put a lot up there and put a trailer in this way, and a double wide over here, and I don’t think that looks nice, but that’s none of my concern. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments? MR. BRYANT-I have another question, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. BRYANT-The lot is vacant. Isn’t there a fence on either side of the lot at this time? MRS. JONES-No, there’s a fence in the front of the property that’s falling down. MR. BRYANT-There isn’t a chain link fence? MRS. JONES-Way in the back. It’s this way. MR. ROLANDS-But that’s some kind of construction site that owns the back part. MRS. JONES-They must have the fence up, whoever owns the property behind there. I don’t know who owns it. MR. STONE-Any other concerns, questions? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. Allan, do you want to start? MR. BRYANT-I’m a little bit concerned about the size of the mobile home and the amount of space on either side of the home. If a truck has got to get back there, some kind of construction truck or, I mean, how is that going to take place? And I think that’s a concern I have. It is a big mobile home for that size lot, and I would prefer to see something a little bit smaller, you know, in length, to fit, which would be appropriate for that lot. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes, I kind of agree with what Al has said. Whether or not there might be need for emergency vehicles to get around there, some way or another. That’s pretty tight, and I don’t know enough about the mobile home construction, but a 70 footer would then fall within the space requirements, whether you still could have three bedrooms or not, I don’t know. I agree with Allan’s comments, that it’s a large trailer for that lot. MR. STONE-I gather the two of you, neither one of you is willing to vote to approve this variance, as it stands right now? MR. HIMES-On the information provided, I would not vote for it. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I would have to agree with both my colleagues. I’m reluctant to do that because I believe everybody has a right to a degree of happiness and comfort, and so do you, and I don’t have any problems with that, but the concerns that they raised, I probably would have raised myself, and based on the information that we currently have, and I guess there’s another concern I have, and that 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) is that the property, right now, is owned by someone else. I realize you’re going to be closing, but nonetheless, the property belongs to someone else right now. I would have to go along with my colleagues, and at this time, based on the limited amount of knowledge and my lack of real expertise in the area of mobile homes, I would probably have to support my colleagues and say no right now. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I think owning your own home is a wonderful thing, and I think being able to move from the Henry Hudson Townhouses to your own property and to your own house is something that we should encourage. I don’t see that this is a significant variance. We’re talking about a neighborhood where there’s a mobile home overlay, and mobile homes are allowed, and you go up and down that street, and there are a lot of mobile homes, a lot of houses that would be improved with a mobile home if they were replaced with one. We’re talking three feet of relief on either side on a parcel where there are houses like that up and down the street. So I don’t see much of an effect that a variance will have on the character of that neighborhood. It would be nice if we could all have, you know, two story colonial homes, but that’s not the way the neighborhood is. So that’s fine. There might be other feasible alternatives, and I tried to explore a double wide, but those have additional costs, and when you look at this lot, with the setback in the rear and the setback in the front, and the existence of the septic system, any way you look at it, it’s going to be hard to squeeze a house on an existing residential lot. I don’t see the amount of relief as substantial relative to the Ordinance, and I don’t see that there’d be any adverse impact or effect. So I’d be in favor of the variance. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think, cumulatively, I agree with Bob. I certainly sense the other Board member’s reservations of the fact that this appears to be putting a lot on a small lot, if you know what I mean, but in this particular circumstance, I drive through that neighborhood every day, and a ’95 trailer would be on the cutting edge, almost, as far as the neighborhood and what the impact would be visually. It’s a relatively new trailer, particularly when considered to what’s around it. I also agree with Bob that the placement of newer trailers or mobile homes, whatever you want to refer to them as, in circumstances in that neighborhood would actually represent an improvement to the neighborhood. So the impact, in my mind, could even be positive. This is a pre-existing lot, in a mobile home overlay zone. So I’m presuming that the Town officials were in favor of placing these mobile homes in this area, and I think that the variances are minimal, when considered with the neighborhood in particular. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can side from both opinions. On the one hand, I can look at this and say, okay, it’s a lot you’re buying. You know what you’re walking in to. It’s really something that’s suitable for a trailer that’s 70 feet long or less. On the other hand, I will also agree that three feet on each end certainly isn’t substantial. Three feet on one end is probably minimal. It might be moderate with three feet on both ends. If it weren’t for the existing nature of the neighborhood, I’d probably be against it, but given the nature of the neighborhood, I’ll have to agree with my last two colleagues, that I think it would be an improvement, and I think, to get that kind of an improvement, it’s worth allowing the variance. So, I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-This is, as obviously by the divided position of the Board, not an easy subject. Relatively simple variance, no question about it. Three feet relief, thirty percent relief on either side, we’ve granted many, many times. However, the thing that I see is that this is not a done deal. You don’t own the lot. You don’t own the trailer, and while I recognize that it would be nice to have a 76 foot trailer rather than a 70 foot trailer, 70 foot trailers are available, could go on the lot. We wouldn’t even have to know a thing about it. I mean, it would be perfectly legal, and that is the size of the lot. Yes, as some of my colleagues have said, it’s a pre-existing lot, but pre-existing lot doesn’t preclude the fact that the trailer ought to fit on the lot, and there are trailers that fit on it. It’s not as if it’s a terrible hardship to have a 70 foot mobile home, and I gather from Staff comments of last month, that 70 foot homes are available. This is a common size, and therefore, to me, this is self- created, and that’s one of the things that we have to consider. The other thing, the relief, 30% on one side wouldn’t bother me. Thirty percent on both sides starts to become substantial relative to the variance, the application, plus the fact that there are feasible alternatives, as I’ve said, so on balance, I think I would have to deny this application, and having said that, may I hear a motion for denial? MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2000 BARBARA JONES, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: Indiana Avenue. The applicant proposes the placement of a 14 by 76 square foot mobile home. The reasons for denial were basically as the Chairman stated. It is a relatively simple request, but there are 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) several major considerations. In my opinion the question of having, not having the property, as well as not owning land at the present time is one consideration. It’s not really a done deal. The second consideration is that the 14 by 76, which would be replacing the 60 by 76 foot mobile home that she previously put on her application, is substantial, based upon the size of that lot, and granted, some of the Board members have indicated that it is a mobile home area, and I certainly don’t have any problems with that, but I think when we start talking about 30 feet here and 30 feet there, in total, I think we’re talking about a considerable amount of request for variance. There is an alternative, and that alternative was stated by the Chairman, there are mobile homes that are available 14 by 70, which would fit very nicely on that. There are a lot of areas which four member here have raised that I think are a good basis for a denial. Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-I’m sorry, it’s denied. MRS. JONES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2000 TYPE II JAMES AND DEBORAH MASON OWNER: SAME AGENT: JOHN A. MASON ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA LOCATION: 27 OLD ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF HIPPED ROOF FROM EXISTING BOATHOUSE AND REPLACEMENT WITH A FLAT ROOF FOR SUNDECK AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 54-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 5-1-26 LOT SIZE: 0.73 ACRES SECTION 179-60 JOHN MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 64-2000, James and Deborah Mason, Meeting Date: August 16, 2000 Project Location: 27 Old Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of boathouse hipped roof and replacement with a flat roof sundeck. Relief Required: Applicant requests 8 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to reconfigure the boathouse as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller, compliant sundeck. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 8 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. However, a portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the location of the existing structure. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 97-068 c/o issued 9/30/99 residential alteration BP 87-889 c/o issued 11/4/97 Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the proposed flat roof sundeck will apparently be shorter than the existing peaked roof, the advent of people and activity on the sundeck may present an impact on surrounding properties as well as the lake. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Project Review and Referral Form August 9, 2000 Project Name: Mason, James and Deborah Owner: James and Deborah Mason ID Number: QBY-AV- 64-2000 County Project#: Aug00-28 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to remove a hipped roof from an existing boathouse and replace it with a flat roof to serve as a sundeck. Variances are requested to provide relief from setback requirements and to alter a non-conforming structure. Site Location: 27 Old Assembly Point Road. Route 9L North to Assembly Point Road; Mason driveway is third on left side. Tax Map Number: 5-1-26 Staff Notes: This proposed action has also been referred by the Town for County review of a site plan (Agenda item Aug00-27). Please see that agenda items for copies of the site plan and drawings for the proposed action. While the proposed action would not exacerbate existing setback deficiencies (see the attached site development data sheet), it would allow for increased intensity of use of an already very developed lakeshore area. Due to the potential impacts to Lake George, an important County and regional resource, Staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been set for August 16, 2000 County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Terri Ross Warren County Planning Board 8/10/00. MR. STONE-Mr. Mason. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. MASON-Good evening, gentlemen. My name is John Mason. I am acting as the agent for my much older brother Jim. Anyway, for my brother Jim and his wife Debbie, and the reason I’m here acting as their agent tonight is that it is my company that would undertake the renovation of the boathouse if it is ultimately approved. There are a few things I would like to point out to the Board before we go too far into this. The first one is that the situation that you are looking at here tonight is a relatively common one, and one that actually we’ve been involved with in a number of situations, and the reason it is a common one is that, up until the late 70’s, early 80’s, the setbacks for this zone, as well as all of the zones within the Town of Queensbury, the setback for a dock was five feet. The setback, by way of Department of Environmental Conservation, which monitored docks prior to the Lake George Park Commission, was 10 feet. So frequently, when we built docks in the southern basin, in many of these zones, they were built 10 feet from the property line. Any renovation, any change, frequently, people would add boathouses later, and all these things were coming in to the new setback area, because the Town, and the Lake George Park Commission changed their setbacks from the five and ten feet, to the current twenty feet, in the late 70’s and early 80’s. I also want to point out that this type of application has historically been handled without a variance. I can’t speak for all of the times it’s come in front of the Town of Queensbury, but for instance, the Lake George Park Commission has an identical setback requirement, 20 feet. This application was already determine to not require a variance by the Lake George Park Commission, and has, in fact, been approved by the Lake George Park Commission, and the reason why they don’t require a variance is that what we are doing this situation, we’re removing a section of the roof, and when I say a section of the roof, I do mean a section. These are hip roofed structures, and what we’re hoping to do is to take the roof off to the flat portion, to the overlay portion, and then build a flat roof on top of it, so the new structure is, in actuality, smaller than the structure that is there right now, and I think that, more than any other reason, is why the Park Commission has determined it to not require a variance. We’re ending up with a smaller structure, less of a footprint in all areas, with one exception, the railing. The railing, if you look at a hip roof, one little section of the railing peaks up above the hipped roof portion. I also wanted to touch on a couple of the Planning Department notes that came out. I just received them today, and there are a couple of things that I would like to address. The first one is that this was a self-created hardship. I want to point out that this dock and this boathouse were built three owners ago. I will grant they were built by owners that are related to my brother’s wife, but we’re going back a few generations, and the dock was built, unfortunately it’s solid, rock filled crib construction, which was legal at that time period, which precludes our chances of making the slip longer. We explored that originally. We thought if we could make the slip longer, we could move the boathouse eight feet north. We can’t do that. So, being left with the size of the slip and the location of the slip where we are, to remove the section of the boathouse that is in the setback area, and do as the Planning Board has suggested, a smaller, more compliant sundeck would mean that we would have a sundeck over 16 feet of the boathouse, with the entire back half of the boat, and the boathouse, open to the weather, and that’s really not an alternative. It’s not a feasible alternative. I did come up with a feasible alternative that would require no variance. Unfortunately, it results in a bigger boathouse, and all that is, and I’m showing it here in color, is to leave the existing section of the boathouse, that eight foot section of the boathouse, as it stands, right now, and add a new boathouse north of it, and connect right into the existing section of the boathouse. What it would do, it would leave them with coverage over the back portion of the boat, and it would still give them their open sundeck, and it would require no variance from the Board. The reason why I don’t think this is a good idea is that, A, it creates kind of an unsightly looking boathouse, and B, it’s a bigger boathouse. It’s probably eight feet larger than the boathouse that we currently have in front of you, but I did, I wanted you to know that I did read the Staff Notes today, and I tried my best to come up with another alternative. I don’t think it’s a good alternative. MR. STONE-Let me just ask a question of Staff. That’s still a required variance, this alternate that he’s talking about? MR. BROWN-If the new construction met the required setbacks, it wouldn’t require a variance. It would still require site plan review, but as long as the new construction meets the setbacks, it doesn’t require a variance. MR. STONE-As long as it’s new, okay. Houses, that doesn’t always work. We consider, if it’s a nonconforming structure. MR. BROWN-Right, but if the construction, if the addition meets the setbacks, it doesn’t need a variance. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m not saying yes or no. I’m just, my interpretation was that if you modify, expand a nonconforming structure, you go back to where it is, and it’s still nonconforming, and requires a variance, but you’re not proposing that. MR. MASON-This falls, the entire addition could be made to fall completely outside of the setback. So, in other words, you could leave eight feet, ten feet, twelve feet, of the existing hip roof. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. STONE-I don’t think it’s pertinent to this discussion. MR. MASON-Yes, I’ve got to say, I think this is a very poor idea. I’m sorry to even bring it in front of you, but it is an alternative that I discussed with my brother this afternoon before I came here tonight, and while it’s not the best looking boathouse, and it’s even more boathouse, in a situation where I’ve already heard Staff mention that they’re trying to reduce the amount of boathouse, I at least wanted to bring it to your attention. MR. STONE-The question I have, before we get further, did you say the railing will be higher than the peak right now? MR. MASON-Here’s what ends up happening, Lew. If you look at the railing and where it intersects with the boathouse, here is a hipped roof boathouse. Do you see the outline that I’ve created? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MASON-Okay. If you were to build a flat roofed boathouse, the railing, do you see what I’m getting at? MR. STONE-I see. That little “F” shaped. MR. MASON-Just that little corner. MR. STONE-Not above it, for the bulk of it. MR. MASON-No. What ends up happening, the way we do these normally, if my father built this, the way I assume he built this, there is a box directly underneath the rafters. You peel all the rafters right off the roof, or saw them right off at the level of the box, the overlays, and then you lay plywood on top of it, put your roofing on top of that, and build your railing above it. What ends up happening is you reduce the height by probably eight feet, and then you add on about a three foot railing on top of it. So the new structure is, not only is it less in height, but it’s more open, and I’m not denying the fact that the boathouse, as reconstructed, would be used for people to walk on it, although one of the reasons this is being done is that he has two young kids that are walking on it and peeling the shingles off of it daily anyway. So, they’re going to be up there whether it’s approved or it’s not approved, with or without shingles on the roof. MR. STONE-The only comment I would make about the Park Commission is they primarily are concerned with excess height. The visibility is their, in my experience with the Park Commission, the fact that it’s not meeting the setback requirement, they’re relying on us. They have traditionally, I think, with setback, relied on this Board to consider that. MR. MASON-Lew, I’ve got to tell you, I have applied for variances from setbacks. With the Lake George Park Commission, they pay very careful attention to it, and I’ll give you an example. If this did not have a boathouse on it, if there was no boathouse, pre-existing, the Lake George Park Commission would require a variance to build this boathouse on it, and historically they have given that boathouse, because their feeling was that many of these docks were built 10 feet away from the property line, before this new Ordinance, but in situations like this where you are taking a pre- existing hip roofed boathouse, and the mass of that roof, and reducing it, and probably just because of what you’re saying, they do not like the height impacts. They don’t like to see those roofs way up in the air. Because you’re doing that, they may very well take a very good view of these proposals for that reason. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Questions of Mr. Mason? MR. ABBATE-In the final analysis, correct me if I’m wrong, there will be a reduction of five feet in height? MR. MASON-No, well, you can scale it right off on your print. I don’t have a, as I’m looking at this right now, I would say that the new boathouse is five feet shorter than the existing one, and then there is a three foot railing added on top of it, a 32 inch railing, maybe. MR. ABBATE-Well, the younger brother of Mr. Mason did a very good job of putting forth his case. One question, and then you can go to someone else. Any comments from any of the neighbors? MR. MASON-None that I’m aware of. MR. ABBATE-None positive, none negative that you know of. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. STONE-We’ll find out, we haven’t gotten to the public hearing yet. MR. ABBATE-You indicated that, and rightfully and forthrightly so, that one of the intent will be to allow guests or family to use the deck as a recreation area. MR. MASON-That is correct. MR. ABBATE-All right. So that cleared that up. You were very forthcoming in that. I have no other comments or questions. MR. STONE-All right. Any other questions, before we get to a public hearing? MR. MC NALLY-You have a deck attached to the house, right next to the lake. MR. MASON-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Why do you need more recreational area? MR. MASON-You can’t jump off that deck into the lake. What’s happening is my brother’s children are up on top of this boathouse, day in and day out, day in and day out, and I’ll probably get into trouble for mentioning this, but one of the things we almost came to you with was a proposal to take off a portion of that deck, but as a tradeoff, to connect a spot so that you could walk out onto this deck. I think Jim’s long range goal is to dump that deck, to get rid of the deck that’s on the house. It really, if you’ve been to the site, and I’m sure a number of you have, that deck really serves very minimal purposes. It’s in a terrible location, in that it sits behind the other place, the other boathouse. To tell you the truth, my inclination is, and I don’t know the history of what was constructed here, I would guess that that house and that deck were constructed long before a hip roofed boathouse was put over this slip out in front of it, and I think once the hip roofed boathouse went over the slip, it kind of made that deck, I won’t say useless, but you’d be hardpressed to want to sit on that deck, with that roof in front of it. It’s not a question of needing more deck. It truly is not. It’s a question of having the deck in the right location. MR. MC NALLY-Right. There are three residences on the lot, if you will, a cottage in the back, the main house, and an apartment above the boathouse in the front of the lake. Are they all used by the same family? MR. MASON-They’re all used by my brother. I do believe that there have been times, through the years, where my brother has rented the boathouse apartment. To my knowledge, the guest cabin has never been rented while it has been owned by my brother and his wife. Prior to that time, I’ve got to go back through a couple of families here, but we can get back to a time where no portion of the property was rented, and then to a time period where the guest cabin and the boathouse were rented. I do not believe the main house has ever been rented. MR. MC NALLY-And I see there’s a little bit of a bridge from the land to the apartment house. Is there going to be a bridge from the apartment house to the boathouse? MR. MASON-As I mentioned to you a minute ago, and I have to tell you, Jim and I spoke about this. I thought that Jim should make this a part of this original application, but he really doesn’t know what he wants to do, long range, there. I felt that Jim should come to you with taking off the deck, off that existing apartment house, and put a walkway from there out to the sundeck. MR. MC NALLY-Elevated, you mean? MR. MASON-It’s right at the same height. These are built right at the same height, but I get the distinct feeling from Jim that he wants to wait and see what the use of this sundeck will be before he makes a decision to either put another walkway out through there or to tear it off. By leaving it the way it is right now, anyone using the apartment not only will not use their own deck, they won’t use this one. MR. STONE-Well, there is the point of the landbridge, too, that does come into some. MR. MASON-Yes. Warren County, I know, for instance, they don’t like landbridges. It’s unbelievable, because in some situation, a landbridge gets rid of a huge unsightly set of stairs that go to some of these, but that’s another discussion with another Board with another day. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments, questions? All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody wishing to speak in opposition to this application? In opposition? Any correspondence? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions of the applicant? If not, Norman, let’s talk about it. MR. HIMES-Thank you. I feel favorable towards the application, in connection with the fact that the building is there. There is some decrease in what appears from the lake. There’s a decrease in the size of the structure, and there has been no comment from neighbors on either side, in connection with the sundeck, relating to activity, increased activity. I do see that the neighbors to the south have a sundeck, and a couple of places up have rather large sundecks. They seem to set back a little further. Yours is prominently out on the water, and that did come in my mind, when I looked at it, that activity out there on your deck would be more, perhaps more public, so to speak, than some of the others. On the other hand, in view of the fact that there has been no comments from any of the neighbors, I assume that they find no fault with it, and may even feel that it’s better than the roof that’s there now. So I go along with the, I would support the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Young Mr. Mason has been forthright in his plans, has stated exactly what his brother and what he intends to do, and I think that the plans actually improve the area, and when you take into consideration that it will be lower, in terms of height, and the fact that there have been no voices heard opposing this application, I am in favor of supporting it. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-In all these applications, I get concerned about the intensity of use and the lake front, because if you put a deck on top of a dock, that’s on a boathouse that sticks out 30, 40 feet into the lake, you’re going to have a party on top of that boathouse. You’re going to have tables and umbrellas and things like that, and in the usual course, that would be only an amenity on the shoreline, a single boathouse. I don’t think I’d be too concerned. In this case, there’s a house, excuse me, an apartment above a boathouse. There’s a fairly decent dock and a boathouse, and then a deck already extending over the lake already. So the intensity is pretty much up there, but I can understand how the increase of use is off set by the visual impact, because what you said about the reduction in height of this boathouse is very true. The other thing is, I think the property is well maintained. So I can’t imagine that this would become a nuisance, in the sense of people having parties on top of this boathouse 24 hours a day, and the point that you raised about the existing deck probably and ultimately being an eyesore and being taken down, even if we weren’t to make it a condition of approval, I think ultimately that’s going to happen. So, with some concerns, I nonetheless am in favor of it. MR. STONE-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think I agree. As it was pointed out by the applicant, the boathouse, when built, was put in a compliant location, and I think that’s all you could ask citizens to do, when they build things at that time. They’re not asking, in the application, for any further dimensional relief. We’re being asked to grant relief, but there’s not any additional footage that’s being asked for here. So it really boils down to, you know, what’s going to be the effect on the neighborhood or community by changing the top of this boathouse and I think it’s going to be very, very minimal. I think that there will be a slightly reduced visual impact from the lake, from surrounding properties. Certainly, there’s a similar style boathouse top immediately, what would that be, to the south, I believe. So it’s consistent with the neighborhood, and other applications that we’ve granted on Assembly Point. I think the solid rock foundation in the boathouse, as pointed out, makes feasible alternatives very limited in this particular case, based on expense, and also environmental impact. So I think, on balance, I think I can go along with this application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically echo what’s been said already. If this were a new boathouse, I would not be in favor of it being within the setback area, but given that it’s an existing place, it strikes me that any modification, other than what’s proposed, to move it at all, is going to create a lot more problems than just doing something to it where it is. The reduction in height certainly is going to be an improvement. I’m not sure it’ll cause a real increase in intensity of use in the area. It certainly is going to cause a relocation of some of the use from shore to on top of the boathouse, but I don’t see that as being a big problem. I think it’s going to be basically a positive move. I’m in favor. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I agree with basically everything that’s been said. You do make a good point about the existing deck, elevated deck, and when I was at the property, I really couldn’t see myself sitting on that deck. As far as the visibility goes, your neighbor to the south has a similar deck, elevated deck, and I think you’ll improve his visibility near the shoreline, so I think that’s an improvement, and as you look up the lake there, up the shore, there are a number of projects just like that, with a dock covered with a deck. I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly don’t disagree with my fellow Board members. A couple of things, just to state for the record. You’re still going to have the reduced setback, if you put the deck on the, flat roof on the top, or you leave it, we deny it and you leave it the same way. It’s still going to be as close to the property line. The neighbor, certainly, to the south, is encroaching on the property line, too, and as everybody says, or as you said in your statement, it was probably legal at the time. I like the fact that it’s going to be lower, basically lower. I also like the fact that the dock is parallel to the shore, and therefore, the activity on the top will be more screened against the building, the apartment building that’s back there. It will probably be even hard to pick it out if you’re going by on the lake. So having said all these things, and listening to what my fellow Board members have said, I certainly think this is a reasonable application. I will vote to grant the variance, and having said that, I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2000 JAMES AND DEBORAH MASON, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 27 Old Assembly Point Road. The applicant proposes removal of a boathouse hip roof and replacement with a flat roof sundeck. The applicant requests eight feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the shoreline and wetlands regulations, 179-60. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to reconfigure the boathouse as desired. The feasible alternatives are quite limited and impacted by considerable construction expense to relocate the structure or a new one to a compliant position. Effects on the neighborhood and community, for one, there are no comments from any of the neighbors. We assume that they agree to the proposal. If the point of the structure were relocated, and their objections to the use of a sundeck, as opposed to a roof, the sundeck would be there because it’s in a compliant location that a sundeck roof would not be a question anymore, I don’t believe, through my understanding. The reduction in the overall size of the thing is a positive move. I think we all approve. I move that the application be approved as submitted. Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. MASON-Thank you, gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2000 TYPE II RAYMOND BUTLER OWNER: SAME ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 449 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 252 SQ. FT. STORAGE SHED AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 147-1-6 LOT SIZE: 0.53 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 RAYMOND BUTLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 67-2000, Raymond Butler, Meeting Date: August 16, 2000 “Project Location: 449 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 252 square foot storage shed. Relief Required: Applicant requests 25 feet of relief and 26 feet of relief from the 30 foot rear and side setback requirements of the LI-1A zone, § 179-26. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired shed on an existing concrete slab. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 25 and 26 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate impacts on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the applicant wishes to utilize an existing concrete pad as the location for the proposed 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) shed, there appears to be sufficient area available to the applicant for compliant construction. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Nothing from the County? MR. MC NULTY-Nothing from the County. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Butler? MR. BUTLER-Good evening. Raymond Butler. I propose construction of a storage shed, enlarge the one I previously had the year before, and I need the enlargement because I have more equipment than I had before. I had a smaller shed there, and this one has to be bigger. MR. STONE-So you’re taking advantage of the fact that you’re in an LI-1A zone so you can build a larger shed, but you want relief from the setback requirements of that zone. MR. BUTLER-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else you want to add to that? MR. BUTLER-No. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions of Mr. Butler? MR. BRYANT-Since the new shed is considerably larger than the slab, why can’t you put it in another area in the yard? MR. BUTLER-Because I originally had a shed there, even though it was smaller. My yard is landscaped, with that spot being specifically for a shed, and if I have a shed moved in the middle of my yard, I mean, that means everything’s got to be changed around again, and that is, if you were down there, you saw the spot, I mean, it’s an ideal spot, and I really, my neighbor has no complaints about the setback, and I really can’t see why it can’t be where it was. MR. BRYANT-Because it’s bigger than the original. MR. BUTLER-Yes, it is. MR. MC NALLY-As I understand it, sir, you own the lot to the rear. MR. BUTLER-Right. MR. MC NALLY-And that’s a vacant lot. So your shed’s not backing up onto anyone within a relatively close distance. MR. BUTLER-No, just Mr. Myron Hawks, next to me, is the only other adjacent property line there is. MR. MC NALLY-He has no objection to the shed? MR. BUTLER-He has no objection. There’s a letter that. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Going back to the question I raised, it seems to be you’re taking the opportunity because of your zoning, to make a bigger than normal size shed. If it were single family residential, it would be no more than 100 or 200 feet, depending upon the particular thing. You’re putting in a bigger one, and yet you want to put it even closer than the setback requirements from either of the single family residential or SR-1 zones. MR. BUTLER-I don’t feel I’m taking advantage of, as you say. The property line on either side of my house, I do not have 30 foot on either side of my house. So, I mean, the setback of my own house from the other property lines are not that much. MR. STONE-True. MR. BUTLER-I have a trailer court that exists on one side of me, which, they have a small trailer and they have three or four nine by nine sheds around their trailer, and, you know, it looks like a dump over there, and I just don’t want my property to look that way, and the only reason why I want the shed where I want it, I need it bigger, because I have more equipment to store, and I would like it where it is, because it’s out of the way, where I can’t see it from my house. It’s not that the building’s going to be a shack or anything. It’s going to be a fairly good building, but it’s just landscaped so that 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) when you look out my windows of my house, you don’t see the building, and nobody else sees the building. MR. STONE-Most of the material in the yard would go into that shed? MR. BUTLER-All of the material in the yard, plus I have material in my garage that I have taken out of the other shed that I can’t let get wet, and, you know, we’ve been waiting all, due to my fault, all summer, and I just would like to get the building done and get the stuff put in it, and I’m sure that, you know, it probably won’t be big enough then. MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Butler let me walk through his garage to get to the back, and it was full of his stuff you would normally have in a shed. I can see his need for the shed. MR. STONE-Any other comments? MR. ABBATE-Just one other comment. I agree with you, Mr. Butler, that to put this proposed shed in another area would disrupt either the flower gardens and all of the landscaping that you currently have, and I also agree that the size of the shed would allow you to take the current equipment that you have and put it in an appropriate storage area. So that’s my only comment. Thank you. MR. BUTLER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody wishing to speak in opposition to this application? In opposition? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-We have the one note from Myron H. Hawk, dated 7/12/00, and he says “I have no objections to Raymond Butler building a storage shed on his property with the side setback of four feet from the adjoining property line between his and mine. Myron H. Hawk” MR. STONE-And Mr. Hawk is to your east? MR. BUTLER-Yes. MR. STONE-The trailer court being to the west. Okay. No other correspondence? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other comments? Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Chuck Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, as I said, Mr. Butler, I think your proposal is a reasonable one based on the circumstances. I think it’s appropriate that we take the equipment that we have and place it in some sort of a storage area. I wish I had a storage area about twice the size that you’re requesting. I think it’s a good proposal. I think what it does, it offsets any other negative aspects by the fact that you will have any equipment that is currently not in the shed, in the shed, and I think it would, and there are no complaints. I see your neighbor did submit the letter stating, Hawks, I think it was, that indicated he had no objections, and so I have no problems with it. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I view this as a no brainer. I don’t think that there’d be any problem with this shed whatsoever, and it’s placement is fine with me, particularly in view of the fact that he owns the land behind, and the neighbor doesn’t care. I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree, pretty much for the reasons that have already been set forth. It seems like a reasonable proposal, and I see very little impact on the neighborhood or community. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically say ditto. The only concern I would normally have would be the impact of the shed on the adjacent land owner, and in this case, it’s the same landowner. Anybody buying that piece of property later on knows the shed’s going to be there. So they’ll know what they’re walking into. It strikes me it’s going to improve the property. So I have no objections. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-First I’d like to see this shed in a compliant location, but since you own the property adjacent and your neighbor has no objection, I would have no objection to the application. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I also agree to approve the application, and I have nothing further to add to the comments that have already been made, which I agree with in their entirety. Thank you. MR. STONE-Well, basically, I agree with the Board members. I’m not happy, as I will say, with the amount of relief that’s being asked for, only in terms of the numbers. It is a substantial relief, 25 and 26 feet can be interpreted as substantially, obviously, but on the other hand, the applicant would be permitted to construct the shed in the good part of the lot. It would make it a very attractive position on the lot. It would be out of view for almost anybody who would even try to look for it. While there’s a feasible alternative, the fact that, as some of the Board members have said, you own the lot to the rear, and that if you build this thing, and then you go to sell the lot, it’ll be obvious to the person buying the lot, and that becomes a matter that you can worry about when you try to sell it. The effect on the neighborhood is going to be absolutely minimal, and while this is self created, you did have something there before. Obviously, it was positioned because of the nature of the slab, and on balance, this certainly is a reasonable application, and having said so, I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2000 RAYMOND BUTLER, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 449 Corinth Road. The applicant is proposing construction of a 252 square foot storage shed and is requesting 25 feet of relief and 26 feet of relief from the 30 foot rear and side setback requirements of the LI-1A zone, Section 179-26. Considering this variance, the benefit to the applicant will be that the applicant can construct the desired shed on an existing concrete slab. The feasible alternatives might include relocation to a compliant location, and considering the relief in relationship to the Ordinance, 25 and 26 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement can be interpreted as substantial. However, I think in mitigation, is the fact that the applicant owns the property to the rear, and also that the only comments from any adjoining landowners has been one that they have no objection. Effects on the neighborhood or community, it would appear that there’s going to be at least minimal adverse impact on the neighborhood as a result of this action because it will help the applicant maintain his property in a neat and presentable condition. The difficulty can be interpreted as self- created, but there are some mitigating circumstances, as has been noted. The motion takes into account the fact that this is replacing an older structure that was a little bit smaller, so that it’s not a new construction totally in this area. In sum, this should be an improvement for the area, and for those reasons, I move that we approve Area Variance No. 67-2000. Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Any comments? Any additions, modifications? MR. HIMES-Yes, Mr. Chairman. One thing, although it has been mentioned, it may not stand right out, is that there was a shed there to begin with. It’s a rather modest expansion. In looking at the amount of the variance that’s being provided, it could look, my God, what are we doing here, but the thing is being expanded a foot or two, all the way around. So, I just wanted to highlight the fact that there was a good structure nearly the same size there that collapsed or something. MR. STONE-Do you have any problem with that, in terms of your motion? MR. MC NULTY-I have no problem with the motion taking into account the fact that this is replacing an older structure that was a little bit smaller, so that it’s not a new construction totally in this area. MR. HIMES-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-There you go. MR. BUTLER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Make sure you get a building permit, or whatever’s required. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2000 TYPE II MARK J. STEELE OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 236 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REBUILD OVER EXISTING FOUNDATION FOR A FAMILY ROOM ADDITION AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 46-2-7.1 LOT SIZE: 0.80 ACRES SECTION: 179-19 MARK STEELE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 68-2000, Mark J. Steele, Meeting Date: August 16, 2000 “Project Location: 236 Meadowbrook Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to rebuild over an existing foundation. Relief Required: Applicant requests 31 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirements of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to rebuild above the existing foundation and increase usable living space. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 31 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. (41%) 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 attributed to the existing location of the structure. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the proposed construction violates the required shoreline setback, the proposed location appears to be the logical area for addition. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-No County? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Mr. Steele, I presume. MR. STEELE-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Introduce yourself, please. MR. STEELE-Gentlemen, my name is Mark Steele, and my purpose tonight is to apply for a variance of 31 foot relief from the 75 foot minimum setback on the shoreline and wetlands regulations, only to build, or I’m sorry, rebuild upon an existing foundation, and increase the usable living space. At this time, you know, we’re down to just a living room, two bedrooms, and a kitchen, and everything is small. It’s a small house. I’m sure many of you have driven by and looked at it and seen what the house is. I don’t know if any of you drove by before the demolition of the existing structure that was torn down. It was in a very sad state of disrepair, and improve the look and value of the house just by demolition of that existing foundation. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay, and for the record, we’re talking the shoreline of Halfway Brook. MR. STEELE-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Which runs along the side of your property. I just wanted to have that in the record. I have one question. There’s a shed on the north side. How close to the house is that? MR. STEELE-I think, meaning the garage side of the house? MR. STONE-Well, the side opposite, away from Halfway Brook. MR. STEELE-That would be the north end, sir, and the closest corner of that shed to the closest corner of the garage, I believe, is, I’m guessing, I’m not certain, close to nine feet, maybe more. MR. STONE-I hope it’s more. It’s supposed to be 10. MR. STEELE-It’s supposed to be 10? MR. STONE-Wrong answer. MR. STEELE-Mr. Stone, I believe that’s 10 feet. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. STONE-I didn’t measure it. As I was driving by, in fact, I asked Staff if, he hadn’t even noticed it, but it should be 10. That’s what the requirement is. MR. STEELE-Okay. MR. STONE-That’s not why we’re here tonight, but I just want to get it on the record. MR. STEELE-Okay. MR. STONE-Any questions of Mr. Steele? MR. ABBATE-One, just to clear something up. Mr. Steele, you indicate here that you are going to rebuild old rotten structure over the existing foundation. MR. STONE-No, he’s not going to build an old rotten structure. MR. ABBATE-Right. So you’re not going to be rebuilding an old rotten structure over it? Correct? So that statement is not really accurate. You don’t intend on putting the old rotten structure? MR. STEELE-No. MR. ABBATE-Good enough. MR. STEELE-No. I intend to build something more applicable as to a living space that you’d want to spend time in, versus something you would want to get out of when the wind blows. MR. ABBATE-And replace the old rotten structure with something new. Okay. Thank you. MR. STEELE-Correct, sir. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Steele, how long have you been in the house? MR. STEELE-Going on eight years. MR. MC NALLY-And they mentioned something about the existing structure was demolished? MR. STEELE-The area that I’m planning on rebuilding, yes. MR. MC NALLY-When was that done? MR. STEELE-I want to say a couple of months ago. MR. MC NALLY-All right. So you took care of that, I take it? MR. STEELE-Yes, sir. MR. MC NALLY-And the foundation is cinder block? MR. STEELE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-It looked like cinder block to me. Did you add to that at all, or is that basically the same foundation? MR. STEELE-The same size foundation. MR. MC NALLY-It’s the same foundation? That’s the existing foundation? MR. STEELE-The existing foundation. MR. MC NALLY-And how are you going to use the space? What kind of space is it going to be? MR. STEELE-We plan on making a living space out of it, for ourselves to use, to expand beyond the current living area that we have, between the bedroom areas of the house, and the kitchen area. MR. MC NALLY-Is it going to be like a screened porch? Is it going to be a sunroom, an enclosed living room space? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. STEELE-No, sir. A four season, year round, livable space. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and what kind of height are we talking about? I see the diagram you provided us. That’s the kind of structure you’re planning to build? MR. STEELE-Yes, sir. MR. MC NALLY-A shed type roof? MR. STEELE-More or less. MR. MC NALLY-Were you going to go to the second floor above? MR. STEELE-No, the high side I don’t expect to be any higher than 10 feet. The low side, around seven feet, six inches. MR. MC NALLY-I take it that’s what the old structure was like? Was it a shed type structure? MR. STEELE-Similar to that, although it was a sun porch type of a structure with glass and screen. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? All right. I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Is anyone opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Again, I don’t have a problem with something like this. We have an existing structure which was demolished. He took down an old, rotted, or at least a decrepit old building portion, and whatever he puts up there is going to be an improvement. It is not an encroachment upon the waterfront that’s new. It was existing and it was pre-existing. So I don’t have a problem with this, and I certainly don’t think it will effect the neighborhood whatsoever. That stream will be as fine as it is today as it is the next day. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think Bob hit it right on the head. I mean, the object of the substantial setback, in this case, is to protect the Critical Environmental Area, but I think in this case it’s protected, and the encroachment, as Bob pointed out, is a historical encroachment, and this is just a replacement and an improvement of a single family home in our community, and I don’t have any problem with that at all. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree that the concern here is the encroachment on the setback from the stream. There was a structure there before. I don’t see any problems with a new structure. I don’t think it’s going to be anything that’s going to effect the stream any more than what the old structure did. So I have no problem with it. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I have no problem with the application, for all the reasons already stated. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-I also agree with the application, and agree with the comments made previously by the Board. MR. STONE-Chuck? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. ABBATE-Yes. I believe this will be an improvement on the property, and I think the location is a logical place for this improvement, and I’m going to give credit to my colleague sitting on my left, by quoting him and saying that, in my opinion, this is a no brainer as well. MR. STONE-Obviously, as my colleagues have said, this is, essentially, a slam dunk, okay, if we’re going to use euphemisms here. It was there. The foundation is there. If you didn’t put anything on top of it, the foundation is still going to be there. So, the encroachment is not going to change. Therefore, I have absolutely no problem with this application, and having said that, I’ll call for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2000 MARK J. STEELE, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 236 Meadowbrook Road. The applicant proposes rebuilding an office/house on an existing foundation. Specifically, the applicant requests 31 feet of relief from the 70 foot minimum setback requirement of the shoreline and wetlands regulations, Section 179-60. The benefit to the applicant would be that he could build the addition as depicted over that existing foundation and increase his usable living space in his home. Feasible alternatives, the feasible alternatives are limited based on the generous 75 foot minimum setback requirement, and where the home is located on this lot. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that it’s moderate. Thirty-one feet is less than 50%, and again, it’s a 75 foot setback in this Critical Environmental Area. So I believe the relief is moderate. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe there’ll be little or no impact on the neighborhood, in this particular case. It still is significantly away from Halfway Brook, and also this appears to be a logical improvement of a single family home in that neighborhood. Is the difficulty self-created? I don’t believe that it is. I believe that the difficulty is based on the location of the home on the lot as it stands today. Based on that fact, I believe the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-There you go. Make sure you get a building permit. MR. STEELE-Absolutely. Gentlemen, thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2000 TYPE II TODD MURPHY OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 724 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND FLOOR BEDROOM AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 55-1-16 LOT SIZE: 0.42 ACRES SECTION: 179-19, 179-28 TODD MURPHY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 65-2000, Todd Murphy, Meeting Date: August 16, 2000 “Project Location: 724 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has begun construction of a second story floor bedroom addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 1 foot of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the SR-1A zone, § 179-19 and 47 feet of relief from the 75 foot setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, § 179-28. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to complete the construction of the proposed addition. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited, as the entire home is within the 75 foot TCO setback. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 1 foot of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal, while 47 feet of relief from the 75 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 attributed to the location of the existing structure and the implementation of the TCO. Parcel History: (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-533 residential addition pending Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed construction is a second floor addition, which does not further encroach into the Travel Corridor Overlay area. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. Murphy, I presume? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. MURPHY-Yes. MR. STONE-Introduce yourself, and tell us why you started to build without a building permit. MR. MURPHY-I knew that was coming. My name is Todd Murphy, and I was hoping to put a second floor addition on my house, and you well know. It started out as a simple plan that really went bad. I wanted to get the old roof off it because it had a real bad belly in the front and rear. So I had a slate company come in and take the slate off, in which they found a wood shake roof under that, and so on a Sunday I started tearing that off, only to find that all the boards were decayed severely underneath, and that out of probably 30 plus or minus rafters, 17 of them had been broken in half and terribly braced. That’s why it had such a bad sag in it. So now I’m so far into it that I had to put the new frame in there, and I applied for the permit on a Monday morning, not anticipating a zoning problem, figuring I wasn’t making the house any bigger than it was, and that’s how I got to where I am. MR. STONE-Okay. You didn’t know you were nonconforming, in other words? MR. MURPHY-No. MR. STONE-Forgetting the Travel Corridor Overlay, you were still one foot short of the minimum setback from the road. MR. MURPHY-I wasn’t making the footprint of the house any bigger. I was just anticipating raising the roof five feet, and I was so far into it, and considering the weather and the free labor I had, I framed it and stopped, at the point that I was at, and I applied for the permit, and then I found out I had the zoning problem. MR. STONE-Any other questions of Mr. Murphy? Obviously a person who seems to have inadvertently run afoul of our Zoning Code, without any malice or forethought. At least it seems so to me. MR. MURPHY-No, it’s pretty hard to hide it from the intersection there. MR. MC NALLY-What kind of business are you in, Mr. Murphy? MR. MURPHY-Building. I build interior trim, not so much construction of houses or anything. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. How long have you been in this house? MR. MURPHY-Seven years, I think. MR. MC NALLY-Craig, the Town didn’t catch him at it, he came in, and that’s when they picked it up? MR. BROWN-No, I think one of the Building Inspectors happened to stop by and notify him of the fact that he needed a building permit. When they applied for the building permit, we determined there was a zoning conflict. MR. MC NALLY-When I looked at this addition, it was pretty big. How big of an addition are you talking about? MR. MURPHY-It’s 20 by 20, and it raises five feet above the existing roofline. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Murphy, to give you credit, you did come forward, but that was only after you basically were discovered. My question is this. Did it ever occur to you that construction, or repair of a project this large required any kind of a permit? MR. MURPHY-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Did it ever occur to you to call the zoning, I know they’re never available, but did it ever occur to you to call? MR. MURPHY-I didn’t anticipate a zoning problem. I knew I needed the construction permit. I went in on a Monday morning, and then Tuesday I started tearing it apart. MR. ABBATE-But that’s after you started your construction. MR. MURPHY-No. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. ABBATE-It was before you started the construction? MR. MURPHY-I just started tearing stuff off. I didn’t start building until after I applied for the permit. MR. BROWN-That was my understanding. I thought that he had started construction. I don’t know that for a fact. MR. HAYES-So you got your permit before you really started going up, then. MR. STONE-Well, he hasn’t gotten one, because it’s still pending. MR. HAYES-Or I mean, you went in to apply before you started going up? MR. MURPHY-I went and applied, and then the next day I started building because my roof was wide open, and the weather was so bad. MR. ABBATE-Is your roof still wide open? MR. MURPHY-I only have felt paper on it, yes. MR. ABBATE-I know, and so consequently, if this is denied, you’re going to really have a problem. MR. MURPHY-Yes, definitely. MR. STONE-All right. Let’s go back over it. What was the first thing? You had the house. You’re living in it. Nobody has touched it. What happened? You said you went to a slate company to take the slate off? MR. MURPHY-Yes, I was planning on putting a second floor on. I had a baby. MR. STONE-All right. You wanted to put a second floor on. MR. MURPHY-Yes. MR. STONE-And the first step in that process was to take the slate off. MR. MURPHY-Right. So the company came in. They could only schedule me on a certain day. Then they tarped the roof off, after they took the slate off, but it leaked so bad that my ceilings are partially ruined in the house. So I figured I’d do something about it, go up and see why it was so bad. MR. STONE-Okay, but you started construction without. MR. HAYES-Well, he started ripping off. MR. MURPHY-I started ripping it off. I didn’t start building anything new until I applied for the permit. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-In roofing there’s a lot of ripping off. MR. MURPHY-There was like three layers of horrendous stuff in there. MR. BROWN-There’s no permit required to re-roof. MR. STONE-I understand, to re-roof. MR. BROWN-Right, there’s no permit required. MR. STONE-Okay. So, what I think we’re trying to determine is, not knowing there was a variance problem, that can be understandable, I mean, particularly when you’re talking one foot, and the house has been there for a long time. MR. MURPHY-Right. MR. STONE-And the Travel Corridor Overlay you probably weren’t aware of at all. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. MURPHY-No, I wasn’t. MR. STONE-I understand that, but the question, I think, on the Board member’s part here, is when did you apply for the building permit, visa vie beginning construction? MR. MURPHY-I applied before I started building. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MURPHY-And I was hoping to get it, not knowing I’d have this problem. So then I had three days of actually sunny weather, and I had a lot of free labor. So I started tearing, thinking that there was going to be no problem with the building permit, and then I found out that there was. MR. STONE-All right. So you applied, had not received, but on the basis of your application you began to. MR. MURPHY-And then Dave stopped over to my house and said that, and handed me the forms for the zoning. MR. BRYANT-May I ask a question? If that’s the case, since you don’t need a permit to re-roof, why would a Building Inspector say you need a permit to re-roof? Because at this point he hadn’t decided to build a second floor. He hadn’t started construction. MR. HAYES-He might have expressed it to Dave, though. MR. MURPHY-I came in, yes, and when I applied for the permit, I told him what I was going to do. MR. MC NALLY-I’m sure they would demolish some of the roof, too, ahead of time. You are taking out rafters before you got the permit application. MR. MURPHY-I had to take them all out, yes. I left them on the sawhorse there, in case you wanted to see them. MR. STONE-It appears to me that it’s an honest misunderstanding. MR. MURPHY-I wasn’t trying to put anything over on anybody. It was a matter of timing, basically, and funding, and weather, basically. MR. STONE-Any other questions you have of Mr. Murphy? Okay. Having said that, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Do you have any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions, comments, on the part of the Board? If not, let’s start with Jaime. MR. HAYES-Well, I guess there’s a basic questioning and probing of whether you’re coming to this Board with clean hands, as they say, as far as the construction process, and on some of these things, I generally take the approach that the first time through I’ll take your word for it, and then after that, you know, not so much so, but in this particular case, the expansion of the house upwards and not expanding the footprint in this case, to me, mitigates the dimensional relief, based on two criteria, one, the one foot of relief is already one foot of relief. I mean, that relief we’re not changing, or you’re not really asking for any more. Even though it’s necessary to grant it, it’s already there. It’s not impacting the neighborhood, and the other piece of dimensional relief, the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, as my understanding, is designed to allow and to channel building in a way that allows for expansion of those roads without creating major difficulties or problems, as far as the existing structures, but this structure is already there. So, I mean, I think that, in this case, it’s a moot point as far as impacting that Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, or ever expanding Ridge Road. Certainly Ridge Road is a busy road, but at this point, you’re still significantly away from it, and I don’t think that this particular piece is going to create a major problem, if that road ever is expanded. So in that particular case, I don’t think that the relief in either case is substantial to the Ordinance, to the point where it 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) alarms me, and I don’t think there’s any real effects on the neighborhood or community by granting relief from an existing footprint, and I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I think the mitigating circumstance, obviously, here, is the basic structure existed in the location that it’s in now, and the new action is not changing the intrusion into either the regular front setback or the Travel Corridor Overlay. The Travel Corridor Overlay, I think as Jaime said, is there at least partly to make it easier to expand the road if, at some point in time, the government wanted to do that, and putting the addition on certainly is making the home more valuable, which is counter to the purpose of the Travel Corridor Overlay. On the other hand, to prevent somebody from improving their property, I think, is also a detriment. So I think that balances out. In sum, given the circumstances, the fact that they’re not intruding any more into the Travel Corridor Overlay or the setback, I have no problem with it. I think it’s going to be an improvement to the area. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I agree somewhat with what the other two Board members have said. The building is already there. There’s not a heck of a lot you can do about it, but this just appears to be another situation where an individual starts a project, doesn’t get a building permit, and then, oops, I made a mistake, so now I don’t have a roof, and I’ve got to fix my house, and please give me a permit, and I just wonder when the Board will start rejecting some of those applications. From a personal standpoint, I have no problem with the project. That’s the only thing that bothers me about it. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes, I feel the same way as the other Board members, and I also respect Al’s comments. Certainly in connection with if nothing had been done, I would have no problem approving this application, but the fact that something was done, well, I do have to give some thought to the fact that it certainly wasn’t very surreptitious, you know, putting on another story is not very easily concealed. So I tend to go along with the fact that maybe there was, under the circumstances, the history of what went on, it was an honest mistake. The fact that the application has some support. It was a one bedroom house. You’re now (lost words) I think has a bearing on it also. So, for those reasons, I agree to approve the application as submitted. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Well, I have to agree with Allan. Presumption of intent, of course there’s no way I can determine Presumption of Intent, and if I were to go along with approving this, I would approve it with the stipulation that you have 300 hours of community service, with the approval of the application. MR. STONE-Is that a yes or a no? MR. ABBATE-You’re right. This is the wrong forum, I forgot, but I think you got my point. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m surprised it’s gotten as far as it has, because I very seldom get to say that one of the standards we use on this Board is to consider an application as if nothing had happened. Now where there’s been construction without a permit, without a variance, what would happen if you came waltzing in, having done nothing, and asked us, I’d like to put on a second floor addition, and this is what I want. As I look at the addition as it’s constructed, it’s a modest expansion, and it’s exactly over the existing footprint of the dwelling that’s been there for many, many, many moons. There’s been no expansion of the footprint into the Travel Corridor Overlay, and because of the nature of the expansion, I don’t see that if and when Ridge Road is ever expanded, as Jaime said, it’s going to cause any significant trouble with the plans at that time. In addition to the one foot of relief from the thirty foot setback is nominal. I don’t see that having any significant effect. If I look at your parcel, there is nowhere you can build an addition without having to come to us and getting a variance. You’re looking at 30 feet from the side along Hicks Road, and 30 feet on the side along Ridge Road. You’ve got 75 feet on the rear of your property in the Travel Corridor Overlay. The amount of relief you’ve requested is minimal. It’s been at least a few months since we’ve asked someone to take something down for doing it without a permit. So we’ve satisfied whatever urge we had in that regard, the place next to Morse’s, I think, right? I’d be in favor of it as it is, and I think that me aculpas have been made. MR. STONE-Well, certainly, I think my fellow Board members have said most everything that we’re talking about. This is not the classic case of somebody who encroaches with new construction, and 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) as Mr. McNally says, we don’t really like that. If somebody needs a variance, we like them to come here. In this particular case, there’s probably no way, until you got the building permit, that you could have even known that you needed a variance. MR. MURPHY-Exactly. It wasn’t my intent to just go and build something without, it was a set of circumstances that lead to that. It’s the first time I’ve ever applied for a permit. MR. STONE-Yes. Well, as Mr. Hayes said, the first time it’s on you. It’s okay, but you say you applied for the building permit in a timely fashion, and went about, therefore, starting construction. I am not overly concerned about that. I believe you did that in good faith, and in certainly, as Mr. McNally said, if you had come to us with so called clean hands, there’s no reason in the world we wouldn’t have granted this variance, without a question, and having said that, I’m perfectly willing to grant the variance, in this particular case. So we need a motion to that effect. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2000 TODD MURPHY, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 724 Ridge Road. The applicant has begun construction of a second floor bedroom addition, and requests, after the fact, one foot of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback relief requirement of the SR-1A zone, Section 179-19, and 47 feet of relief from the 75 foot setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, Section 179-28. The benefit to the applicant would be that they would be permitted to complete construction of the proposed addition and thereby obtain a second floor bedroom in a very modest home where they’re growing an expanding family. The feasible alternatives are limited, as the entire home is within the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay setback, and in addition, it also encroaches upon the 30 foot normal setback requirement on Hicks and Ridge Roads. The relief is not substantial relative to the Ordinance. One foot of relief from the 30 foot requirement certainly is not, and while 47 feet of relief from the 75 foot is nominally, the fact that the existing expansion is over a property and is not an increase in the footprint, in and of itself, is, in my opinion, an indication that it’s a relatively modest relief that’s being requested. In terms of effect upon the neighborhood or community, there will be none, and while the difficulty is self-created, it’s quite natural for a person to want to expand their home and improve upon it. So I move that we approve this variance. Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Abbate MR. STONE-There you go. You’ve got your variance. MR. MURPHY-Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-Thank you, sir. MR. MURPHY-Can I just say something quick? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. MURPHY-I do do a lot of community service work through my church, and I don’t think I’ll ever be here building something looking for a permit after I’ve started it. Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Good luck to you. MR. STONE-Go get the building permit before you do anymore, though. MR. MURPHY-Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2000 TYPE II JEFFREY KELLEY OWNER: SAME AGENT: CHARLES SCUDDER ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 87 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES BAGEL SHOP AND RESTAURANT AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE CR-15 ZONE AND THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. ALSO, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE OFF-STREET PARKING & LOADING REGULATIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF SPACES AND MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCES FOR ACCESS POINTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 63-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 129-1-15 LOT SIZE: 1.01 ACRES SECTION: 179-24, 179-28, 179-66 CHARLES SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, at this time, I think I’ll excuse myself, based on the fact that, while a good guy, Mr. Kelley is still a direct competitor of a store that I own, Cool Beans. So I just want to avoid any possible impropriety. MR. STONE-If you feel so, then that’s always the best way. Who’s up? Jim, come. We have substitutes in the wings, guys. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 72-2000, Jeffrey Kelley, Meeting Date: August 16, 2000 “Project Location: 87 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a Bagel Shop & Restaurant. Relief Required: Applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum front setback requirement of the CR-15 zone, § 179-24 and the 75 foot setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay zone, § 179-28. Further, the applicant requests relief from the Off Street Parking and Loading regulations, § 179-66. Specifically, the applicant seeks 30 feet of relief from the 150 foot minimum separation distance between access points. Also, the applicant seeks relief to allow 41 parking spaces where 49 are required: 1 per 100 sf of floor space. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the proposed restaurant in the desired location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller building. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief may be interpreted as substantial, however, the proposed project appears to be consistent with the proposed ordinance revisions. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 97-624 10/22/97 septic alteration Staff comments: Moderate to substantial constructive impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. This application appears to be significantly compliant with the zoning requirements proposed for Main Street. The applicant is aware of the proposed zoning changes and has crafted this project with the new zoning in mind. Consideration may be given to a conditional approval, contingent upon adoption of the standards to which this application was designed. Please see enclosed comments from Marilyn Ryba, Senior Planner. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-We have a Warren County Project Review and Referral Form, reviewed by that Board on August 9, 2000. “Warren County Project Review and Referral Form August 9, 2000 Project Name: Kelley, Jeffrey Owner: Jeffrey Kelley ID Number: QBY-AV-72-2000 County Project#: Aug00-25 Current Zoning: CR-15 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a new 4,900 sq. ft. building to serve as a bagel shop and restaurant for the relocation of an existing bagel shop/restaurant (Lox of Bagels and Moor), and seeks relief from three zoning ordinance requirements: parking, front setback, and width between access lanes. Site Location: 87 Main Street, west side of street adjacent to the Hess Gas Station. Tax Map Number: 129-1-15 Staff Notes: This proposed action was also referred by the Town for County review of the site plan (Agenda item Aug00-26). As noted in the report from Scudder Associates (attached), the site of proposed construction is in an area in the West Glens Falls section of the Town of Queensbury that will shortly experience a number of changes. The Town plans to widen Corinth Road/Main Street and bring municipal sewer and water service to the area, as well as to make numerous streetscape improvements and revise the zoning ordinance to encourage a Main Street lined with buildings rather than parking lots. The applicant is attempting to comply with the anticipated provisions of the new Ordinance and with the spirit of the vision for the area, but in order to construct the restaurant in this configuration at this time, the applicant must receive variances from the existing zoning requirements. Staff believes that this early private sector investment in the new vision for Main Street is a promising sign for the future of this gateway to Warren County. Staff recommends discussion. A copy of the site plan and a drainage study are attached. A large site plan recording plans for the wastewater and stormwater management systems is on file at the County Planning Dept. office. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been set for August 16, 2000. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed by Terri Ross Warren County Planning Board 8/10/00. MR. STONE-I’m conflicted, in terms of how to proceed. Obviously, do you think we should read Marilyn’s note in, or just leave it? MR. MC NALLY-I think we could make it part of the record without, ask Mr. Scudder to point out those parts he thought were important, perhaps. MR. BROWN-Marilyn’s comments, or just the engineer report? MR. STONE-Well, the engineering report, they can tell us what they want. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. BROWN-It’s not necessary to read either one into the record, if you’re aware of them. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s where I’m coming out, but, well, why don’t we let you gentlemen talk, and we’ll see where we’re going to go from here. Go. Mr. SCUDDER-Mr. Chairman, I’m Charlie Scudder, representing Mr. Kelley. JEFFREY KELLEY MR. KELLEY-I’m Jeffrey Kelley, and I’m the applicant, and I happen to live at 87 Main Street now. It’s the proposed site. MR. STONE-So that house is on that same lot? I didn’t necessarily appreciate that when I looked at it. Okay. MR. SCUDDER-Why don’t you talk about your project. MR. STONE-Go ahead. Talk to us. MR. KELLEY-I’ll tell you why I’m here and why I’m doing what I’m doing, and maybe it’ll clarify things. It seems funny to sit here because I used to sit there, but anyway, the current Lox of Bagels business that I have, I’ve been there eight and a half years. I own the business, but I lease the building. I don’t own that building. Over the course of time, I’ve had conversations with Norman Benack, who is the present owner of that building about selling it to me, so on and so forth. I guess the timing wasn’t good, initially. Later on, you know, his price is exorbitant. I mean, he wants a half a million dollars. There’s my hardship why I don’t buy that. Okay, or I can’t acquire land from him because he wants to keep it as a large parcel. Anyway, over the course of time, the business has changed. When I originally got there, it was the only place you could buy bagels, other than the frozen bagels in the supermarket. Now there’s numerous places within the Town that manufacture bagels or sell them. As a result of that, my bagel sales are different than they used to be. They’re still really good, but not what it used to be. The clients or customers that come to me, their needs and wants have changed. It used to be, they’d buy a dozen bagels and a pound of cream cheese and out the door they’d go, and you’d have a few people that would sit and eat something. Today, they all want to come in and sit and eat. We serve a lot of people on a four foot grill, working in a doorway. It’s a nightmare, it really is. So, to proceed ahead, I can’t deal with Norm, and even if I could, the building that he has isn’t suitable for what we need to do. I’d have to spend a fortune. I might as well start over and do a whole new plan, and that gets us to here. Why this piece of property? Well, back, it’s got to be probably five or six years ago, I’d have to, I can’t remember the date exactly, I purchased it with the thought that possibly some day I’d want to do what I’m doing. That’s how I acquired the piece of property. The house that was there was kind of run down. I rented it out for a while, got tired of the rent business, plus it was a shambles and it wasn’t good for the neighborhood. So I decided I just might as well fix it up and go live in it myself. So that’s what I did. The present plan you see is here. What I want to do with the house, I tried to find a lot to move it, and I didn’t really do well with that. So in the meantime, I’m in the process of purchasing another house that I can move in to, kind of across the street and down, which needs some fixing up, which I plan to do. If I don’t sell the house to someone and have them move it, and I have a customer, or potential buyer who might be thinking that way, he would buy it, move it, and it would be out of there. If that doesn’t happen, I’ll probably take all the good stuff out of it that I put in it, put it in the new place that I’m in the process of buying, and we’ll just bulldoze it under, and it’ll be good, or I shouldn’t say bulldoze it under. We’ll remove it. Wrong term there. I’m sorry. Anyway, the property is the property. Obviously, I can’t buy anymore land from Hess. In fact, one time they even talked to me about buying my parcel. So I’m kind of stuck with my one acre, which actually meets the zone. The problem is it’s seven feet short of 150 feet wide, and here we are doing our variances. I think, well, one of the alternatives they talked about in here was possibly to make the building smaller. I mean, I guess anything’s possible. The thought of why we’re building what we’re doing, there’s actually kind of like three businesses going on, all owned by me, within this building. There’s this bagel business, that we’re going to move. That’s primarily set up to do a fair amount of takeout, some quick, I guess I’d call it kind of, almost more like a diner type of counter with like stools, you know, where you could just come in and have a cup of coffee, like a Dunkin Donuts. You could have a cup of coffee, something quick. That’s in there. I don’t think you have a building plan, right? MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Chairman, do members of the Board have the building drawings, the floor plan? MR. STONE-No. We have the site plan. MR. SCUDDER-I’ll put this up first. You can talk about the floor plan, because you were getting into that. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. STONE-While you’re doing that, let me just ask Craig a question. Your relief required is from the current Ordinance? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Craig, just tell us, what are the new Code requirements? What will they be? Because we got done with Dunkin Donuts, and the pressure was to keep the parking lot out in the front. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. MC NALLY-Now it’s going to reverse, to put the building out in front and the parking in the back. Just how solid is that? MR. BROWN-Nobody’s suggested any changes to this point. It’s been in front of the Steering Committee for, since the start, and it’s made it through the last cuts, if you will, and my assumption is, tomorrow or the next day, that the next draft, the revised draft ordinance will be back for us to review, and I’m assuming it’s still going to be in there. So, there’s always the public comment period where it could, you know, not go through and could be changed, but. MR. MC NALLY-Is there going to be a new Travel Corridor Overlay here, 30 feet or something? MR. BROWN-No, I think once the road widens and goes through, typically the DOT’s plans for road improvements, they project 20 years in the future. So for 20 years, I’m assuming this is what’s going to be satisfactory. So will there be a need for a Travel Corridor Overlay along Main Street? I don’t think so, once the road’s widened. MR. MC NALLY-And when does this new Ordinance go into effect, if it ever gets approved? What’s the timeframe you’re looking at? MR. BROWN-Public meetings, hopefully early September to start. So I would hope by the end of the year that it would be in place. MR. STONE-That’s the hope, Bob, and we’ve only really talked about the north side, for the. MR. BROWN-I’m not sure which side, if either, they’re going to have to acquire any land. I don’t know. MR. STONE-But I mean, we haven’t talked about putting the buildings right up against the sidewalk. MR. BROWN-Both sides, Main Street. MR. STONE-I didn’t think we talked about that. Anyway, go ahead, gentlemen. MR. KELLEY-Anyway, just to kind of do this real quickly, this is the street out here, it faces south. The idea is there’s a driveway in, that comes around, comes out on this side as an exit. Parking in the rear. The entrance is actually on the, it will be on the east side. The idea is you come in, bagel sales are right straight ahead. They can come in, pick up what they want, and exit. If they want to do something quick, there’s a low seating with stool type arrangement, with counter service. My wife and I want to do kind of a really upscale gift shop type section through here, which the people would pass through on their way to a Victorian Garden Café. They would be seated by a hostess and actually have waitresses, where now we kind of have to do everything for the public right in front of them, so to speak. I guess the size, I mean, I came up with the size, basically, by the design of the layout that I had to have, in order to do what I had to do. I didn’t sit and say, well, I can’t, I have so many square feet and I’ve got to fit it all in. This is what was the result of what worked for a floor plan, so to speak. Anyway, the eating area, at this point, I think we’re going to have a portion that we can section off. I’ve talked to some different people, banks, for instance, or people that want to have business/breakfast meetings and so forth, they have trouble finding places. I could section off a part. They could have a breakfast for maybe 25, 30 people, a little meeting area, but if it’s busy, and in the summer it gets busier, you can open it up and have more seating. On this side there’s like French doors that would go out to a patio area with tables and umbrellas, I guess you could say like a Suttons thing, if you can envision that. You’ve been there or been by it, I’m sure. The rest of this is all work area. It’s a working kitchen with a prep area behind it. The bagel sales and that business have their own, you know, working area and a small area in the back to mix cream cheeses and that sort of thing. The coolers and freezers have been placed outside the building, which is a common practice, but we plan on screening them in ways so that, when you’re coming by here with your car, 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) as you leave, you aren’t just looking at some galvanized looking cooler thing sitting out there. I guess it’s kind of self-explanatory. MR. STONE-What’s the façade on Main Street going to be? MR. KELLEY-Okay. Well, my buddies I used to work with at Northern Homes, I told them it was Victoria’s Garden Café and Gift Boutique and Lox of Bagels and Moor. So they came up with Victoria’s Bagel Boutique. They got it all in there. The sign is not going to be that, but that’s pretty much the basic look of the building. MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s going to be a non, no egress or entrance on the Main Street side? You’ve got to go around. MR. KELLEY-Right, park in the back, and come in that side entrance, right. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. KELLEY-But hopefully it’s going to be a Victorian looking building, in color, three, four color scheme type thing. In the process with, I talked to Jim Girard about a planting schedule and lawn maintenance, you know, I want it to be pretty. We plan on, I guess I’d say an upscale type thing. We don’t want to have a diner or that sort of thing. I think this end of Town where we are, and the closeness to the Northway, could use such a thing, and hope to go ahead. MR. STONE-Anything else you want to add? MR. SCUDDER-I think in the papers that were submitted from our office, I spoke about the traffic situation, particularly with respect to semi trailer rigs that serve the establishment, and we made a mistake in the original layout on putting the entrance to the left, as you look at the building, and the exit to the right, and we’ve changed our minds about that. I was fixated on the idea that these trucks have to come in and get to those, I call them loading docks, delivery areas, and I think I enumerated the different companies that serve the bagel shop with big rigs, and so that’s why I initially had the exit on the easterly side, and the entrance on the westerly side, instead of the other way around, which is more conventional, but we’ve thought about that some more and decided we could do it the conventional way. MR. STONE-So all of the commercial traffic is going to go the same way that the customer traffic is going to go? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. STONE-Down the same road. They’ll just cut around and come back out again. MR. SCUDDER-There’s enough room in there so that they can maneuver. I should point out that the bagel shop, now, is just going to be relocated to this site, and there’s a lot more room for maneuverability here than there is in the present site. Now, in talking with the Town Planners, and talking with the Code Enforcement Officer, who is Craig, and Marilyn Ryba and Laura Moore, we talked about the fact that we’re sort of in a Catch-22 situation, because we don’t have the new Ordinance yet, but we hope to have it, and I, for one, think it’s going to be a better Ordinance. I can feel good about it, and so we, I think it’s obvious what we’ve done. I think it’s been reported that we’re trying to comply with both the spirit and what we think the letter of the new Ordinance will be, and Jeff likes it. Now, the wastewater system will go in the front of the building, and as soon as the new road is fixed up, and there’s a public sewer there, we’ll connect to it, and that wastewater system will be abandoned, and that will become a garden area or maybe a lawn or, I don’t know what, but it’ll be a green space of some kind. MR. STONE-Okay. Craig, if we compared the relief required for this, versus the relief required if the proposed Ordinance goes through the way we have so far put it up, there is much less relief needed, versus the new? MR. BROWN-Actually, with the current Ordinance, they require more relief than they would with the proposed, right. The parking requirements would be less, under the new Ordinance, the proposed new Ordinance. Setbacks, they’d be more lenient closer to Main Street. Probably the only thing that would be consistent would be the separation for the drives, but the other requirements would be less. MR. STONE-So if we were to consider this on the basis of the old thing, without, because you and I have talked about. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. BROWN-Right, and to paraphrase, actually, Marilyn had prepared a resolution or a guideline based on a planning standpoint. To paraphrase that, it was basically that the project as proposed is pretty good under the current Ordinance. Traffic flow, parking requirements aren’t that far off. It seemed to be adequate for the size of the building and the number of seats and employees. Septic system, better in the front for the new septic layout along Main Street, just easier connection. Likewise, with the proposed Ordinance, it would be very consistent with that, much more so than it is with this, obviously because it’s changing, but I guess, in the short, it appears to be a good project under the current Ordinance, and even a more conforming project under the proposed Ordinance. MR. STONE-Even though all this relief is needed? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Let me ask the Board. Is the Board comfortable in looking at this without reference to the new zoning? MR. ABBATE-Yes, I am. I think the point was made, if we grant permission on the old Ordinance, an based upon what Craig’s stated, and what reference he referred to, that it will more than meet, or certainly meet the new requirements coming up, then I don’t see any conflict, quite frankly. MR. STONE-How do other people feel? MR. MC NULTY-That’s my general feeling. It strikes me that we should look at this that way. There is no guarantee that the new Ordinance will be put in place. It looks like it will, but we certainly can’t guarantee that it’ll be in place. It’s conceivable that it would never be put in place. It’s conceivable that it would be put in place, but slightly different than what we think it would be. So we probably should look at this, visa vie the current Ordinances, but I think it’s fair for us to also look at it in comparison with what the overall plan is, on which the Ordinance is being based, the vision that the people had when they drew up the overall Queensbury plan, and if it strikes us that this basically meets the intentions of that plan. MR. STONE-The one thing that we do know, that I’m not sure, maybe you can answer this question, if the new road is put in, and that’s a given, right, under the? MR. BROWN-As far as I know. MR. STONE-Yes, I mean, that’s a given, that it’s going to be three lanes wide, well, as anything is a given. I’m just wondering where the road’s going to be, that’s what I would like to know. MR. BROWN-As are we. MR. KELLEY-Maybe I can help you. I went to a lot of those Town hearings, and the three lanes and five lanes, and all that. Just prior to when they started those meetings, I believe it was in the fall, the late summer last year, they came along and put little orange flags down each side of the road, and I believe that those were the limits, or the extreme limits of what the proposed three lane road was going to be, okay. The orange flags are still in front of the bagel store, on the east side, and I think that’s the only one that’s left, but anyway, if you were to look at this map, or plot plan that Charlie’s done here, when I put my fence up, and I live on this piece of property that we’re looking at here, I put my fence about six inches inside of where those orange flags went down through there, and they, pretty much, were at the edge of the sidewalk at my piece of property. They varied as it went down the street, but where I am, the edge of the sidewalk was about where the flags are. So, in terms of, you know, looking at this, and you say, where’s the road going to be, I wouldn’t anticipate that it’s going to be any different, really, than pretty much what you see there now, because it shows here the property line being the edge of the sidewalk, and that was about where those orange flags were. I mean, not to say. MR. STONE-But there’s going to be a sidewalk. MR. KELLEY-Yes, but I would have assumed, is the sidewalk within their right of way? MR. STONE-No. MR. KELLEY-It’s on the other side of it. MR. STONE-It’s on the other side, right, Craig? Yes. MR. BROWN-I’m not familiar with the plan. I don’t really know that answer. MR. STONE-Well, in terms of the way we were talking in the zoning, it was going to be off the road. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. KELLEY-Well, in that case, then, the sidewalk that’s shown here needs to shift four feet, approximately. MR. STONE-Well, I’m just curious. MR. KELLEY-I’m only giving you kind of what I feel out of. MR. STONE-But obviously when we get to, if the road is done, then as we said earlier, the TCO sort of goes away, because now, at least for 20 years. MR. BROWN-If, well, no. If the proposed Zoning Ordinance gets approved, and accepted, then there may not be a need for a Travel Corridor Overlay. That’s an assumption that it’ll go away, once the road’s widened. Maybe it’ll stay in place for, you know, future realignment, but it’s probable that it won’t be required. MR. STONE-We can’t do both. We can’t put the Main Street that we’re talking about. MR. MC NALLY-You can expand it and still have a TCO. MR. STONE-Well, we’re going to suggest property built right up to the sidewalk. That’s what the new Ordinance is talking about. MR. BROWN-This has come up on Quaker Road before. If you give somebody relief from the front property line, and the Town, or the County or the State comes through and takes more land, well then the applicant’s subject to the property line setback, and if the property line gets moved, they’re subject to that setback. So if the Travel Corridor, or the right of way line widens or narrows, they’re going to be subject to wherever the property line is at the time of the development. MR. STONE-But the TCO was designed to reduce the cost of the acquisition of land, and the new proposed zoning is going to suggest that property be built fairly close to the road, buildings. MR. BROWN-Right, in conjunction with the new road alignment. MR. STONE-In conjunction with the new road alignment. I mean, we’re talking about like Downtown Glens Falls. I mean, that’s the intent of Main Street. So, as I say, TCO is probably going to be meaningless. All right. So we can consider, I just want to be sure that we’re being fair to the applicant and being fair to ourselves and everybody else. If we consider your numbers here, that you’ve got here under the old Ordinance, we are not going to run into any problems under the new one? MR. BROWN-Well, actually right now you have to use these numbers, because it’s actually the current Ordinance. It’s not the old Ordinance yet. It’s still the current Ordinance. MR. STONE-Correct. Okay. So, do we have any questions? MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Scudder, this drawing was done, this Corinth Road/Main Street, as it currently is laid out? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-The setback is from where it is now? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And if they realign this road, will they be realigning the road on the north side of the street, toward your property? MR. SCUDDER-You mean will that taking all occur on one side of the street? MR. MC NALLY-Will there be any taking on your side? MR. SCUDDER-There may be, but there’ll probably be a taking, I would think, part on one side and part on the other, and we’re thinking in terms of five or six feet, at most, on both sides, which would be 10 or 12 feet, which would give another lane. MR. MC NALLY-So you show 35 feet from the current condition? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. SCUDDER-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-And that may be shortened at some point? MR. SCUDDER-It may well, and we’re showing a two foot distance between our planter and the sidewalk, and an eight foot wide planter, which gives us 10 feet that we could play with there. We can’t, you know, beyond that we’d be into our wastewater system. MR. MC NALLY-That planter might get a lot narrower. MR. SCUDDER-The planter might get narrower. MR. STONE-Obviously, we’re trying to protect, we’re trying to grant you what you’re looking for. I mean, that’s why you’re here. We’re also trying to protect you, in terms of what’s going to happen when this road goes through, and we’re also trying to protect, in a sense, DOT and the County and everybody else who’s involved here. It seems to me that we’ve got to superimpose on this thing somehow the current thinking for the road. MR. MC NALLY-We’re bound to follow the existing Ordinance. MR. STONE-I’m not talking about the existing Ordinance. I’m talking about, we know the road is going to be widened. That’s a given. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, if it gets funded and if it gets approved, and if DOT goes through and they take the land and things get filed and no lawsuits get started. When are you starting to build? MR. KELLEY-Spring. MR. MC NALLY-2001, and then the Ordinance is going to come in in September, theoretically. MR. BROWN-The public hearing process will start, the public meetings will start next month. MR. STONE-Well, but again, that, as we said, Bob, is not going to have an effect on what we grant. It only suggests that, it may run afoul, if we grant the relief they’re asking, they may run afoul. We’re not going to run afoul, but they may run afoul of the highway, and I mean, I certainly would want to know if I were coming forth. MR. BROWN-If you’re comfortable with granting the relief under the current Ordinance, which is really all you have to deal with now, and then the proposed zoning comes into effect, and this is more compliant with that, all the better, but if you’re comfortable with granting it under the current Ordinance, then you should do that. MR. STONE-Well, I’m not even saying that, Craig. I’m just worried about the road, where it is, what are we granting relief. I mean, we’re granting relief from the current Main Street. MR. BROWN-Which is really all you can do. MR. STONE-All we can do. Okay. We can’t be more helpful? MR. BROWN-Well, it’s going to be a burden on the applicant if, all the taking, now the taking is 20 feet on their side when they thought it was five feet. Well, now they’ve got a bigger burden on their property, but that’s for them to bear. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we’ve made them aware. That’s all we can do. In other words, before I turn spade in the ground, I would be pretty sure where the road’s going to be. I mean, all I’m trying to do is make you aware, really, and expressing my own concern for it, but do we have any questions about the current zoning and the application that’s before us? MR. ABBATE-Well, let me just say this, Mr. Kelley. I’m very familiar with the business, and it’s a great business that you run, and I think your proposal will be a tremendous improvement to the area, and I wish you and your engineer the best of luck for any new legislation that may go into effect, and that’s all I have to say. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-A question about the, you tell me the new line of the building, the front of the building with the existing bagel shop, how is that? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. SCUDDER-I think the existing bagel shop is closer to the road. MR. BRYANT-It’s closer to the road? MR. KELLEY-From the sidewalk, because people park in front of the store, which I don’t know why, but they do. They pull in. So a car is, usually they figure, what, 20 feet of space for a parking space, and usually if they pull in, and they kind of come up to, well, I’ve got a little vestibule thing there for like a double door entrance thing. There’s, I’d say maybe four feet or something maybe left behind the car to the sidewalk. So there might be 24 feet to that, and that’s a, I don’t know, I think that maybe is like five by five or six by six or something, but actually the overhang of the roof sticks out. So, maybe say it’s 25 or 26 feet to the roofline, and this proposal is 35. So it’s maybe another 10 feet for the back. MR. SCUDDER-I think it’s 10 feet. I would also say that the setback for the proposed new restaurant is almost exactly the same as the current setback to Jeff’s house, almost the same, within a foot. MR. STONE-Any other comments before I open the public hearing? All right. Let me open the public hearing. We can get that out of the way. Anyone here wishing to speak in favor? In favor? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-We have a record of one telephone conversation, on August 10, at 1:50 p.m., th between Maria in the Planning Office and Savino D’Angelico, and Mr. D’Angelico just said “He has my approval”, and Mr. D’Angelico is a neighbor. MR. STONE-Do you know where Mr. D’Angelico lives? MR. KELLEY-Yes. He’s across the street and down and next door to where I’m buying this new house, but I don’t know the man. I know his son, but I don’t know him. I’ve never actually met him. MR. STONE-All right. Is that it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions or comments you want to make of the applicant? Let’s talk about it. That’s the best way. Let’s start with Chuck. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, as I said before, I think I want to look at this compared to the current Ordinance, but also compared to the general plan that was developed for Queensbury and the general vision for Main Street, and as stated in the application, I think this goes toward trying to match the vision that’s been presented for Main Street. We’ve got three things that we’re looking at. As far as the front setback, it strikes me that the applicant has given some serious thought to the what if’s regarding realignment of the road, in front, and they’re trying to match the intention of the new vision for Main Street. So I don’t think I’ve got any real problem with granting them the relief for the front setback. Likewise, the off street parking, if the projection for the new Ordinance and the plan indicates that they are not going to need as many parking places as what the current Ordinance requires, there again, I don’t think I have any problem with granting them that relief. It’s not a great deal of relief, 41 spaces instead of 49, and I believe that also is, it’s based on square feet of floor space, and as the applicant’s indicated, he’s got three different kinds of uses here. So I’m not sure whether the one feet per 100 feet of floor space is necessarily totally applicable in this case. The third factor is the separation of the entrances, and there again, as the applicant’s indicated, he can’t get them much wider than he’s got, given his piece of property, and it strikes me that it makes a lot more sense to have a one way in and a one way out, as they have configured it, than to have an in and out together on this piece of property. So I guess, in summary, even though there are some fairly substantial reliefs requested here, it strikes me that it’s going to be an improvement over current conditions, and it looks to me like they’re going to have an attractive piece of property when they’re finished, which was my other concern, because I think that the property that’s there now is attractive, and I would hate to see it just become a big commercial splash there, but I think their intentions are to have an attractive piece. So, generally, I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I agree with Chuck somewhat. I think it is important that the building is further back than the adjacent buildings. As to the other issues, I agree with Chuck, I’d be in favor of the project. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-I, too, am impressed with the presentation, and the information that was provided with the application, very nice job, I thought. I like the idea of that area of Town, with the fact that certainly the new bagel enterprise is going to be, it’s very nice, much better than the previous one. I don’t know what’s going to happen to your location where you are now, once you move out of it. So I, in short, agree with the comments that Chuck made earlier. I’m a little, I’m reading the notes from the planning, interconnecting driveways and so forth, being part of the long range plan or something, you know. I don’t see how that could work, what’s exit for one is entrance for another, and in your case, Hess isn’t going to, I don’t going to share any driveway space with you, that’s for sure. All right. So you’re going to have an entrance for you which is just a few feet, an exit for somebody else, and that’s how it’s going to go all the way along. I don’t see how this comment could work, really. So, again, you’re asking for one way in, one way out, I think is good. I believe it’s, on the basis of the current figures, I could go along with it, basically. MR. STONE-Let me just take two seconds to answer some of the things you said there, and, Craig, stop me if I’m wrong. What the new plan envisions, what Marilyn is talking about in her note, is a, not a driveway to the back parking for every building on Main Street. MR. HIMES-Okay. MR. STONE-There would be parking on the north side of these buildings, away from Main Street, and there would be a series of driveways in there, but not necessarily one for each building. MR. UNDERWOOD-Similar to down in Saratoga. MR. STONE-Yes. I think that’s what she’s talking about, isn’t she, Craig? MR. BROWN-I think so. MR. HIMES-It would be interesting to see. Thank you, Lew. I appreciate that. I had thought along that line and didn’t see how that could work, either, but either way, it’s going to be. MR. STONE-Well, certainly this is going to be at the beginning of that thing and it might not work, but that’s the hope, I think. MR. HIMES-In the event the overall traffic and business, the same amount of traffic going to be coming out of Hess. You’ll have a little more, probably, because hopefully your business will improve, so you’d probably have a little more traffic going in to your place of business than coming out, but better managed than what you have now. So, the parking, again, I don’t really feel badly about the aspect that we may be giving something (lost word) the parking requirement. So as I said, again, I’m in favor of the proposal. MR. STONE-That’s what you’ve got back here with this interior connecting lane. Is that supposed to go to other parking areas? MR. SCUDDER-Yes, there is a thought in the planning office, that maybe some day there’ll be an alley that’s parallel to Main Street, a service road, if you like. MR. STONE-Correct, well, and parking back there. MR. SCUDDER-And parking, and it could go behind all those back along there. MR. STONE-Okay, and you’re leaving space for that. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Okay. We, of course, it’s my opinion that we address your application based on the information and the statistics submitted to us tonight, based upon the current law, so to speak. Scudder Associates did justice to Mr. Kelley. They’ve addressed everything from the zoning criteria to off street parking, and I certainly agree with Mr. Kelley. I frequent your place quite often. I’m one of the guilty ones who pulls off the street right in front. So I know exactly what you’re saying. Your proposed new business will add immensely to improving your neighborhood. It will certainly improve the appearance of that area. It will serve your customers, and I think it will serve the Town, and the best interest of the Town and the customers both, and in view of this, I certainly am in favor of it. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I think that we have a schizophrenic kind of way of dealing with things. Like you said, you’re between a rock and a hard place. A lot of relief is requested under the current Ordinance, but if I cross my fingers, and I trust government, as it always does, to do what it says it’s going to do, then I don’t think the relief is that substantial. For instance, having the entrance and exit a little bit closer than normal is fine, though I did like the request in here, I think, that I think the condition should require the applicant to allow shared access with adjacent lots in the future. So if that was a condition of the approval, I wouldn’t have any problem with that, and the same thing with the setback from the Travel Corridor Overlay. If we give conditional approval, conditioned upon adoption of the standards to which this application was designed, then I don’t have a problem with that. I actually think that puts the burden on these guys, because if we make that approval, and what those conditions are, they’d have to be met. Right? Is that something you guys can live with? MR. STONE-I’m not sure I know what you’re saying, Bob. MR. MC NALLY-If you look at Staff comments, all right, they basically say, this is a substantial variance that they’re looking for, but, and I’m reading it in the Staff comments, “Consideration should be given to a conditional approval contingent upon adoption of the standards to which this application was designed”. So, in other words, yes, we think it’s going to be approved, this new Ordinance, and we think these things will be done, you’ve got your variance, conditioned upon that new Ordinance coming into effect as we just discussed. Now if it doesn’t go into effect, they’ll have to come back and seek new relief. MR. STONE-Well that’s what you’re saying. I mean, I thought we were, I thought we had ruled out that Staff comment in the discussion. MR. MC NULTY-It doesn’t strike me that that’s fair to the applicant, Lew. If we’re going to say that to the applicant, we might better say, wait for the new Ordinance. My feeling’s based on whether we think this is reasonable compared to the current Ordinance, recognizing that it’s trying to mirror the proposal, but as we’ve said, there’s no guarantee that the proposal will ever get put in place. We presume it will, but knowing government, and knowing that with zoning you should really figure the worst case scenario possible, the worst case scenario is it doesn’t get put in place and we’ve approved something, and we end up with the current Zoning Ordinance staying in place. MR. STONE-My concern would be, Bob, on your position, and I started out there. Don’t get me wrong. That’s where I kind of was, but I think, one, we’ve got a current Ordinance. We know what relief is necessary from that current Ordinance. The applicant is, they’re adults. They know that there’s situations out there, it’s a fluid situation. They know it as well as, better than we do. Mr. Kelley wants to commit money to this building. So, I assume he’s going to take as many precautions as possible to make sure that he’s going to be in, not in compliance, but in conformity with what’s going to happen, in terms of the road, and everything else, and we know that, whatever’s going to happen with this on the new Zoning Ordinance, it is probably going to be less restrictive than this one. I mean, even if it goes through some permutations, it’s going to be less restrictive. So if we grant this relief, which the bulk of the Board seems willing to do at this point, and I’m not putting you, I know we haven’t gotten to you, Jim, or me, but nevertheless, it seems to me if we do that, then they say, okay, we can go ahead now, and we better be very careful, however, not because he’s going to be in violation of zoning, because he’s going to get the front of this building taken off, and that’s a very different situation. So, anyway, you’re entitled to your opinion. MR. MC NALLY-I understand exactly what you’re saying, and I think I understand the position. I had to give it more thought. You’re saying they’re assuming the risk of that? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Which is very true. I’d say they’re assuming the risk with conditional approval, too, but that’s, you know, your proposal is acceptable. MR. KELLEY-I appreciate what he’s saying, but I’ve been there, and I mean, I guess I could kind of buy it. I mean, I understand what you’re saying, you know, but the thing that I have to look at, and that would make me apprehensive to do that, is that I’ve got a time frame that I’ve got to meet, too, okay, and the reason I’m here, I’m going to tell you. My lease comes up a year from November, okay. So, I’m thinking, I didn’t know, when I started this, what I’m going to run into here, the planning thing or the County or who knows what. So you start earlier and you kind of keep going. To have it be a conceptual thing or hinged upon or whatever, at some point I’ve got to say, I’ve got to either go or not go. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) MR. STONE-You’ve got to either fish or cut bait. There’s no question about that, and we can’t help you there. MR. KELLEY-Yes, I know, but to say, well, if this thing gets through and gets passed, and let’s say it’s, I don’t know, next March or April or May. MR. MC NULTY-It could be this time next year. MR. STONE-Sure. MR. KELLEY-And here I am saying, I’ve got to start digging, and let’s say I dig, and a week later, or two weeks later, that’s kind of hard. MR. STONE-You’ve got to either fish or cut bait. You’ve got to make your risk. I mean, that’s what being an entrepreneur. Am I going to build this building, if we give you permission, and I gather there’s enough feeling here, to give you permission, and give you the variances that you need from the current Ordinance. Armed with that, what do you have? You have nothing except permission from us to build, but the risk is still on you, and whatever you do, but it’s not going to help you, it’s not going to help at all. MR. MC NALLY-You’re right. MR. STONE-As I say, I started out with Bob. In fact, I asked the Staff to prepare a motion, which we don’t normally do. The Planning Board does, but prepare a motion that would reflect those numbers from as we see the new thing, but as I get talking about it, it doesn’t make any difference. MR. MC NALLY-What you’re saying is, if nothing changes, and they built this property as it is, you’d be happy with it? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-That’s exactly what we’re saying. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-Because it does reflect the thinking, at least, for the new Main Street, and would fit in, in all probability. Jim, we’ve ignored you, here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would agree that it reflects the vision of what Main Street should be, and the only thing I would say in the front, though, is I would think that your wastewater absorption system would be the only quandary. Knowing the proclivity of DOT to do the unexpected, you know, whether they decide to put a 20 foot sidewalk in or something, but, if that got moved back five feet, that might just the margin of error that you would allow yourself, so you don’t end up having to reconfigure and put it in the back, or do something strange like that, even though the sewers are going to come, undoubtedly, at some point in the future, but I think the front, too, I think the 35 feet in the front is adequate, and, you know, when the wastewater absorption system is gone, you can put a pergola out there and tables out front and have a street side café, you know, and cars may be gone in 20 years, and likewise in the back, too. I think where your handicap parking is, you know, you could reconfigure that, and based upon you’re going to have more parking spaces than you need, and put outside eating facilities out there, too, for the summertime. It’s just something to keep in mind. MR. ABBATE-You’re helping make his business decisions. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, yes. MR. ABBATE-While you’re at it, you might want to consider a discount for senior citizens. MR. STONE-Well, as I said, I came in with a slightly different idea. I was thinking more in terms of the anticipation, but since it is almost a certainty that whatever new zoning we have is going to be less restrictive than the relief that we’re granting you, we’re not hurting the citizens of the Town of Queensbury by granting this variance, and that’s the job that we have to consider here. Secondly, we certainly, not that you needed it, have highlighted the risk, the uncertainty of, where is this road going, and what’s the zoning going to be, and you know that, and we can’t do that. We can’t help you with that thing, but having said that, I’m more than willing to grant the relief that is requested, under the current zoning. Having said that I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2000 JEFFREY KELLEY, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) 87 Main Street. The applicant proposes construction of a bagel shop and a restaurant. The applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum front setback requirement of the CR-15 zone, Section 179-24, and the 75 foot setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, Section 179-28. Further, the applicant requests relief from the Off-Street Parking and Loading regulations Section 179-66. Specifically, the applicant seeks 30 feet relief from the 150 foot minimum separation distance between access points. Also, the applicant seeks relief to allow 41 parking spaces where 49 are required, one per 100 square foot of floor space. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the proposed restaurant in the desired location. Feasible alternatives, the feasible alternatives could include a smaller building, but this does not support the business plan, which is a larger operation, and a nicer facility in a slightly different location than where he presently operates just down the road a few doors. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Well, there are several reliefs in connection with this. It should be recognized that where the proposed building is going to be constructed, it’s going to just about sit, or begin its front façade where a present structure already exists, a dwelling residence. Additionally, that house and that existing structure is almost the same distance from the roadway as the current bagel business, which is just two or three doors down the road. Effects on the neighborhood or community, moderate effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. Is the difficulty self-created? It can be considered as being self-created. However, improving business results require changes in the business operation and in the facility itself, and thus the changes that have been requested. For these, the parking, many of the customers, in the type of business that we’re dealing with, many of the customers are people who are there for a short period of time, and therefore, the turnover in the parking in connection with the population, the number of parking spaces per square foot, is probably not as demanding as it might be in other types of businesses where people would be there longer. The distance between the entrance and exits, again, compared to the existing business, although there may be a modest increase in the amount of traffic in and out, it would be managed so much better with a single string going in, and a single string coming out, rather than everybody just pulling in, in front of the, as they do in the existing business. This, I think, will improve the safety. The traffic flow will be improved, and everyone will be better off in that respect, too. For these reasons, I feel that, my motion is that we approve Area Variance No. 72-2000. Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-There you go. MR. SCUDDER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Gentlemen, we’ve got two sets of minutes, and I think we can vote on both of those. CORRECTION OF MINUTES July 19, 2000: MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FOR THE JULY 19, 2000 MEETING OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, McNally, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Himes July 26, 2000: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR JULY 26, 2000, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/16/00) NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNally, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone MS. GAGLIARDI-And I also have the June 28. th MR. STONE-June 28. We’ve got those? I don’t have a copy. Okay. Yes, we can do that. We’ve th got four. June 28, 2000: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FOR THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 28, 2000 MEETING, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood MR. STONE-I move we adjourn, gentlemen. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 37