Loading...
2000-09-13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ROBERT MC NALLY PAUL HAYES NORMAN HIMES ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES ABBATE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SIGN VARIANCE NO. 52-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-1A RENALD J. DEVINE OWNER: RENALD J. DEVINE, CONTRACT VENDEE WITH GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK 49 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. CROSS REF. SPR 40-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/14/2000 TAX MAP NO. 112-1-3 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 140 MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I’m going to excuse myself. MR. STONE-Would one of you gentlemen? Jim, thanks. Do you want to read the tabling motion? There is a tabling motion. MR. MC NULTY-We’ve got a couple of tabling motions. MR. STONE-All right. Read the latest one. MR. MC NULTY-The most recent one. Okay. This one is dated August 23, 2000, “The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Motion to Table Sign Variance No. 52-2000 Renald J. Devine/Contract Vendee & Sign Variance No. 66-2000 Mike Tartaglione/New York City Dogs, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Tabled until the first meeting in September. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE” MR. STONE-Just for the edification of those people in attendance, this Sign Variance came before us a couple of months ago. We tabled it for reasons of our own, and then the Federal Court threw out the Town Sign Ordinance, and since we had nothing to grant relief from, we opted to table the motion at our last meeting, so that we could hear it tonight with something to work against, and that’s where we are. So, go ahead. MR. BORGOS-And just to bring everybody up to speed, again. MR. STONE-Give us your name again, for the record. MR. BORGOS-Michael Borgos for the applicant. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BORGOS-As you will recall at the last meeting, the Board approved a Use Variance for this property, permitting this retail use in a Light Industrial zone. Subsequent to that, we appeared at a Planning Board meeting and obtained site plan review and that was granted. At the last meeting, we had questions about exactly where the sign was going to be located, and we took this Board’s feedback from that, and if you will recall, we were originally seeking to put it in the corner with 11 foot relief from each boundary, and we’ve tried to locate it in the best possible location that would still serve the purpose of calling attention to the building, for someone looking for it as they traveled down the Boulevard, without having any setback concerns from the right of way on the eastern boundary. So we’re before the Board tonight asking for nine feet of relief from the front property 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) line, which is the northern boundary of the property, and we had this survey map drawn up, in an enlarged format, so you can see clearly where this sign is going to be located, and I believe the survey really shows you exactly where the right of way is, where the road bed itself is. You can see the double yellow line in the center of the roadway is clearly depicted, along with the white fog line, and it illustrates that there’s 22 feet from the fog line to the property line, and then we’re proposing to put the planter box around the sign, four feet behind that property line, and then the sign will be erected on cedar posts in the middle of that planter box, in accordance with the recommendations from the Beautification Committee. I put together an application with some photographs, which hopefully will explain all of the, and answer some of the questions that you came up with last time. I would like to address, at this time, the comments from Staff regarding sight distance and the impact of this sign upon that. I think if you look at the first photo in Exhibit A, you’ll notice that anyone pulling out of that right of way is going to be a good 20 feet beyond that sign before they’re going to be looking for traffic, one way or the other, and you’ll see the sign moc up that we put in there at 11 feet high. It shows how high it really has to be, and you can see why it needs to be out close to the road as we propose to make it, just so you can see it as you’re coming from either direction. MR. STONE-That’s this picture here? MR. BORGOS-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-When you say you’ve made it 11 feet high, could you repeat that again? MR. BORGOS-Sure. You’ll see in the photographs, we’ve put that moc up there to illustrate what it would look like, and this sign drawing is also included in the packet. The top of the sign will be 11 feet high. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but that moc up is nothing like the sign. I mean, the sign is solid from the ground all the way up, except for this little space here. MR. BORGOS-Well, those boards underneath it, there’s two inches between them, for the different illustrative descriptions here, poker tables, foosball tables, ping pong tables and air hockey tables. So there will be some visibility between them, but the top of the sign is the 11 feet, and I think the photograph will show you that it has to be at that height to be above a vehicle such as the pick up truck, in order to be visible for somebody that’s parked out in front, and anything, obviously, below that, is going to be behind a vehicle anyway, if someone is parked there. MR. BRYANT-How is a car, I mean, a car parks in the front. They’re going to have to back up on the Boulevard to get out of that parking lot? MR. BORGOS-Not so. As I said, there was 22 feet of distance between the property line and the fog line, which is the edge of the driving lane. The shoulder, I think, is six to eight feet. It varies there, beyond the fog line. So you have about 15 feet of just dirt and gravel, as it is right now. So the vehicle backing up would be backing up onto that dirt and gravel. It would never have to enter the roadway. If you look at some of the photos here, I think it’s Exhibit D, you can see where, in an opportune moment, that the picture was taken showing the vehicle passing on the right, entirely on the macadam, but to the right of the white line, and there is quite a bit of room beyond that, for more vehicles or a larger vehicle to pass, and even if someone was backing out at that point, there would still be room for a vehicle to pass on the right. So I don’t think there’s any concern about that, and certainly with the neighboring properties, where everybody seems to park in the same manner, that has never been anybody’s concern. It’s never seemed to cause any problem that we know of. MR. ABBATE-May I ask a question, please? MR. BORGOS-Sure. MR. STONE-Please do. MR. ABBATE-Is the statement correct that it will be an 11 foot tall structure which includes a sign and a planter, is that statement correct? MR. BORGOS-That is. MR. ABBATE-That is correct. Is it also correct that it’s going to be approximately six to ten feet wide? Is that a correct statement? MR. BORGOS-I’ll have to check the dimensions on the drawing here. It would be 72 inches wide from the inner posts, and that’s about a foot or two beyond that with the planter box and the shrubbery. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. ABBATE-Is it also correct that it will be located within six feet of the right of way, is that a correct statement? MR. BORGOS-Within the right of way? No. MR. ABBATE-So it will not be located within six feet of the right of way? MR. BORGOS-Correct. We’re talking about the front property line. The right of way is off to the east. MR. STONE-Six feet of the property line. MR. BROWN-Within six feet of the right of way for the Boulevard. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. BROWN-That’s where it would be located. MR. ABBATE-That is correct. MR. BORGOS-No, that’s actually the property line. There’s no right of way question there. It’s clearly the property line. I believe it’s a County road. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. BORGOS-And some of these photos also depict where the adjacent property owners are in relation to this. If you look at Exhibit A, Photo 3, you’ll see a gentleman getting his mail out of the mailbox. Somebody had raised the question at the last meeting whether or not those mailboxes are in the County property, and indeed they are. We checked with the surveyor, went up and down, and those are clearly within, they’re probably 10 feet into the County property, as are most of the driveways where people park. MR. BRYANT-Exhibit D, the second picture, looking west from ROW, where is that pick up truck in relationship to where the asphalt is going to be for parking? MR. BORGOS-There’s not going to be any paved parking. MR. BRYANT-Well, you’re going to have parking spots in front. MR. BORGOS-As depicted on the drawing, that’s right. It would be in the handicap spot on the drawing. MR. BRYANT-When this sign is completely filled in, this 11 foot sign, how is that going to effect the visibility from that little drive on the side? MR. BORGOS-Well, that drive is utilized by the gentleman who manufactures the retaining walls in the back and the yellow freight company terminal, and his trucks pull out, and if you go out there to visit, you’ll see where they pull out, and they’re a good 15 to 20 feet beyond where the sign would be located, before any driver would be looking left or right, and certainly somebody in the cab of a large truck would be above that sign, would have plenty of visibility, but you have to be concerned about the cars as well, and in doing so, we drove a car through there and looked left and right and the sign is behind you at that point. It’s not an obstruction at all. You can see in that same photo where it lines up with the, actually, it’s (lost words) with the front of that canopy or that tree, and if that sign weren’t there, the tree would be blocking out the sun coming from that direction, and it does not block out the traffic. You can see, from this picture, of standing on the property line, looking to the west, and you can clearly see the traffic beyond there. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. ABBATE-Would you be kind enough to explain to me what would be the disadvantages of the Staff comments here indicating that perhaps rotating the sign by 90 degrees, which would be parallel to the road, please? MR. BORGOS-Sure. I think the biggest disadvantage to that is that it would be totally ineffective as a sign. The sign’s purpose is to call attention to the location. For people who are trying to find Devine’s Billiards on the Boulevard, they’re looking left and right, searching for it. Because of that tree location in the front, and the apartment house which shield the building. If you had the sign parallel with the roadway itself, you’d be on top of it, or past it, before you really noticed it, and I 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) think that would be a real disadvantage, and I think it’s dangerous to have drivers who are, you know, looking over their shoulder as they pass. It would be much better to have a sign that would be set back from the road quite a ways, as we’ve done here, but still visible at that 90 degree angle. MR. ABBATE-Your sign would be on both sides, advertising on both sides of the sign? MR. BORGOS-That’s right. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. BORGOS-You’re welcome. MR. STONE-Craig, question, I’m having trouble finding it. Has Boulevard got a Travel Corridor Overlay? MR. BROWN-I don’t believe so. MR. STONE-So as far as the County is concerned, the driving lane is that yellow line on the outside of the lane. I mean, that’s the right of way, in terms of normal driving operation? MR. BROWN-Yes. The driving lanes are obviously delineated by the white lines. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Right. The public right of way that the Boulevard lies within is continued. MR. STONE-Correct, but there is no TCO in connection with the Boulevard? MR. BROWN-No. MR. STONE-That’s my question. I should be able to find it, but I can’t. Okay. MR. BORGOS-I just recalled. There was one other question raised at the last meeting about the location of the sign at Stan Hunt’s Tree Care, and we’d asserted to the Board that it was, that’s how we got the measurement of 22 feet from the fog line and placement of this sign. We tried to be consistent with that sign location. The question came up as to whether or not the owner of that parcel owned a greater amount of property toward the Boulevard, and he does not. It’s the same amount, and that is the County property. That is grass right now. MR. BRYANT-What sign is that, the Hunt Tree? MR. BORGOS-It’s a little bit further down, the same side, as you head toward Hudson Falls. It’s a couple of hundred yards down the road. MR. STONE-Did the County have any? I don’t recall when we read it. Did the County have any opinion on this? Okay. Any other questions? MR. HIMES-Yes. I’d like to ask one. In connection with the front line, I was not in attendance at the last meeting, but reading the minutes of that meeting, there was some discussion about that line not bordering on the County right of way, as usually is the case. Did your statement you just made, looking at the line on the drawing on here, it goes right straight across, and it looks as if the property to the east and west share the same line. So the matter of distance from the property line being different for this applicant, as compared to other applicants, is no longer applicable? MR. BORGOS-Correct. It’s uniform from this point to the east. Now if you go to the west several properties, the line moves back away from the road even a greater distance, probably about 10 or 15 feet. For some reason, the County has this very large swath, and what I’ve been told is because this building that is the subject of the application was the switching station for the old trolley line, which ran down the Boulevard, they had to accommodate the trolley line in the middle, and cars around the outside of it. So that’s why it got so big, and I think that’s why you have so much open space, but I don’t know of any plans to make it a four lane road, at this point. MR. STONE-And it should be noted, just reviewing what the County did say, they considered four feet from the property line, as I’m reading, and they approved it. MR. BORGOS-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Which has no bearing on us at all, except if they disapprove it, it gives us pause for thought, but nevertheless, they did approve it, just so that we’re all aware of that. Any other 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) comments? I’ll open the public hearing, hearing none. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Are there any further questions? Well, let’s talk about it, then. Bob, we’ll start with you down there. MR. MC NALLY-I’m in favor of the application and the variance. This is a unique property which was clearly overbuilt by its last owner. It’s gone through foreclosure. It’s been vacant for a long period of time, and we have a business applicant who is offering to re-occupy it and put a viable business into that building, and I think we’ve had very few sign applications where they’ve bent over backwards as much as they have to supply us with the information that we’ve asked for. The effects on the neighborhood and the community, as far as I can tell, are going to be minimal. When I rode past the place, there’s no possible way a sign like this is going to have an impact on sight distance. It is so far back from the road, 22 feet from the edge of the travel portion, and another four feet beyond, that’s 26 feet off the side of the road. The road is straight in that section. So it’s not that you’re curving and seeing a sign in that way. I think the sign is consistent with other signs in the area. Stan Hunt and other signs are just as far from the road. The relief is not substantial. If the property line for Mr. Devine’s property was adjacent to the travel portion of the road, we could literally have a sign 15 feet from the traveled highway, but here, since there’s so much of a shoulder, you’ve got 22 feet, it’s that much wider. I don’t see any impact upon the neighborhood whatsoever. The feasible alternatives could be to run it parallel to the road, but to be honest with you, if you were required 15 feet parallel to the road, the only way you would see it, since it’s set back so far, is if you were right there. Anyone on either side of it would not be able to figure out that there’s a billiard dealer in this place. The difficulty is not self-created, in my mind, it’s a unique property. It’s an older area. It’s recessed away from the road. I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you. My sentiments agree with Bob’s just given. I do support the application. I’m a little concerned about the parking, the in and out in the front of the building. It’s too bad it could just all be done on the side, but as was mentioned, and as I noticed when I was out there, the apartment building next to it is right on top of the road, and there’s several cars park there. So tend t be for it. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I agree with what Bob and Norm have said. A new owner and he came before us with a Use Variance and it was foreclosed on and the property wasn’t used, and I understand that, and that’s why we gave it the Use Variance. I do believe that the sign could be in a compliant location. I disagree somewhat. I saw the moc up, and I attempted to pull out of the side road, and I had to go out close to the road to actually see. Of course there was a car there parked and what have you, and that’ll change once you line your parking areas, or whatever you’re going to do, but I’ve got to believe, I don’t think that this sign has to be changed 90 degrees, but that it can take up the place of one of the handicap spots, for example. I think the sign could be put in a more compliant location. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Allan has just about stated my sentiments. Certainly the applicant and the representative, you’ve done your homework. That’s no question about it. You’ve been extremely patient with this Board, no question about that, but I feel similar to Allan, and I think that the sign could be moved in a more compliant place on the property somewhere, not necessarily in one of the parking lots, as suggested by Staff, but somewhat in a more compliant area, because when I drove by, I would be, there was a concern about visual effect as well. That’s it. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would agree with what the first two people said, that, you know, I have no problems with where you’re going to site the sign. I think you’ve adequately stated that it’s not going to block your view, your vision from that side road. Those truck drivers coming out are going to 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) have more than enough height to see, and I think that a car is going to be obviously well past the sign before they’re going to be looking, too, you know, and it’s probably going to be the parked cars that are going to be more of a hindrance to viewing down to the west, as you’re coming out of that road, but, nonetheless, I would be in agreement that the sign should go where you have sited it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I guess I have to side with the people that think the sign could be in a more compliant location. I hate to say I’m torn again, but I am torn again. I don’t like signs, or Sign Variances. I would really prefer to see the sign back where it was compliant, or just on the front of the building. On one hand my reaction is, well, this probably is not the kind of business that’s going to draw in a lot of drive by business. It’s going to be somebody looking for the place, and they’ve probably already got some directions, but I’m not a businessman. I don’t know that for sure. I guess, sum total, I’d reluctantly go along, even though I’d rather see it in a more compliant place. MR. STONE-I’m a firm advocate of a sign variance. Having said that, however, I think this is, I don’t want to use the word “unique” because it’s an overused word, but this is a very different situation here. We have an extremely wide road. The building is set well back from the road, obviously not that far from the property line, but certainly well back from the road. Looking at the moc up that has been presented to us, I can’t even conceive of a problem. I humbly respect my fellow Board members who have some concern about its location, but I certainly go along with what Mr. McNally said. You’ve got an extremely wide road. If that sign were turned, you would probably cause more accidents by people straining their neck, and I know as I get older, of course I’m very young, but as I get older, when I tend to look that way sometimes, I find a car going that way, and I don’t think that’s a very good idea for anybody going down this road, straining their head and finding the car following where they go. I don’t think the sign’s going to present any obstacle whatsoever. I don’t think it’s going to create any precedents. I think it is a reasonable location, given the extreme width of the right of way, and therefore, I would vote in favor of this application. Having said that, I would like a motion to approve the application? MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, this is an Unlisted SEQRA action. So you have to do a Short Form. MR. STONE-Is it? Thank you. Well, we’ve got words you gave us. MR. BROWN-Right, if you want to use that motion. MR. STONE-We don’t have to go through the application. MR. BROWN-You can choose to go through the Short Form, or you can. MR. STONE-Or I can just move that a review by the Board, in private. MR. BROWN-If you want to, right, do the review or not, but you need to do something. