Loading...
2000-09-20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ROBERT MC NALLY PAUL HAYES CHARLES ABBATE NORMAN HIMES ALLAN BRYANT CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-Before we start, I should like to take a moment to ask my Board to read something that I would ask my Board to respond to. I’ve given them all copies, but let me just read it. It has come to my attention that Queensbury does not require an as built survey for building modifications/additions allowed by a granted variance. On the other hand, an as built finished survey is required for all original construction. I propose we add a condition to all variance motions indicating a survey is required, this can be either one made after construction, if none was presented with the application, or one made on the property prior to the allowed construction that permits the relief to be determined accurately after the project is finished. Craig, do you understand what I’m trying to say here? MR. BROWN-Yes, I do. MR. STONE-Any comments on the Board? MR. ABBATE-Other than the fact I think it’s a good idea. MR. STONE-I’ll make that in the form of a motion. May I have a second? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll second. MOTION THAT WE ADD A CONDITION TO ALL VARIANCE MOTIONS INDICATING A SURVEY IS REQUIRED, THIS CAN BE EITHER ONE MADE AFTER CONSTRUCTION, IF NONE WAS PRESENTED WITH THE APPLICATION, OR ONE MADE ON THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE ALLOWED CONSTRUCTION THAT PERMITS THE RELIEF TO BE DETERMINED ACCURATELY AFTER THE PROJECT IS FINISHED, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 20 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. STONE-Thank you. So from here on, when we make a motion for a modification variance, we’ll include some statement to this effect in each one. Okay. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2000 TYPE II PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 133 AVIATION ROAD, MAIN CENTER (NORTH SIDE) APPLICANT REQUESTS THE ZBA TO REHEAR APPLICATION, SPECIFICALLY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 10-2000 TAX MAP NO. 82-2-6 LOT SIZE: 0.81 ACRES SECTION: 179-20 JON LAPPER , RICHARD JONES, LARRIE GOUGE, REPRESENTING APP., PRESENT 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. STONE-This is a unique application, to the best of my knowledge. Would you read the Staff notes with, just read the beginning of the Staff notes, I think, and Mr. Lapper’s letter into the file, and then we’ll play it as it comes. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-2000, Prospect Child & Family Center, Meeting Date: September 20, 2000 approved: June 21, 2000 “Project Location: 133 Aviation Road on the north side Apparently neighbors affected by the conditions placed on the variance have approached the applicant. It seems that the affected neighbors and the applicant wish to have the planting and fencing conditions removed from the previous approval. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,740 sq. ft. addition and additional parking spaces. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7014 sq. ft. of relief from the 28,967 sq. ft. maximum allowable impermeable area for this parcel per the SFR-1A zone, § 179-20. Further, the applicant is requesting relief from the Off Street Parking and Loading requirements, § 179-66. The applicant’s site plan depicts 29 parking spaces provided while 51 are required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to expand the existing school facility. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a second story addition and trade off of existing impermeable area for new building area. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 7014 sq. ft. of relief from the 28.967 sq. ft. maximum may be interpreted as moderate (24%). 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.): Associated properties on the South side of Aviation Road received an Area Variance and Site Plan approval for a related expansion project. Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The planned addition is proposed to occupy an area currently utilized for outdoor recreation. Also, creation of the proposed parking spaces may require the removal of vegetation from the site. Neighborhood concern has been noted with regards to the possible relocation of the activity areas closer to the residential properties. The applicant has proposed additional landscaping to aid in mitigating visual and audible impacts. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-And just read the motion that we did pass. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. “Area Variance No. 54-2000, Prospect Child & Family Center Meeting Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 APPROVED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2000 PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 133 Aviation Road. This is the Main Center on the North side. The applicant proposes construction of a 2,740 square foot addition and additional parking spaces. Specifically, the applicant requests 7,014 square feet of relief from the 28,967 square foot maximum allowable impermeable area for this parcel for SFR-1A zone Section 179-20. Further, the applicant is requesting relief from the off-street parking and loading requirements of Section 179-66. In this particular case, the applicant’s site plan depicts 29 parking spaces provided while 51 are required. It should be noted that a consideration toward the relief was Staff documentation provided that the overall campus for the School, which would be the north and the south side, have the required overall number of parking spaces. The benefit to the applicant, the benefit to the applicant would be they would be permitted to expand the existing School facility. Feasible alternatives, I believe feasible alternatives are limited, based on the fact that the original building is designed, currently, for single story construction, and the cost, based on other considerations for a second story addition, make that impractical. The other thing is based on the configuration of the lot and the relatively large number of, the relatively large building on the lot, I believe that there’s limited place where this addition could be placed. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 7,014 square feet of relief from the 28,967 I believe is moderate, but I believe that is mitigated, in this particular circumstance, by the fact that the very calculation of the permeable square feet needed is based on a Single Family Residential zone which has higher requirements than would otherwise be indicated, and State law and our Code provide that schools can be in such neighborhoods. So they’re giving single family housing consideration toward a school, which, in my mind, does have more parking. It has parking lots. It has playgrounds. It has basketball courts. It has everything that this particular project has. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that there is moderate effects on the neighborhood in this particular circumstance, not minimal, moderate, based on noise levels and a rather intense use of the property. Cumulatively, I believe the test falls in favor of the applicant, based on, largely, the benefit to the applicant and the lack of feasible alternatives. I believe that the mandates that have been put forward for this School are significant, in that controls the feasible alternatives or the way they can satisfy those. So I think, on balance, the test falls in favor of the applicant. I’d like to provide two important contingencies to approval. One is that no further construction, in the form of additions or other buildings, will be contemplated on the campus in the future, and that’s forever, unless 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) additional properties are acquired, and that two separate layers of noise control are implemented by the School, one being a stockade or solid style fence with the second layer being some layer of significant vegetation, year round vegetation, some form of evergreen or whatever works best in that circumstances. So I would move for its approval with those two contingencies. That the School would continue its contact with the neighbors, at whatever works out, the kinds of things you’ve done with the south side neighbors, a meeting once in a while. Make sure the northern neighbors have a contact person, but some kind of ongoing communication. That we remove the plastic wheel, three wheel vehicles from the offerings there, based on the sound consideration. The buffer should be from the northeast corner of the proposed addition down to what would be the north corner of the picnic shelter, trees to be six feet high, cedar hedge approximately five feet on center, the first row against the fencing along the property line and five foot on center, and then stagger the next one at five foot on center, they’ll be five to six feet in height and 20 to 30 inch diameter. Duly adopted 21 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally” MR. STONE-All right. Do you want us to read your letter in? MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. STONE-All right. Read the short letter from Mr. Lapper. MR. MC NULTY-This is a letter addressed to Lew Stone, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and Mr. Craig MacEwan, Chairman, Planning Board, by Jonathan C. Lapper, “As you will recall, when the Zoning Board and the Planning Board each approved the Prospect Family & Child Center expansion, the approvals required the construction of a wooden fence and the planting of a significant hedge in front of the fence to buffer residences adjacent to the main center located on the north side of Aviation Road. The fence and plantings were a condition of the area variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals and also were a requirement of the site plan approved by the Planning Board. Prospect Family and Child Center was happy to provide this buffering and remains ready to comply with these conditions. However, after the approvals were granted Prospect Family and Child Center received a letter from the immediate neighbors, Rich Atkinson and Anne Gobbo along with a petition signed by four other residents of Dorset Place. I have enclosed copies of the letter and petition for your review. The neighbors are now requesting that these conditions be eliminated. Prospect wants to be a good neighbor and is therefore requesting that this matter be placed back on each of your agendas for September meetings to review the request of the neighbors. Please contact me should either of you require any additional information in advance of the meetings. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper” MR. STONE-Okay. I think we’ll stop there and let you, go, Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Larrie Gouge and Dick Jones. We were very pleased to receive the approvals of this Board and the Planning Board. We were rather surprised to receive the letter from the neighbors. It’s not the case where Prospect is trying to save money and come back and ask you to reduce some of the mitigation that you required . They’re ready and willing to install the fence, and they’re looking forward to breaking ground later this year on the whole project, but they want to be good neighbors, as I said in the letter, and when the neighbors asked them to ask for this change, they said that they would, and here we are. So, it’s whatever your pleasure is, they’ll be happy to abide by it. MR. STONE-Just let me ask Staff a question. Shouldn’t this request, in a sense, come from the neighbors? MR. BROWN-I think that’s a different animal. That may be an appeal of the Zoning Board’s determination. MR. STONE-Well, maybe it should be an appeal. Maybe that’s what it should be. MR. BROWN-But I think it’s reasonable for this Board to re-visit a previous approval that they’ve granted, or denied. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-It is a significant change, too. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I think that we could really put this to rest very quickly. Are there any changes from the original plan? MR. LAPPER-None. MR. BRYANT-The provisions that we made were basically for the neighbors, and they’ve rejected those. So we may as well just approve it the way it was. MR. STONE-Well, the only consideration that we have to have in mind is that we look beyond the immediate owners of properties. Variances are forever. So therefore it’s consideration is these people, these neighbors, may say, fine, it’s okay, but since we saw fit to grant it, and obviously the Planning Board saw fit to put similar restrictions on there, I think we have to think about it from that standpoint. It doesn’t say, I’m not saying I’m against it, but I think we have to think about it from the long term effect. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, let me go back to your initial comments, because I think it’s worthy that we expand upon it. Standing. I’m not so sure that Prospect has standing in this. The neighbors may have standing, but I’m not sure that Prospect does. MR. HAYES-They’re the property owners. I think that would kind of grant you standing. MR. ABBATE-But are you suggesting that we do this, make these changes? MR. LAPPER-We’re asking you to reconsider whether or not you want them, in light of the neighbor’s request that they be changed. MR. STONE-Okay, but the reason I brought that statement up is that we discussed it. We came up with certain conditions on granting Prospect School a variance. It had nothing to do with anything but granting the variance for this particular piece of property. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-And obviously Prospect School will benefit if we decide that we can reduce the amount of thing in here. It’ll cost less to make this construction, but you indicated a willingness to go along with this thing. I’m just not sure that I’m comfortable with discussing it, and I hadn’t thought about it before until we started listening to it. I’m not sure I’m comfortable. MR. HAYES-I guess the only thing is, certainly they’re looking at a reduced cost for the fence or vegetation or both, but it seems to me like it’s a good faith effort to represent the neighbors. Because unless Mr. Lapper’s free or Mr. Jones, they are incurring costs to come here and do this, which means the only rationale explanation in my mind is that they’re doing it because of their neighbors. I don’t think either one of you guys are here tonight at no charge. So it appears to me the only rationale explanation is they’re here to respond to the neighbors. MR. ABBATE-And you know, Jaime, you’re right, but like Lew, I’m worried about procedure. I’m not so sure, I’m still convinced that the Prospect School does not have standing, unless the Prospect School is directly requesting that this be done. MR. LAPPER-That’s such a funny question, because ordinarily, the answer would be, of course we are, but we’re really not because we’re saying we agree to the condition, and we’re just. MR. ABBATE-That’s why I raised that issue. You’re really not. So, consequently, in my opinion, you don’t have standing. Your neighbors do. MR. HAYES-You don’t think you are at the request of your neighbors? I mean, I don’t think anybody else could request a change. Could they? MR. LAPPER-Yes, I don’t think anyone else could request a change, because it’s our application. MR. STONE-But they could appeal our ruling. That’s what we are, the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. ABBATE-Right, and they have every right to come before us and make an appeal. MR. HAYES-It wasn’t a Zoning Administrator determination, though. MR. BROWN-No, but I think you’ve got an applicant here who is forthcoming. They’re here as an applicant, and the reason they’re here may be because of the neighbors, but they are the applicant. So they are the ones requesting the change. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. LAPPER-I’d say we’re requesting a reconsideration, rather than a change. MR. ABBATE-And I’m not saying I’m against this, not at all. I’m just worried about procedure. See, here’s what I’m concerned about. Yes, you’re acting in good faith, and the neighbors are acting in good faith. All of a sudden we change it. The next week, a couple of other neighbors come in and say, wait a minute now, hold on. That’s not what I wanted. Now where are we? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I think that’s part of our job tonight, if we consider this, and that would be my one main question is, fine, we’ve got five or six neighbors that are saying they don’t want this. How about the rest of the neighborhood? Sound is a funny thing. It doesn’t effect just the next door neighbors. It can loop over and effect people further back, but I think that comes further down the road in this meeting. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I want to just point out also that, of course we’re only talking about the fence and planting on that north side and the corner by their pavilion, because on the south side, this was a very important issue to the neighbors, and we all spent a lot of time talking about fencing and planting. MR. STONE-That’s not even on the table. MR. LAPPER-Right, and so this is just one small area where the neighbors, for their own reasons. MR. STONE-But it did require a lot of effort on our part, and a lot of thought, a lot of consideration, and obviously agreement at some expense to Prospect School to go along with this thing, and, you know, I could be cynical. I’ll try not to be cynical, because I’m too cynical many times, but, you know, I might have gone to the neighbors, too, and said, why don’t you get us to. MR. LAPPER-For the record, it didn’t happen. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HIMES-In connection with the basis of who’s doing what, in the motion, even though there were two conditions, it’s followed very closely on it, “That the School would continue its contact with the neighbors, at whatever works out, the kinds of things you’ve done with the south side neighbors, a meeting once in a while. Make sure the northern neighbors have a contact person, but some kind of ongoing communication.” And it isn’t one of the two conditions named, but it’s in here. So, you know, I think the procedure, we’ve got it in here. MR. HAYES-It’s implied, is what you’re saying. It’s an implied condition. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. They’re basically doing what we specifically asked that they do, ongoing communication. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Most neighbors ask for more mitigation, and these neighbors asked for less. So we were all surprised. MR. STONE-I’ll tell you what we’ll do. I think I will open the public hearing, and we’ll allow the neighbors, I hope who are here, and we’ll certainly read their letter into the record. I think we’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this request? I think I’ll call it a request. In favor of this request? Anybody opposed to this request? Nobody’s here. That surprises me. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STONE-Would you read the letter of July 18 in, then, and the petition. th MR. MC NULTY-We also have another letter, too, dated September 10. th MR. STONE-Good. Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a letter of July 18, from Rich Atkinson and Anne Gobbo, th addressed to Larry Gouge, “Dear Larrie: This note is intended to confirm, in writing, what you and I have already discussed by phone. Since shortly after the Zoning Board meeting on June 21 of this st year (the meeting at which the variance for construction at the Main Center of Prospect School was granted), my wife and I have been reconsidering the outcome of that meeting. We are unhappy with the conditions that were placed on that variance approval. Specifically, we do not want or need the 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) fence and bushes that have been required as attempts at noise abatement. We appreciate that the members of the Zoning Board were acting on behalf of what they felt was our interest. There is, however, an unfortunate quirk in the format of these meetings: we get to express our concerns but then have no part in the discussion of how those concerns will be satisfied. We can see that both the members of the Zoning Board and you and the other representatives of the School were working hard to make us happier. What was left out of the mix was a chance for us to stand up and state that the remedies that were agreed upon were far more than what we wanted. We hoped for some assurance that the new space would not, down the road, be converted to additional classrooms. That issue was discussed in the meeting, and we are satisfied with the assurances given there. We were hoping for some minor restrictions on the hours in which the playground would be in use. As an alternative, we have the promise that the representatives of our neighborhood and representatives of the School will keep up regular communication on whatever concerns we might have. That is both acceptable and very welcome. The conversations we have already had have been helpful and constructive, and I have every confidence that our relationship will continue in this vein. We did not, however, want a fence or new bushes. We have numerous objections to that idea. We are unhappy with how many of the existing trees on your side of the property line would have to be removed to build a fence. We don’t like losing the sunlight and the view we have from our yard. Finally, we don’t believe that the fence and bushes would provide an amount of noise abatement that justifies all that we lose in order to have them. We have spoken to our neighbors, and they agree with our point of view. When you go back to the Zoning Board and request relief from the requirement to put in the fence and the bushes, I would be happy to appear before the Board personally and support your request. Sincerely, Rich Atkinson and Anne Gobbo”, and then we have another letter to Mr. Gouge, signed by Andy Cuniff, 4 Dorset Place; Sandra DeAngelo, 10 Dorset Place; Leno Sarti, 8 Dorset Place; Janis Ritorto, 3 Dorset Place “Dear Mr. Gouge: We, the undersigned, are residents of Dorset Place in the immediate vicinity of the Main Center of your School. We are aware that the Queensbury Zoning Board granted your request for a variance at the Main Center site with the provision that a solid wood fence and rows of bushes be put on your property to reduce the noise from the playground. We are also aware that Rich Atkinson and Anne Gobbo have told you that they do not want either the fence or the bushes, and that this matter is being referred back to the Zoning Board in an application for relief from these provisions. We support this effort, and are in favor of overturning the provisions in the variance requiring the installation of the fence and bushes.” And we also have a letter dated September 10, addressed to the Queensbury Zoning th Board, signed by, I guess it’s Rich Atkinson, “Dear Members of the Board: It had been my intention to appear in person for the Zoning Board meeting on September 20, 2000. I have just found out that a business meeting will require my presence in New York City on both the 20 and 21 of the thst month, so I am using this letter to state the opinion I wanted to convey in person. I live on Dorset Place, and my backyard adjoins the playground of the Prospect Family and Child Center’s Main Center (on the north side of Aviation Road). I was one of the people who spoke about the noise from the playground when your Board was considering the zoning variance for the Main Center construction. As part of the granting of that variance, restrictions were put in requiring the school to erect a sound barrier fence along our shared property line, with bushes planted on the School’s side of the fence to supply additional noise buffering. I was in touch with Larrie Gouge the day after the meeting to let him know that we were not in favor of most of the restrictions put on the variance’s acceptance. Larrie and I have spoken numerous times since then, and the request currently before the Board to remove the restrictions regarding the fence and the new bushes is the end result of those discussions. Let me state it plainly: I fully support the request by Prospect Family and Child Center to remove from the variance the restrictions requiring the new fence and bushes. I have personally spoken to my immediate neighbors (whose property also adjoins or is close to the Main Center playground), and we are all in agreement on this request. We appreciate that the members of the Zoning Board were acting on behalf of what they felt was our interest in this matter. We could see that both the members of the Zoning Board and the representatives of the School were working hard to address our concerns. There was only one problem: with the closing of the ‘public hearing’ portion of the discussion, we felt that we had no opportunity for further input into the decision. Our input at that point would have been to politely refuse the offer of a fence and bushes. We have several objections to that idea. We are unhappy with how many of the existing trees on the School’s side of the property line would have to be removed to build a fence. We like our view of the sunny and open playground, and don’t wish to replace is with a view of the back of a stockade fence. Finally, we don’t believe that the fence and bushes would provide an amount of noise abatement that justifies all that we lose in order to have them. One very positive effect of this series of events is that we have established a line of communication with the School. As I mentioned earlier, I have been on the phone with Larrie Gouge many times to bring us to the point at which we find ourselves now. This communication will be valuable ongoing forward, giving both sides an avenue for discussing and resolving any issues that might arise. Had this communication come about earlier, this entire situation might have been avoided. I hope that you will agree to relieve the Prospect Family and Child Center of these requirements. Sincerely, Rich Atkinson” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-Nothing else. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak? At this point in time, while the public hearing is still open, I want to, in a sense, commend Mr. Atkinson for not raising his hand after the public hearing closed, because most people don’t do that. So we kind of re-open the public hearing, and many times, and probably would have done so in this case, if he had indicated dissatisfaction with where we were going, but, having said that, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-But I would like to make a statement at this point, too, that in this particular, I mean, the neighbors, obviously, were the ones who brought matter to our attention, and we obviously thank them for it. We then acted in good faith, based on our understanding of the project. It was our decision to do what we did. It was not their decision. It was not your decision, obviously. It was our decision. I mean, I understand their concern, and I certainly would not be one to say that we’d like to lose trees, and I certainly didn’t think about that. I don’t know if any of us considered losing trees to put the fence in, but I’m wondering if we can compromise, and I will just throw this out as a suggestion. Don’t use the fence, but put the plantings in, so that we do increase the sound. Is that something? I mean, obviously, you can’t agree or disagree. It’s fine as far as you’re concerned. MR. LAPPER-We’re looking to Dick Jones, and he’s nodding his head that it can be done. MR. JONES-Yes. Back on June 22, after the Zoning Board meeting, we had actually presented a nd sketch as part of the information that we supplied to the Planning Board, which showed both the six foot high solid fence and two rows of six foot high arborvitae, and to plant the arborvitae in there, we could certainly pull that off the property line. We were attempting to put the fence on the property line, which would have resulted in removal of some of the larger trees, but we could certainly plant the arborvitae along that property line to help soften that and keep it back, so that we do not have to remove any of the tall pine, if that’s what you wish. MR. STONE-Any comments? Why don’t you just make the suggestion that you’ve got there, Jaime. MR. HAYES-Well, I guess maybe we should hear what everybody has to say. MR. STONE-Well, nobody’s saying anything. I haven’t heard anybody say anything. MR. ABBATE-Just one comment. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I want to expand on what the Chairman said earlier. The Chairman and I don’t agree on very many things, but I must say this, that he is very tolerant, and he has always, as long as I’ve been here, given members of the audience an opportunity to state whatever they wish to state, and I feel a little concerned that, “we get to express our concerns but then take no part in the discussion of how these concerns will be satisfied”. The Chairman indicated that he opened and closed the meeting, open and closed the meeting. He had more patience that I would, I can assure you of that. My other question is this. Are any of these folks here this evening to participate in this discussion, from 4 Dorset Place, 10 Dorset Place, 8 Dorset Place, 3 Dorset Place, Mr. Atkinson, Anne Gobbo, are they here this evening? None of the individuals are here this evening. So, consequently, they can’t participate in this discussion, can they? I think my point is made. MR. STONE-Why don’t you, Jaime, you have a suggestion. Why don’t you pass it before the Board. MR. HAYES-Well, only if everybody else is happy with it. I would just change my, you know, modify my resolution or motion, just slightly, to make that change, and I guess it would save a lot of time, because it’s a two page motion. MR. STONE-Well, just the pertinent facts. MR. HAYES-Yes, I guess basically just proposing to change to one layer of noise control, that being significant vegetation, year round vegetation, as already discussed, and on the bottom of my motion, too, it said 20 to 30 inch diameter, which would be Sequoias. So I would modify that to two or three inch diameter. MR. LAPPER-I guess I would just ask, to make it clear for the Planning Board next week, that if you say, eliminate the fence and move the hedgerow a few feet from the property line, for the purpose of preserving the trees, make it explicit so the Planning Board understands. MR. HAYES-Okay. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-And, Jaime, what you may want to do is just reaffirm your previous position, with the exception of. MR. STONE-Yes. I’m just going to go around the group now. All right. Let’s just talk about it, based upon what Jaime’s suggested. We’ll start with Allan. MR. BRYANT-I have no objection to removing the fence. Recalling the original discussion, it was primarily for the benefit of the neighbors, and now they’ve objected to it. Mr. McNulty and yourself, you made some valid points, though, when you say that we’re looking beyond these neighbors into the future, and that’s got me thinking a little bit, but I would be in favor of accepting the motion without the fence. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-I feel the same. I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I don’t object. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m amenable to it. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think it’s a good compromise and it preserves the interest of future property owners as well. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I agree. I still am left wondering how some of the other neighbors would feel, but they’re not here, apparently, and I think the point that was made earlier, that we do have an obligation, not only to the current neighbors, but to future neighbors. At the same time, I, too, hadn’t thought about the necessity of removing some trees in order to put a fence in. So I think, given the total situation, this is probably a reasonable compromise gives us some kind of, at least some noise buffer for future neighbors, takes the fence out of the picture, saves some trees. So I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-The applicant is willing to accept this particular thing, understanding that we will grant no further relief from any decision to modify? MR. LAPPER-This sounds like a fine compromise. We’ll still have the screening and keep the trees. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime, why don’t you make a motion, just the changes you’re talking about, say you move that. MR. HAYES-One quick question of Mr. Jones. Are you proposing to move the vegetation to the property line? What are you recommending? MR. JONES-Well, I think originally, and I don’t know if you had seen this, because this was submitted to the Planning Board as part of their site plan review. MR. STONE-That was after our decision? MR. JONES-Yes, this was as a result of that decision. Basically, we had shown the fence right on the property line, and we were putting the arborvitae right behind the fence. What we would be proposing to do is probably move the rows of arborvitae in the neighborhood of five to eight feet off of the property line, because there are some fairly large trees there, and we want to keep them in a regular fashion down through there. So they’d be somewhere approximate to the property line, in the neighborhood of five to eight feet off of it, probably, and we were talking roughly 240 lineal feet of it, and there were 95 plants that we were looking at. MR. STONE-Okay. Why don’t you take a crack at it. MR. HAYES-Okay. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MOTION TO REMOVE FROM THE ORIGINAL MOTION THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STOCKADE STYLE FENCE AS A SECOND LAYER OF NOISE PROTECTION FROM THE MOTION, AND APPROVE OR ACCEPT THE PLACEMENT OF THE REQUIRED VEGETATION OF TREES OF TWO TO THREE INCHES IN DIAMETER TO FIVE TO EIGHT FEET APPROXIMATE OF THE PROPERTY LINE, AS DEPICTED, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: That this is based on a request being honored by the applicant to reduce the layers of noise protection that we have put as a requirement on the applicant to go ahead with construction. Duly adopted this 20 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Do we have a copy of that in the Zoning Board file? MR. BROWN-There should be a copy of that in the variance file, but subsequent to this approval, if that’s where it goes, I’m sure the applicant will provide an updated copy. MR. STONE-Okay. Just to make sure that one’s in there. Okay. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. LAPPER-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2000 TYPE II EDWARD ZIBRO OWNER: ANGELA JOYCE ZIBRO ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: SEELYE ROAD, NORTH #8 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 186 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. APPLICANT’S YEAR 1998 AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION HAS EXPIRED WITHOUT ACTION. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 83-1998, SPR 71-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-7 LOT SIZE: 0.82 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 EDWARD ZIBRO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 77-2000, Edward Zibro, Meeting Date: September 20, 2000 “Project Location: Seelye Road, North #8 This application is identical to the previously approved variance; AV83-1998 which has expired without action. The applicant is re-applied with the identical application seeking the same relief. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 186 square foot garage addition to an existing single family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of rear setback relief from the 25 foot requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16 and for expansion of a nonconforming structure, Section 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize the preferred garage addition. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to the pre-existing nonconforming nature of the structure. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet of relief from the 25 foot requirement may be interpreted as significant. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, however, any expansion of the garage portion of the structure would require relief. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Area Variance 83-1998 res. 11/18/98 garage addition Site Plan Review 71-2000 res. 11/24/98 garage addition Staff Comments: Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. While the proposal calls for the expansion of a structure that currently does not meet the setbacks, the addition does not increase the violation. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 13, 2000 Project Name: Zibro, Edward Owner: Edward Zibro ID Number: QBY-AV-77-2000 County Project#: Sep00-37 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) Description: Applicant proposes the construction of a 186 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing single family dwelling and seeks setback relief and relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Applicant’s year 1998 Area Variance application has expired without action. Site Location: Route 9L to Cleverdale Road, go 7/10 mi. to Rockhurst Rd., take right to the 2 left which is Seelye Rd. North nd #8. Tax Map No. 16-1-7 Staff Notes: This proposed action has also been referred for County review of a site plan (Agenda Item 38). The proposed action, rather than reducing the already deficient setback, would extend the deficient wall an additional 8’ (see attached site plan). Staff does not identify any significant impacts to County resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board 9/14/00. MR. STONE-Mr. Zibro, I’m glad to see that you walked up to the table. MR. ZIBRO-Thank you, sir. MR. STONE-I won’t necessarily ask that we read in your letter. You tell us whatever you want. I mean, there’s a lot of, you may not want to read that in public. MR. ZIBRO-No. I just planned on doing it last summer, but I went to bed the Friday before the 4. th Saturday morning I couldn’t walk. I lost the use of my legs overnight, and of course I had surgery by Dr. Scialabba, and I’ve gotten the strength back in my legs, and I’m walking without a cane, and I want to get the project done. MR. STONE-Okay. As the record stated, a variance was granted by this Board in November of ’98. Anything else you want to say? MR. ZIBRO-No, sir. MR. STONE-Any questions of Mr. Zibro? MR. ABBATE-How are you doing, Mr. Zibro? MR. ZIBRO-I’m doing fine. MR. ABBATE-You’re looking great. I have a question, only because I simply don’t know the answer. You stated in here, I did not know that once you received a variance that it was good for only one year. MR. ZIBRO-I didn’t know until I went in with a building permit, and Craig and they told me that it expired after the first year, and I didn’t know that, because I was in, in the fall, and I had asked a couple of questions, and got new applications, and whoever I spoke to said, they’re good forever. So, you know, I was surprised, when I gave Craig the application permit, and then found out it had expired within a year. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. ZIBRO-Okay. MR. STONE-Any other questions of Mr. Zibro? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions. Let’s talk about it. We’ll start with Norman. MR. HIMES-I don’t have any objections to this. One place in the application you’re speaking that, even with the extension, part of the structure is going to be even further away. I have trouble visualizing that, but in terms of the amount of relief required, no, I think that the review that was given last time around, although I wasn’t present at that time, indicated that it was all right then, and I think that the data as presented will give the same result this time around. I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-All right. Chuck? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. ABBATE-I feel basically the same. This, to me, appears to be a straightforward application, and in totality, based upon all of the information that we have received, officially as well as from yourself, I’m not going to object to this. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have any problems with this. This is a minimal application, and it’s in accord with what we voted for earlier, and the health problems resulted in him not having gotten a building permit, I’d just as soon renew his application and variance. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with Bob. We contemplated this before and voted unanimously in favor of it, and I don’t see any significant change. So I’m still for it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically say ditto. I wasn’t involved, I don’t believe, in the original approval, but I can see good reason to grant the approval, and I have no problem with reaffirming that. MR. STONE-Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-I agree with my fellow Board members. Dr. Scialabba is a great doctor. He saved my life in ’94. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Mine, too. MR. BRYANT-They didn’t expect me to live, and here I am. So, but, you know, this has already been approved, and I don’t see any problem with it. MR. ZIBRO-Thank you. MR. STONE-I, obviously, feel the same way. The only comment I would make, and this is for Staff and the Town Board, there’s only three of us of the seven that are currently on the Board. We’ve got change over. Anyway, since we all seem to be in favor, I would call for a motion, and since the first one was so beautifully done by somebody who’s now the Chairman, who would like to read my previous motion into the record, or change it if you want? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2000 EDWARD ZIBRO, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 8 Seelye Road. This application is identical to the previously approved variance, AV 83-1998, which inadvertently expired without action. The applicant has now re-applied with the identical application, seeking the very same relief. In this case, the applicant proposes construction of a 186 square foot garage addition to an existing single family dwelling. The applicant requests 10 feet of rear relief from the 25 foot setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16, and for expansion of a nonconforming structure in conformity with Section 179-79. In effect, the new addition will be one foot further away from the line than the garage currently is. In considering this Area Variance, the following were considered. The benefit to the applicant. The applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize the preferred garage addition. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to pre-existing nonconforming nature of the structure, and the location of the septic field on the opposite side of the house, the south side as it were. Ten feet of relief from the twenty-five foot requirement might be interpreted as significant, except in this case the garage is already within 10 feet of the, at one point it’s already within 15 foot of the property line, and actually the front of this garage will be one foot further away from the line. Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action, and while the difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, because the garage was in place prior to this application, any expansion of the garage would require relief, and the relief really, when you come down to it, isn’t that significant. For these reasons, I move the approval of this application. Duly adopted this 20 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. ZIBRO-Thank you. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. STONE-Now you can go in and get a building permit. MR. ZIBRO-Mr. Himes, the reason it gets further away is the house doesn’t sit square on the lot, and as you put the addition on, it gets off. So that’s why it makes up the difference. MR. HIMES-Better and better. MR. ZIBRO-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-2000 TYPE: II CATHLEEN CANTIELLO OWNER: SAME AGENT: GARY R. FINGER ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIVISION (NEXT MONTH PLANNING BOARD) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 59-3-11 LOT SIZE: 4.12 ACRES SECTION: 179- 20 MICHAEL CANTIELLO & MARIAN MARCY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 78-2000, Cathleen Cantiello, Meeting Date: September 20, 2000 “Project Location: Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes development of a two lot residential subdivision. Relief Required: Applicant requests 60.7 and 70.33 feet of relief from the 150 foot minimum lot width requirement of the SFR-1A zone, § 179-20. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to create and develop two residential lots. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 60.7 and 70.33 feet of relief from the 150 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial; (40% and 49%). 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.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The purpose of the Single Family Residential zone is to strictly allow single family residences on standardized lots. While the proposed lots appear to be significantly substandard, the area of the proposed development is approximately one acre and much closer to the average lot width required. The 150 foot average lot width applies to this project, as the applicant has proposed one shared driveway for the two lots. If a shared drive was not proposed, the proposed lots would be required to be 300 feet wide per § 179- 30, C. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 13, 2000 Project Name: Cantiello, Cathleen Owner: Cathleen Cantiello ID Number: QBY-AV- 78-2000 County Project#: Sep00-23 Current Zoning: SFR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision and seeks relief from the minimum lot width requirements of the SFR zone. Site Location: West side of Ridge Road, .5 mile North of intersection of Ridge Road and Quaker Road Tax Map Number: 59-3-11 Staff Notes: The applicant proposes to split an irregularly-shaped lot into two lots which would not conform with the width requirements of the local ordinance for the single-family residential zone. Since the applicant proposes a shared drive for the properties rather than two separate driveways feeding onto Ridge Road/State Route 9L, Staff does not identify any significant impacts to County resources. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing will be held September 2000. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board 9/14/00. MR. STONE-It’s all yours. What do you want to tell us? Identify yourself. MR. CANTIELLO-Michael Cantiello, property owner, and I plan on putting two homes in there, in the range of $175,000 to $200,000 homes. They’re set back 700 feet from the road, basically. The road, the drive going in is 500 feet, and each lot going with the house will be approximately an acre and a half, and it’s just going to enhance the area. MR. STONE-Now, the house on Ridge Road to the north. MR. CANTIELLO-That’s my home. MR. STONE-That’s your home, and you’re going to keep the land immediately behind it? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. CANTIELLO-I’ve increased my property to an acre and a half as well, or close to it, right, and it’s already been deeded over. Everything’s been separately deeded. MR. STONE-What about the lot to the south? MR. CANTIELLO-The lot to the south is going to be the drive in. MR. STONE-Just beyond the drive. MR. CANTIELLO-That is owned by Mrs. Homer. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CANTIELLO-At one time this was all one parcel of property. MR. STONE-Okay. It’s just not identified on our map. MR. CANTIELLO-Yes. It’s not identified. It still shows on our map. That’s a separate owner. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-Is there a house on that now, Mr. Cantiello? MR. CANTIELLO-Yes, there is. That’s Mrs. Homer’s home. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. STONE-Any questions of Mr. Cantiello? MR. BRYANT-I have a question of Staff. These lots have already been split into this? MR. BROWN-No. There’s been no subdivision approval granted yet. MR. HAYES-It wouldn’t be legal without the variance. MR. BROWN-This is a proposed layout, is what you’ve got in front of you. MR. STONE-It’s a concept plan. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. BRYANT-From a perspective of, wouldn’t it be better to keep the drive with Mr. Cantiello’s land, so that that lot would conform, because what you’re doing is, by this split, you’re making three nonconforming lots. MR. STONE-Why do you say three? MR. BRYANT-Because he doesn’t have 150 feet of frontage. He has 119. MR. HAYES-He’s a pre-existing lot, though. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but he does have it with the road. You have 80 feet. Is that correct? So that would give him 189 feet of frontage. MR. STONE-Well, the property that the house is on, where he’s going, is that a separate lot now, or is this all one lot? MR. BRYANT-It’s all one lot. MR. CANTIELLO-No. My home is on a separate lot, separate deed on the property. The property is free and clear, and my home is on one deed. MR. STONE-Okay. So this little corner here. MR. CANTIELLO-That little corner where the. MR. HAYES-The GPS shows the lot line on the original house. MR. CANTIELLO-Exactly. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. HAYES-Right there. MR. BRYANT-It shows it as one lot. MR. HAYES-No, it shows it as two lots, but he owns both. MR. CANTIELLO-Years ago it was dated Parcel One and Parcel Two, and back in, I believe it was the late 50’s or 60’s, they merged them together as two, and that’s where you see that little detail where it’s Parcel One. MR. STONE-Was that a separate tax map number, Craig? MR. BROWN-My understanding is that the parcel that you have in front of you is one parcel, but the description of that parcel contains a description identifying two parcels, Parcel A and Parcel B. MR. MC NALLY-As a single deed. MR. BROWN-But as a single deed, but since they’re described separately as separate parcels, I think there’s, there have been determinations that they can be split out as separate parcels. MR. STONE-So you would regard Mr. Cantiello’s home lot as a nonconforming. MR. BROWN-Pre-existing lot. MR. STONE-Pre-existing lot. Okay. Do you understand, Allan, what? MR. HAYES-Well, Allan’s got a legitimate question, no question about it. MR. STONE-A legitimate question, but the lot that his house is on is a nonconforming. MR. BRYANT-Well, the way I’m looking at the tax map, it’s one, the whole piece of property is one tax number. Well, his lot is a conforming lot, because he has 190 feet of road frontage on the road. MR. HAYES-So we really don’t know if it’s a pre-existing lot or not. MR. BROWN-Maybe I don’t know what the question is here. MR. HAYES-The parcel, or the depiction of where his house is now. MR. BRYANT-I’m just trying to understand how they’re actually going to split it up. MR. STONE-He’s looking at the GIS. MR. BROWN-Right. Right now it’s one tax parcel. In the deed description for this tax parcel, the property is described as two parcels, Parcel A and Parcel B. MR. BRYANT-Back to my original question. Who’s going to own this right of way? That’s all I want to know. Is it you, or is it going to be split between the two? MR. BROWN-Lot One and Lot Two are going to have the ownership of those 40 foot strips. There’s two 40 foot strips that come out to Ridge Road. They’re going to be separate ownership. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So each lot is going to own 40 feet of frontage. Is that it? MR. BROWN-Which is the minimum requirement. Right. MR. MC NALLY-And they’ll probably have a driveway easement. MR. STONE-And the driveway will be down the middle. MR. BROWN-And they’ll have some cross easement. MR. STONE-Something from either one. MR. ABBATE-And this proposed shared driveway will be written in as an ROW? Right of way? MR. CANTIELLO-Yes. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. STONE-Well, as I understand what Mr. Cantiello is proposing, is to keep that long strip of land on the north side where his house is currently, and with the added land behind it to the west, and that would become lot, let’s say zero for purposes of, since the other two are labeled One and Two. The other two would be labeled One and Two. They would each have a 40 foot access onto the highway, but half of that, for each, would be given up to joint driveway. MR. BRYANT-I understand that, but the question I was asking was related to the outcome. The outcome is going to be, when this subdivision takes place, you’re going to now have three nonconforming lots, including Mr. Cantiello’s. If he doesn’t keep the road, he’s nonconforming. His lot is not 150 feet wide. MR. HIMES-It’s 119 feet. MR. BRYANT-It’s 119 feet. Okay. So now you’ve made three nonconforming lots out of one lot. MR. MC NALLY-That’s the only factor you look at, though. If you look at the total acreage, they’re all conforming. MR. STONE-By acreage. MR. BRYANT-By acreage, yes. MR. MC NALLY-Right. So, I mean, this is a pre-existing large lot that doesn’t really match the current zoning requirements, and the man has asked for permission to use his lot, and to get some commercial benefit from the back end, which is basically wasted space, because he can’t use it otherwise. Now, it depends on how you look at what’s conforming and what’s not conforming. These are all more than an acre. Clearly. This is a minimum one acre area. Have we done single shared driveways in other areas before? MR. STONE-Yes, we did one over on Fifth Street, but we granted that variance, but then he didn’t use that one, Larry Clute, I believe it was. MR. MC NALLY-Didn’t we do some up on Meadowbrook, too, some of those back lots that were older? MR. HAYES-There was one on the west side somewhere. MR. BROWN-149. MR. HAYES-149, right. MR. MC NALLY-It just depends on the circumstances. If it’s narrow in the front and it goes back, we’ve done that before. MR. HAYES-Yes, it’s a key shaped lot. MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, I’d still just like to, again, what Al is saying here, that we’re looking at the two back lots. What he’s saying, and what I think appears to be right here, is the frontage. Presently, by the applicant, is the 119 feet plus the two 40 foot slips, which makes it exceed the 150 foot width requirement, but now it’s going to be 119 feet. So by doing this, are we making, what Al is saying, are we making a lot here that doesn’t meet the frontage requirements. MR. BRYANT-Also it’s not 150 feet wide. MR. STONE-Does it have to be 150? MR. BROWN-Minimum average lot width is 150 feet in this zone. MR. STONE-Yes, okay, and his average is going to be less than 120, on his lot. You have a good point. I mean, there are three non. MR. BRYANT-Well, maybe we should have three variances. That’s all I’m saying. It’s not that I disagree with it or I don’t like it, I mean, it’s a nice project, but maybe there should be three variances and not just the two. Do you understand? That’s the only point. MR. STONE-There should be one for his property, is what you’re saying? MR. ABBATE-Point well made. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. HAYES-We didn’t advertise that though, right, Craig? Mainly because, if we go on the assumption that that’s a pre-existing lot, we can act on this until challenged. MR. BROWN-The dotted lot on the survey map that you have in front of you is one of the pre- existing parcels in the existing deed description, okay. MR. STONE-That little thing, the thing in front. MR. BROWN-My understanding, with my limited knowledge of real estate law, is that he could take that lot and, since it’s described separately in the same deed, it’s described as a separate parcel, he could sell that lot separate from the rest of the parcel. Rather than doing that, he wants to take some of the other land out of Parcel B, if you will, in that original description, include it with Parcel A, and still have two lots, but the second lot he wants to subdivide. MR. STONE-Well, except that the first lot that is now being changed, as correctly stated by Mr. Bryant, we are creating a nonconforming lot, and we’d have to grant a variance to do that. Because it’s not 150 feet. MR. HAYES-We’re not creating a nonconforming lot if it’s pre-existing. MR. STONE-Well, he’s adding to the back of it. MR. BROWN-I think that you’re making a more conforming lot. MR. MC NALLY-Right. MR. BROWN-Out of that first parcel. MR. MC NALLY-See, that corner lot is really what they call a boundary adjustment, or however much it doubles the size of the property, it’s a boundary adjustment, just like on Lake George, we had that one property on the rock, and they’re not doing anything on that corner lot. They’re not building a new house. They’re not extending to the line. They’re not changing the frontage. It’s just changing the property line. I don’t know that a variance is needed for that corner lot. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. MC NALLY-If your suggestion was, should he retain the frontage and then grant an easement across the front. MR. BRYANT-I wasn’t really making a suggestion. I was trying to understand. MR. STONE-He was just trying to understand. It’s a good point. MR. BROWN-I think in that case the applicant would be here requesting relief from the minimum of 40 foot that’s required. So they’d be here for a variance anyway. Each lot created needs a minimum of 40 feet. MR. STONE-Well, that’s the point, it changes the variance, and the question is, have we advertised it correctly? MR. HAYES-We advertised it as applied for. MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. STONE-Well, it can be our determination that it’s not a correct application. I’m not sure I totally understand the discussion, except that the land, Mr. McNally may say it’s a boundary line adjustment, but it’s creating a third lot out of what is now one tax parcel, and it would be a nonconforming lot because of the width. MR. HAYES-It’s not creating a third, though, because it’s already a lot. MR. STONE-This part’s a lot. MR. HAYES-Yes, but it’s nonconforming. So if it’s 119 feet on the road, and it stays 119 feet on the road, it’s pre-existing, nonconforming. It’s not creating a nonconforming lot. It already is nonconforming, essentially. MR. MC NALLY-When he wants subdivision approval, he has to go before where? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. HAYES-The Planning Board. MR. MC NALLY-So we’re not concerned so much with the fact that he’s subdividing it, as to whether or not he can get away with having two lots added to this parcel which are more than 150 feet wide in the back, but have a common shared driveway for access on Ridge Road for private residential purposes. MR. STONE-Well, the variance that we’re asked to grant is the minimum lot width. That’s the only variance that we’re talking about. MR. MC NALLY-Exactly. That’s what I’m saying. Should we have subdivision or not have subdivision, that’s not our thing. MR. STONE-It’s the average. MR. HAYES-We’ve never had a good definition of that in the past. MR. BROWN-No. Those numbers for the average lot width, I took nine measurements from Ridge Road to the back property line, divided by nine, and came up with an average lot width. MR. STONE-Okay. So you didn’t do a planimeter or anything like that? MR. BROWN-No, not to do the average lot width. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-When you say average, do you include the 40 foot width of the road also? MR. BROWN-I did because it’s a portion of the lot. You may have someone argue that you shouldn’t use it because it’s not buildable area, and you only average the area that’s buildable, but I used the 40 feet, that’s why they’re here. If you use just the flag portions in the back for the average lot width calculation, it’s 150 feet. They meet the requirements, but when you throw those 40 foot strips in there, it drops it way down. MR. MC NALLY-The way I look at it is if you’ve got existing lots that meet the requirements of 150 foot width, with a right of way to the road. That’s the way I look at it as a practical matter, even though they actually own title to that width. This is Ridge Road. Two single family dwellings, there’s not going to be any traffic considerations or concerns about parking or anything like that. MR. HIMES-I had a question, Mr. Chairman, for Staff, perhaps. Under the feasible alternatives, I don’t think it’s up to us to present alternatives, you know, to a problem from a zoning standpoint, and I’m not asking this question for that reason, but it does say feasible alternatives may include a reconfiguration, and it doesn’t go on to say that within that there would be compliance. If that is the case, though, if there’s somehow or another that this might be reconfigured so as to be compliant from the standpoint of what’s stated in the alternatives, is there anything that might lead us to what that might be? MR. BROWN-I don’t think there’s any way to get the two lots to be compliant. You can get them to be more compliant, if you don’t give the original lot anymore land and you just use the remainder to divide into two lots, you’re going to get a lot closer to the average lot width, but that’s up to the applicant to offer that. MR. HAYES-And that’s a result of him using those stripes from the back of the property line to the front. MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, lot width is defined as the average distance between the side lot lines of the lot. Now, as Jaime indicated, we never really had a good definition. How many points do you take from the front to the back to determine the average? MR. BRYANT-More than half the lot is only 40 feet wide. MR. STONE-That’s correct, yes. MR. BRYANT-So that effects the overall. MR. STONE-Significantly, yes. MR. HAYES-Right. It’s always been the buildable area that we’re really talking about, or is it the flag shaped lot? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. STONE-Well, we’ve gone through a lot. Basically, you’re asking for two lots that are 40 foot wide, which is the minimum required on a Town road, or a State highway, whatever you want, and a shared driveway going back through these lots, and the question before us, are we willing to grant a variance for two lots, both of whom, both of which are over, well over, one acre, which is the minimum zoning for this area, but the fact that they have an average width of less than 150 as determined by Staff, and probably by any method that we might use, but obviously, there’s a lot of ways to determine it. That’s the basic question that’s before us. Any other questions on that particular small point? I mean, you have a good point, Allan, but I think we’ll stick to the variance that’s requested. Let me open the public hearing. Do you have anything else to add? MR. CANTIELLO-Not at this moment. MR. STONE-Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED IRENE HOMER MRS. HOMER-I’m Irene Homer, the next door neighbor, and I live at 455 Ridge Road. MR. MC NALLY-Which one would that be? MR. HAYES-Right here. MRS. HOMER-This entire piece of property is a heavily wooded lot. There are conifers and there are hardwoods on it. There are deer living in there, in the woods, which I enjoy, under my apple tree every fall. When I moved there in 1978, Miss Renor, my former French teacher, had owned the house that I live in now, which was built in 1860, plus the wood lot, plus the property where Mr. Cantiello’s house is. Shortly after I moved there, my girls went for a walk in the woods, which we all have enjoyed all these years, and they were met by Miss Renor, who lived in the small house where Mr. Cantiello lives now. She told them that this is a bird sanctuary, and she brought them into her house and showed them a plaque, which may be from the Audubon Society or it may be from either New York or the Federal Government, designating this area as a bonafide bird sanctuary. Shortly after Mr. Cantiello moved there, he told me what he was planning to do, and I said, well, I thought that that was a bird sanctuary, and he said, well, there are ways to get around that. So I would like to know what the ways are to get around that, and does this property, does this nullify a bird sanctuary that’s there, I thought, in perpetual? So I guess I should say I should be objecting to this. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me ask Staff. Do you know anything about, I know wetlands. I’ve never heard, this is a new one to me. MR. BROWN-I have not seen, to do, a reference to that effect in any of the applicant’s deeds. It may be there in previous deeds. It may be property that has been conveyed to a nature conservancy or Audubon Society. I haven’t seen that yet. I mean, that’s something the applicant could provide, if you wish to see that. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re fairly certain that this is what the owner told you, not that birds like, she showed you something? MRS. HOMER-She showed, I’m not into birds, but she showed my daughter, two daughters, a plaque that was in her house, saying that this was. MR. STONE-And when was this? MRS. HOMER-1978. MR. STONE-’78. MRS. HOMER-The property has changed hands twice since then. MR. BROWN-I’m not certain that that designation would have any binding on a decision you’d make. You deal with the local zoning, but it’s certainly something you should consider when you make. MR. STONE-I understand. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MRS. HOMER-I’m concerned that the wood lot is now going to be a driveway that I have to look at. Trees have already been removed last week, trees were downed and stumps are exposed, and it isn’t as pretty as it used to be. MR. STONE-Agreed. The only thing I can say is that this is a common problem. This is not directed toward you. It’s just a statement, that we have a lot of people come out, when people want to subdivide a piece of property, that, in their mind, has been there for years, and it’s been a beautiful thing, and they kind of regard it as their own private woods. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. It’s not their private woods, and I sympathize with you. I mean, I totally understand that, being concerned with a change in your neighborhood, so to speak. The bird sanctuary is one that I don’t know, and I appreciate hearing about it. We’ll see what we can do. MRS. HOMER-Thank you. JONATHAN HAGUE MR. HAGUE-Good evening. My name is Jonathan Hague. I’ve been here all my life. Roughly in the same vicinity I live today, as we speak. MR. STONE-Where is that? MR. HAGUE-On the Ridge Road, right across the street from the proposed development. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAGUE-I see no way they can enhance the area with two houses back there. From where he is, there is already Regency Park Apartments back there. That’s how I see that. It’s just going to crowd the area. Across the street from him is the dog hospital. There’s already a major problem with traffic there already, because of the cars in and out of there. They’ll come to pretty close to a stop to get into the drive. It is a very fine area because of, like Irene said, there are wildlife back there that I have seen all my life, you know, and it’s a great pleasure to see this stuff today, because of the development that’s going on all around us today, and I have to say no to this development process, what he has in mind. Because it just doesn’t fit the area. There’s no way it can enhance the area at all. It’s just a traffic problem. That’s all I can see. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? MARGY CANALE MRS. CANALE-My name’s Margy Canale. I live on Meadow Drive, and these houses supposedly would be like in our back yard. How are they going to set? I mean, are they going to face Ridge? Are they going to face, you know, how? MR. MC NALLY-Have you seen the plans? MRS. CANALE-No. MR. STONE-Well, we can show you that. MRS. CANALE-So they’re going to be facing Ridge? MR. BROWN-Right, but they’re going to be at least 400 feet back. Probably closer to five or six hundred feet. This line is 400 feet long. They propose to be back here. This is where Mr. Cantiello’s house is now, and Mrs. Homer’s house is out here some place. The houses they propose are back here. MRS. CANALE-Now where is this in relation to Meadow Drive? I mean, I’m only the fourth house down. So it’s really. MR. BROWN-This is the property that’s this property. Meadow Drive is here. Are you the fourth house in? MRS. CANALE-The fourth house. MR. BROWN-On the right? MRS. CANALE-Yes. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. BROWN-So your lot would be approximately right here. This would be a portion of your lot that’s close to this back corner. Your house would be right about here. MR. CANALE-Right. MR. HAGUE-Now how long is this driveway right here? Who’s going to plow all this? Is it going to be a State road, so to speak, or what? MR. BROWN-It’s up to these two homeowners to deal with that. MR. HAGUE-Imagine that. MR. BROWN-Well, they’re going to own the property. So, obviously, they’d maintain their own driveways. MRS. CANALE-All right. Now what about the fire department? MR. BROWN-Those are issue that probably the Planning Board would discuss, in subdivision review, emergency access, is it suitable. MRS. CANALE-Okay. Another thing. I know our house, we have a pool in our back yard, which is a large pool, but they had to put it above the ground because it’s all rock. Isn’t that what’s going to be there? Because I know of another house, Mrs. Firth’s house, which is two houses in from Ridge, she has to have an above the ground pool, because that’s all shale or rock or whatever there. Now, what are they going to do, blast all of this and break all my Hummels? MR. STONE-That’s a Planning Board issue. I mean, as Mr. Brown says, we have a very limited thing here. I mean, I appreciate your concern, and you have a right to express it, and it certainly comes into play in our determination, because we do have to consider the effects on the neighborhood or community. That’s one of the things with which we’re charged, but those particular issues that you’re talking about, the fire department, those are site plan review. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think it’s reasonable if you take those into account in your decision, are these lots that you’re giving relief for, do they have adequate emergency access. MR. MC NALLY-Before they can build, they have to have an access road that would allow emergency vehicle use. MRS. CANALE-Where are they going to have an access road? I mean, you said, it’s going to be a driveway. MR. STONE-They have a driveway. That’s adequate. MR. MC NALLY-On Ridge, if you look, they’ve got that 80 foot right of way, and maybe a quarter of it will be a driveway going back 490 feet, plus another 60 to 100. MRS. CANALE-Now which way are the houses going to face? MR. MC NALLY-Well, you can see from the drawing. MR. STONE-They look like they’re facing Ridge. MR. MC NALLY-They’re facing Ridge. MR. STONE-They’re sort of canted in like this. MRS. CANALE-I can’t see where that’s going to beautify the neighborhood any. I mean, that’s what he’s talking about, really. I mean, as far as the bird sanctuary, I’ve heard that also, and also Mrs. Homer’s right about the deer and stuff back there. Another thing that turned us kind of off is that he was clearing it before he had the right to, as far as I was concerned. I don’t know. MR. STONE-Well, clearing it, you can take trees out of your own property. MRS. CANALE-Okay. All right. MR. STONE-You can’t clear cut more than an acre. MRS. CANALE-It just seems like it’s putting the cart before the horse. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. STONE-He can remove a couple of trees. MR. BROWN-If you have an application for a project that requires review by either a Planning and Zoning Board, or both, you can’t initiate the project, you can’t start the project, whether it’s land clearing, grading until you get the approvals. So, the applicant and actually the agent that’s listed on this application were both informed that, you know, to stop doing the land clearing and grading and tree removal until they had any approvals that they’re required to get. MR. ABBATE-I’d like to pick up on that, just for a second, just to clear my own mind. You indicated that trees have already been cleared? MRS. CANALE-I believe so. MR. STONE-A few, yes. MRS. HOMER-Absolutely. Many. Tree stumps, they’re gone. MR. ABBATE-Well, many doesn’t tell me anything. Give me some figures like. MRS. HOMER-It’s very far back. MR. ABBATE-What I’m trying to establish is was construction going on before the permit was granted? You’re saying yes, you’re saying yes, you’re saying yes. You’re saying yes. MR. HAGUE-He brought a dozer in last week. MRS. CANALE-I called the Town Hall, and I would say within an hour, excuse me, within an hour it stopped. I don’t know if somebody went up there and said something to him. MR. ABBATE-So we have five people saying that construction was started. MRS. CANALE-The clearing. MR. ABBATE-The clearing. I don’t know whether it was started or not. I’m almost reaching a point now, Mr. Chairman, I’m going to propose that this be tabled, because I have a couple of questions. One deals with whether we have a State or Federal designation of a bird sanctuary, which you have no documentation, that lady back there, and if you could come up with documentation, that would certainly help out. MR. MC NALLY-Aren’t they like a covenant or restriction? MR. ABBATE-Yes, they are. MR. MC NALLY-Is that Board charged with enforcing covenants and restrictions that are private? MR. ABBATE-The answer to your question, I don’t know, but do we have the authority to bypass it, that’s the other question. MR. STONE-We do not enforce deed restrictions or private agreements, unless this is, I’ve never heard of a designated bird sanctuary. I know there are designated wetlands which certainly come into play, and that we have to consider. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I understand that, but I have my concerns about other things. MRS. CANALE-I had one other. If you’re going to let two go in there, is it going to, two lead to four lead to six? Do you know what I’m saying? MR. HAYES-It’s not permissible. MR. STONE-It’s not permissible. MRS. CANALE-Okay. I didn’t know they were facing Ridge. MR. STONE-But it’s one acre zoning. MR. HAYES-Yes, it’s one acre zoning. MR. STONE-I mean, certainly they’d have to come back, yes. They could come in, I mean, they could come in right now and say there’s three acres back there, or these lots are three acres, could we 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) put in three homes, or could we minimize or do less than that, but they’d have to request that. They’d have to say, we want to put in on half acre lots, and then go to Planning Board and everything else. I mean, they could request that, but that’s not what they’re requesting. They’re requesting a very simple thing. There are two lots that they’re trying to cut out of this property, both an acre and a half almost, 1.4 and 1.5, and I assume that includes the 40 feet out to the road , two lots, and the question before us, in this particular zone, in which you live, which they live, it’s one acre zoning, and it’s 150 foot lot width, and that’s the question before us. These other questions are important, obviously, to the people who live there, and therefore they’re important to us, in determining the effects on the neighborhood or the community, and that we will discuss when we get there. MRS. CANALE-Okay. I have one other question. Are there going to be sewers or are there going to be septic systems? MR. HAYES-Septic. MR. STONE-Septic. MRS. CANALE-Because Ridge has sewers, but we still have septics. Well, Meadow Drive has, we’re septics. MR. STONE-Well, is Ridge sewered? MRS. HOMER-No. MRS. CANALE-I thought you were. Some is, down closer to Meadow Lane it is. MR. STONE-Yes, but not there. MRS. CANALE-Okay. All right. MR. BROWN-They sewer Meadowbrook, but not that far up on Ridge. MR. STONE-Right, yes, I didn’t think so. MR. BROWN-The applicant’s proposing two onsite systems. MR. STONE-I see that. MRS. CANALE-Well, can I have this, or is this yours? MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. STONE-All right. Anybody else wishing to speak in opposition to this? MRS. CANALE-Thank you. PAT JAMESON MRS. JAMESON-Well, none of this is in opposition, but I have three things. Pat Jameson. I live on Ridge Road. I have three things I’d like to say. First, I say this most every time I come, why don’t they put the plans up for us to see before a meeting starts. It would save a lot of people coming up here and asking which way the house faced, etc., etc. MR. STONE-That’s a good point. MRS. JAMESON-I ask that every time. They say it’s a good idea. MR. STONE-We get so used to people not asking for that. MRS. JAMESON-And not answering, and the second thing is, I share the driveway, the end of the driveway, with the Animal Hospital, and this driveway would be directly across, I believe, which maybe is the best spot for it. I don’t know, but the Hospital has a lot of traffic. I don’t know if that would be good or bad, but it would be directly across. MR. STONE-That is something, again, that the Planning Board will consider. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MRS. JAMESON-Okay. I don’t think that’s bad. The third thing is, when you divide a lot, now his house is a separate lot right now. How do you go to the Board and sign over a lot to be nonconforming? He had 189, was it, feet? MR. STONE-He had 189. MRS. JAMESON-Okay, and now he has 119? MR. MC NALLY-If he gets approval. MR. STONE-Except 119, according to Staff, is a separate lot. That’s what I’m being told. MRS. JAMESON-As of September 6, 2000, and my question is, how could he make it a nonconforming, in order to put two driveways there? MR. HAYES-Because it wasn’t 189. It was 119 and 80, because he had two lots before this application. MRS. JAMESON-I don’t think so. MR. HAYES-Well, that’s how Staff’s interpreting it. MR. STONE-That’s how Staff’s interpreting the deed. MRS. JAMESON-I think it was changed September 6 this year, and the question is. th MR. MC NALLY-Does Staff have the deed? MR. STONE-She’s saying it was September 6 that this deed was changed. th MRS. JAMESON-2000, and if that’s so, couldn’t he keep his 150 feet, put one driveway in, and one house behind him? Wouldn’t that solve a problem? I’m not saying that I’m for or against, but that’s just the way I look at it. MR. MC NALLY-In other words, he could lower his request, to just one lot. MRS. JAMESON-And have 150 feet for himself, to match all the other lots along the road. MR. STONE-Well, I see, just 40 feet you’re saying, okay. MRS. JAMESON-I want to know, can anybody just go up to, wherever you go, Board of Assessments. MR. STONE-The County. MRS. JAMESON-And change your lot to a smaller lot without any question? MR. STONE-No. You can’t make a nonconforming lot. You could divide this thing, let’s see, it’s approximately four and a half acres. You could divide this thing into four one acre lots, except you wouldn’t have frontage on a Town road, which is the other consideration. You have to have 40 feet of minimum frontage on a Town road. MRS. JAMESON-Right. Well, I would think if he had 150 feet and the other 40 for somebody’s driveway, with one house back there, might be more suitable for the area. MR. STONE-The problem is there are about three things, I’m probably wrong when I say three, at least three or four considerations that have to be met by a lot, a normal conforming lot, in this area. One, it has to have 40 feet on a Town road. Two, it must be at least an acre, third, it must be at least 150 feet wide, on average. MR. HAYES-That’s for a new lot though. MR. STONE-Well, yes, that’s for a new lot. MR. HAYES-If you go up Ridge Road, there’s dozens of lots. MRS. JAMESON-Which I think this lot was until September. That’s my point. MR. STONE-You’re saying something happened on September 6? th 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MRS. JAMESON-Well, if you read the Post Star, that’s what it said. Sunday’s paper. MR. BROWN-They record all the transfers in the paper. MRS. JAMESON-It said the property was transferred this month. MR. STONE-Yes, they record transfers. I realize that. MR. HAYES-That doesn’t mean there was a change in the lots, though. MR. STONE-That just means a change in ownership. MRS. JAMESON-The same name. MR. MC NULTY-Well, as I understand it, from what Staff was saying, this property, at least originally, was on one deed, but described as two separate parcels. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. MC NULTY-So in effect, it was the same thing as two deeds, but they were described together on one piece of paper. MRS. JAMESON-It’s possible, but if you look it up, it might be different. MR. MC NULTY-So what they may have done is separated those two parcels onto two separate deeds, but it doesn’t end up being a subdivision because they were two separately described parcels in the original deed. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-In other words, because they want to retain ownership to one of these lots, unencumbered, with a clear deed, clear title to one lot, and the other lot, or they’re trying to make two lots, the other lot is on a separate deed. That’s what I would understand would be the situation now. MRS. JAMESON-Yes, but my question was, did they make it a nonconforming lot where they live, in order to give? MR. MC NULTY-It already was. MR. STONE-That lot was nonconforming. MRS. JAMESON-As of when? Do you know? MR. MC NALLY-I think was Mrs. Jameson’s saying is she believes, from reading the paper, that that’s not true, and has someone seen the deed to find out what is true and what’s not true. MRS. JAMESON-I don’t know, I’m questioning that. Did that happen? That’s my question. That’s all I have. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on this subject, however you want to speak on this subject? Anybody else? Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing for the moment. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Why don’t you come up. There were a number of questions raised. Would you like to respond to them? MRS. MARCY-I’m Marian Marcy. I’m a licensed broker with ReMax Peak Performers, and I was involved with the property when Mr. Cantiello purchased it, and he, at that point in time, our understanding was that it was two separate properties. They were exactly as you said, Parcel A and Parcel B, and on the day of the closing of that property, Mr. Cantiello went to the closing, and the mortgage company had made a mistake, and mortgaged it together, which they were not supposed to do. They were supposed to keep that property out of his particular mortgage. So when Mrs. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) Jameson saw in the paper the change, Cathleen to Cathleen, I believe what she was seeing there was the fact that the mortgage company released the property from that. Mr. Cantiello was able to show them that they had made an error, and so they therefore split the properties up, or, excuse me, released that from the mortgage, and that’s why it was that way in the paper. Secondly, I’d like to say that we did talk about putting three houses in there. I wouldn’t tell you that we did not. We did discuss it at great length, but our objective here was to have as large a lot as possible, and build fairly expensive homes in there, and try to, and the value of those homes would be increased by keeping a country effect out there. We want to cut as few trees as possible. We do not want to go in there and just rape the property. I’m a country person. Mr. Cantiello is, and that’s the way, as is the contractor who’s going to be building those homes. So that’s our objective. We’ve never heard anything about any bird sanctuary. If that was the case, it should have been disclosed to Mr. Cantiello when he bought the property. It was never, ever mentioned. The other thing I would like to say is, one of the reasons we divided it this way, the property, and only did the two houses, was because did not feel if we did it that way that it would interfere with the neighbors in any way, shape or form. There’s beautiful stone walls back there. The houses on Meadow Drive have extremely deep building lots. So we felt that we would not be an impact on them whatsoever. We thought about the wetlands that are directly further over into Dr. Bannon’s property, and planned the houses so they would be far enough away from that so we would not impact on that. Our feeling is with the trees and stuff that we’re going to leave there, that you still will have a lot of deer and that type of thing come into the property, and that’s part of what we’re trying to accomplish here, is a country atmosphere, because we know that will appeal to a lot of people in this Town. So we’re trying to create the best of two worlds there, and one of the reasons that we put the other property onto Mr. Cantiello’s was so that that property would not be creating a third lot there, and that was our objective. MR. CANTIELLO-Mr. Chairperson, Board, I’ve been there a year and a half. I have done nothing other than beautify my property. When I moved into that house, we had to stay elsewhere for the first week, because it was uninhabitable, because the people that lived there didn’t even have a working kitchen, okay, and they had lived there for several years and had nothing in this house. I have completely gone through my house, from top to bottom, and it’ll compare to any new home that’s in Queensbury today, the inside. I recently just put on, in the last month, a 600 square foot addition on the back, totally glass, where I can watch the deer, which I go to Agway, all year long, and by feed for them, spend several hundreds of dollars to feed the deer. I introduced myself to all my neighbors when I moved in the neighborhood. You drive by my home, I get more compliments on my home now. I mean, everyone says it’s just beautiful. I mean, I want it to look like Rolling Ridge, when you drive into Rolling Ridge with the tree effect. It’s going to be a simple, pretty driveway. The homes are going to be set back in there. This is what my purpose is in doing this. I have put $40,000 into my home in the last year, to stay in the house, because I was going to build one of the homes back there for myself, but instead, I liked the old home, the Cape, and I added on and kept it, you know, with aesthetics. I’m not trying, and as far as the bird sanctuary, it is a fallacy. My deed is clear, just as well as Mrs. Homer’s house is haunted. That’s been a fallacy. I’ve heard it from several hundred people around Queensbury. MR. ABBATE-Who’s house is haunted, yours? MR. CANTIELLO-No, the one next door. That’s been the story. MRS. HOMER-It isn’t. MR. CANTIELLO-I know, but I’ve heard that story as well as you have. I mean, it’s a story. My deed is free and clear. It’s on record. You can read it. I check that out thoroughly. I am not there to level the land off, put cornfields and just put grass there. I’m there to make it look nice and actually to do more improvements to my home, with the money I’m going to benefit from selling the property. I mean, I have all kinds of ideas. I want to put a stone wall down there going into the driveway, and in the back part when you drive in I want to do like a park effect type thing. I have all these plans all drawn out of what I want to do. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question? I’m not sure. The new houses, from Ridge Road, you’re not going to be able to see them. MR. CANTIELLO-You’re not even going to see them from Ridge Road. MR. BRYANT-And what about from Meadow Drive? MR. CANTIELLO-Meadow Drive, you’ll see one side of the back. Yes, from the back of their house, they’re going to see the back. Because one lot will be angled. They’re going to be angled like this. They’re going to be facing out Ridge Road. They’re going to be stone and brick, and you know, siding as well. I mean, they’re going to be gorgeous homes. If I was in a position, I would keep the lot and build myself one beautiful home back there myself. I’m not financially in a position to do that. So this is what I decided to do. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. STONE-What are the adjoining properties like? You don’t have a tax map there, 59-3-10 and 59-3-12? MR. CANTIELLO-Well, one of the adjoining properties has a boat that they put in the yard or trailer or a Winnebago and they cover it with a tarp. If I was looking at that from my back yard, I would not be a happy camper, okay. I’m putting restrictions on my property. They’re not going to be able to have things parked in their yard like this. I don’t want a boat in my yard. Would you want to spend $200,000 for a house and have? MR. STONE-Are you talking on Meadow Drive? MR. CANTIELLO-I’m talking on Ridge and Meadow. I mean, if it was directly across the street from me, and I’m paying the kind of money I’m paying for taxes. I mean, I’m doing restrictions in my deeds, where certain things are not going to be allowed in there. They’re not going to have a clothes line hanging from the house going out to the tree. I mean, I don’t like that look. I’m a decorator. This is my business. I decorate places, you know, and I do this for a living. MR. STONE-I hear what you’re saying. I was just curious, I heard wetlands mentioned. MR. CANTIELLO-There’s no wetlands on my property. MR. STONE-Not on yours, no, not on yours. MR. CANTIELLO-It’s on Dr. Bannon’s property, and Dr. Bannon wanted to come tonight, but he wasn’t feeling well. MR. STONE-And which one is he? MR. CANTIELLO-He’s my next door neighbor who has 16 acres of land. MR. STONE-To the north? MR. CANTIELLO-To the north, yes. He asked me, he said, I’m not feeling well, but I’ll go and talk for you if you want me to, and I said, no, there won’t be a need to. Any other questions you have of me? I mean, if you drive by the house, you can see the improvements that have been made in the last year, year and a half. MRS. MARCY-I’d like to make another comment, too. They mentioned about the cutting and the fact that that had happened. That did happen. It was a mistake. What happened was it was the contractor that Mr. Cantiello had hired to go in there and start some things, not to go in there now and do it, but was going to do it, and he was not at home that day, did not know, and the contractor didn’t realize, and thought we’d had meetings, and went in there and was doing it. MR. CANTIELLO-I got a phone call, I immediately went out and stopped it. See, this was supposed to have taken place months ago, all this, and it didn’t. It got delayed. MRS. MARCY-That was a total misunderstanding. MR. CANTIELLO-I was going to say, the minute I got the phone call, I immediately went out and stopped him, had him pull everything out. MRS. MARCY-He raced home to do it. MR. STONE-Who is GRF Recycling? MRS. MARCY-Gary Finger. MR. CANTIELLO-Used to be Finger Forest Products. MR. STONE-Okay, because it says he’s the applicant. MR. CANTIELLO-He’s the contractor. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? All right. Let’s talk about it, then. Let’s start with Chuck. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, my first reaction, when I looked at this, was to say no. I think they should just put one house in there, but now that I understand the concept better, it strikes me that 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) apparently if we separated the drive and didn’t consider the drive on this, then the average lot width for those two houses would be 150 feet. So, it’s just simply because we’ve got a long, narrow access strip to these lots, that it reduces their average width to under the required 150 feet. So I think we’ve got. MR. STONE-How did you get that, just out of curiosity? MR. MC NULTY-Well, if you cut off the 40 foot, if you didn’t consider any of the 40 foot measurements in the average, then I think you probably would come up with 150 foot average width. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-It’s 190 on the back. MR. MC NULTY-It’s 190 on the back of both of them, and it’s going to be somewhat less on the front, but you’re probably going to be able to come up with something at least very close to 150 foot average width. MR. STONE-It’s going to be 80 and 90, if you, this one here. Okay. MR. MC NULTY-So, looking at it from that viewpoint, where, you know, if I ignore the long strip, then it looks like a much more reasonable project to me, and with the indication of the owner of what he hopes to accomplish there, it strikes me that it should be fairly attractive. I can understand the neighbor’s concerns. As we’ve already acknowledged, when you live next to a wooded area for a number of years, it becomes part of your yard, and it’s tough when somebody proposes to do something different with it, but the fact of the matter is, the piece of property belongs to someone else. I think it’s a reasonable proposal. As I said, looking at those lots, it strikes me that they’re basically conforming lots except for the access road. So I’d be inclined to approve. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I agree with Chuck. Originally when I looked at the drawings and the package, I wasn’t too enthusiastic about the plan, but after walking the property and speaking with Mr. Cantiello and understanding that the houses are going to be hidden from Ridge Road and they’re going to be well landscaped and I’ve got to say, I think it’s going to be a nice plan, and I would go along with it. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I, of course, too, feel that the person owns the land back there, and ought to be able to do something with it. On the other hand, I would still like to have something that I could feel with certainty, in my own mind, that this creation of a nonconforming lot isn’t really going to happen. I’ve heard a lot of us are not experts, say that it was this or it wasn’t that. I’d like to have some confirmation perhaps from the Town’s legal department, as to whether that 119 foot and a few inches is established as a legal entity all along, because the driveways come, the whole thing about it is the coming and going on Ridge Road and the other major roads in the Town plans are trying to cut down on people coming and going off the road every 50 feet or 100 feet. So, the idea of the lots and their width. I’m sure they would be a nice place to live. I expect in time, the neighbors would begin to think so, too, but that’s the thing that’s holding me up in approving it, is I would want to some (lost words) that that 119 feet that, who knows some day we may have to deal with that by itself, is a standing entity, and we’re not creating it. MR. STONE-Actually, the lot is going to be more than 119, right? Because he’s picking up a piece. MR. BROWN-Actually, the lot, if you scale it off the drawing, and you assume that that dotted line was that Parcel A, described in the original deed, it scales about 100 feet in width, and the proposal in front of you increases that to 119.65 feet. MR. STONE-One hundred and nineteen is the solid line. Okay. MR. BRYANT-In reality, that actually makes it worse. Because if you look at, what is it, it’s only 91 feet in the back. Is that correct? So that means if you took the average, that that lot is going to be even less conforming, if you look at the property width. Am I correct? MR. BROWN-But probably more than twice the size in acreage. MR. BRYANT-Yes, yes, there’s no question about that. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. HIMES-But I think the matter of the frontage, the 200 feet or 150 feet, I think is for reasons that are dealing with coming off and getting onto this, one of the arteries in the Town, and so that’s the only thing that I’m concerned with. I think I’d go along otherwise. Maybe there could be some other overall redesign of the whole thing that might satisfy some of the problems, maybe even including this one. Maybe the applicant could pursue that, but I would. MR. STONE-What I’m hearing you say, if you could be assured that we haven’t created a third nonconforming lot, the existing lot, so to speak, you have no problem with the two lot subdivision? MR. HIMES-I would reluctantly might give it favorable consideration. I don’t have enough information to do so. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Let me preface my remarks by saying that Mr. Cantiello is acting in good faith, and those folks here this evening who are opposed to it are acting in good faith. There’s no doubt in my mind, and I sympathize with both parties here. I understand your concerns. My colleague indicated that it’s going to be, if it’s approved, a beautiful project. I believe it probably will be a beautiful project. I don’t know where to draw the line. Just this evening, we had reversed, basically, or modified a decision based upon the concerns of neighbors. So I have to assume that neighbors would be one factor in the decision making process. If that’s the case, then I have to think of what all these folks who are opposed to it this evening. On the other hand, Mr. Cantiello, I’m sure it’s going to be a good project. Then I hear one of my fellow members indicate that he’s a little uncomfortable because there’s not enough assurance, as to the size of the 119 foot, dwelling on it already. So, at this point, I’m wavering, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Abbate’s right, in that as a Board, we’re charged with balancing the interests of the individual and the interests of the community, and it’s sometimes a hard job, but in that process we’re asked to look at five factors, and in considering those five factors, the first is the benefit to the applicant. We have a property owner who owns a lot with some four and a half acres in size, and he has this lot in a zone that requires only a single lot of a single acre to build a single home, and a property owner, he’s entitled to develop his property as he sees fit, and I don’t think that we, as a Board, can strip a person of that right to develop their property, as long as it’s done reasonably, within the requirements of the Code, and to the extent that this is an existing lot, and it can’t meet all the requirements, such as a uniform 150 foot width, and we’re charged with granting variances in circumstances where it’s reasonable. The alternatives, in this case, of trying to put three lots on this plot, there are no feasible alternatives. Any way you do it, you’re not going to get a uniform 150 foot lot. The zoning code was written for when people put in new subdivisions and you want to make a nice, square lot. Well, this isn’t a square lot. This is an odd shape. It’s been there for 100 years. How are you going to whack it up? That’s what we’re charged with. The third factor is whether the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, and with all due respect to the neighbors, I don’t think that the relief that this applicant is asking for is that substantial. We have basically two flag shaped lots, and the only reason that there’s a variance from the Code is because the arms of that flag, where it goes from Ridge to the lots where the houses are going to be built, is a bit narrow, but to be perfectly frank, that flag pole is 80 feet wide, which is pretty damn wide, or any right of way or road through that is going to be on the order of 20, 25 feet, an insignificant portion. In addition, I don’t see it as substantial, because the lots that are in the back, where the houses are going to be built, are clearly conforming, at least the buildable area, and you’ve got to take into account also, if you look at the map as they have proposed it, from Ridge Road, to the back of Mr. Cantiello’s lot is 490 feet, and the houses are going to be even built further behind that. We’re talking 500, 550 feet back from the road. So from the perspective of Ridge Road, there is nothing that is going to happen on that road that’s going to effect the neighbors along that side, and I’m not even concerned about traffic, because these are single family houses. It’s not as if someone’s putting up 20 modular homes or 20 townhouses in a row where you’ll have people coming in and out. Basically, it’s going to be very quiet, very few increase in traffic. That’s one of the reasons I don’t think that there’s going to be a lot of effects upon the neighborhood. I sympathize with people that cut down trees and neighbors that are concerned about that. I’ve got a place where I live where they cut down an entire lot and the place looks like hell in a hand basket, but a private property owner is entitled to cut down every blasted tree on his property, for firewood or some other thing, and in this case, if they ask him to stop, it’s because it’s at the beginning of his project. If he scraps his project, he can still cut down all the trees, and I think Mr. Cantiello’s explained, that’s not what he wants to do. He wants to be a good neighbor, and the proposal he has in front of us is to have two expensive homes, and people who buy expensive homes don’t want to buy them on the (lost word) landscape. So I anticipate that it’s going to be (lost word). I don’t see that as being a stop factor. For all these reasons, I think that this is a reasonable application, and I’d be in favor of the variance. MR. STONE-Jaime. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. It certainly is a difficult question. The neighbors concerns are legitimate. I own several pieces of property on Ridge Road, myself, and I understand and certainly hope to continue the nature of that street, because it is beautiful, for sure, but in this case, I think the applicant is proposing to subdivide this lot, in a boundary line agreement with his current home, in a way that makes sense, and the two lots that he’s proposing to subdivide both exceed, significantly, the minimum lot requirements in that neighborhood. So, I mean, in my mind the rural nature of Ridge Road would certainly be preserved by this subdivision. The very fact that there’s a joint driveway, while a matter of concern, in a way, reduces the curb cut onto Ridge Road, to which my mind is a benefit. As far as impacts on the neighborhood or community, I think that Allan is correct. I think that these houses are not going to be able to be seen from Ridge Road, which is typical in a key shaped lot type development. So, as I look at it, I don’t think that there’s going to be any significant visual impact on the neighborhood. I have a key shaped lot on Ridge Road myself, which came before this Board and it certainly is a difficult question, but as kind of a sidebar, I was asked by the Chairman when was I going to build the house that was approved for on the lot, because he hadn’t seen it, and it had already been built. So, you could not see it from the road, and it didn’t impact the neighborhood. So, I guess, balancing all the things that are involved with the test, and the fact that feasible alternatives are limited. I believe that the balance of the test falls in favor of the applicant, in this particular case, because I think the impact on the neighborhood would be very moderate to minimal, in my mind, and I guess, on balance, I would be in favor of this application. MR. STONE-Well, I concur with certainly the last two erudite speakers, not that the rest aren’t erudite, but certainly Mr. McNally and Mr. Hayes have put it, I think, quite well. The one thing I would ask, because I do recognize the neighbor’s feeling about their lot. I understand why people feel that way. I think we all, I was fortunate, years ago, to own a lot next to a paper street in another town, and, yes, I would have hated to see somebody who wanted to build on that street, but I recognized that that was the facts. It could go if it had to. I would ask, however, Mr. Cantiello, would you be willing to a condition that minimal tree removal be done on these lots, that they would stay? MR. CANTIELLO-Most definitely. That’s my plan. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, we can’t restrict you to, certainly we don’t know the number of lots, but we can ask for consideration and discussion maybe with the neighbors, I wouldn’t necessarily go that far, but, having said that, I think I would, I certainly feel that this is the kind of thing that we have granted before. I would like to think that Staff’s assessment is correct. I am willing to accept Staff’s assessment that we have not created a third nonconforming lot. In fact, if anything, by your transfer, you have made this lot more conforming. It is a little wider than it used to be, and certainly it’s bigger than it used to be, and therefore I’m comfortable that this separately deeded or separately mentioned nonconforming lot was nonconforming, and it will be less so under your plan. Having said that, I would call for a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-2000 CATHLEEN CANTIELLO, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 463 Ridge Road. This applicant proposes the development of a two lot residential subdivision, and in doing so she requests 60.7 and 70.33 feet of relief from the 150 foot minimum lot width requirement of the SFR-1A zone, that is Section 179-20, of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. I ask that the variance be approved for the following reasons. First, the benefit to the applicant is that she would be permitted to create and develop two residential lots in what is currently an oversized lot with less road frontage than would be ideal, but certainly a large amount of space in the back, “T” shaped or flag shaped as we’ve described in our conversation tonight. The feasible alternatives are none. There’s simply no way to subdivide this property into three lots without requiring some kind of relief, and the amount of relief this applicant has requested is minimal. That relief, as I’ve noted, is not substantial. Effectively, the two lots in the rear, at least as far as their buildable area, meet the Town Zoning Code requirements in being in excess of 150 feet wide and being more than one acre by approximately another half acre. The only reason for the relief is because they need access to the road, and that roadway access is going to be 80 feet wide, which, given the Ordinance, is quite reasonable. The effects on the neighborhood or community is certainly going to be present. This is an old lot which the neighbors have grown accustomed to being undeveloped, and they certainly hope that it remains undeveloped. However, as proposed by this applicant, the houses are going to be in excess of 490 feet from Ridge Road, and she’s going to maintain significant trees and shrubbery and screening on the property, in order to maintain the rural residential feeling of the area already. The difficulty is not self-created, in my opinion, as it results from an existing lot, and, therefore, given these considerations, I’d move the approval of the variance. That the applicant maintain trees and minimize tree cutting to the extent possible, as a condition of this variance. That the applicant will minimize, to the extent that he is able to, subject to the Planning Board approval and specification, whatever clear cutting he’s going to have on the property. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) Duly adopted this 20 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. ABBATE-Before we make a motion, do we have that condition in there that the contractor or Mr. Cantiello, please? MR. STONE-Bob, do you want to put a condition in? MR. MC NALLY-I will take Mr. Stone’s suggestion that the applicant maintain trees and minimize tree cutting to the extent possible, as a condition of this variance. MR. STONE-The other thing, Craig, should we identify which lot has which variance? Because you know, but I don’t think it’s ever been identified for me. MR. BROWN-I think that’s evident in the application. I think, in reference to the clearing, maybe a referral to the Planning Board where at that point of review for the subdivision, they could delineate clearing areas on the site, that the Planning Board could approve, if they desire. I mean, and one other point, not on the motion, but on the application, I guess for the members of the public that are here, this variance doesn’t create the lots. The project still has to go through subdivision review by the Planning Board. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. BROWN-At which time all the concerns, if you wish, could be raised again, and the Planning Board would have a different viewpoint, or may have a different viewpoint on it. So, just, this isn’t the end. It’s still out there. MR. MC NALLY-Well, all we’re doing is allowing them to have a driveway to the street, basically, with a lot which, on an average, results in a narrower average lot. MR. STONE-The other thing I would say, Bob, you said 80 feet. It’s really 40 feet per lot. MR. MC NALLY-Correct. I’m looking at it as a shared driveway. So you’re correct that each lot is 40 feet on the road, but effectively, because of that common driveway, from the neighbor’s perspective, it’s going to be an 80 foot wide section with a single road through it, but your correct, and I would include in my variance, though, motion, that the applicant will minimize, to the extent that he is able to, subject to the Planning Board approval and specification, whatever clear cutting he’s going to have on the property. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions about the motion? You had a question over here. MRS. CANALE-I had a question. Just on this picture here, between the property and where it says Meadow Drive, what is that little box, little square in there? MR. STONE-That’s a good question. I asked the same one. Does that come from the GIS? MR. ABBATE-It’s a bird sanctuary. MR. BROWN-Yes. That’s something in one of the layers of the program, yes. MR. STONE-It’s in one of the layers on the GIS, and it just came through. MR. BROWN-Yes. It doesn’t have any bearing on any of the properties. It’s not property lines. It’s not buildings. It’s just something that’s on that portion of the map. MR. STONE-You may not be familiar with GIS, but it’s a whole layer, you can have a whole series of layers of information built up on the computer, and you can look at the land in a variety of ways, and it’s just something that’s in there, and if you know computers, it’s probably garbage in and garbage out. MR. ABBATE-And, Craig, you can assure this Board that those little squares are not cages for a bird sanctuary. MR. STONE-All right. It’s a good question. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. STONE-Okay. It’s approved, five, two. MRS. MARCY-Okay. Could I just make a comment to the neighbors, and assure them, at this point and always, we do intend to keep the trees there and try to keep the rural nature of that community. Okay. MR. STONE-We appreciate that. MR. MC NALLY-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MRS. MARCY-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-2000 TYPE II ROBERT WALL OWNER: SAME AGENT: KEVIN MASCHEWSKI ZONE: WR-3A, CEA, APA LOCATION: 15 ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,900 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF, HEIGHT RELIEF, AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 73-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 1-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-This is another first time, as far as I’m concerned. We have two Towns involved. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 79-2000, Robert Wall, Meeting Date: September 20, 2000 “Project Location: 15 Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1900 sf two story addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 9.66 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement, 6 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirement and 6% relief from the 22% allowable Floor Area Ratio requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Also, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure per § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to dramatically increase the living space of the home. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller compliant addition. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief may be interpreted as moderate. 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.): SPR 73-2000 9/28/00 expansion of a non conforming structure in a CEA Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. This unique proposal is bisected by the Queensbury/Lake George town line, which is represented as an approximate location on the plot plan submitted. The Floor Area Ratio for the entire parcel drops to 23% when the lands and proposed development in Lake George are considered. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 13, 2000 Project Name: Wall, Robert Owner: Robert Wall ID Number: QBY-AV-79-2000 County Project#: Sep00-35 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,900 sq. ft. addition and seeks setback relief, height relief, and relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Site Location: 15 Antigua Road Tax Map Number: 1-1-5 Staff Notes: This proposed action has also been referred for County review of a site plan (Agenda Item 36). Though the information from the Town indicates that this application requires the variances noted in the project description section above, it appears that the shoreline portion of this action lies within the Town of Lake George and would actually be subject to that Town’s regulations (see attached site plan). Though the proposed action does not meet the setback requirements of the Town of Queensbury, the structure does meet the Town of Lake George ordinance’s shoreline setback requirements for the zone. Given that the proposal meets the standards applied to proximate parcels for lakeshore development, Staff’s only concern is that the application does not indicate whether bedrooms or bathrooms will be added to the structure or the capacity of the septic system. Due to this, Staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing will be held September 2000. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with condition that the septic system meets Department of Health standards.” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board 9/14/00. MR. STONE-You’re up, sir. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. Thank you. My name is Kevin Maschewski, and I’m acting as the agent to Mr. Wall. Yes, this is kind of unique being that the property falls between both Towns of Lake George and Queensbury. Knowing that, when I was promoting myself to Mr. Wall to look at this and devise an addition, design an addition, I presented this to Craig Brown and to Cliff Frasier over in the Town of Lake George, and I think what the outcome was, that, being that it falls within both Towns, that I would be required, or Robert Wall would be required, to sit in front of both Zoning Boards and present the proposal. That’s what we’re planning on doing. The application is going to be in for Monday, for the Town of Lake George. So, I guess October 5 is the Town of Lake th George variance, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. What ended up happening the last week, when I had sat in front of the County Board, there were questions on the septic system, and that following morning, ironically, I did have a meeting at the project site with Tom Nace of Nace Engineering to do a site evaluation and test hole for a septic. Craig Brown had indicated to me that requirements would be that we prove that the existing house is sufficient, the septic system is sufficient for the proposed addition. I could not verify that. No engineer that I know could verify that. So upon Craig’s recommendation is that you either had to prove that the existing would provide adequate sewage holding for the proposed addition, or just design a new one. At that point, we had contacted Tom Nace to start evaluating the site, and I do have a letter here and a revised site plan I would like to get to the Board members. MR. STONE-Okay. Do you have the side elevation, I hope? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, I do. MR. STONE-Good. To my best knowledge, the height requirement for Queensbury being 28 feet, is that we are adhering to the Queensbury height restriction within the Queensbury Town line. The grade slopes down from the road down the driveway down to the lake considerably. The lakefront addition, which falls within the Town of Lake George, is roughly six feet taller, because the ground, not that the height of the building is taller. It’s just that the ground goes six feet lower, and I think that’s where the height variance comes into play, which I’m a little confused, and I think we all are. MR. STONE-Well, the zoning in Queensbury is very point along the ground. You can’t be over 28 feet at any point in the Town of Queensbury, and if the land goes down, the roof goes down. Technically. MR. BRYANT-What’s the height when you get to the Town of Queensbury line? MR. STONE-That’s what I want to know. MR. HAYES-It’s 34 feet. MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s 34 out back. MR. STONE-Where’s the Queensbury line on this south side elevation? Do you have any idea? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. It would be roughly, from the front of the house, and I don’t show it on this. The house is existing. It’s 26 plus an additional five feet. So probably right above the “S” on “South”. MR. STONE-Right above the “S” on “South”. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, approximately. MR. STONE-Okay. Now, I would argue, and I don’t know what my fellow Board members would do, I would argue that that’s not the way the land looked to me. It seems to go down a lot steeper than that, from the back of the house to the front. We can talk about it. MR. MC NALLY-Did you scale the actual elevation of the land? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. I have photographs of the side of the house, and I just approximated down there, and even in the front of the house, I mean, again, this is the whole, I think the whole property together as one whole is kind of unique, because, as you come down the driveway, you step down in a hole to get into the house. So the front of the property steps down approximately two and a half feet for about four feet in front of the house. So it’s kind of, the whole property itself is unique in that manner of height of ground as it relates to the house itself. It’s kind of a play on the ground, really. MR. BRYANT-How do we know what the relief is going to be, Mr. Chairman, if we don’t the height of the house in the Town of Queensbury? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. STONE-That’s a good point. I mean, the concern that I wrote down is, I need, well, first of all, you’ve given me some idea of where the line is, but I need to know the actual height at points along the ground. That’s the way our Ordinance reads. It’s very clear that it’s any vertical from the highest point of the house, and the highest point can be in the middle of the house. You understand that? It’s not just the wall? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. STONE-Sometimes we’ve had problems with that, with Staff. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. STONE-So I think Mr. Bryant is correct. I think we need to know more, quite frankly on this thing, in terms of exactly what it is we’re going to be granting because I suspect, I mean, you say six feet, now, Craig, where did you get the six feet? MR. BROWN-That was prior to the profile and elevation from this side of the house. I assumed that 34 feet was the elevation at the Town line. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Worst case scenario. I mean, if the applicant wants to submit that the house isn’t going to be taller than 28 feet in the Town of Queensbury, you don’t need to give him relief. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-That makes it easy. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-If he’s willing to stipulate that, and then we go out. MR. BROWN-And get some kind of vertical confirmation to that effect when they do the survey. MR. MASCHEWSKI-And what I expect is that complete survey, being that this addition is pretty substantial, there’s going to have to be, I do have an up to date survey from Van Dusen & Steves. There has to get topo put on that, topography for Tom Nace to do the actual septic system. So, in addition to having the surveyors back out there, we can approximate, I guess, where that Town line is, and then after the addition gets built, they’re going to come back out and have to plot the new addition on the survey. MR. STONE-You weren’t here when we started the meeting. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, I was. MR. STONE-You heard the motion that we, the proposed? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay, because this is something that we have not done before. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, and I’m all for it. I mean, you’re making a substantial change to a structure. I mean, the survey should be updated, regardless if it’s going to change hands or not. MR. STONE-Anything else you want to tell us? MR. MASCHEWSKI-On that new 11 by 17 site plan, there is a crossed, or not a crossed but a dashed area of where the proposed septic area will be. That had taken some change. There was a circular drive. It was anticipated that circular drive will come out and the drive will not go down to right in front of the house, and the septic system will go right in front of the house area. There was a question, a little while ago, about bedrooms and septic. The anticipation here is for, the house is three bedrooms. It’s going to replace the addition, and the modifications will still include a three bedroom. The septic system will be sized for three bedroom. If, by looking at this, if the site and the property allows additional leach field, then there may be thought of putting a fourth bedroom in there, but at this point, the owners are just going to keep it as a three bedroom, and the septic will follow that design. MR. STONE-Do you know, because on this, which is the same thing we had before, lot size is listed at .44 acres. Do you know how the breakdown is between Lake George and Queensbury? 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, but that, I don’t have my calculator. That could be very easily figured out, because it is pretty rectangular. The approximate, on the bottom of that site plan, shows 77 feet. It can be an extrapolation, similar to what Craig was talking about in the previous application. You could just about extrapolate and figure out where it is, but I do not know. MR. STONE-Let me just say, one of the things that concerns me when I see a drawing like this, is I looked at the property, and the dock is nothing like the dock. Now, I know the dock is in Lake George, but the dock that they were constructing today, or working on, is not the dock that you here. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, and I do apologize for that. This drawing was done about a month ago, and when I did my initial site survey, the dock was there. The property owner did follow with a Lake George Park Commission permit. MR. STONE-He does have a permit? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Absolutely. Yes. MR. STONE-I hoped he did. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, he does. MR. STONE-Because it’s a big dock. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. A permit has been pulled for that. MR. MC NALLY-There’s going to be a boathouse on top of there. MR. STONE-I understand. No, I’m not sure. MR. MC NALLY-Well, I talked to the builder. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, Bob Sutliff. MR. MC NALLY-This is not a sealed survey or? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. There is one out by Van Dusen & Steves, though. That’s pretty much an outline of the project. MR. STONE-Any questions? MR. HIMES-I guess maybe this is for Craig. The expansion of the nonconforming structure aspect of it, it’s limited to 50%, an increase over the square footage. I think you’re limited. MR. STONE-Well, they seek relief from it. MR. BRYANT-But what is the percentage? It’s two stories. I calculated about 2,000 square feet that you’re adding on. Your building now is 1500 square feet? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. BRYANT-So, somebody do the math. I put my calculator away. MR. HAYES-You’re adding 2,000, so it’s 3500. MR. MASCHEWSKI-He’s trying to figure the percentage. MR. HAYES-133%. MR. STONE-Is that 19 the total of the two stories, Craig, the 1900 square foot addition? That’s the area of both first and second story? MR. BROWN-That’s the area of the addition both stories in the Town of Queensbury. MR. STONE-Both stories in the Town of Queensbury. MR. BROWN-Yes. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. STONE-Okay. Well, is the, let me look at the picture you gave me. The house is going to be, the existing house is going to be built up to a second story? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct. The roof, the anticipation is the roof’s going to be taken off and build a second floor, which, a fair amount of that will be lofted anyway, and then the addition toward the lake is also part of the first and second floor addition. MR. STONE-Right. MR. HIMES-I’m still sticking with this thing about the 50%. We’ve got down here, in 179-79, Section B, it says, “Except as cited in Subsection A above, any nonconforming use may be increased only by variance.” And then Article, Subsection A, you have Number Two says, “No enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed an aggregate of 50% of Gross Floor Area for such single family dwelling or mobile home immediately prior to the commencement of the first enlargement or rebuilding.” I don’t understand this, I guess. It seems to be saying that you can get a variance, except for Subsection A. MR. BROWN-Yes. If you read, “D”, it references a nonconforming use, and that basically addresses nonconforming uses require a Use Variance. That’s the only way you can expand a nonconforming use. This is a structure that we’re talking about dimensional relief. MR. HIMES-You’re right. MR. BROWN-So you can expand a nonconforming structure, as long as the expansion meets setbacks, square footage, height. Even if the existing building is nonconforming, if you’re going to add on in a compliant location, you don’t need a variance. It’s only if your expansion is the same as the noncomplying location or worsens the situation that the variance is required. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Are you happy with the? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. STONE-But we still don’t know what that number is, though, do we? What percent increase we’re making? MR. BROWN-There’s 1400 square feet there now, and you want to add another 1900. MR. HAYES-That’s 3300. MR. ABBATE-3300 square feet. MR. STONE-1904, that’s what it is. Okay. All right. You’re calculating six percent relief from the 22%, based upon the land in Queensbury? MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s 11,700 square feet. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-But the total Floor Area Ratio, if you take into account Lake George in Queensbury, the property is 23%. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So one percent over. MR. STONE-Except that we still haven’t determined the legalities of how we consider that. MR. MC NALLY-Well, I know that, but I mean, I think if you look at the lot overall, the fact of the matter is it is a single building lot with a single home. Certainly we should take into account Queensbury’s requirement as to the portion in the Town, but I think we should also keep in mind what the total project is. That’s all I’m suggesting. MR. STONE-Yes, except that we have been always concerned by lake properties, in terms of, particularly when it comes to the height, because we do have to recognize what it’s going to look like from the lake, even though it’s from, because of the Lake George looser requirements, if you will, but we always concern ourselves, and by allowing it to be oversized on the back side, we’re contributing to visual impact. MR. MC NALLY-I agree. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. STONE-Any other questions at the moment. MR. MC NALLY-I understand the 28 foot height requirement, and I’m not sure what the resolution of that was? Is it the applicant saying that he doesn’t know how high the building is in the Town of Queensbury and what kind of relief he wants, or is he taking our suggestion that it will be 28 feet or lower, and therefore I’m not asking for any relief? MR. MASCHEWSKI-It will be 28 feet or lower. Therefore, I am not asking for relief. MR. STONE-From grade? MR. MASCHEWSKI-From grade, yes. MR. STONE-At all points in the Town of Queensbury? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, and there may be a possibility to drop the roof slope to accommodate that. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So that’s a non issue, then. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. My whole anticipation in coming forth here was not to be promoting it at over 28 feet. I mean, I’ve sat in front of the Board here, and I’m very familiar with the 28 foot requirement, and I didn’t even want to go there. MR. STONE-I thought you were. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, I didn’t want to go there. I guess at this point, yes. I would adhere to that, and we can do a survey indicating that, you know, certified, if need be. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’re concerning ourselves with the side setback, the floor area ratio, and the fact that it’s more than 50%, in Queensbury, and we’ve still got to determine, in our mind, what relief we’re allowing, in terms of floor area ratio. If it’s Queensbury only, then it’s six percent, not six percent more, this is why I hate statistics. It’s from 22 to 28, which is not six percent. MR. HAYES-No, it’s 19. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-Because 30 feet would be 20%. So it’s like 19%. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. MASCHEWSKI-I do have a question. Craig, floor area ratio, in Queensbury, 22%. Are you saying I’m over that? We’re over that with the application? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s what he’s saying. MR. MC NALLY-The way the numbers, I see, work out, you’re 20 and 8 percent, if you take into account simply the portion that’s in the Town. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Within the Town of Queensbury. Okay. MR. BROWN-There’s 3300 square feet, divided by the 11,700 square feet, in the Town. That’s the percentage you come up with. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. MR. STONE-And the garage doesn’t count. That’s separate. MR. HAYES-It counts in the floor area ratio, doesn’t it? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-If that’s included in these numbers, it’s counted. If it’s not included in these numbers, it hasn’t been considered yet. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. HAYES-Is that included in the 1900 square feet? MR. STONE-Is the garage? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. The garage? No. MR. STONE-We’re getting higher. MR. BROWN-So if at some point they want to come back with that, or if it’s part of this application, it should be thrown in there. MR. HAYES-Is that going to be in Queensbury or Lake George? MR. STONE-That’s in Queensbury. MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s in Queensbury. MR. HAYES-So it’s kind of to the right. MR. MASCHEWSKI-A large percentage of the existing, probably 95% of the existing structure, is Queensbury. MR. HAYES-It looks like it. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, with a little bit of a sun porch and deck, and then a large percentage of the new bump out addition toward the lake is Lake George. MR. HIMES-It would seem that the existing driveway now, when I walked down it, it must be fun in the winter, with the water, with a hard rain, I wonder how they handle it now? It seems like you (lost words) the back door there. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Believe it or not, the basement is dry, but, I mean, that brings on a valid point. The proposed garage, up by the road, for winter parking, they’re going to park up there and have a sidewalk down. So that whole U-turn driveway area is going to be removed, and that’s where the proposed septic is going to kind of bleed into, but, yes, it’s quite steep. MR. HIMES-It seems like there would be runoff to the lake. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, and in part of my proposal, in doing site and the architectural drawings, is to mitigate that water. It’s pretty dry, with all the rain we’ve had, believe it or not. MR. STONE-All right. Let me go back. You’re talking 1900 square foot addition to the living area, and the garage we haven’t put on top of that, which is another 800 square feet, give or take. So we’re way over. MR. BROWN-If that’s part of this application. If (lost words) they’re going to come in for additional relief when they do the garage, then it’s not considered. If it’s part. MR. STONE-Is the garage part of the application? MR. BROWN-Let me say this first. It wasn’t advertised as part of the project. MR. STONE-No, I know it wasn’t. MR. HAYES-So we couldn’t proceed even if there was, then. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. BRYANT-If you actually figure it out, the square footage of this addition in the back alone is about 1150 times 2. I don’t know, unless it’s some kind of other. That’s not including this over here. MR. STONE-1150 for one floor? MR. ABBATE-Times two. MR. BRYANT-Right, because you’ve got 14 times 65. MR. STONE-Well, part of it’s in the other house, though. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. HAYES-Part of it’s already there, isn’t it? MR. STONE-That’s existing. The first floor is existing. MR. BRYANT-No, no, no. I’m talking about this gray area that’s the proposed addition. MR. STONE-Yes, but you’ve got to go to that line, that dotted line. MR. BRYANT-Yes, where the Town is, you’re talking about? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-I’m talking about the whole building. How are you determining that? I don’t understand. How are you determining the 1900 square feet? That’s what I want to know. MR. BROWN-One of the site plan drawings you have here, the ones with the elevations on it, up in the upper corner, the applicant’s supplied first floor area, second floor area, in the Town of Queensbury. That’s 3314. The floor area ratio sheet says the existing building is 1440. Whatever the distance is between the 33 proposed and the existing 1440, that’s the addition in the Town. It’s 19, whatever the numbers are. MR. BRYANT-But see they’re including all buildings. MR. BROWN-Including the building that’s in the Town of Queensbury. If you continue on with those numbers, there’s a lot more floor area in the Town of Lake George that’s going to make up that. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, I knew it was going to be a big question. So I broke it out on this drawing. MR. STONE-The general information on the application says a detached garage. It’s part of the application. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Was the garage, proposed garage. MR. STONE-So I think we’ve got to look at this again. MR. ABBATE-Part of the application is the garage, right? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. ABBATE-So that increases, then, the space by 800 and some feet, correct? MR. HAYES-The floor area ratio. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STONE-The floor area, the building area. Craig, I think we are at an impasse. MR. MASCHEWSKI-If we need be, we could pull the application for the garage, if it would hold up any future plans on the house. The garage was always a secondary thought. MR. STONE-I would prefer not to, because we would probably turn down the garage. Without question, because it’s going to really make your floor area ratio way out of line. MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s what I’m saying, we could pull it out. MR. STONE-But you want to build it, though. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, yes. If you weigh the baskets, the house addition is more. MR. BROWN-That’s up to the applicant. MR. STONE-Well, you could do it, recognizing that if you want to approach us for an 800 foot garage, on top of a house which is nonconforming now by, except by virtue of the variance that we grant, I mean, I’d prefer not to play that, if we grant it. I would like to re-visit, I, personally, would like to re-visit this next month. I just think there’s enough questions that we’ve raised, which we’ll raise in a tabling motion, that I think we need to know. I mean, are you willing to table it? 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, I am. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m going to ask you guys for help in the information that we want. I move that we table Area Variance No. 79-2000 Robert Wall, 15 Road. So that we obtain the following information, and correctly advertise the application for up to 62 days. The information that we require is, you guys want to jump in. MR. BROWN-Did you do a public hearing yet? MR. STONE-I didn’t do the public hearing, because I don’t think we can do a public hearing. MR. BROWN-Yes, it’s been advertised. I think you should at least open it and leave it open? MR. STONE-Okay. All right. I’ll hold the motion. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes, we do have correspondence. We have one letter from David Montana, addressed to the Board. “We are not opposed, in any way, to the permit application or variance requested by Mr. Robert Wall. This is a property that has not been upgraded in the last 40 years. We had the opportunity to review the blueprints, and we are sure that what they are doing is in good taste, and will enhance the neighboring properties”. And Mr. Montana resides at 17 Road. MR. STONE-Okay. Is that it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-Okay. I will leave the public hearing open, in anticipation of tabling this particular application. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-2000 ROBERT WALL, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: For no more than 62 days, in which time the applicant will furnish the following information: An accurate description of the amount of the project in Queensbury, in terms of garage, square footage of the house, basically the square footage of the additions made in Queensbury. We need to know the building square footage total for this project that resides within the confines of the Town of Queensbury, be they second floor, garage or anything else that they wish to put in this application. We need to know exactly where the Lake George/Queensbury line is, as it relates to the building square footage within either Town, and the height. Duly adopted this 20 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-What else do we want? MR. HAYES-The height. MR. STONE-Well, he’s saying the height, he’s taking that off. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, I’m taking that off. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BRYANT-The floor area ratio worksheet doesn’t add up. It doesn’t add up to 1900 square feet. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we need clarification. MR. BRYANT-I just want clarification as to what part, what exactly we’re asking for. MR. STONE-We need to know the square footage of the additions made in the Town of Queensbury. MR. BRYANT-Supposedly, is the worksheet, it doesn’t add up to 1900 square feet. MR. BROWN-It adds up to 3314. If you subtract the existing space, that’s what you, you talk about the addition is the 1900. MR. MASCHEWSKI-The 1900, I believe, Craig, that came from you? 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. Something that you wrote in your write up? MR. BROWN-Yes, and I took your 3300 minus the existing 1440. MR. MASCHEWSKI-I’ll meet with you and we’ll go over it. MR. STONE-Okay, but we need to know the building, I’ll use the definition that’s in the book. We need to know the building square footage total for this project that resides within the confines of the Town of Queensbury, be they second floor, garage or anything else that they wish to put in this application. MR. HIMES-Many times we’re given (lost words) about the internal layout. I don’t know if we can ask that information, but what the internal layout is, existing and what the proposed layout is going to be, bedrooms, bathrooms, you know, that kind of thing. MR. STONE-I don’t think that’s in our purview. MR. HIMES-Okay. I didn’t know whether it was or it wasn’t. MR. STONE-No. MR. HIMES-Okay. That’s all right. MR. STONE-I mean, that’s going to be covered by the Planning Board, in terms of septics and how many bedrooms, how many bathrooms, and all that stuff. Anything else that we want to have, gentlemen? We certainly need to know exactly where the Lake George/Queensbury line is, as it relates to the building square footage within either Town, and the height, and I would advise you to check the Code and to check with Craig, in terms of, I mean, and you’re willing to stipulate that the height will not exceed 28 feet per the definition in the Queensbury Zoning Code. Okay. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-So, we’ll see you next month or the month after. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. Probably next month. MR. STONE-Talk with Craig. Craig, you understand what we’re trying to do, right? MR. BROWN-I think so. MR. STONE-I think the question really comes down to the fact that the application has to be very clear, in terms of what it is we’re looking for, what you’re looking for. MR. MASCHEWSKI-I’m aware of that. MR. STONE-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-2000 TYPE: II SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES OWNER: LINDA HEWLETT AND GERALD HEWLETT AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER/NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 34 TRIANGLE PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF EXISITING MINI-STORAGE FACILITY TO ADD FIVE NEW STORAGE BUILDINGS AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF, BUFFER ZONE RELIEF, AND RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: PUD SPR 53-99, PUD SPR 65-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-24.1 LOT SIZE: 8.69 ACRES SECTION 179-70, 179-72 (d), 179-26 JON LAPPER & RICH SCHERMERHORN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 80-2000, Schermerhorn Properties, Meeting Date: September 20, 2000 “Project Location: 34 Triangle Park Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposed construction of five self storage buildings. Relief Required: Applicant requests 5.71 feet 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement of the LI-1A zone, § 179-26. Also, the applicant is requesting approximately 45 feet of relief from the 50 foot buffer zone requirement per § 179-72, as the northerly line of this parcel coincides with a zoning district line between a Highway Commercial zone and the subject Light Industrial zone. Further, the applicant is requesting relief from the minimum road frontage requirements of § 179-70, as the subject lot has no frontage on a public right of way. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to double the use and number of storage buildings at the facility. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include removal of the northerly most building, thereby eliminating the need for relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 5.71 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate, however, 45 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement maybe interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Subdivision 6-99 modified 5/24/99 removal of road frontage AV38-1999 res. 5/19/99 Creation of a lot without road frontage Variance 814 res. 3/16/83. Mini storage building northern most existing Variance 885 res. 12/21/83 Mini storage warehouse Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the proposed development appears to be consistent with the existing site conditions, it does not appear that the applicant would be deprived of a reasonable use of the property if no relief were granted. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 13, 2000 Project Name: Schermerhorn Properties, Inc. Owner: Schermerhorn Properties, Inc. ID Number: QBY-AV-80-2000 County Project#: Sep00-31 Current Zoning: LI-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes the expansion of existing mini-storage to add five new buildings and seeks setback relief, industrial zone buffer relief, and relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. Site Location: 34 Triangle Park. Tax Map Number: 110-1-24.1 Staff Notes: This proposed action has also been referred for County review of a site plan (Agenda Item 32). Though the proposed action’s intrusion into the 50’ industrial zone buffer is somewhat extreme (see attached site plan and site development data sheet), the applicant’s agent notes that self-storage buildings, permitted in industrial zones under the local zoning ordinance, are fairly compatible with highway commercial zone uses which the buffer is designed to protect. The side yard setback deficiency is not extreme, and the frontage requirements are not a County concern (the project is fronted by a private road which connects to Lower Warren Street). The only potential County impact identified by Staff would be from increased traffic on Lower Warren Street (State Route 32). Other self-storage development proposals seen recently by the Board have included convincing arguments that the traffic generated by such facilities is not particularly substantial and does not experience peak flows. Staff does not identify any significant impacts to County resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board 9/14/00. MR. STONE-Question, before we start. Craig, I thought we granted this lot no road frontage? MR. BROWN-You did. MR. STONE-So why is it? MR. BROWN-That Section reference, 179-70, requires that all principal buildings to be constructed on the lot needs to have a minimum of 40 feet of frontage on a public right of way. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-These are new principal buildings. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn. Rich has the property under contract, subject to Town approvals. When we first got started with this a few weeks ago, I went in to see Craig to start with, and to ask him about that, because I had a copy of your variance from the spring with the 40 foot issue as to whether or not we had to address that, and Craig pointed out the language that said one of the justifications in the motion, the fact that the nature of what occurs on the parcel really doesn’t change from what was there originally, based upon when they did the subdivision of the land in the back, and he felt that, because we were changing use, it made sense to come back to the Board, and discuss it. So, in terms of the adequacy of that 40 feet, the fact that it’s owned by Albany Ladder in the back, subject to a deeded right of way, it’s not owned by Rich, it won’t be owned by Rich, but it’s still available, the same 40 feet that would be required. It really doesn’t change over what’s there now, but it’s certainly appropriate for you guys to consider that. So that’s the one issue. What the County mentioned, what I had in my application, in terms of the 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) buffer zone, in various area of the Town, it’s very important to have a buffer zone between residential and industrial residential and commercial because of potential impacts, and even between commercial and industrial, depending upon the nature of the commercial and the industrial uses, but in most municipalities, self storage is considered a commercial service type use, and it’s permitted in a commercial zone. In Queensbury it’s considered industrial, like you’d have heavy trucking, warehouse storage. It’s just all grouped under warehouse. I’m not sure if that’s appropriate, but whatever, that’s the law. So, I don’t think that there’s a need here, at least that’s my argument, that that 50 foot buffer doesn’t accomplish any purpose because the Albany Ladder use is sort of a commercial use that’s more industrial because they’re leasing and selling industrial equipment, and this is more of a commercial use, because of the nature of people coming in their cars and bringing their household stuff to use these warehouses, the mini storage. So I don’t see that there’s an incompatibility that needs to be protected between the two, and all that Rich is doing, in terms of the setback, is, the map shows it very well, is just continuing the exact same site plan that was there, and it just, in terms of the practical use of the site, to be able to have people drive their cars straight through, for snowplowing in the winter, to just drive straight through to make these parallel to what’s there now, is just the best layout for the site, and that’s really a pretty simple explanation of why we’re here. Rich, is there anything you want to add at this point? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Not at this point. MR. STONE-What about the consideration that Staff talks about, not building the northerly most building, building four instead of five? MR. LAPPER-One question I would ask, I mean, there’s no benefit, what’s the benefit to the neighborhood by doing that. Except for a technical compliance with the setback, I don’t know what help you’re doing to the Albany Ladder. I don’t know what the benefit is, but in terms of Rich, in terms of developing this property, he’d like to put five buildings up. The other consideration, I’m sure you’ve all been to the site, is that you’ve got the DPW garage next door, with piles of sand and salt and equipment. So it’s not, I mean, this is certainly a nicer, it’ll be neater, when Rich is done developing this, than what you have there anyway in that neighborhood, in terms of the garage. MR. STONE-What’s going to happen to all those vehicles on the property? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, as soon as we close on the property, believe it or not, I have the rent roll with me. There’s people that have been paying on these vehicles that look like they’ve been abandoned. They’ve been paying on them for, there’s some as old as six, seven years. The first thing I’m going to do is, since Mr. Hewlett passed away, two years ago, the property was left to his father and his wife, and they’re not sure who some of the vehicles are. I believe some of them are probably abandoned, because the weeds, the trees have grown up through them. The first thing I’m going to do is get in there and clean everything up, find out whose is whose, and to be perfectly honest with you, I really don’t want to have any outside storage of that type, because it’s very unsightly. I don’t know if you’ve been in there. MR. STONE-That’s why I asked the question. MR. ABBATE-I was going to ask you whether BFI has a temporary storage facility there. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m not opposed to RV’s and trailers and things of that nature, which is common in these facilities, but the first thing I’m going to do is clean this, I mean, I’m going to clean the whole place up. Because it is quite messy back there. I guess the benefit of having the fifth building, obviously, benefits me, but it also takes away from the potential of having anything that could be left outside, that could be unsightly, not that I’d allow it, but I just think that corner of the building there, there’s quite a bit of vacant land that will be left. MR. STONE-Good answer. MR. ABBATE-So BFI doesn’t have a temporary storage facility there. MR. HIMES-Just a couple of things. I agree on having the building there. It seems symmetrical and all, with all the other ones right in line with it, which brings me to my first question, and it’s to Mr. Lapper, just to reconcile something in your letter, to what I think I see on the drawing. On the first page of your letter, you refer to the northerly 34.59 and 24.29, did you mean 24.29, rather than 34.59? it would look like a heck of an impact. You have 34.59 and 24.29, since they’re both in the record, I thought you could reconcile it. MR. SCHERMERHORN-The existing was 24.59. MR. LAPPER-Right. That is a typo, excuse me. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. HIMES-Okay. That’s what I thought. The small matter, just to confirm something, the permeability’s getting close. You’re showing gravel driveways and all. It might be kind of nice, but it would get you into a jam maybe, if you paved any of that stuff. I think that you’re fairly close to the permeability matter, but as long as you’ve got gravel driveways, which I think is what you have proposed on your drawings here. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s what’s existing now, is gravel. MR. STONE-Gravel is not permeable. Not according to the Queensbury Code. Right, Craig? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-It’s not considered permeable, but obviously it does have some permeability. MR. HIMES-I don’t know where it sits in the figures, and it doesn’t matter. It’s already there. I was just thinking you might, if you pave it it would look nice, but. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That would hopefully be my intention some day, and as far as the impermeable, this is already, as it is, I believe it meets. MR. LAPPER-Yes. This would not include the gravel and permeable. MR. HIMES-That would throw it over there. MR. LAPPER-No. MR. SCHERMERHORN-It meets at it as, currently, counting the gravel. MR. HIMES-It does? MR. STONE-It’s 65%. MR. HIMES-The last thing, I guess, was the first item that you all discussed, and if I’m correct, in connection with the Code here, if (lost words) allows this kind of activity, 179-26, if it is Type II, 6, it says “warehouse for enclosed storage of goods and materials”, and so on, enclosed. So the idea of the things that were outside there, which someone else brought up, and you said you were going to get rid of them anyway, I think that part of the Code says that there isn’t supposed to be anything stored outside. MR. LAPPER-We don’t know what basis it’s been there for years. MR. HIMES-I’m not complaining about what’s there. He said he’s going to clean it up. I’m just saying the Code does specify, it should never have been there in the first place. MR. ABBATE-We could make it as a condition of approval. MR. STONE-Right. MR. LAPPER-The only thing, I guess Rich said that people want to store motor homes, cars and trailers outdoors, and I guess that would be a zoning question, in terms of that definition. MR. HIMES-I guess what I’m referring to is the guiding standard here, (lost words) in quotes. So that would preclude outside stuff. From what you’ve said, I’m okay. MR. STONE-Any other comments? MR. BRYANT-I have a question, a technical question. If this northern building were eliminated, does that get rid of the buffer question? I know there’s one building that exists that is in the buffer, but you’re not doing anything to that building? Does that completely get rid of the buffer question? MR. BROWN-If you take away that northernmost proposed building, the applicant doesn’t require any relief, just come and get a building permit. The setback relief goes away, the buffer relief goes away. MR. BRYANT-The setback is not effected anymore, and neither is the buffer. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. HAYES-Would they need the road frontage? 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. BROWN-That’s true, they need the road frontage. MR. STONE-Yes, the other one is there. The other one is in the buffer zone. MR. BRYANT-They’re not doing anything to it. MR. STONE-They’re not doing anything to it, it’s there. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I could still make the five buildings work, but I’d have to shift them to the south, and then, of course, it’s just, the layout wouldn’t be, when the vehicles drive down, it wouldn’t be laid out properly. That’s the only reason I have it laid out, we’re asking for the relief. MR. LAPPER-They wouldn’t be parallel, but he’d still have five buildings. MR. STONE-But they are not, well, they’re not totally exactly parallel now, on this drawing. MR. LAPPER-Enough so that you could drive cars through. MR. STONE-But they’re not completely lined up, not according to my eye. MR. SCHERMERHORN-It looks like they are maybe off by a foot or so, possibly. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Actually, the northern ones look parallel. MR. STONE-Yes, the northern one is parallel. The others aren’t. MR. BRYANT-So in reality, if you shifted the buildings over, then all we’d have to talk about is the road, which, somewhere in the past, has already been moved. So isn’t that logical? MR. LAPPER-We think it’s better for him not to shift them over, because there’s really no benefit to complying with that buffer, when you have it in that particular location. MR. STONE-Right now, they’re not willing to consider shifting them or not building them. I mean, it’s our call, at this point in time. I’ll open the public hearing, if there’s no other questions. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see any correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-All right. The question before us is the drawing as you have presented it. You would like to do it as closely parallel to the existing buildings as possible. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Which requires all of those variances, all of those reliefs. Any other questions before we talk about it? Okay. Norm, let’s start with you. MR. HIMES-Thank you. I think the new management’s plan, cleaning the place up and so forth, is going to make a big improvement on that, especially for the people yet to come, probably, across the street, in what is now the vacant lot. I don’t know when that would become maybe a public road some day or maybe of no importance here. I think the matter of the relief from the commercial, from what I understand, or my thinking about that is that they’re trying to protect one neighbor or the other, usually if it’s like a residence. Here’s two commercial undertakings, businesses, I should say. This one being a very quiet type of endeavor. I mean, it just sits there. Every once in a while someone drives in and out, and I don’t think it’s going to impact the people on the other side, Albany Ladder, or anyone else over there really to that extent. So I could give in on that one. So I’m overall in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Just a quick question that occurred to me. I noticed, if I had stuff stored there, I’ve got to go to Bay Road to get the key? 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. SCHERMERHORN-This is the only facility, and this is what was attractive about it, they have 24 hours that you can get in there. On the rent roll, which I have with me, everyone has a bar code that they punch in. So they have access 24 hours to get into this facility. Let’s say you want to rent a unit. I don’t have an onsite office at the current time. I’ll use my current office where people will call and just come to the office, sign a lease agreement, and then we give them a code, and they’re free to go down and put their stuff in. MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s ad lib, after you sign the rental agreement? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. STONE-All right. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. It’s a straightforward. It’s a light industrial area, and it’s straightforward, and Mr. Schermerhorn has indicated that he intends to clean up, which is admirable. I would go along with this, with certain conditions, and one of the conditions, I’d like to ask it now, is that no recreation vehicle or other storage vehicles, as a commercial enterprise, be utilized in this storage area, because as my colleague pointed out, we’re talking about enclosed areas. Would that stipulation be okay? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Obviously, if it conditioned the approval tonight, it would be fine. I would ask that, the properties that I own, I run all my own properties and manage them and do all the maintenance. I can assure you that if I was to rent to someone with an RV or a boat trailer, I’d certainly make it so that it would look neat. I would like to be able to offer that, only because on the rent roll that I have, there’s 129 existing units now, and believe it or not, I believe there’s 21 people that are paying for outside storage and usually it’s very seasonal. It’s the person that launches their boat in Lake George or Glen Lake and they need a place to keep a trailer, which is very low profile . RV’s sometimes will be through the winter, but they’re usually not kept during the summer, and I notice that there’s a few construction workers that have those enclosed trailers, where they may come in and leave them for a week at a time, and then they pull them to a job site. They’re on a job site for a month, but if it’s something that everyone feels strong about, you know, I’m not opposed to saying now, but I would like to point out that this current site, if you were to go on it, there’s a truck stop which is very, very busy over here, and there’s tractor trailers constantly in and out and parked to the south of me. To the north of me, you know, there’s a lot of industrial equipment and rental stuff and staging and planks, and directly behind me is the City of Glens Falls sand piles and there’s wood chips and there are wood chippers and dump trucks out back and just a lot of activity from them in and out. So, from an aesthetics thing, I don’t see where it would really aesthetically affect anybody, but I certainly want to keep my project very attractive. MR. ABBATE-Yes. From an aesthetic point of view, it’s a little bit different from the Code of the Town of Queensbury, and particular Subsection Six, which says, “warehouse for an enclosed storage of goods and materials, distribution plants or wholesale business”, enclosed storage. MR. STONE-Look at 17, though. MR. ABBATE-I knew he was going to do this to me. Well, I’m going to yield, Counselor. I’ve got to call it like it is. Seventeen indicates passenger limousine and/or bus storage and terminal facility. So we can limit that, then, to passenger limousine and/or bus storage only, and I won’t give up on this. Yes, you can have a passenger limousine or a bus storage terminal facility, and that’s it. So we can limit that, then, to passenger limousine and/or bus storage only. MR. STONE-You won’t give up. MR. ABBATE-And I won’t give up on this. Yes, you can have a passenger limousine or a bus storage terminal facility, and that’s it. The reason I’m raising this issue, it’s kind of depressing, if you go down there and take a look at it. I’m trying to be kind. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I realize that, and I’m sure some of you are well aware that I have several apartment buildings, and I’m building several more, and I have a policy. I’m very strong about it. There’s no, people are allowed two cars. They’re not allowed to have boat trailers. They’re not allowed to have campers and RV’s, and people are like, well, where do we go with this stuff? So there’s a need for people to be able to store this stuff or to have temporary. MR. ABBATE-And you’re right, Mr. Schermerhorn, but that requires another variance, based on your needs that you’re indicating. Because that does not comply with that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Now I know, in the past, and maybe they’ve been in violation, I’m not sure, but they do have leases in place, and there are vehicles in here, and it has, since 1983, been outside storage. So I don’t know if that was something that was pre-existing. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. ABBATE-Counselor coached you well. The answer is, no. MR. LAPPER-I just have one more thing that I see here, which is heavy equipment storage, which doesn’t say inside or outside, but I think, in general what we’re talking about is that Rich is going to keep this place clean and neat, either way, and that’s the intention. I think this does open it up a little bit to some kind of storage that doesn’t say. MR. ABBATE-You want it opened up a little bit, no. MR. LAPPER-A little bit, not for junk cars or anything. MR. ABBATE-Well, we open it up a little bit, it could be for junk cars. So, my stipulation is, no, we stay with the Code. Yes, I’m all in favor of it, but we stay with the Code. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s go on. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would say maybe you do want to contemplate, you know, leaving one blank area in there, if you are contemplating doing some kind of excess storage, just so it looks a little bit neater, rather than haphazardly parking a boat here and a car here and a bus there, whatever happens to be. Maybe you have to build into what you’re proposing, that you do have, you know, an area that does accommodate that. MR. LAPPER-Talk to Chuck. MR. UNDERWOOD-I disagree with him somewhat. I think that people use these sites because it’s locked up. It’s a place they can safely leave their things and not have them get broken into, and I understand that, too, but at the same time, the way it exists now, it’s kind of a haphazard mess, and it would look better to have it a dedicated area where, you know, if you want to park your boat here for the winter, it goes over here, and not, I can understand that. MR. ABBATE-Now, your chance. MR. LAPPER-We’re waiting. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, I totally agree with you, but my intentions, of course, are to keep this project running, keep it full, to have it looking nice. I’m not saying that I couldn’t keep RV’s and boat trailers and that sort of thing toward the rear of the property. Because, I mean, it’s, the City of Glens Falls, I mean, there’s sand piles. It’s not the most sightly thing in the back yard. I mean, I could certainly put a lot of this stuff that would be visually not in view, although the whole site is kind of not visible. MR. STONE-Well, let me ask Staff a question. Obviously, you can’t put a building within the setback line without a variance. How about parking? Let’s say there was a nice, orderly display of RV’s along the fence. MR. BROWN-Within the setback or the buffer? MR. STONE-The setback, I’m talking about to the west, for example. MR. BROWN-Right, the setbacks only address buildings. MR. STONE-It’s