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Anybody have any, do you want to go through the Short Environmental Impact, or should I make a motion that, on private review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form, we find that there are no negative impacts? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Make that. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION THAT UPON PRIVATE REVIEW, BY INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS, OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, THIS REVIEW SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 52-2000 RENALD DEVINE/CONTACT VENDEE, Introduced by Charles McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) 49 Boulevard. The applicant proposes the construction of a 48 square foot freestanding sign. He requests nine feet of relief from the fifteen foot minimum setback requirement of the Town of Queensbury’s Sign Ordinance, Section 140-6B. I move that the application be granted as the applicant would be permitted to install a desired sign in the preferred location on property which has been vacant for some time and is unique, having been overbuilt for the location and the neighborhood. By allowing this sign to be placed on the property, the building will be re-occupied and a viable business allowed to occupy the premises after it has been foreclosed. Feasible alternatives don’t exist. While it’s possible the sign could be rotated 90 degrees and remain parallel to the road, because the lot is so narrow and set back from the roadway, that would make it almost impossible or at least very difficult for anyone to see it. I don’t believe the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance. While normally nine feet of relief would be, you have to remember in this case that the property line is, in fact, twenty-two feet from the edge of the travel portion of the highway. In addition, the proposed planter is four feet from the edge of the property line, and the sign itself is another two feet from that. So, effectively, we’re talking about a sign that begins 28 feet from the travel portion of the roadway. No effect, as far as I can tell, is going to be on the neighborhood. The sight distances are clear. The road is straight in that distance, and no one is going to have difficulty seeing or traveling along that road because of that. The variance is also consistent with other existing signs along the road, such as Stan Hunt’s. I don’t see the difficulty as being self- created. It’s a unique property. It’s in an older area. It’s a pre-existing building. It’s recessed from the road. For these reasons, I move that this very reasonable variance be granted. Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Okay, there you go. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 66-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED MIKE TARTAGLIONE/NEW YORK CITY DOGS OWNER: PETER BALTIS AGENT: HOWARD DENISON ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: 607 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 50 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. CROSS REFERENCE: SV 54-1996, SP 78-95 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 98-4-4.1 LOT SIZE: 1.00 ACRES SECTION: 140 MIKE TARTAGLIONE, PRESENT MR. STONE-We’ve got a tabling, but we haven’t ever read it in. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 66-2000, Mike Tartaglione, Meeting Date: September 13, 2000, tabled August 23, 2000 “Project Location: 607 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 50 sf freestanding sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the setback requirements of the Sign Ordinance § 140-6,B. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to display the desired sign in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the sign to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The proposed sign pole is located at a 1 foot setback from the property line, with the sign extending into the Aviation Road right of way by 4 feet. 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, as there appears to be a more compliant location available. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sign Permit 2000-3497 issued 7/6/00 wall sign Sign Permit 97-3006 issued 2/3/97 Fazoli’s Sign Variance 54-96 res. 7/24/96 second wall sign on tower Sign Permit 96-2010 issued 4/22/96 Site Plan Review 78-95 resolved 12/28/95 Fazoli’s Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. There appear to be several alternate locations for the placement of a more compliant sign. Based on the drawing submitted by the applicant, the “existing sign location” appears to be a more compliant location requiring minimal relief. SEQR Status: Unlisted” MR. STONE-And, can you, Craig, give us the actual relief requested? You usually do, and you don’t. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. BRYANT-Fifteen foot setback. MR. BROWN-It’s a 15 foot setback, and the sign’s proposed to be placed one foot from the line, but if it’s 10 feet wide, and one foot from the line, four feet of it’s going to be within the right of way. MR. STONE-You’re saying the pole. MR. BROWN-The pole, according to the drawing, is proposed at one foot from the property line. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, when we get to relief. MR. HAYES-Do we go from the edge of the sign, or the pole? MR. BROWN-The last application went to the edge of the sign. MR. ABBATE-One foot, right, from the property line? MR. BROWN-The pole is, but the edge of the sign is proposed to overhang the right of way into the Aviation Road, four feet into the road. MR. ABBATE-Four feet into the road. All right. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m sorry, go ahead. You had more, County? MR. HAYES-Is this a negative setback then? MR. BROWN-Essentially. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-I think it would actually be zero. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-I was going to say. We can’t approve. MR. BROWN-Right, you can only give relief to the property line. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-So it’s 15 feet, then, he’s seeking, basically. MR. STONE-Okay. Read what the County says. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 9, 2000 Project Name: Tartaglione/New York City Dogs Owner: Peter Baltis ID Number: QBY-SV-66-2000 County Project #: Aug00-31 Current Zoning: PC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 50 sq. ft. freestanding sign and seeks setback relief: 15’ required, 1’ proposed. Site Location: 607 Aviation Road. Tax Map Number: 98-4-4.1 Staff Notes: The applicant is opening a hot dog restaurant at the site of the former Papa Gino’s restaurant just west of the northwest corner of Aviation Road and Upper Glen. The attached site plan indicates the location of the existing sign, and the proposed new sign location. It appears that the property line is indicated by the dashed line, which means that only the sign support is setback 1’ from the property line and the sign itself as proposed would hang over the property line. The site plan does not indicate the distance of the proposed sign from the Aviation Road right-of-way. Staff is concerned about any development that crosses over property lines, and the impact to County roads of signs pushing ever nearer. 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 Terry Ross, County Planning Board. MR. STONE-Okay. Go, sir. Identify yourself, and tell us what you want to tell us. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Michael Tartaglione. I’m the President and owner of New York City Dogs. First off, the one foot setback to the pole was basically wrong. I’m proposing five feet back from the line, which would bring the sign right to the property line. The one foot came about I guess when it was originally brought for the sign permit, not knowing where the property line was, and it was brought back to me saying that it would not comply because it was a foot from there. It would have to go for a variance. After finding out I had to go for a variance, I realized I can put it back five feet, which would let the sign not overhang the property line. The property line itself, the measure is 40 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) feet to the sidewalk. There’s a 40 foot grassed long to the sidewalk, which I guess would be another six or eight feet to the edge of the road. So substantially pretty far back. The alternative I thought I had when I applied for this was I was looking at the existing sign location that Fazoli’s had had. They had taken the top off of their sign, off the top of the pole, and left the existing pole. MR. BRYANT-Is that the flag pole? MR. TARTAGLIONE-No, no. It’s behind the flag pole, more so on my property. It was a red square pole. So I proposed, when that didn’t meet, I assumed that I would propose that I put the sign on that pole, and I found that that sign never complied either. That basically it never complied, and was never filed for a variance. So, knowing that I had to go for a variance regardless of where I put it, I went back to the side where I’m proposing now and the sign would not overhang the property line, and it would be, basically, 45 to 48 feet from the road. MR. STONE-Could you show me and the Board, on this drawing, where the pole is, because this shows, the thing that we have in our file, shows the sign overhanging the property line. He’s saying this pole is four feet. MR. HAYES-So then the box is going to look like this. MR. STONE-Right, and there is a pole there now? MR. TARTAGLIONE-No, there isn’t. MR. STONE-Okay. See, I was understanding you wanted to use the existing pole. MR. TARTAGLIONE-That was an alternative I thought I had, to go to Fazoli’s pole, and I found out that didn’t comply either. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re going to have to put in a new pole? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Right. MR. STONE-So you’re not coming before us saying, help me use the sign, the pole we had before? MR. TARTAGLIONE-No. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. TARTAGLIONE-That was cut down already. That was removed. That wasn’t such a good location anyway. There’s a tremendous tree out in front, where the pole, that sign would have never been seen coming down Aviation from the Northway. MR. MC NALLY-Is that because of the tree that’s standing right there? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Basically because of the tree, and the turn of the road, where it comes down. If you stopped at the traffic light, right across from my driveway, you would be beyond the sign at that point, and you would have to turn your head all the way around to see what was there. Where I’m proposing to put it, you would stop at the light, either direction, and be able to look at the sign, and see that it’s there. MR. STONE-Which light, the one at the east end of Aviation? MR. TARTAGLIONE-The light that’s right in front of my driveway. Not all the way down by Burger King. MR. HAYES-By Pearle Vision there. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Right. Pearle Vision shares the same entrance as I do, and it’s basically used, the driveway to the Mall, the entrance and exit to the Mall uses that light coming on the other side of the road. MR. HAYES-The eastern entrance to the Mall, down the hill. MR. STONE-That’s the one I’m talking about. MR. HAYES-There’s a light there for Pearle, though, too. MR. STONE-Okay, but it’s the same light. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. HAYES-No, there’s a light in between the two Mall entrance lights. There’s another light there by Pearle Vision. MR. STONE-I’m going to have to go look at that one. Because I’ve looked at the property. I didn’t notice that. MR. TARTAGLIONE-I have in the works a turn signal and a traffic loop that has been approved by the State, that I’m having put in there also. MR. MC NALLY-Have you had your sign constructed yet? MR. TARTAGLIONE-The sign has been built for the last two and a half months. MR. MC NALLY-So it’s actually built? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Yes. MR. STONE-Well, you’re saying the sign portion. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Right. MR. STONE-Not the pole that it’s going to go on. MR. TARTAGLIONE-The pole I actually paid for, too. It’s sitting there waiting for. MR. STONE-Okay, but the pole can go. MR. TARTAGLIONE-The pole hasn’t been installed. MR. STONE-Hasn’t been installed. That’s the important thing. Okay. MR. MC NALLY-On your drawing, I show 16 feet to grade to the bottom of the sign. Is that what you’re planning? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Craig, correct me if I’m wrong, is it a 12 foot height restriction? MR. BROWN-Twenty-five. MR. MC NALLY-It is 25? MR. ABBATE-Excuse me for a second. I’d like to address the Staff notes for a second. Mr. Tartaglione. Normally, Staff notes are incomplete. I’m afraid in this instance they’re not. Staff apparently has failed to, in the parcel history, has failed to indicate your sign permit for your temporary signs. Perhaps Craig can explain that. MR. BROWN-There haven’t been any temporary sign permits issued for the property. MR. ABBATE-You didn’t submit any requests for temporary sign permits? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Temporary signs? No. MR. ABBATE-You did not? MR. TARTAGLIONE-No. MR. ABBATE-But there are temporary signs there. They are, because I’ve seen them. MR. TARTAGLIONE-They were removed earlier today. Well, what they were actually is Pepsi supplies my soda. They had said, well, since you don’t have your sign, let us give you a couple of banners to put out front, and I had just assumed that that was okay to put the banners out there. They were little plastic banners. MR. ABBATE-So as of today the Staff notes are accurate, but prior to that, the Staff notes are accurate as well, there were no requests for temporary sign permits. Is that correct, Craig? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-After discussion with at least one of my Board members, there’s only the one light there. There’s one out at Aviation at Route 9, then there’s the next one up, and then there’s one up by Friendly’s. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Right. MR. MC NALLY-Is the sign going to be illuminated? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-How? Internally? Spotlights? What are your plans? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Internal. MR. STONE-Back lit, in other words? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Yes. Two sided. MR. MC NALLY-And you indicated, again, that, correct me if I’m wrong, the distance from your property line across that grassy knoll in the road is how wide? MR. TARTAGLIONE-It’s 40 feet to the edge of the sidewalk. MR. MC NALLY-The edge of the sidewalk? MR. TARTAGLIONE-The inside edge of the sidewalk, which would give it another, I didn’t measure that part, but it would give you another six or eight feet to the curb of the road. MR. MC NALLY-And, off hand, where the sign was before, behind the tree, about how far was that from your property line? Do you know? MR. TARTAGLIONE-That was possibly another three or four feet further because of the way the driveway is shaped, there was a little alcove there where you were able to bring it back further and still be able to be in the dirt, as opposed to the asphalt. MR. MC NALLY-It seemed only a difference of three or four feet. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Yes, that’s all it is, and that’s why, again, when I proposed the change, I lined it up and said, well, if that sign was good, then this one would be good also. MR. HAYES-Can you scale that? MR. BROWN-It scaled 11 feet to the pole, from the drawing, 11 feet from the property line to the pole is what it scales off the drawing. MR. HAYES-And you’re proposing five now, then, right? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Yes, to the pole. MR. HAYES-So it’s a difference of six feet total? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Right. MR. HAYES-You realize if you say five and they get, whether they get the variance or not, that’s what you’ll have to live with? So you’re sure about that? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Well, five meaning it could be five and a half, six, or just not less than five? MR. HAYES-Yes, that’s the maximum relief. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Right. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. MC NALLY-No, this is 15 feet, because this is a 15 square foot sign. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. MC NALLY-We’re not talking about a 64 square foot sign. A 15 foot setback. MR. MC NULTY-That’s right, and our relief would be to the edge of the sign, not to the pole. MR. STONE-That’s the way we measure. As far as we’re concerned, it could be held in place by magic. MR. MC NULTY-So if this pole was five feet back from the property line, he’s really looking for total relief? MR. STONE-Right. Is that what we’re talking about, total relief? We’re still talking at the property line. The edge of the sign will be at the property line. So we’re talking 15 feet of relief. Okay. MR. BROWN-Just for the Board’s information, I scaled off the same drawing, from the property line to where it says “existing light pole”. That scales four feet. If you’re familiar with where that light pole is on the site, I guess the proposed sign would be a foot behind that light pole. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, the important thing is the sign is going to be, the edge of the sign is going to be at the property line, and that, as you say, the property line from the roadway is a considerable distance. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Yes. It’s 40 feet to the curb from where I’m proposing the sign pole, is actually from the curb, the curb before my driveway is 49 feet to the sidewalk. So one foot of my sign will be extended into the driveway, to my driveway. MR. STONE-Okay. You mean it’ll be hanging over the back? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Right, but it’s 16 feet high. It’s as high as my light pole. MR. ABBATE-And the total relief is going to be 15 feet? Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure. MR. BRYANT-In that area where you’re going to put the new pole, that’s a large grassy area. Can’t you move the pole back? I mean, you’re going to have good visibility from both sides, even if you move the pole back. Can’t you move the pole back into, don’t you have room to move the pole back away from the property line? MR. TARTAGLIONE-I could bring it another one to three feet back, but that’ll have it extending more into my driveway, but basically where I’m proposing to put it, except for where the light pole is, I would start to lose footage to the property line because of the curve of my curbing. MR. BRYANT-That area where the new pole is going, you’ve got to have about eight or ten feet back that’s still grass. MR. TARTAGLIONE-From the property line to my curb is nine feet. MR. BRYANT-Where the pole is going to go. MR. TARTAGLIONE-From where the pole is going to go is five feet from the property line. MR. BRYANT-You can’t move the pole back another five feet? MR. TARTAGLIONE-No, that’s driveway that’s also used by Pearle Vision to drive through. It’s actual paved. MR. BRYANT-So Pearle Vision has a compliant, so their sign is compliant. It’s right near their building. They have a sign that’s similar. It’s not on the road. My question is, can we put the sign further back? I mean, you’re going in a more visible area, to start off with. You’re not covered by the tree, the flag pole. You’re out in the open. Isn’t there a way to push it back a little bit? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Further back would put me into the asphalt, which is a driveway for Pearle Vision and myself. MR. ABBATE-So are you, in effect, saying that if you were to move it back further, it would interfere with the driving in way between your business and Pearle? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. TARTAGLIONE-Sure. Yes, it would be beyond the curb. By moving it in five feet would put me one foot into the driveway. MR. ABBATE-The paved driveway. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Paved driveway. MR. STONE-Okay, but how high is the bottom of the sign? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Sixteen feet. MR. STONE-The bottom of the sign is 16 feet? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Yes. MR. STONE-So what’s the maximum height of the sign? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Five feet. MR. STONE-So it’s 21 feet? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Right. MR. STONE-Now, what I think I’m hearing, if you move the pole back, not onto the pavement, but as far back as you can on the grass, you pick up three or four feet. You’re three or four feet more compliant. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Yes, it would possibly be blocked by my light pole. Since it’s so close, that’s the furthest distance of that, the circle, I would have to, I’m going very close to the pole. If I bring it back, the pole is going to be right in front of my sign. MR. STONE-Okay. Are you hearing what he just said, guys? He could move it back on the grass, toward the pavement, but there’s a light pole there. MR. TARTAGLIONE-With the curb of the road, by keeping it out the five feet from the property line, you can see it. By moving it back, it would be blocked by the sign, the way the road curves around. MR. BRYANT-How high is the light pole? MR. TARTAGLIONE-I’m not sure. It’s up in the same range. MR. STONE-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? Anything else you want to hear, we can talk about it afterwards. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I didn’t see any correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? And I hear some concern by people that, why can’t he move the sign back. Is everybody satisfied with his answer? MR. BRYANT-I understand his answer about the light pole. I don’t know if the light pole is going to actually block the sign, because we haven’t determined the height of the light pole, and I understand his concern that it’s going to block his drive lane, but the sign is higher than anything that’s going to drive in there. He’s in an area, the new sign is in an area that’s very visible from Aviation Road, no matter what side you’re on. It’s not like the old Fazoli’s sign that was blocked by the tree. So I don’t understand why we can’t move it back or do something in that area to make it more close to compliant as possible. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. ABBATE-And I understand what Allan is saying, and I agree, but if you did move it back, make sure my perception is correct. Because of the curve, if you moved it back, then driving in would cause somewhat of a little problem. Am I correct on that? MR. TARTAGLIONE-If I move it more than the four feet, yes. MR. ABBATE-But if you stayed within the four feet, then that curve, it wouldn’t effect it if you moved it back, the driving in and out. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Right. I would be able to get it in. I’m sure there’s concrete footing underneath the curbing, because I couldn’t go the four feet to go in without taking up the curb. There is also underground wiring for directional sign and the pole, that I know goes in that area. So I had tried to avoid that by bringing that a little, taking that into consideration with not being visually blocked by the light pole. MR. STONE-Keep in mind that we’re charged with granting the minimum relief that we can, and you’re asking for the maximum relief, and what I hear from at least two members of the Board, and we don’t know where the rest stand at the moment, but two members are saying, can’t you help us by moving the post back on the grass. No one is suggesting that it goes on the pavement. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STONE-They’re just saying, how close can you get to the pavement, recognizing that traffic will not hit the bottom of the sign, if it’s going to be at 16 feet. You said 16, right? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Right. MR. STONE-There’s no truck that goes 16 feet. So nobody’s going to hit the sign, and the Board seems to be asking you to consider moving the sign back as close to the parking pavement as possible. Is that what I hear two or three of you asking? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. TARTAGLIONE-I could definitely do that. Again, I was looking at it, cosmetically, too, thinking it would possibly be more of an eyesore not being centered or not finishing with the edge of the curb. By extending out it possibly just might look like an eyesore, but I can move it as far back as you would permit me. MR. STONE-One of the concerns that you expressed, and I think no one wants to put you in a position where you’re blocking your own sign. That would be silly, but you don’t seem to be totally sure where that light pole is in relationship to blocking the sign. I mean, is there any way you can show us that? MR. TARTAGLIONE-The reason I’m not sure, I believe the pole is about 16 feet, the head on the pole, it would be an estimate of mine, but as you’re coming up Aviation Road, you’re coming from down on the bottom of the hill, which will make that appear that you’re going to see the light pole first. So it’s going to make it appear higher than the sign. So, as I was thinking again, is that since the property line to the sidewalk was 40 feet, that basically no one really would see the property line, and that would be the best physical looking spot for the sign, knowing that there is still 40 feet there. We would get the best of both worlds with it. MR. STONE-Okay. Why don’t we talk about it and see where the Board stands. Right now, you’d like to be, the edge of the sign on the property line, as close as possible to Aviation Road. That’s what you’d like to do? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Right. MR. STONE-Okay, and you’d like to be 16 foot up to the bottom of the sign, approximately 21 feet high, with the pole in the middle of the sign? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. Does everybody understand that? Having said that, Jaime, why don’t we start with you. MR. HAYES-Thanks, Lew. As you pointed out initially, we’re charged with granting the minimal amount of relief that’s possible, and in this particular circumstance, I think that you can move that sign back a foot or two away from the property line to the point where we’re not granting 100% relief, and I’m comforted, in the broadest sense, by the fact that there is, in fact, 40 feet between you 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) and the road, which, from an aesthetic standpoint, I think there’s a lot of buffer there. We’re not creating signs right up on the road, which we don’t like and we historically have enforced the Sign Ordinance very strictly, but I think in this particular circumstance, there’s very little maneuvering room here, as far as the sign, based on the property line and the Aviation Road setbacks. So, as far as I’m concerned, if you moved the sign back to the curb, not obviously interfering with the curb, and gain another foot or two there, I think in the broadest sense, with the footage to the actual road, I think I can go along with it, based on the unique nature of this piece of property. I just don’t see what else is possible at this time. MR. STONE-You’re suggesting, if I may add, you’re suggesting that the sign, the edge of the sign, the building edge of the sign, be pushed to the edge of the parking lot? MR. HAYES-No, I’m suggesting that the pole for the sign be pushed as far to the curb as possible, which is going to create an additional foot to three feet, depending on what he finds under there, of distance, dimensional relief, from the property line, and I think that that’s all that can really be obtained here, without creating undo hardship on the applicant. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’ll agree, this is somewhat of a unique situation, but frankly I like the way that Aviation Road looks along there now. As somebody’s pointed out, Pearle Vision has got compliant signs, and I think that’s where I stand. I would like to see a compliant sign, if there’s going to be one. It strikes me that this particular building has got a fair amount of visibility, the way things are set up there. I would sooner trade something in the way of a better wall sign on the building for this freestanding sign, frankly, but I think I’m going to stand. I want to see a compliant sign. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-In all honesty, I don’t see too many places where you can have a compliant sign. On the existing sign stand, where it was with Papa Gino’s, he still needed relief. He needed four feet of relief from the setback, and there’s no question that sign’s in the middle of a big tree now. I would just as soon have the tree there, then have him knock the tree down and plant a sign where a tree used to be. If you want it in a compliant location, 15 foot back, it’s got to be in the middle of either one of his driveways or in his parking area. MR. MC NULTY-Or further back. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, but then at some point, it becomes difficult, as a businessman, to have a sign that’s going to attract business. Now, I hate saying it again, but the purpose of this thing is to protect the congestion of signs from people driving by, so that signs aren’t right on top of the road. You want to give some breathing space. You’ve got 40 feet of grass before you even get to the sidewalk. Again, it’s a very wide road, and I don’t think it’s the typical road that this ordinance was intended for. I think he can move it back to the maximum extent possible, all the way to that curb radius on that driveway between his place and Pearle Vision. Short of that, it’s going to be in his parking lot, and I don’t see that as reasonable. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you. As a preamble, you approach that from the Route 9 intersection, it just seems like there’s wide open spaces there, and you see the Pearle Vision on the other side. You see Goodyear, big signs plainly visible from down the road, down near the big intersection, and my thinking is it should be that there could be plenty of room in there for an adequate sign. On the other hand, the yard, so to speak, the grass, the way the parking lot is laid out, I guess does impact that, and I don’t want to hinder a new business in any way from advertising itself, when it isn’t at the expense of our ethical standards and the Ordinance. We do need to recognize there was a sign there before. It didn’t seem to create a great deal of problem anywhere. So I think I side with the previous statements by fellow Board members, that I would certainly like to see it in a compliant position, but it would be awkward to construct in the middle of the parking lot, and another island there. I think those are complicated and hazardous. So I would like to see something where it was pushed back to the limit, as far as it could go, and in the area where you’ve indicated, which was where the previous sign was, is my understanding. It’s a little hard for me to really visualize everything according to this drawing. So I’d, given the fact that it is a new business in a location that has had problems, maybe this is something that’ll help it succeed. I don’t think that we’re giving away a lot from our role as maintaining the standards in connection with signs in the Town of Queensbury. So I would tend to favor the application, given the condition that the others have expressed about putting it back to the limit from the roadway. Thank you. MR. STONE-Allan? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. BRYANT-I have a question of Staff before I make a comment. According to this drawing, the old Fazoli’s sign was, would have also required a variance. Is that correct? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. That variance should have been listed somewhere here on the Parcel History. Is that correct, technically? MR. BROWN-If they applied for and received a variance, that’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Was there, in fact, a variance? MR. BROWN-No, not that I could find. What could have happened, they could have applied for a sign permit and on their application shown the sign is going to be placed in a compliant location. A permit would have been issued, and then they built the sign in the wrong spot. I mean, that’s one scenario, which, believe it or not, happens a lot. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you. I think when I made my initial comments, I understand that you’re limited as far as where you can put the sign. You don’t have the space that Pearle Vision has. I disagree a little bit with Bob. I think that you’ve got a dead space in the parking lot here that’s not being used for parking, that could conceivably house the sign, but I’m not asking that, okay. All I’m asking is that you bring the sign back as far as you can on the grassy area. If you pick up two feet or three feet, I mean, that’s substantial, I mean, that’s all I ask. To go right to the property line, I would be opposed to that. I’d like to see you pick up some space there. Maybe you think it’s quibbling over two or three feet, but I’m sympathetic to the fact that you have no place else to put your sign. In the real world, I’d like to keep the sign as far back as possible. It’s still going to give you maximum visibility. So, as it is right now, with 15 feet of relief, I would be opposed to it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Tartaglione, having heard everything my fellow members have said, it is a unique piece of property, and I think one of my colleagues indicated just a few moments ago, he used the term “help business to succeed”. I am a proponent of that. I certainly believe that we should do everything we can to help businesses succeed, no question about that. Having said that, I would think that moving that sign further back to the maximum that you can, without disturbing electrical lines and causing a big commotion with exit and entering, what have you, would probably be in your best interest, and having said that, under those circumstances I’ve just stated, I would probably go along with your application. MR. STONE-What I hear, from my Board members, before I give you where I’m coming from, is about a five conditional, I hear one no, and I hear one yes, I guess, Bob, you’re conditional, too? Okay. I hear five conditionals, based upon moving the sign, on the grass, as far as removed from the property line as is practical. Now, is that correct, is that what I’m hearing from everybody? MR. ABBATE-I would think so. MR. STONE-And I certainly agree with that. My only concern, particularly when I hear from Mr. Brown that this other sign was in the wrong place, that’s a judgement word. I think in a different place would have a better word. I don’t know how to word the motion, unless you come and tell us exactly where you want to put the sign. MR. HAYES-We can grant a minimum amount of relief and then make the condition, which is a reasonable condition, that it is, in fact, as close to that curb as possible from an engineering and curb standpoint. MR. STONE-Well, who’s judgement, though? That’s my only concern. MR. HAYES-We could make it by the Code Enforcement. MR. MC NALLY-Why can’t we just grant a number of feet of relief, and let the applicant worry about the engineering of it and placement? MR. HAYES-Well, because we’re trying to get the maximum, and if we grant too little relief then he can’t put it in there, because it would restrict him. MR. MC NALLY-Then that’s his responsibility. If he wants the sign in this non-compliant location, and if he has to move a power line or something like this in the ground for that light pole, he’s going to have to do it. I mean, what do you want to do? Do you want the light pole or do you want the sign? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. TARTAGLIONE-Power lines aren’t a problem. I’m an electrician. MR. STONE-All right. How much room do we have, Craig? You measured it out again? MR. BROWN-On the drawing that the applicant submitted, right where the light pole is, that’s basically the widest portion of that grassy area that the applicant maintains. The rest of it’s in the right of way, and that scales at about nine feet wide. MR. HAYES-To the curb? MR. BROWN-From the curb to the property line. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-So give him seven feet of relief. MR. STONE-But the sign, the light comes into play. MR. BROWN-I think the maximum you could give him would be four feet of relief, and at that, the pole would be right on the edge of the curbing. MR. HAYES-You’d have to give him 11 feet of relief, then. MR. BROWN-Yes, four foot setback, right. MR. HAYES-If that’s practical. MR. STONE-I’m not sure I understand why it’s only four, since the sign can overhang the pavement. MR. BROWN-It can overhang the pavement onto the property. MR. STONE-Onto the property. MR. HAYES-I’m already figuring that though. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Are you figuring that? MR. BROWN-Yes, with the pole right at the curb. MR. STONE-Right at the inner curb. MR. BROWN-At the inner curb. MR. STONE-Okay, that’s only four feet. That’s what I didn’t understand. MR. MC NALLY-Now I’m confused. MR. BRYANT-That’s 11 feet of relief, is that correct? MR. BROWN-It’s 11 feet of relief, to the edge of the sign. MR. HAYES-That’s moving it four feet. Right now he wants 15. MR. MC NALLY-When you scale the curb to the property line, how much grassy space is in between them? MR. BROWN-Between the curb and the property line? MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. BROWN-Nine feet. MR. MC NALLY-Nine feet? MR. HAYES-So that’s where the pole’s going to go, Bob. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. MC NALLY-The pole goes on the curb. You’ve got five toward the line, still. That’s four feet from eleven. Right, I’ve got you. MR. BROWN-Now, the next question, is that practical for the applicant? He had some concerns over footings for the curbing and. MR. STONE-Is that practical to you, do you think? MR. TARTAGLIONE-The electrical won’t be a problem. That I can re-route. I can do whatever I have to. As far as the base of the pole, I’m sure it’s going to have to be a concrete footing poured around it, which would mean I couldn’t go right at the curb with the edge of the pole. I’d probably have to get six, eight inches of concrete all the way around the whole pole, which the sign installer would do. MR. STONE-What if we grant you 11 and a half feet of relief, in other words. We could make it 11 plus or minus, you can put the pole in where it goes. MR. MC NALLY-The Staff’s got some discretion anyway. We’re talking just about the foundation. Right? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Yes, well, just tearing up the curb and tearing up the asphalt to get the base of the pole tight to the curb would come into play, in order to support the pole. The other thing I’m looking at is where Craig had measured from is the furthest point, which is at the light pole. As I move a little bit, as you’re looking at it to the left, it’s going to reduce. MR. BROWN-That’s the widest portion of the grassy area is where the light pole is. MR. STONE-That’s where the light pole is. MR. HAYES-So you’ve got to come in from that. MR. TARTAGLIONE-I would have to move it in, basically, to the left of that, which is going to shorten the distance where the 11 feet would be harder to comply with. MR. STONE-Where he’s got the sign on the drawing. MR. BROWN-That’s about eight feet wide. MR. STONE-Eight feet wide, okay. So we’re talking. MR. BROWN-You’re talking if the pole is on the curb there, you’re talking about 12 feet of relief. MR. STONE-Are you comfortable with that? As close to the curb as you can practically make it without a huge amount of expense and re-doing the curb. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Yes, I’m definitely comfortable with that. I’m just hoping my sign installer can get it as tight to there as we’re talking about, just to get the footing in to dig the hole without collapsing the curbing in the driveway. MR. STONE-I hear that, but what the Board is saying, we want a compromise, and we’re not quibbling over inches. We’re just trying to figure out a way to write a motion that binds you and protects our position. That’s all we’re trying to do here. So, in other words, if we said. Bob, you’re pondering down there. Are you happy with it? MR. MC NALLY-I’m fine. Again, I think that you can put a foundation under that curb, under the paving. That’s kind of a non-issue. I really think that it’s a construction problem they’ll figure out. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’ll say 12 feet of relief, for the pole. MR. BROWN-For the sign. MR. BRYANT-For the sign. MR. STONE-For the sign. MR. BROWN-To the edge of the sign. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. STONE-Yes, right. Okay. I need a motion. Are you comfortable with that? Can you live with that? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Yes. That’ll put the pole itself one foot off the curb, as we’re saying. MR. STONE-It’ll put it as close as you can get it. MR. MC NALLY-The edge of your sign can’t come closer to your property line than three feet. MR. STONE-The Aviation side, yes. MR. BROWN-And I guess to tie it down a little more, that location’s approximately four feet west of the light pole. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Because if you go right on the curb, all the way out to where it intersects the property line, it’s still on the curb. MR. STONE-All right. So we want to put that in the motion. So it’s going to be four feet west, approximately four feet west of the current light pole. MR. TARTAGLIONE-That’s what I was hoping for, a little specifics. MR. HAYES-Eleven feet of relief we’re at? MR. STONE-Twelve feet of relief, but we’re talking relief on a particular line which is. MR. HAYES-Designated on his file. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-On his application. MR. ABBATE-Twelve feet of relief, which is four feet west of the current pole, is that what you’re saying? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. STONE-Wait a minute, we’ve got to do the SEQRA. MOTION THAT UPON PRIVATE REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, IT SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Go ahead. I’m sorry, Jaime. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 66-2000 MIKE TARTAGLIONE/NEW YORK CITY DOGS, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 607 Aviation Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 50 sq. ft. freestanding sign. Specifically, the relief required, the applicant requests 12 feet of relief from the setback requirements of the Sign Ordinance Section 140-6B. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to display the desired sign in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, I believe that feasible alternatives are limited in this case, based on the current paving and curbing of the site, and the Aviation Road setback. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that the relief is moderate to substantial, based on the fact that substantial relief is requested. I believe this is, again, mitigated by the fact that there is 40 feet of grassy area between the property line and the actual curbing of Aviation Road. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I believe that they’ll have 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) minimal effects on the neighborhood in this particular action. There was a sign for the business before this one at this location, which also would have required relief, which is now impractical based on an attractive tree, which we’re trying to maintain, in this particular case. I also believe that the effects, aesthetically, on this particular part of our community are, again, mitigated by the fact that there is substantial grassy area between the sign and the road which alleviates the concern of signs being immediately on the roads or overbearing into the roads, and is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty is partially self-created, as the applicant wishes to put a new sign in at this location, but I believe, again, it also has to do with the pre-existing nature of this lot and the pre-existing traffic patterns that make it impossible, in my judgement, to place the sign in a more compliant location. Therefore, I believe that the test falls in favor of the applicant, in this particular case, and I move for its approval, with the specific condition that with the 12 feet of relief, there will be an effort by the applicant to move this sign as far away from the property line, inside the curbing, as possible, from an engineering perspective. So, we’re granting the 12 feet of relief, but if less relief is required, I think the burden is on the applicant to attempt to do that. Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-There you go. We wish you well. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2000 KENNETH CLARKE OWNER: SAME AGENT: PARADOX DESIGN ARCHITECTS ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION TERRACE ROAD, ROLLING RIDGE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,004 SQ. FT. THREE CAR GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM ALLOWABLE GARAGE SIZE REQUIREMENTS. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 56-5-6.2 LOT SIZE: 1.09 ACRES SECTION: 179-7 BARBARA WIGSEL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 75-2000, Kenneth Clarke, Meeting Date: September 13, 2000 “Project Location: Terrace Road, Rolling Ridge Subdiv. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,004 square foot garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 104 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot maximum garage square footage requirement per definition; § 179-7. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would have the benefit of an oversized garage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a compliant garage, as permitted. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 104 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP2000-580 issued 8/7/00 - 3,000 sf SFD with 900 sf attached garage Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the additional 104 square feet of garage area may present only minimal impacts, if any, on the neighborhood or community, it does not appear that the applicant would be denied a reasonable use if the variance was not granted. The applicant has been issued a building permit for compliant construction. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-And County? MR. MC NULTY-I see no County. MR. STONE-I doubt it. Okay. Go. Introduce yourselves. MRS. WIGSEL-Good evening, my name’s Barbara Wigsel. I’m with Paradox Design Architects, the agent for Kenneth Clarke, and this is Kenneth Clarke, the owner, and we have applied for this variance for this addition 104 square feet, over the Town’s required 900 square feet for the single purpose that Mr. Clarke and his wife anticipate having his father live with him. The third garage would be his father’s garage, and we are seeking additional space for his father to maneuver the car and to maneuver out of the car and into the home itself, and that is really the reason for the additional square footage, and so we are seeking this variance. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else you want to add before we ask questions? KENNETH CLARKE MR. CLARKE-No, I think that was it. MR. STONE-I mean, I don’t mean to be morbid on the subject, but we are all temporal, and the house is probably less temporal than we are, and it’ll be there a lot longer than, certainly your father, probably, and maybe even yourselves. You’ve given us a reason why you want to exceed the Town’s 900 square foot, which seems to be comfortable for most people in the Town of Queensbury. We do get a few requests, not too many, for additional garage, and there’s usually other arguments than three car garage. Three car garages can be built within 900 square feet. Do you have anything to respond to that, or are we just, other people can make comments. MRS. WIGSEL-Well, I would like to say that the planning and design of this project has had this additional resident, Ken’s father, in mind. The floor plan, if you saw the floor plan, it’s designed for his comfort and his ability to function in the home, and he’s in good health now, but since we’re planning this house from the ground floor up, and this is part of the programming of the design of this house, we feel that the additional square footage is minimal for the relief it’ll provide his father and the situation in the home. It’s not a exorbitant amount of additional square footage. It simply allows four feet of additional maneuver space, once out of the car. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, comments anybody wants to make? MR. BRYANT-Could you tell me the actual dimensions of the garage? I mean, I’ve got the site plan. I don’t have my scale with me. MRS. WIGSEL-Right. It’s in the. MR. BRYANT-The drive in portion, I guess, if from the paved area. MRS. WIGSEL-Okay. Right, in the east/west direction, there’s a dotted line shown where the perimeter of the garage is, although it’s attached to the house. MR. BRYANT-Right, the actual dimension of the width. MRS. WIGSEL-That’s 38 feet. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MRS. WIGSEL-Including the additional four feet that’s shown at the shaded. MR. BRYANT-And the depth of the garage? MRS. WIGSEL-Is 26. MR. STONE-Why is there a jog? Can you describe the garage for me? I mean, are we going to enter from the left side here? MRS. WIGSEL-I have the elevation. MR. STONE-That would be helpful. You’re going to enter from the left side here? MRS. WIGSEL-No, it’s strictly for, the entrance will be just as you enter the garage, the 35, or 38 foot dimension. There’s also an entry way, just to the right of it, and I can put this up on the board. MR. STONE-Please. Take the mic with you, if you’re going to talk. MR. BRYANT-I think we have those sketches. I think what the Chairman is looking for. MR. STONE-We have that one? MR. ABBATE-A small scale, black and white. MR. HAYES-Yes, this one right here. MR. STONE-Yes. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. BRYANT-And I think what the Chairman is looking for is the actual layout, floor plan of the garage. MR. HAYES-Top down kind of. MR. BRYANT-Yes, floor plan of the garage. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-So we know how it’s going to be used. MR. HAYES-Maybe you can explain, though, what that kick out is that you’re referring to, as far as the four feet. I guess that’s what we’re asking, right? MR. CLARKE-This little bump out is this area here. This extends, I believe, one foot out, and it’s architecturally pleasing because this front of the home will be completely brick, and you’ll have a piece that is extended here. This is out, then you’ll have this little bump out, which is a foot from this, to give the roof an architectural appeal. This piece here is set back into the house. This piece here is out seven feet, and this piece here is out even more. So as you drive across the house, it is very architecturally pleasing and well balanced, as opposed to having this just one solid piece here. MRS. WIGSEL-And then we end up with this small piece on the end, and then. MR. STONE-Okay, but that’s still further out than the rest of the house, as I look at the drawing here. Okay. What I meant when you enter from the side, you enter from the right side, the garage is. MR. CLARKE-Yes, you’ll be swinging around the front of the house, yes sir. It is all garage. It is all garage. There is just a wall with a door into a home, with two stairs out. MR. HAYES-What’s the overall square footage of the house, not including the garage? MR. CLARKE-I believe it’s 3200 square feet. MR. HAYES-That’s what the footprint says, but I guess that’s not a second floor in the center, then, it’s just vaulted? MR. CLARKE-No, that’s a second floor. That’s a two story home. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. CLARKE-One master suite downstairs, three bedroom up. MRS. WIGSEL-And the site development data on this site plan that was submitted shows that we are in compliance with all our setbacks. MR. STONE-Clearly the only question is why 900 feet isn’t enough. That’s the question that’s before us. Anybody else have any questions about that? MR. MC NALLY-I wanted to ask, what does our Zoning Code proposed amendment say. MR. STONE-Nine hundred. MR. MC NALLY-It’s going to maintain the 900? MR. HAYES-Even though we had talked about that at one time? MR. STONE-I wish Craig were here. MR. HAYES-We, in fact, put that out. MR. STONE-We did talk about it, but. MR. HAYES-Some of these bigger homes and stuff. MR. STONE-I think, as I recall we left it, but I don’t have that with me, and Craig has left the room. MR. HIMES-I have a question. In the application files it indicates the benefit would be to hold cars and yard accessories, which, you know, is quite common, lawn mowers and stuff like that. Are those going to be in there, too? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. CLARKE-Yes, sir. MR. HIMES-Many of the newer houses being constructed around Town and perhaps elsewhere often have a storage shed constructed along with them. There’s a dimension code for that, too, which enables storage of those kinds of (lost words), snow blowers, lawn mowers, rakes and garden stuff and so on, which would free up a little bit of room in your garage, I would think. Is that not so? MR. CLARKE-The depth of the garage, being 26 feet, will probably suffice to store all the equipment. The depth cannot change because it’s already into the design of the wall of the home. I can’t pull the garage, the only way I can go is this way, and that is really not intended for lawn equipment. So to have a shed or not a shed does not impact the width that I need for cars. As we move forward, let me back up and give you a little history here, and I’ll make a long story short. I’ve left a career with General Motors Corporation. I was with them for 10 years. I have an aging father. He has been a businessman in Glens Falls, New York here for 30 some odd years. I’m an only family member. Eventually, my father will probably have to come live with me somewhere. I made a choice, over a few year window, to come back here and establish roots, and participate in the growth and development of Glens Falls and Queensbury area where I was born and raised. I thought I would build a home, knowing that my dad would some day come to live with me. He is aging. He will no longer be able to ambulate in his home. The design of this home is for disability purposes. All doors are 36 inches wide for wheel chair accessibility. The master bath on the first floor has no lip into the shower. It is a roll in shower with complete wheelchair capability. I foresee, eventually, hopefully not, but eventually, due to my father’s health, that we will have large vehicles that have mobility capability, where wheelchairs will come down and allow people to enter and leave the vehicle. Those vehicles who require a great deal of space, most of them are full size vans. We are a large car family. I don’t want my father’s cars to be banged and dented as we open doors. So that’s why, I’m just asking ask for four additional feet to allow for us to ambulate within the garage in inclement weather, should we need to. The design of the garage is such that if we need a ramp, the capability is there. I did not think that it was appropriate to, nor do I think it’s aesthetically appealing to have a ramp enter from the outside of a home, particularly in that type of neighborhood. I’ve asked my neighbors about this garage here, particularly the neighbor that faces it. He has no concerns whatsoever. I have a letter here that I will provide you with all the adjoining property members, indicating that this is of no concern to them whatsoever. In fact, Charlie Maine, my neighbor, thinks that the design of the garage, and I believe Allan spoke with him today, thinks that it is architecturally pleasing to have a three separate car garage, as opposed to one large door and one separate door. So, I apologize for having to come before you today to seek this 100 square foot variance relief, but I believe that it is in the best interest of my family moving forward. We’re here to stay. This home is not going to be sold in 20 years. This is my permanent residence. I made that decision when I left a bright and promising career in Detroit. MR. MC NALLY-This is the Rolling Ridge Subdivision. MR. CLARKE-Yes, sir. MR. MC NALLY-I take it there are restrictions, covenants that prohibit (lost word) use of the property? MR. CLARKE-I suspect that there are, as well as throughout all of Queensbury. MR. MC NALLY-At least in this lot there is. MR. CLARKE-Yes, sir. MR. MC NALLY-I spoke with Craig. He’ll come in in a minute. I guess the Steering Committee considered a sliding scale, based upon the square footage of the house, but it apparently was rejected because of fears about commercial usage. MR. STONE-That doesn’t mean it won’t get into the final Ordinance, if the Town Board is so influenced. MR. MC NALLY-Well, if you had some idea that they were going to change. MR. STONE-But 3200 probably would not, wouldn’t have triggered, I don’t think, anything more, as I recall. MR. CLARKE-At $100 a square foot, that’s a lot of house, sir. MR. STONE-No, no. I’m not suggesting it’s not. Knowing my own, I know that. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. CLARKE-I’m sure you can appreciate it. MR. STONE-But, I may be the only one, we’re going to talk about it, but let me just open, any other questions? I’ll open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody who wants to say anything. You can introduce that letter at that particular time. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed to this application? Would you like to read that letter in? Any other correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I found no other correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STONE-Would you like to read that in and then we may have it? MRS. WIGSEL-Yes. It’s dated September 2000, “Dear Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals: We are writing this letter to inform you that as adjoining property owner’s and neighbors of Ken and Teresa Clarke, and after reviewing the proposed building elevations and the placement of the house on the lot we do not have any concerns relating to the size of the garage being 104 square feet larger than allowed by the Town of Queensbury. We would ask the Board to vote in favor of the variance request. Thank you, Charles H. Maine, 32 Terrace Lane Joan Terris, 29 Victoria Drive” MR. STONE-Okay. Do you want to give that to our Secretary, and we’ll put it in the file. Okay. Anything else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do we have any other questions, any other comments anybody wants to make? MR. ABBATE-Probably a comment, Mr. Chairman. We have, over a period of time, and you’re certainly members longer than I, have taken into consideration unique circumstances, and we hear, from this gentleman here, a rather sterling set of unique circumstances. He left a promising career in Detroit. He’s left that because of his concern for his father, which certainly is admirable, and he’s concerned with his father’s health and he’s doing everything he possibly can to make provisions for his father to reside with him, and in my opinion, this is a set of circumstances where perhaps some degree of humanitarianism should be considered in this application. Thank you. MR. STONE-I haven’t heard that since my own variance application in ’91. MR. ABBATE-Well, I copied it from you. When you got yours, I used I for mine. So we have consistency. How is that? MR. CLARKE-At least it’s on record with the quote. MR. ABBATE-I really didn’t read yours. MR. STONE-No, I got mine in ’91, and the first time I appeared before this Board, and the motion was in that vein, which was kind of interesting. MR. ABBATE-I’m quite serious. MR. STONE-I know you are, and I agree. Any other questions anybody wants to talk? All right, let’s talk about it. Allan, we’ll start with you. MR. BRYANT-I did speak to Mr. Clarke today, and I spoke to his neighbor, and he was amenable to the project. I did drive around the subdivision. I couldn’t find any three car garages, but I think the Code is actually in place to limit the number of cars, as opposed to the number of openings, and if you’re driving your Chevy you could probably put six of those Chevy’s in that garage, but if you’re going to have a couple of big vans, obviously, you can only fit three of them in there, but I really have no problem with the project as proposed. In view of the circumstances, there are some large houses with large garages that only have the two wide doors. So I really don’t see any problem with the proposal. MR. CLARKE-There is a home in there, if I may interject. I can’t recall the address. We may have it here in our files. MR. BRYANT-I drove up and down around Sheridan. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. CLARKE-I think it’s on Honey Hollow rings a bell, and in fact, I was somewhat embarrassed, but I drove by the home and I stopped the car and I looked at the garage and I said, I wonder how big that garage is, and it turned out the people who just bought the home are owners of New Way Lunch, and I had them come out and we met and I had them measure the garage, and the garage is well over 900 square feet, and they did not build the home. They’re new owners, but it is one block away, and I just wanted to find another structure that had a large garage that I was looking at as well, and they do exist. MRS. WIGSEL-It’s 11 Hickory Hollow. MR. CLARKE-Hickory Hollow. I’m terribly sorry. MR. HAYES-I was going to say, Honey Hollow’s on the other side of Town. MR. CLARKE-Hickory Hollow. MR. STONE-It’s on the other side of Town? MR. HAYES-Yes, it’s in Bedford Close. MR. STONE-It’s in Bedford Close, okay. All right. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Well, I stand on what I initially said. Based on the unique set of circumstances, I am in favor of the applicant. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I basically agree. I think I have gone on the record before saying that, particularly in large houses with good sized lots, that other communities I’ve seen a great deal of desire to have three car garages, particularly where the weather’s a little tougher, as it is up here. It’s really not uncommon for people to have three vehicles, and to want to house them and protect them, along with garden and regular activities of life type machines. So, I think in this particular case, that there’s a good reason given, and I think that it’s certainly not going to be any kind of uncomplimentary addition to the neighborhood. In fact, by the plans, and what I see here, it certainly seems to be a very nice project. I think it’s a positive addition to the neighborhood, as depicted and designed, so, I’m in favor. MR. STONE-All right. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to have to be negative again, I guess. It just strikes me that the Town has got a 900 square foot limitation for a reason. Apparently, they’re going to maintain that, having reconsidered their zoning laws, and I think, as has been pointed out, the reason for expanding this garage is somewhat temporary in nature. The house is going to be there a long time, and as some of the other members have pointed out, the neighborhood that it’s going into predominantly is two car garage neighborhood. It just strikes me that this is going to be a bit much. I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree with, I think, Chuck’s observation, and Mr. Stone’s observation that, while we sympathize with the personal problems and concerns of an applicant, I think, as a Board, we’re charged to grant variances irrespective, or not necessarily considering those conditions, because the variance doesn’t (lost words). With that being said, I think looking at this lot, it’s over an acre, or slightly over an acre, and the house is a somewhat large dwelling, and the amount of relief that’s requested is only 104 square feet. I can understand that it may not be essential to have that large a garage, but I can also understand how, given those circumstances, a person may want a larger garage. I don’t see that it would have any effect on the neighborhood because while they are predominantly two family with two car garages, the houses in the neighborhood are very nice and large and upscale, where a three car garage would be commensurate with what’s already there. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I, too, sympathize with the conditions, the health conditions set forth. I might say that many of us have to put up with those same conditions, much less, one car garage, two car garage, and I have the financial resources to deal with that. Some of us don’t. They manage to get by. In addition, you indicated that a choice of architectural design and so forth placed a problem or restriction on your maybe using the garage or configuring the garage a little differently, wherein what you need to accomplish could be accomplished, perhaps. So my feeling is that the 900 square foot limitation should stand, and I’m not in favor of the application. Thank you. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. STONE-Okay. Notwithstanding what I said before, I totally understand where you’re coming from. I had written down, when I looked at the property, my questions, which I do, and my question was, why do you have to be different? And you told me why you have to be different, and therefore you gave me some of that. I also wrote down, neighbors, and you’ve given me at least two neighbors who have no problem with this thing. I think, thirdly or fourthly, I think your architect has done a nice job in making the garage almost invisible, if you will, from the road, in terms of people going by. The fact that it’s on the side, the house is slightly canted away from the circle, or at least almost parallel to the circle, but canted on the lot a little bit. If you look at your drawings, you’d be hard pressed to know that there’s a garage there, except you’ve got to figure there’s a garage somewhere on this house. So even though I am a strong advocate of the Zoning Ordinance, in terms of 900 square feet, I think the relief here, because of the reasons that you’ve said, and because of the care that you’ve taken, the architect, at least, under your direction, has taken to make this house a very attractive one, I can vote in favor of this application, but I would go on the record to say that my approval of this application does recognize your plea for your family’s concern, but also I have still strong reservations because of the temporal nature of the whole situation, but on balance, and considering the location on the lot and the size of the lot, and all those things that most of my other Board members have mentioned, I certainly would go along in approving this application. So, having said that, it appears that we are inclined to approve this application. I need a motion to that effect. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2000 KENNETH CLARKE, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Terrace Road, Rolling Ridge Subdivision. The applicant proposes the construction of a 1,004 square foot garage. He requests 104 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot maximum garage square footage requirement, pursuant to Town Zoning Code Section 179-7. I move the approval of this variance for the following reasons. First, the applicant would have the benefit of an oversized garage. Second, while the feasible alternatives may include a compliant garage, the relief is not substantial relative to the Ordinance, and there would be no effect upon the neighborhood or community, 104 square feet of relief is minimal. The house is situated, or will be situated and built on a lot of an acre or a little bit more. Therefore, a garage of this size, given the size of the existing or proposed building itself, is going to be commensurate. The neighborhood itself consists of upscale, large buildings. A three car garage of 104 square feet more than the Code allows is not going to be anything out of the ordinary. For these reasons, I move the approval of the application. As a stipulation of this variance, that the applicant will not use the garage area for commercial usage. Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. MC NALLY-Would the applicant like to stipulate that they will, as a condition for getting this variance, not use the garage area for commercial usage? MR. CLARKE-Absolutely. MRS. WIGSEL-Yes. MR. CLARKE-Without question. MR. MC NALLY-We will incorporate that into the motion. MR. STONE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes MR. STONE-There you go. MRS. WIGSEL-Thank you very much. MR. CLARKE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-2000 TYPE II JUDY LYNN POWERS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 11 DREAM LAKE ROAD SOUTH APPLICANT PROPOSES A 10’ X 17’ SHED AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 50-1-24.2 LOT SIZE: 0.53 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 JUDY LYNN POWERS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 76-2000, Judy Lynn Powers, Meeting Date: September 13, 2000 “Project Location: 11 Dream Lake Road South Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 170 square foot shed. Relief Required: Applicant requests 19 feet of relief from the 25-foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the structure, as constructed, and utilize the additional storage space. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the structure to a compliant size. Relocation of the structure may be feasible. The applicant has apparently attempted to utilize an existing concrete slab for the construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 19 feet of relief from the 25-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP97-700 issued 11/21/97 septic alteration Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The 10 x 17 structure consists of a 10 x 10 enclosed area with the remaining 7 x 10 area as open “awning” area. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-No County, I assume? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Okay. Ms. Powers, I assume you are? MS. POWERS-Yes. MR. STONE-Identify yourself and tell us anything you want to tell us. MS. POWERS-I’m Judy Powers. I live at 11 Dream Lake Road South, and I’d like a 10 by 10 shed with a 7 foot awning, and that’s about it. There’s not much to it than that. I have pictures. I had gone to the Town of Queensbury, I was given an 18 by 18 foot for free. MR. STONE-I’m sorry, you were given what? MS. POWERS-An 18 foot, we took it down, from Berlin, East Postenkill, from an older couple who gave us the wood, actually the whole structure as one unit, and we took it down hand by hand, truck load by truck load, we shipped it. Then I went to the Town of Queensbury before I put anything up, I was using the slab as a dog pen run, which I have pictures of, pre-existing, my dog pen, bigger than it is now, and I asked what zoning and laws were, and that’s when they told me that anything over 10 by 10 I’d need a variance meeting for. So that’s why I went ahead and built, I tried to avoid the variance and built the 10 by 10 shed, with just a nice awning area, covered area, with a picnic table, etc., which is also pictured, involved here, and still have my dog pen run on the cement slab, as well, right behind the shed, and according to further investigation, the two beams that hold the awning area up next to the 10 by 10 shed are considered all in the square footage. So, that’s why I’m here is to get approval. MR. STONE-Okay. So, it’s your statement, before one of us reads the riot act to you, about building without a variance. MS. POWERS-Well, I went and asked for permission first. MR. STONE-You asked for permission for 10 by 10, but you did not know. MS. POWERS-No, I went and asked for an 18 by 18 feet shed, before I cut it up, to see what I would need by variance or Ordinance for Queensbury. They said I would need to go to a variance meeting to put up the whole unit that I already had to put up, and they said, no, I could only pass it by 10 foot by 10 foot, without coming here. So I said, okay, and then voided that and built a 10 by 10 shed, and then put an awning off of the shed of seven feet. MR. STONE-Okay, in your judgement, you thought that you were going to be legal. MS. POWERS-Right, and then I stopped everything. It still doesn’t have a roof on it or anything, or doors. MR. STONE-I know. I’m sure most of us have seen it. I can only speak for myself, but we do go out. We may do it in the still of the night, but. MS. POWERS-Right. Well, I didn’t want to be here in the first place. I was trying to avoid the whole thing and do the 10 by 10 and just utilize the wood that was given to me for free, and with the 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) just the awning and the picnic table area and the covered dog area so that I didn’t have to shovel and stuff for the winter for my dogs. MR. MC NALLY-This is on a slab? There was never a building there beforehand? MS. POWERS-No. MR. MC NALLY-And you put that slab in for a dog run? MS. POWERS-In 1995, yes. MR. MC NALLY-This building that you put up, you didn’t get a building permit for. MS. POWERS-No, I had talked to them. MR. MC NALLY-I understand, but you didn’t get a building permit? MS. POWERS-Not for a 10 by 10 shed, no, I was told I didn’t need one. MR. MC NALLY-Did you build it yourself, or did you have a contractor? MS. POWERS-Actually, my boyfriend that lives there with me built it. We both went together and spoke to the Town of Queensbury Zoning. MR. MC NALLY-Is he a contractor? MS. POWERS-No. I didn’t know I needed a contractor for a 10 by 10 shed. MR. STONE-Does she need a building permit for a 10 by 10 shed? No. You thought you were building a 10 by 10 shed with. MS. POWERS-I did. There is a 10 by 10 shed there, and it’s just. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. MC NALLY-It’s got a roof over it, 10 by 17. MS. POWERS-Right. Well, after all the information I gathered from the Town of Queensbury, I saw nothing for height and/or awning or carports or any limitation. You know, the only thing I saw for a variance was, for square footage was, the enclosure itself being considered a storage unit. MR. MC NALLY-Did you investigate setbacks at all, as far as how far it had to be from you line? MS. POWERS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And what did you learn? MS. POWERS-That it has to be the 25, I thought it was 20, actually, 20 feet for anything over a 10 by 10 without slab, and then anything over 10 by 10 had to be on slab, and a variance approved. MR. STONE-Well, it had to be five feet from the line for a 10 by 10, right, Craig? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-If it were 10 by 10, freestanding, you would be, you’re six feet from the line. You’d be fine from that standpoint. MS. POWERS-Right. MR. STONE-That’s what you were told. MS. POWERS-Right. MR. STONE-So you were told you could build a 10 by 10 shed, where you wanted to put it, because it’s six feet from the line. MS. POWERS-Right. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. STONE-Okay. No one anticipated you were going to do what you did, and nor did you think that it was wrong. MS. POWERS-No, because it’s not enclosed, right. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments? Questions? I think the facts are pretty straightforward. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MELODY DUTCHER MRS. DUTCHER-I’m Melody Dutcher. I live at 40 Dream Lake Road South, just below her. My property borders on her back, and I don’t have a problem. I wrote a little note. MR. STONE-Is it in the file? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Then we’ll read it, too. Okay. MRS. DUTCHER-And my mother has a note. MR. STONE-Do we have a copy of that note? Well, why don’t you bring it up and we’ll read it in. Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-As you look at Ms. Power’s home, you’re to the rear of her property? MRS. DUTCHER-A piece of my property runs behind hers, there’s like a wedge, and then there’s my mother’s, and then the other side runs all the way down. MR. STONE-Well, why don’t you show us on here, if you can. I’m sure you can. This is her house. This is the entrance from Sunnyside North. MRS. DUTCHER-From Sunnyside? MR. STONE-Right. MRS. DUTCHER-This is her house, my road goes down. I own the road that goes all the way down. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. DUTCHER-Dream Lake Road. MR. STONE-So you’re down here? MRS. DUTCHER-Yes. We’re down on the corner. My mother’s land is here. I have a little piece. MR. STONE-Down by that mysterious lake called Dream Lake? MRS. DUTCHER-Yes. My great grandfather built it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? HARVEY RAYMOND MR. RAYMOND-My name’s Harvey Raymond. I live at 11A Dream Lake Road, and I am Judy Power’s next door neighbor. The objection that I have to the shed that she’s built and the actual picnic pavilion type area, whatever you want to call it, is our bedroom windows are 32 feet from that shed, and in some cases, during the summer, people have parties and so on and so forth. We’re just concerned about the noise factor, when it comes to our bedroom only being 32 feet from that shed. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) We have no objection to a shed, it’s just the picnic area and the potential for maybe possibly noise and things that are going to be bothering us. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions of Mr. Raymond? MR. HIMES-Yes. I just wanted you to confirm that you’re saying you don’t have objections to the shed, just the. MR. RAYMOND-The 10 by 10 shed that is legal. I have no objection to a 10 by 10 shed there, or to what you have just mentioned. MR. STONE-Right, but you object to the extension because of what, the noise factor. MR. RAYMOND-The potential. MR. STONE-The potential. Okay. In other words, you object to the project as constructed? MR. RAYMOND-Yes. MR. STONE-On the basis of its potential for noise? MR. RAYMOND-Noise, right. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask, if I may, please, your objections may very well be founded. Have there been problems there before with noise and picnics, where it interrupted your sleep? You’re 32 feet? MR. RAYMOND-Yes, frankly, yes, there has, but that’s when, and they were basically down behind their home, a little further away, actually, better than 50, maybe 75 feet away. MR. ABBATE-So I’m correct in saying your concern is not for the potential noise, but your concern is the fact that there has been interruption in the past? MR. RAYMOND-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. RAYMOND-Yes, there has. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else opposed? I saw another hand, did I? NANCY RAYMOND MRS. RAYMOND-He said basically what I was going to say. MR. STONE-Come up. You’re an individual. You can say on the record that you agree with him, but get up and say it, and who are you? MRS. RAYMOND-Well, I’m Nancy Raymond. I live next door, at 11A Dream Lake Road South, and the shed is up against our property there, and I’m also concerned with the size of the shed. If it was just a tool shed and to put things in, that would be one thing, but they have quite a large home, and they have other places they could put this shed. This shed is also, like she said, butted up against their dog run, and I’m sure whoever walked by there to witness it, the dogs barking, it’s just a picnic area then and the dog run and the large shed, and it’s not just for maintaining tools. It has other uses for it, and I feel it’s an injustice to other people in this Town of Queensbury that have to go and seek a permit to build something properly. You do have laws, and that’s what they’re there for, and these weren’t abided by, and that’s why we’re here. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. RAYMOND-Thank you. MR. STONE-Any questions of Mrs. Raymond? MR. ABBATE-Are you also concerned with the potential noise, as your husband indicated? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MRS. RAYMOND-Yes. It’s coming closer to our. MR. ABBATE-And has there been noise in the past which has disturbed you? MRS. RAYMOND-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else opposed? Why don’t you read the correspondence. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We have several pieces of correspondence. We actually do have a note from the mother. So we’ve got two, now. One says, “I, Bette Lewis, received my notice for the shed on the property of Judy Powers. I am all for the proposed shed, as everything she’d done has been an improvement. My property adjoins her.” And then the note that we were handed tonight says, “I just want to state that the cement slab on Judy Powers’ property has been there for five or six years. It was put there because Josh, her dog, kept digging out of the pen. Glenn Batease installed it and can testify as such.” And then we have a note on the notice of this meeting from Lee Barton and Elizabeth Barton, that just simply says “No objections”, and we have another note on the notice from Melody Dutcher and Michael Dutcher, “As property owners of 40 Dream Lake Road South, border Judy Powers, we have no problem with letting her improve her property with the shed. The cement slab was already there for the dog pen. I see no reason not to let her have it. It looks very nice.” MR. STONE-That’s it. MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-Anybody else want to speak on this subject? Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions of the applicant before we talk about it? MR. HIMES-Could you comment on the matter of the noise? MS. POWERS-This has just recently been built. So I don’t see, I haven’t had any picnics or parties. When they have picnics and parties, their my neighbors. I hear theirs too, regardless of where they are, whether it’s in back of their yard or in back of my yard. I haven’t had the ability to have a picnic, a party under this, being that it’s under construction. So I’m not really sure what they’re getting at on that subject. MR. HIMES-But you’re, in connection with the comment, that you would be conscious of noise? MS. POWERS-I wish they would have called me. I didn’t know about this, in front of seven people. It’s kind of odd. MR. STONE-Have you always gotten along with your neighbors? MS. POWERS-No. I bought her mother’s house, and we’ve had a constant battle for about the five years. She calls the Town of Queensbury all the time. It’s just an ongoing problem. I don’t call on her, but I’ve had no rest in five years. So I knew she’d be here anyway. MR. STONE-On what basis has she called? MS. POWERS-Whether it’s the dogs, my septic, anything. She called the, I have a long haired German Shepherd with a $1,000 pen unit, an insulated dog house. She called the board of dog humane society or something like that, stating at noon, in March, that there was cruelty to animals to have my long haired German Shepherd in the pen, but the dog house is five foot by three foot long insulated and carpeted. It’s just ongoing. It’s constant calling. The dogs are barking. She has two dogs that are out at 6 a.m. that bark all the time. I don’t call her, but she’ll call if mine bark. It’s just been back and forth, back and forth. That’s under different legal documentation at this time. MR. STONE-Okay. MS. POWERS-So, unfortunately, we’re here again. MR. ABBATE-How many dogs do you have? MS. POWERS-I have three. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. ABBATE-You have three dogs. MS. POWERS-Recently three. MR. ABBATE-How many dogs do you currently have? MS. POWERS-Three. MR. ABBATE-Three, okay. MR. STONE-I see your hand, Mrs. Raymond. Would you like to respond to the statement? I can re-open the public hearing , if you want. Let me just re-open the public hearing for purposes of Mrs. Raymond making comment on what has been said. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED NANCY RAYMOND MRS. RAYMOND-I have never called anybody about a septic. I have never called an SPCA or Humane Society. The only thing I did was put in some complaints about her German Shepherd and pit bull and another dog running loose, along with two other neighbors from the Sunnyside area, who also put in complaints, that went before Judge Bacas, I believe, and Judy was fined $175 because she would not keep her dogs in her yard. That is the only time I have ever put in a complaint about anything is loose dogs, and these dogs are contained now. They’re not running loose, but. MR. STONE-I don’t want to get into a running argument, but, were you fined? MS. POWERS-For which one of her arguments? MR. STONE-You shook your head when she said you were fined. MS. POWERS-She’s incorrect. That’s right. MR. STONE-Okay. MS. POWERS-This is not to do with any of that, anyway. MR. STONE-No, it doesn’t, and I agree, but I didn’t want to, I saw you shake your head. MS. POWERS-This is just an ongoing, you asked me a question, I answered it. This has been an ongoing situation and that’s why they’re here. MR. STONE-Okay. MS. POWERS-Otherwise, I don’t have any problems with any of the other neighbors, but, yes, since I moved in and purchased my home, I’ve had a problem with them. MR. STONE-Okay. I will re-close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other comments? Any other questions? Well, let’s talk about it. Mr. Abbate, we’ll start with you this time. MR. ABBATE-Okay. It would appear that Ms. Powers acted, certainly, in good faith when she attempted to construct, and her boyfriend, fiancée attempted to construct the 10 by 10. Of course under those circumstances no permit would be required, only to discover that the roof exceeded that, and now permits are required. I don’t have a problem with that. I just want to make sure I’m correct on this. You are seeking relief in that you want to place a roof on this 10 by 10 structure, correct, with an awning. Am I correct? MS. POWERS-Right. MR. ABBATE-And that would entertain how many square feet, approximately? MS. POWERS-One seventy. MR. ABBATE-One seventy is it? Okay, 170. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. HAYES-So the awning portion is 70 square feet. MR. ABBATE-I don’t know, let me pass, please. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, it’s a difficult question. As has been brought out, in other portions of the discussions tonight, we have a 10 by 10 Ordinance, which is there for a reason, but in this particular case, I’m kind of on the fence as well, because I think that some of the relief that’s being requested has to do with the zoning of the WR-1A zone. If that was a 10 by 10 structure, you could be five feet off the line and be compliant. It’s not a 10 by 10 foot structure, but also the WR-1A zone has a greater setback than other typical residential zones, for this type of structure. Is that true, Craig? MR. BROWN-The WR-1A zone has a flexible setback. MR. STONE-Flexible. It has a flexible setback because of the size of the lot. MR. BROWN-Yes, a lot with this width, yes, has a 25 foot setback, where other zones it may be only 20. That’s true. MR. STONE-The side setback is 25. Well, actually, the side setback is 25, but the lot width is, it’s less if the lot is smaller, but you’re width of your lot is well in excess of a couple hundred feet. MR. HAYES-I guess, as far as going forward, I understand the applicant’s desire to build on the slab, because the slab was already there, but I guess I would say that, in my opinion, I think that a compliant shed would be adequate in this circumstance, in my opinion, and therefore, the Ordinance should be supported in this particular case, or move the facility to a compliant location. So I would be against this application. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I normally would be against this, but, given the circumstances, I think I’m going to be in favor of it. I can understand the desire to build it on the existing slab. I think, as was mentioned somewhere in some of the applications, there is a fence there that backs up to the shed. There’s also a shed on the adjoining property that appears to be just about as close to the line as this one is. So I don’t see where it really is going to infringe on the adjoining property unduly. As far as the potential for noise complaints have been mentioned, they certainly are legitimate. On the other hand, I think any place on the property that a structure like this is put is going to cause the same kind of problems, and I don’t think the noise is going to be mitigated simply by moving the structure to a compliant location, and it strikes me that probably it is more attractive the way it’s structured now than if it were just simply a separate shed with a separate dog pen close to it. So I guess in sum, I don’t see where it’s going to impact the neighbors, and I like the looks of it, the way it’s been constructed. So I’m going to be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I start from the assumption that I’m always suspect of construction in a non- compliant location and done (lost word) Zoning Ordinance, and where someone has to, after the fact, seek approval, but I credit your testimony that you did your best and you acted on good faith in trying to build this in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. So I’m going to consider that as a non-issue, and in such circumstance, I ask myself, what would I have done, if you had come to us, before you even took hammer to nail, and started smacking that shed together, and I look at the five criteria that we’re required to look at, and it occurs to me that certainly you’re entitled to a storage shed. There’s no question you can have a 10 by 10 storage shed. Most storage sheds, though, are usually unoccupied and they’re for storage. They’re not for occupation as a living area. And a storage shed we only allow five feet from the line because it’s not likely to cause a problem (lost words). What you’re trying to do is build a building that is more than a storage shed. It’s also as an area where you’ve reserved for your picnic table, you’ve reserved for, there’s a barbecue sitting in there, and I can see that it would be, on occasion, for entertainment. Those kinds of a building, more than a 10 by 10, have to be 25 feet from the line, absent some variance, and I think that, again, is designed to kind of offset some of the uses that it might be put to, since it’s a larger structure. When I was at your home, I see that it sloped down behind the house, but if we’re looking to place a storage shed up, all right, there are feasible locations. There’s no question you could put them up anywhere you please and maintain the 10 by 10 structure. If you’re asking for more than a 10 by 10 structure, I think there are other places you could put them, too, 25 feet from the line, either behind the building, on the other side of the building, or whatever. MS. POWERS-I don’t have clearance there, either. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. MC NALLY-I’m sorry? MS. POWERS-I don’t have clearance there, either, or the lines are my neighbor Melody Dutcher, as well, and my well and my septic systems are, there’s nowhere to build anything. MR. MC NALLY-Well, I don’t seem them on this map. I’d be more than willing to see whatever you have to submit. MS. POWERS-I’m sorry. I could show you. MR. MC NALLY-But looking at the map, it occurred to me, this, I’m just looking at how you would maintain your lawns on the other side of your house, dog runs on the back of your house and what not, if you wanted to put them somewhere. MS. POWERS-There’s a septic system right underneath the, are you talking about the leashed area for the dog? MR. MC NALLY-No, I don’t know where the septic system is. MS. POWERS-Right in the back yard, and it runs all the way down, with piping, with two tanks down at the end of the driveway. I can’t build on it. I can’t do anything, and I’m just barely off of Melody Dutcher’s property to build, to even put anything on top of the driveway, and be in accordance with the variance as well, and the back yard. The only place I could put anything, by legal, before I purchased the house, I came to the Town of Queensbury again, before I even bought, to see if I could have a garage some day, otherwise I didn’t want it. On the right side of the house, looking from the front, I wanted to build a garage. MR. MC NALLY-In that lawn area? MS. POWERS-That’s exactly right, and financially prevailing, it will be there some day, and I actually won’t have to come here, because I do have the footage there, but I didn’t want to stick a shed there and have to, right now, and I’ve had to replace the septic and the well and everything, financially, in the last five years that I’ve owned. So otherwise I’d have a garage instead of being here for a shed. MR. MC NALLY-I think that’s what I was thinking about, though. MS. POWERS-Yes, there’s no other place. MR. MC NALLY-There is a compliant location on the other side of your home. Again, if you want to put, one day, a garage there, that’s fine. If you also have to have an oversized shed, that’s your choice. Where you put it, there’s a place to put one or the other. I think that it’s feasible to downsize. I think it’s feasible to have a deck off the back of your house where you can entertain. I think it’s feasible to put it on the grassy side of your house to the right, and I think the relief is substantial. You’re going to build a structure more than 100 square feet, and I think it should be further from the line. So I’d be against the variance. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I feel that a factor involved here is the general community out there. I mean, you have the setback requirements, but in fact most certainly the closer to the lake you get, especially even the dwellings themselves aren’t that far apart, in some instances, it’s a very crowded kind of a neighborhood, and again, the neighbors to the west have structures very close to the line. The shed that we’re talking about here, about the same distance. The aspect of the plumbing out in back and all that is certainly a factor in any choice someone might have as to where to locate the thing. Existing slab that’s been there for some period of time, has some history, is, I think, is also a factor, and the possibility, some day, of this garage being on the other side of the house I think would be more aesthetic than having a shed stuck out on a front corner of the property or in the front areas, because the roadway goes kind of on two sides of the house there. So, in respect to the, and again, I recognize, I think that the applicant was not trying to pull a fast one on us in the building that was done, and he misunderstood what the requirements were, but mainly in connection with the character of the overall neighborhood of the Sunnyside North area, I think that this is not an outstanding departure from distances between structures and dwellings and dwelling to dwelling. So I feel that I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I have to somewhat agree with what Mr. McNally said. I think our Town Board, in their infinite wisdom, put together the Code, and they said that you could have a 100 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) square foot shed, so that you can store your lawn equipment and your lawnmower, take your lawnmower out and you do your lawn, and you put it back. It’s no hassle for the neighbors, but now you’ve got a 10 by 17 foot, 170 foot shed, that’s got a picnic table and a barbecue and you talk about your neighbors having a party and you hear them, but they’re not five feet away from your property line. They’re doing it in their back yard or wherever they’re doing it. MS. POWERS-I can still have a 10 by 10 shed, right there, and a picnic table right next to it, and have a party in my yard. MR. BRYANT-You probably can. MS. POWERS-I’m only talking an awning area that covers for rain. I can still have a picnic table and a 10 by 10 shed by law here. MR. BRYANT-Sure, I’m sure you can. MS. POWERS-Okay, and a party in my yard. MR. BRYANT-But all I’m saying is that I think you ought to limit the shed to the acceptable size or move it some place else on the lot. MS. POWERS-I’m just storing stuff, not having parties in a 10 by 10 shed. MR. STONE-You’re not in favor? MR. BRYANT-I’m opposed, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ve done a lot of thinking about this, as I’ve listened. I have a number of questions, as I said earlier, questions that I raise when I look at a piece of property. One of the comments was, there’s an existing slab. My comment when I saw it was, so what? There could have been an existing slab and you don’t necessarily have to have the right to use it. I think it’s too big for the location, not because, as you correctly said, you could have a 10 by 10 shed, and you could have a picnic table right next to it, but when you take the awning, which is an integral part of the shed, as you look at it, it is a massive structure. It is much more than a shed. One of the other questions that I have raised is the detriment to the community, namely the neighbors, and we have heard a variety of people who have said yes and no, but the people most impacted are concerned by this particular structure so close to the line. Everybody recognizes that you could have a 10 by 10 shed, but this is just, it’s just too big, as far as I’m concerned, and it’s not a shed, because the way you’ve constructed it, because of the awning, because of the size, it is not a shed. It is an accessory building which, by Code. Has to be, in your particular case, 25 foot from the line, and therefore, I would not be in favor of this application. The other question I have, well, I don’t need to raise it. I mean, I’m just, I’m against this particular application, and as I look at it, I would like a motion to deny this application. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-2000 JUDY LYNN POWERS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 11 Dream Lake Road South. I feel that the Town Board has stated that a 10 by 10 structure can be constructed without a permit. Their request is exceeding 10 by 10, and in my opinion, the Code must prevail in this particular case. In addition to that, there are neighborhood requirements as well, and the Chairman stated earlier that neighbors cannot be disregarded, they certainly can’t rule how run your life, but certainly consideration in any type of construction must take into consideration the impact that it might have on your neighbors, and if there is an impact on your neighbors, the neighbors have every right to come before the Board and state their claim. Rightfully or wrongfully, nonetheless, we hear all the claims. So, based upon that, Mr. Chairman, I move that we disapprove this Area Variance. Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes MR. STONE-I’m sorry. It’s denied, five votes to two. AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2000 TYPE II DONALD E. HIGLEY OWNER: SAME AGENT: RUSS HOWARD ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 23 JAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 400 SQ. FT. CARPORT AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 43-1-13 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) DONALD & MARILYN HIGLEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 73-2000, Donald E. Higley, Meeting Date: September 13, 2000 “Project Location: 23 Jay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 400 sq. ft. carport. Relief Required: Applicant requests 35 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16 as well as the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. Further, the applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize a vehicle storage area near the existing residence. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation to a more compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 35 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement, coupled with 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there may be a compliant location available. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 1422 res. 9/28/88 sunroom addition Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the applicant has an existing and long established parking area in the location of the proposed carport, there has been no structure at the location to date. The proposed open sided construction may present less adverse visual impact than a closed side structure, however, any structure within 15 feet of the shoreline will present a significant impact when viewed from the lake. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Any County? MR. MC NULTY-And I don’t see any County. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Higley, before you start, I want to congratulate you and thank you for your signage. It was very easy to find my way when I finally found Jay Road, your signs lead us right to the place. I know they weren’t for us, but it was very nice anyway. MR. HIGLEY-I’m Donald Higley, my wife, Marilyn, and in case I don’t hear you, I’ve got her right beside me so she can catch everything. We have studied this plan quite well. We tried to locate it in a place where it could be convenient. It still would be aesthetic to the area. We’re setting it up against the woods so that it doesn’t block the view of the lake, coming down our road, it doesn’t block the view from our house. It’s easy to turn around and it’s convenient. Other places could be possible, but it would be detrimental to our septic system. By turning it over by the house, it would block our bay window so we could not see people coming down the road. I would say there was one other thing. We did check with our neighbors and asked them if there was any possible problem of having this structure in this place, and there was, everybody consented. There was no problem whatsoever. I do have a letter, also, that I could give to you, from Wayne Kellogg, giving approval of the same. Okay. MR. STONE-Question. Craig, you’ve looked at this piece of property? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-There seem to be two decks on this property, both very close to the lake. Are they legal? MR. BROWN-I didn’t come across any permits for the construction of them. I didn’t measure them to see if they were less than 100 square feet. MR. STONE-Well, one is more like a dock, but there’s another one to the east. MR. BROWN-I don’t know the disposition of them. MR. STONE-Are those decks, when were those decks built? I’ll call them patios, the wood decks close to the lake. MR. HIGLEY-The one on the. MR. STONE-Well, I’ll call it the east side, to the left side as you face the lake. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. HIGLEY-There was a structure there when I purchased the property in ’82, and all we did is re- do that particular structure. If that’s the one, the little patio out on the water there? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HIGLEY-That was there when we purchased the property. MR. STONE-How about the one where the dock, it’s kind of like a dock? MR. HIGLEY-The dock was there, too. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HIGLEY-Yes. MR. STONE-Did I hear you say that you would keep the wood storage lean to, however you want to describe it, to be behind the garage? Is that what you’re talking about? MR. HIGLEY-Well, there’s wooded area coming down the driveway. MR. STONE-Well, the wooded area. I meant the wood storage that you have there. MR. HIGLEY-Well, I did that as a blind, basically, so you didn’t see the woods. It’s just a barrier there. That can be taken down or done anything. I just put the wood up against a barrier. The carport is going in front of that. It’s going in front of that. That’s on our drawing here. MR. STONE-You would be right up against that, though. MR. HIGLEY-Yes. MR. STONE-Is the way you envision it at the moment. MR. HIGLEY-Yes, 10 feet from there, from the line, and 15 from the water. MR. STONE-Right. MR. BRYANT-Let me ask Craig a question. As you look at the property, there’s a little inlet of water about six feet away from that wall. It’s not shown on this map. MR. HIGLEY-That’s right. MR. BRYANT-But physically, when you look at the property, it’s not anything, it’s about two feet wide is all it is, but it does jut in near the wall. Are we talking, is that the shoreline there? MR. STONE-I’m not sure I noticed that, Allan. Where are you talking? MR. BROWN-Yes, I didn’t notice where you’re talking. On the lake side of the proposed location, obviously where the water is, there’s a. MR. BRYANT-Yes, if you look at the wall, to the left of the wall. MR. STONE-The wall, you mean the wood wall? MR. BRYANT-Yes, the wood wall, which is the back of that carport. You see where it says “Glen Lake” here? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Well, the lake is not really like that. It’s kind of like that, but there’s a little inlet here that goes right here. MR. STONE-I don’t think I really noticed that either. MR. BRYANT-Like right here you’ve got this little thing that’s like this, no, it goes the other way. Okay. MR. STONE-Well, that’s where the dock is. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. BRYANT-No, the dock is over here. It’s a thin, narrow thing. It’s only about two feet wide, and it goes about six or eight feet away from the corner of that wall. MR. STONE-So you’re saying the 15 feet. MR. BRYANT-So I’m questioning is. MR. STONE-Whether it’s correct. MR. BRYANT-You’re not clear as to what the relief you’re requesting from the shoreline. Did you take that into consideration? Is that part of the consideration or not part of it? MR. BROWN-I didn’t go down and look at that closely, and I relied on the applicant’s drawing to depict where the shoreline is. MRS. HIGLEY-Excuse me, did you go down after a rainstorm or something? MR. BRYANT-I was down today. MRS. HIGLEY-After having rained, I was just wondering if that’s what you were talking about. MR. BRYANT-There’s a little inlet here. It’s probably about two feet wide, and I’m just wondering if that’s part of the relief. What is the actual footage of relief that he’s looking for? I’m not sure. MR. STONE-He claims 15 feet. MR. BROWN-The application’s 15. MR. ABBATE-Fifteen feet from the shoreline. MR. BROWN-If that’s where the water is, 365 days a year. MR. HIGLEY-That barrier is 15 feet from the water, also. MR. BRYANT-Yes, it’s probably 15 feet as it’s shown here from this thing, but there is a little juxtaposition here, or whatever they call it, about two or three feet wide, and I don’t know if that’s even included. MR. STONE-Any other questions of the Higley’s? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I’d just like to ask you to explain a little bit about what you’ve said in the application, in connection with putting it in a little more compliant location. I was thinking of in terms of you drive right straight down that driveway, just before in that area, if you continue the driveway, it almost seems like a natural place to put it, again, looking from the outside in. You mentioned there may be some problems from the inside out, but it would seem that that would be a pretty good location to have the carport. It would be closer to the house. I don’t think it would interfere with the septic, I wouldn’t believe, and you could still back in and out, and so on, and I’m just wondering why that would be unacceptable? MR. HIGLEY-Well, we thought about that. My answer to you question would be that if you come down that driveway, you’re blocking the whole view of the lake, and we tried to get it away from it, so that you wouldn’t be obstructing the lake view. MR. HIMES-That driveway is elevated a little up toward the road. MR. HIGLEY-That’s right. MR. HIMES-So you’re kind of coming down. Once you got down to your house it would obstruct it, but otherwise, from the road back, I don’t think that it would. MRS. HIGLEY-Well, coming down the driveway, though. MR. HIGLEY-Well, yes, you’re coming down an incline, yes. MRS. HIGLEY-That’s where we like the view of the lake. MR. HIMES-I understand. MR. STONE-What if you put this up against the rock wall? 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. HIGLEY-The shed roof comes down this way. If we put that carport there, it’s going to go right onto, it would be coming out, it would block our, we have a picture window looking out of the house. It would be not this portion, let’s see, how can I explain it to you. This was an addition that we already put on, and we put a picture window right here, and if I put the carport right at the wall, it would block part of the house because it’s 13 feet high. This structure is going to be 13 feet high, and it would block the window, the view. MRS. HIGLEY-I just would like to add that my picture window is what I love, because I can see up the driveway and I can see who’s coming. I’m there alone in the winter. So I like to know who’s coming down the driveway. MR. STONE-You’re talking the window at the end of the addition? MR. HIGLEY-At the end of the house. MR. STONE-The west end of the house. MR. HIGLEY-Yes. It’s not this little, this is our entrance to our basement here, this little jut here, and that’s where our septic system comes out, and there’s a stone wall that goes there, it’s about four feet high. MR. STONE-Right. MR. HIGLEY-You’ve been there. Okay. There’s a picture window in this area here, about eight feet wide, and that would block that view, if we put the carport there. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions before I open the public hearing? All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody here wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-One piece of correspondence. Very short note on the Notice of Public Hearing, from Dick and Sue Rourke, at 19 Jay Road, and they say “We have no objections.” MR. HIGLEY-I have one from Wayne Kellogg, “To Whom It May Concern: As an owner at 14 Jay Road West, I have no objection to this addition.” MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Why don’t you give us that. We’ll put it in the record, and, hearing no other comments, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do we have any other comments? Well, hearing none, let’s start with Chuck over here. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I can understand the applicant’s reasoning on where they want to place the structure, and obviously they’ve been parking cars there for a long time, but I guess the bottom line for me is, it’s still going to be a structure that I think is going to be seen from the lake, and I believe it’s going to be too close to the lake. I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree with Chuck, and I think that there are compliant locations. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes, I agree with what’s been voiced already, that there are compliant locations. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I think that 35 feet from the required 50 foot setback is substantial, and I’d like to see the structure in a more compliant location. MR. STONE-Chuck? 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. ABBATE-I agree. I do believe that 35 feet of relief from 50 foot is really substantial, sir, and I would have no problem if this were in a compliant re-location. I’d certainly go along in approving the application, but under the current circumstances, I’m afraid I would not be able to. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I pretty much agree with my other Board members. You have a beautiful house, but a portion of your house is already in the Critical Environmental Area, as far as setbacks are concerns. The house itself has multiple windows with spectacular views. It’s an absolutely beautiful site, but like the other members are saying, I think if you want the garage, you’re going to have to be willing to compromise on some portion of those views, versus having the lake and the Code and everything else be compromised. So, I think a compliant location is there, even if it cuts down on one particular view. So, I would be opposed. MR. STONE-I certainly echo what my fellow Board members are saying. This Board has been particularly zealous when it comes to lake property, whether it’s Glen Lake, Lake George or the Hudson River, water property, I should say. We are particularly concerned by incursion into the 50 foot setback, both in terms of what it does to the lake, but even more importantly, or at least as importantly, the view from the lake, because people who use the lake, people who own property on the lake and who have access to the lake, they’re entitled to the views that were intended when the Ordinance was written. Now, having said that, I have to ask Staff, if we denied this, they could come back to us with a, what’s the terminology? MR. BROWN-Substantially different. MR. STONE-Substantially different, almost anything they would come back with would be substantially different, I would think, in terms of location, after our particular feelings expressed tonight. MR. BROWN-That would be your determination when they bring it back to you, if it’s substantially different, sure. MR. STONE-That would be our determination anyway. Okay. So I just wanted you to know that if you wanted to just tweak it, we would probably say no, again, but if you come back to us with a new application, we would have to decide whether it is substantially different, and then we can listen again, unbiased from our previous determination, but I certainly agree with the rest of the Board members that we can’t grant this much relief on lake property. Having said that, I need a motion. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2000 DONALD E. HIGLEY, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 23 Jay Road. To construct a 400 square foot carport. The relief required is 35 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, 179-16, as well as the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, 179-60. Further, the applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, 179-16. Feasible alternatives, we all feel that there is ample space available for a compliant, or more nearly compliant construction site. The relief is very substantial, in view of the existing Ordinances, we feel, and the effect on the neighborhood and community, certainly there’s some evidence that the neighborhood agrees with what you’re trying to do. However, it is a Critical Environmental Area, and it’s felt that this kind of impacts that, something we should be concerned about. On that basis, I move that the application be declined. Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Sorry. MR. HIGLEY-That’s all right. Thank you for your time. AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2000 TYPE: II KAREN CULVER/ROBERT RICCIO OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 124 SUNNYSIDE ROAD NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,200 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF, HEIGHT RELIEF AND RELIEF FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 50-1-84 LOT SIZE: 0.12 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 KAREN CULVER & ROBERT RICCIO, PRESENT 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 74-2000, Karen Culver/Robert Riccio, Meeting Date: September 13, 2000 “Project Location: 124 Sunnyside Road North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1200 sf two story addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 11.65 feet and 2 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum side setback requirement and 2 feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline requirement of the WR-1A zone, §179-16. Simultaneously, 2 feet of relief is requested from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. Also, a small portion of the lakeside of the home appears to violate the maximum height requirement of 28 feet per § 179-16. Further, since the existing structure does not meet the required setback and the proposed construction will not meet the setback requirements; relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure is requested per § 179-79; A.(1) & (2). Also, the applicant is requesting relief from the 22% Floor Area Ratio requirement, requesting a 28.5% total. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to increase living space in the home. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller addition requesting minimal relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, however, a portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the location of the existing structure and the configuration of the lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-637 issued 8/24/00 septic alteration Septic Variance Board of Health resolution #27.2000 Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant has apparently secured an approval from an affected neighbor. However, the proposal, on the surface, contains several significant relief requests, together with a septic variance already granted. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Okay. Talk to us. Introduce yourself. MS. CULVER-Hi. I’m Karen Culver. I live at 124 Sunnyside North. . MR. RICCIO-Robert Riccio, 124 Sunnyside North. MS. CULVER-I don’t know. Do you want me to go through all the reasons why we think we need this? MR. STONE-Tell us whatever you want to tell us. MS. CULVER-Well, mainly, we don’t have a garage. Our house is, it’s not as big as Mr. Clark’s garage. So we’ve just combined two households, and we both golf. We both Cross Country ski. We fish. We just have a lot of equipment which has to be stored in the house. The basement that’s there, under the kitchen and bathroom, is just crawl space. The basement under the original structure is barely six foot. Bob also has a cleaning business. So we have vacuums and shampooers. We just have more stuff than we can contain. Our tool box is in the living room. The bathroom is in the front corner, and our bedroom is in the back corner. We just need a little more space. MR. STONE-What did the Board of Health grant you? What was your septic variance? MS. CULVER-We got holding tanks. MR. STONE-They allowed you to use holding tanks. This is a full year round? MS. CULVER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So the Town continues to ignore the State Board of Health that says you can’t have holding tanks on year round residences? MS. CULVER-No. I believe the lawyers spoke. MR. STONE-I’m sure they did. As I say, it’s been an ongoing debate, but it’s not for us to talk about. I was just curious if that’s what it was. Okay. Go ahead. MR. MC NALLY-Why did you require holding tanks? Is there no place on that lot for a septic system? 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MS. CULVER-We applied, first, for a septic, to upgrade the septic, and the neighbor next door, it was only 50 feet from his well, and he objected, even though he put his well in after the fact of the septic. The septic’s been there for 25 years, but it was his option to say. MR. BRYANT-Why did you choose to build, the addition is going on the back part of the house, which is like the porch on. MR. STONE-That’s the front part of the house, sir, those of us who live on lakes. MR. BRYANT-Why didn’t you build the addition over the existing building? What’s precluding you from doing that? It’s only a one story building. MS. CULVER-It just seems to me that it would block the view less if it’s, the hill goes down, it would be building not as high. MR. BRYANT-You can’t see the lake from the road anyway, at that point. Why not just build it there? MS. CULVER-Build a second story? It wouldn’t give us any additional basement storage. You can’t have a garage. MR. STONE-That would be one piece of relief that would reduce the two feet relief from the front. The side setback is still going to come into play, maybe a little bit less if they built the second story. MR. BRYANT-We tend to view those that don’t alter the footprint with a little bit more kindness, okay. When you start to expand a building, you know, this way and that way, then you start to question the validity of the expansion, and I’m just curious. I understand you’re going to get a lot more room doing this. MS. CULVER-Yes. If I have to put a stairway in the living room, there won’t be much space left in there. I don’t think we’ll gain as much extra space by just putting another story on. MR. MC NALLY-I think your point’s well taken on a lot this size, it’s only .16 of an acre. MS. CULVER-That is very small. Mr. Himes said Sunnyside is crowded. I like to think of it as close knit. We get along very well with our neighbors, and that’s one of the reasons I want to stay there. Everybody’s very friendly. MR. STONE-The 28 feet, Craig, you’re doing it because of the way the hill goes down, obviously. MR. BROWN-In the area where the man door comes out of the basement, that one small portion of it may be over the 28 feet. MR. STONE-Yes. I saw that. MR. HIMES-Before construction, Craig, or after construction? MR. STONE-After construction. MR. BROWN-After construction, as proposed. MS. CULVER-And that door could be eliminated and it would comply, but we’d have to have some sort of emergency exit, a sliding window or something, so that you wouldn’t be trapped in the basement. Because that’s the only spot that’s more than 28 feet is where the door would have to open out. MR. HAYES-You can like dig that out a little bit, then, down there. MS. CULVER-Right. That it exactly, but when you dig it out, it’s going to be, make the building taller to the ground. MR. STONE-As you just heard in a previous application, we’re particularly zealous of the waterfront zoning, as we are generally around the Town, but we do get particularly concerned about that, particularly when there’s an awful lot of relief, and it’s all minimal, except the floor area ratio, and that has nothing to do with the size of the lot. That has to do with the size of the house you’re trying to remodel, if you will. MS. CULVER-The house that’s there is 22, 23%, I think. So that’s already, technically, more space than we should have, and it’s really not enough living space. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. STONE-Well, of course all those were at one time summer camps, you know, you go up there for the weekend or a couple of weeks and you put up with those things. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. ABBATE-If I may, please? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. ABBATE-I notice in your general information application that you filled out, you indicated that you would use the upper level as a pottery studio. Do you do commercial work there? MS. CULVER-No. It’s a hobby. I’ve done it for like 15 years, but I could only do it like in class one night a week, and I’m retired now and I’d like to pursue it. MR. ABBATE-My next question is, who is the connoisseur of the wine cellar? MS. CULVER-Me. MR. ABBATE-You are as well? MR. STONE-You don’t sell from there? Do you sell your pottery? MS. CULVER-No, I give it as Christmas gifts and wedding gifts. MR. STONE-The other thing, you did make the comment, though, that you’re in the business, you just store your equipment there? Obviously, you go out to do your work. MR. RICCIO-Yes. I store some of it there, and I’ve got another garage that I store a lot of my stuff in. MS. CULVER-I’d also like to point out that both of our neighbors are closer to the lake than we are, and our addition will come just to the back of their houses. It doesn’t even block their view from their side windows. MR. STONE-That was one of the comments that I wrote down on my thing. I think the question that comes out in my mind, and I can’t speak for the rest of the guys, is do we, by allowing something like this, do we make a bad situation worse? I mean, obviously, these are very small lots. They were never intended for year round occupancy, and what responsibility do we have? I don’t have an answer yet. I mean, I’m just sort of raising the question. MR. RICCIO-That place has always been year round. MR. STONE-It has? MR. RICCIO-Yes. MS. CULVER-And most of the people on Sunnyside are year round. MR. STONE-The are now. They weren’t. Like Glen Lake was not year round either. I mean, it was basically all summer, and actually in North Queensbury it was basically all summer originally, when I first. MS. CULVER-But I don’t think it’s going to be, are you trying to go back to the past, the way? MR. STONE-No. I’m sort of ruminating, if you will. I don’t really have a point of view I’m waiting for somebody else to ask some questions here. MR. ABBATE-I’m going to say this in your favor. Can we stretch the rules and talk about grandfather clause, since this was always year round? I don’t know. MR. STONE-It makes no difference whether it was always year round. MR. ABBATE-I know. MR. HAYES-This is new relief. MR. STONE-I think the only concern that I have is the amount of relief, because we are very concerned by that, when you tick of, what, six. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MS. CULVER-Let me clarify the one relief we don’t really need the one from the lake, because I measured it again with a continuous piece of string. I put a note in there. MR. STONE-You did it with a one foot ruler? MS. CULVER-We did it with a 25 foot tape measure, and, you know, he walked down, and then we pivoted, and I walked down, and then he walked down, and then when I was looking at the surveyor’s map, using a ruler and their scale, it comes out to 60 feet from the corner of our deck to the corner of the dock down by the lake. Then I measured it with a piece of string today, and it measures 60 feet, by, you know, continuous piece of string from what that point to the water, and the water, today, is six feet from the edge of that deck where we measured to. So that would be 66 feet, actually, to the water. MR. MC NALLY-You can’t use a piece of string, because the change in elevation has got to be about at least 15 feet, at least, anyway. MS. CULVER-There are lots of terraced things. Do you go on the ground? MR. STONE-No, you go straight, out. MS. CULVER-Well, the string went straight. MR. MC NALLY-And then you went down the hill with it, right? MS. CULVER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-We meant straight out parallel. MR. STONE-No, parallel. It’s the plain, right, Craig, you’re talking? MR. BROWN-It’s a horizontal measurement. MR. STONE-It’s the horizontal measurement. MS. CULVER-Okay. Well, how do you expect me to get that? MR. MC NALLY-Well, a surveyor. MR. STONE-That’s why you’ve got a surveyor. MR. RICCIO-We had it surveyed. MS. CULVER-We had it surveyed, but that was, I didn’t realize that was an issue when we had it surveyed. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, I think the applicant was saying to me, when I visited, that the water level fluctuates a great deal, and you can see that water comes up to and perhaps maybe even beneath the deck that’s on the lake from time to time, from looking at the ground. At other times, it may go below that. So whatever the mean high water mark, whatever it is that you measure from, is, I think that’s up in the air. MR. STONE-We don’t have a mean low water mark, or high water mark for Lake Sunnyside, do we? Only Lake George. MR. HAYES-No Salvador line. MR. STONE-No Salvador line. MR. MC NALLY-Craig, what do we measure the 50 feet from, then? MR. BROWN-The mean high. MR. MC NALLY-The mean high water mark? MR. STONE-Yes. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. HIMES-At what point on the property do you measure it? They’ve measured from what appears to be the closest shoreline to the house, where actually part of it appears to be a small distance. MR. HAYES-It’s the closest, though. MR. STONE-It’s the closest, the closest point of the house to the. MR. HAYES-Because that’s the relief, the maximum relief. MR. BROWN-You measure to the closest point, even if it’s not on the subject property. If the shoreline got closer, some place along the neighbor’s property, you’d measure to the shoreline, on the neighbor’s property. It’s the closest dimension to the shoreline, regardless of where it is. MR. STONE-And that’s only, what, two feet of relief, I mean, as you’ve measured it. MR. BROWN-I took the 48 from the drawing that was submitted. There was a question when the applicant submitted which one was correct. What you scale off the survey map or the 48 feet that came from an original measurement I guess you took, and that’s why it was included in the notes. If the applicant’s willing to stipulate that they don’t want to violate that shoreline setback, then I guess you could remove that request for relief. MR. HAYES-You should be careful with, though. MS. CULVER-Well, that’s why I put it in there, because I don’t want to build it and then find out it’s. MR. STONE-We’ll make you tear it down. MR. BROWN-But 48 and 66, I mean, there’s a lot of room in there. MR. STONE-Why don’t we, if we’ve got any other questions, I’ll open the public hearing, see if there’s, are there any letters in there? MR. MC NULTY-The only thing we’ve got is one letter that was included with our packet. MS. CULVER-I also have a letter from. MR. STONE-All right. Let me open the public hearing, first of all, and we’ll get to the letters. Anybody here wishing to speak in favor of this application? Please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SUSAN DOUGHER MRS. DOUGHER-My name is Susan Dougher. I’m at 122 Sunnyside North. If you’re facing their house, I would be to the right of them. I’m here, obviously, in favor of it. I’ve been inside their house and putting in a staircase is only going to make it worse for them. If they were try to do it the way the house is existing now, there’s not even a suitable place to sit down and eat. Bobby’s got two kids, and there’s the two of them. The neighbors on the other side, the Mouzalas, had the same problem, and they came before the Board several years ago, and they were granted permission to go up. When you talk about their house being, whether it’s 48 feet or 60 feet, it’s still a lot further back than the majority of the homes on Sunnyside North are from the lake, including the Mouzalas who are right down smack on the lake. That extra living space that the Mouzalas gained made a huge difference in their lives, and they’re only summer residents. Our house has been owned by the Doughers since 1965. It was built as a year round house. My father-in-law built it, moved into it, lived in it year round. Also, the closeness of their house to our property line, we feel, doesn’t have an effect on us, because everything is already close together there, and the amount of feet that they’re going back doesn’t hinder any of our views. As far as we’re concerned it’s a pretty small amount of footage. We’re really happy that they want to do this, because they’re going to improve the appearance of their house, which is going to make our house worth more. We intend on keeping this house. It was given to us by my father-in-law. It’s willed to our children. So we don’t have any intentions of moving. MR. STONE-So you’re not going to sell it anyway. MRS. DOUGHER-Right, and I guess that’s all I have to say. I did submit a letter. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. STONE-Good. Thank you. All right. Why don’t you read that. Do you have another letter, you say, here? MS. CULVER-It’s just, no objections, from Mr. Barton. MR. STONE-Why don’t you give it to us, we’ll put it in the file and we’ll read it in. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We’ve got a note on the Public Hearing Notice from Lee Barton and Elizabeth Barton saying, “No objections”. MR. STONE-Is that the same Bartons that were on the other one? They’re in the neighborhood. MR. MC NULTY-Same neighborhood, and then we do have the letter from John and Susan Dougher, addressed “To Whom It May Concern: Robert Riccio lives next door to us, and has brought to our attention that he would like to enlarge his home by adding an addition to it. After seeing what his plans are we feel that this would be a good idea and know that he is going to need a variance to be able to build closer to our property line. We have no objections to this. We feel that this addition would improve the value of his home; give him much needed living space as the house is very small and be an all round improvement to the neighborhood. We do not feel that it would be more cramping as our houses are already close together as are the majority of homes on this side of the lake. The Riccio family have been Queensbury tax payers and resided on Sunnyside North for 40 plus years and we commend the idea of residence improvement as it will improve the value of our home also. Many other homeowners on Sunnyside North, including Charles Mouzalas who is Robert Riccio’s other next door neighbor, have added on to their houses by going up or out or both, and we hope that the Board will grant the variance needed so Mr. Riccio will be able to build his much needed addition. Sincerely, Jon Dougher Susan Dougher” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-That’s all. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff. You say a small portion appears to violate the maximum height. What relief are we asking, do we have to give? It’s the highest point perpendicular to the ground. MS. CULVER-At any point? MR. STONE-Yes. In other words, if the roof were like this, yes, at any point. MS. CULVER-All right, then let’s eliminate the door. MR. STONE-No, I just want to know what it is. We’re not saying, we have to grant relief. MR. HAYES-No, no, no. The motion has to be framed up properly, or it goes against you. MR. STONE-I mean, if you need one foot of relief, we need to know that. MR. HAYES-That’s what you want, two feet. MR. STONE-Two, okay. That’s all we need. In other words, we need to know that you’re asking for two feet of height relief at one point on the structure. MS. CULVER-But that is another issue, another point of variance that makes, you know, like six points of variance. If we throw out the water and we throw out the door, that’s only three. MR. STONE-You haven’t heard where we’re going yet. Don’t give up anything until you hear where we’re going. I don’t know where we’re going. We’re going to listen. We’re going to start with Norman, and he’s going to tell us where he’s going. MR. HIMES-All right. Thank you. Right off I’ll say I’m favorable to the application, in spite of what appears to be a high number of variances to be requested, and it is mainly because of the character of the neighborhood out there, along Lake Sunnyside North. There are many dwellings there that are as big as what they’re proposing, some of which may be closer to the lake. The next door neighbor’s garage, I think, is bigger than the existing structure appears to be. I think the space is needed. I would wonder that, it would be nice to have some clarification of the set back from the 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) water, so we’d know really whether or not there’s any relief needed there, and if there was, is there something that you could give up for two feet. I mean, it seems like you were describing steps or something maybe that could be modified that would pick up, something. So the neighbors are in support of it. Much of that kind of thing has been done. Maybe I’m repeating myself. So I tend to be in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I’m really not sure, Mr. Chairman. I’m still convinced that the addition could probably go over the existing wood framed house, and take up part of the porch and the area adjacent to the porch is where the stairs go upstairs. That’s a new area. MS. CULVER-You’re saying like out a little bit and then over the existing and out just a little bit, instead of out? MR. BRYANT-Exactly. I’m not really that concerned about the two feet from the water and the side setback. I’m more concerned about the floor area ratio and the height, the two foot height, but, Mr. Chairman, I think, you know, as you listen to the neighbor and you listen to the letters, the first thing that they point to is the fact other people have expanded their houses, have come to the Board for variances and they’ve gotten these variances. You see, as a Board, we have to be very careful about these variances, because they come back to haunt you, you know, a couple of years later. So I’m not really convinced that this is the right approach to this type of project, but, again, I’m on the fence. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-It is a rather unique area. The lots certainly are small. There are homes in an area that have received variances, as Allan has pointed out. I understand what you’re saying about requiring additional space. I don’t have a problem with that. It’s quite clear in my mind. When I initially saw this, this is your application, these are my notes on there. See all that pink? I said, my God, this is a nightmare, six variances, a possible one violation, but as I began to listen to you and listen to all the folks here this evening, it’s not really so bad, and I do not believe, in my humble opinion, that your request is really out of line, taking into consideration the neighborhood, and the fact that neighbors do not object to this kind of thing. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think essentially agree, in this particular case. On first blush, when we, the relief required is half the page, usually those are the ones that are going south, traditionally, but in this particular case, as I track through those, a lot of the points of relief are relatively minor, and as it was already pointed out, the side setbacks are, in fact, what they are already. So in a way that’s repeating and reminding to us, but we already know that and it’s not really impacting anything further to a large degree. The two camps that are on the immediate right and left of your are closer to the lake than you are, substantially in one case, in that circumstance, and as far as, you know, precedent, which, you know, has been brought up here, and I think that that is an important aspect in what we have to consider, certainly at Lake Sunnyside, as far as this type of precedent, you know, the horse has left the barn, you know what I mean, as far as what’s gone on. There’s a lot of properties that have been developed closer to the lake. Certainly most of them are probably year round at this point. So, I guess, you know, you’re attempting to do something with a property that I think makes sense. I think the need is there. The benefit to the applicant is a legitimate one. I think feasible alternatives certainly are limited, based on the configuration of the lot, and, you know, it’s a lot of relief. There’s no question about that, but I think, you know, your neighbors have spoken and when we come down to a test, that’s three items to maybe one in my mind. The neighbors seem to be in favor of it, including your most impacted neighbor, and they have, in fact, increased the usage of their property to some extent, or the density of use of their property, and the garage looks nice, by the way. So, I guess, on balance, and weighing all the factors in my mind, and I should say the biggest concern to me is how close you’re going to the lake, and it doesn’t appear to be much relief requested there, if any, but certainly very little, and that’s the biggest one that I would consider in this type of application. If you wanted to go out toward the lake a lot and you needed a lot of relief in that sense, I would think the balance of the test would fall against you, but two feet, I don’t think that’s a big deal, in my mind. So, on balance, I’d say I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, my initial reaction I guess was like a lot of the other Board members. I looked at it and my notes said, a lot of relief in a crowded area. My inclination is no, but likewise, having listened to the proposal and considering everything, maybe this area is supposed to be a crowded area, and the comment about building up, maybe that’s possible, maybe it’s not. Because a lot of times when you get into one of these older places that has been built as a one story structure, you find that side walls, and/or the foundation just flat won’t support a second story, and the only 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) way to accomplish it is to tear it right down and start over. So that’s an unknown, but that could be a problem about changing the thing. So I think, sum total, even though it is a lot of different pieces of relief, it strikes me as being reasonable in this situation. I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-This is not the first time we’ve struggled with Lake Sunnyside. I think I’ve got to be the lone stand out that has a philosophical difference. I think it’s a tight community. You’ve got miniature lots of .16, and they’re all like that. You have a pre-existing road. Mrs. Dougher’s garage is built on the road, a lot of other garages are built on the road. I think it’s tight, and I think that we just shouldn’t throw up our hands and say, what the hell, it’s tight, let’s just make it tighter. That we do have a responsibility not to worsen a bad situation, which is what Lake Sunnyside is. However nice the community may be, it’s certainly was built in a sporadic manner, without a lot of attention to any planning, and I think a large part of that was because they were all summer homes, most of them were, and I think, as you mentioned, you go up there for maybe a couple of weeks in the summer, and they were adequate for those purposes, but as we go along, people keep building them and wanting to live there year round, and maybe convert the camps to year round, but what do you do when you need four bedrooms? What do you do when you’ve got a large family? What do you do when you need a two car garage? There’s just not enough space there. I’m concerned more with the impact. I think it is significant. I sympathize with the applicants, but I think there are ways of minimizing some of the relief that they’ve requested, and I think that what we should do is try to maintain as much open area as possible. I think we should reduce, to the extent possible, the density and congestion which is inherent at that (lost words), but as it’s suggested, I think that there are alternatives, and I think that maybe they should look at them. MR. STONE-Thank you, Bob. As a number of people have said tonight, at least most of us, if not all of us, when we go and we look at a piece of property, the reason we go is to raise questions and to familiarize ourselves, and as Mr. McNulty said, I wrote down a lot of relief, but I also wrote down, listen, which means to me that I don’t really have the answer at that particular point tonight, and I want to listen to people. I agree with the majority of the Board members. I don’t agree with Mr. McNally. Because I think two of these numbers, or even three of these numbers, are technical relief. The fact that you want to do anything to the house, which is an illegal, nonconforming house, says you’ve got to have relief, just to do anything. So the side setbacks don’t trouble me at all. Being closer to the lake, two feet, we’ve granted that. I mean, I get accused of being a lake czar, by some of my fellow Board members here, and I do care a great deal about the lake. I spent a lot of my time worry about lakes, not just locally, but I don’t think two feet of relief for closer to the lake, if I, in fact, is two feet, is even going to be noticeable, particularly as you, and as I notice, you are still going to be well back from the average of the two houses on either side, or even the individual houses taken alone. You’re going to be well back, even from Mrs. Dougher’s house, which is the further one back from the lake. The height, I think, is a, to reduce that would make the house look kind of strange. You’d have to take off two feet from the front of the house at one point, and that would be kind of silly. I think, I forget who it was, the floor area ratio is one thing that we have been quite concerned with on the lake, but I don’t think you could do anything with this house, as you say, without exceeding the floor area ratio, since you’re already there. You’re already in excess of the 22%. So I don’t think this worsens the situation because I do think the house is there. All you’re going to do is go out a little bit, give yourself some breathing space, and I would be inclined to agree with this, to approve this application. Having said that, I need a motion. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, if I could just, a couple of points. My calculations on the floor area ratio sheet bring them up to about 15%, currently. I don’t think they’re near the. MR. STONE-Fifteen? Okay. MR. BROWN-And the other one is, I would caution the Board, granting two feet of shoreline relief, if it’s not necessary, there’s a confusion over the setback, admittedly so. If there’s a question over the relief, I would error on the conservative side and not grant it. Because, potentially, if the structure is actually 60 feet from the lake, and you give them a 48 foot setback, that’s twice the size of an addition that they have the relief to do. MR. STONE-And you’re willing to not request that? MS. CULVER-How about if you grant it pending the surveyor’s measurement, and if the surveyor’s measurement comes in above 50, then we’re okay. If it comes in less than 50, then we would have to. MR. STONE-Well, the 60 doesn’t come into play, Craig. MR. BROWN-No. As I scale it off the survey map that was submitted, is the addition going to be 20 feet? Okay, and the deck seven? 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MS. CULVER-Six. MR. BROWN-Six? Okay. I scale from the closest point of the shore to the closest point of the deck to be 61 feet. MR. STONE-The new deck? MR. BROWN-The new deck. If you give them a 48 foot setback, that’s 20 more feet of building that you’re giving them relief to do if they really wanted to. MR. STONE-Well, then we don’t have to. MR. BROWN-Or write it in as a 20 foot addition with a 6 foot deck. That’s going to limit them to the size of the building. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Or not give them the relief. MR. BROWN-Or not give them the 48 foot of relief. MR. STONE-All right. The drawing reflects a 20 foot addition with a 6 foot deck. We’ll write it that way. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-Is that what you’re saying? MR. BROWN-And then not even deal with the shoreline setback. MR. STONE-Okay. Fine. MR. HAYES-That’s good. MR. STONE-Okay. I need a motion reflecting those things. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2000 KAREN CULVER/ROBERT RICCIO, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 124 Sunnyside Road North. The applicant proposes construction of a 1200 square foot, two story addition. Specifically, the applicant requests 11.65 feet of relief and 2 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Also, a small portion of the lakeside appears to violate the maximum height structure of 28 feet per Section 179-16. The applicant is requesting two feet of relief from that Section. Additionally, since the existing structure does not meet the required setback and proposed construction will not meet the setback requirements, relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure is requested per Section 179-79 Part A(1) and (2). Also, the applicant is requesting relief from the 22% Floor Area Ratio requirement, requesting a total of 28.5 feet of relief or 6.5% relief. Benefit to the applicant would be the applicants could increase the living space of their home by adding a 20 foot addition and a 6 foot deck. Feasible alternatives, I believe that feasible alternatives are very limited, based on the small size of the lot and the existing configuration of the home, as it is now. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that the cumulative relief is substantial in this particular circumstance, substantial to moderate, based on the fact that it has triggered several Sections of the Ordinance. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe there are moderate effects on the neighborhood. There has been noted immediate neighbor support. Additionally, the project, as depicted, is not inconsistent with the development of other camps in the immediate area, and the addition places the lakeside of the project in a similar distance from the lake as their immediate neighbors. Is the difficulty self-created? The fact that they want an addition certainly is a self-created difficulty, but I believe that most of the difficulty in this circumstance is attributable to the existing structure and the size of the lot, 1.6 acres. It’s very small, and basically any improvement or addition to the house would require several variances in this particular circumstance. I want to clarify, in the relief required, that we are not granting specific shoreline setback in lieu of the fact that we are permitting, in this variance, a 20 foot addition with a 6 foot deck from the lake, from the existing structure, as sited now. Therefore, on balance, I believe that the majority of the test in this particular case falls in favor of the applicant, and I move for its approval. Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) MR. BROWN-Not to confuse anything, but one of the drawings that’s submitted with the application, I see a dimension on here, three foot step where it says walk out, which, I mean, if what’s built there is shown at, it’s four and a half inches. Never mind. MR. HAYES-It’s okay? MR. STONE-Okay. All right, any additions, corrections, modifications to this particular motion? Everybody understand the motion? Craig, do you understand it and you’re happy with it? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, shouldn’t there be some kind of clarification? Because this 179 Section A(1) & (2), it’s a nonconforming structure. You’re allowed to increase the size by 50%. Is that correct? MR. STONE-Right. MR. HAYES-Or less. MR. BRYANT-And they’re actually increasing the size by 125%. MR. STONE-Is that the number? MR. BRYANT-Is that the right number? I’m doing it in my head. MR. BROWN-It sounds about right. MR. HAYES-Well, you said they were 15% and they were going to 22 and 25. MR. BROWN-The floor area ratio. MR. STONE-Well, what’s the ratio, what’s the house area now? MR. BRYANT-It’s about 1,000 feet. MS. CULVER-Nine eighty-one. MR. STONE-Nine eighty-one, and we’re putting on how much more? MR. BRYANT-Twelve hundred. So, technically, they’re allowed 450 square feet of addition, and that’s a substantial, and I think you ought to specify that in the motion. MR. STONE-All right. That’s a good point. MR. BRYANT-Because it is a substantial relief. MR. HAYES-I did include that in the description of the project. MR. STONE-Yes, the 1200 feet versus 981. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-He stated that. MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. Anything else? Second? MR. ABBATE-I’ll second it. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-That was five to two. That means yes. MS. CULVER-Thank you. MR. RICCIO-Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. We’ve got a couple of sets of minutes, I think. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/13/00) CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 28, 2000: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 2000 MEETING OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOAR D OF APPEALS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant August 16, 2000: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 16, 2000 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE August 23, 2000: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 23, 2000 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 13 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hayes On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 51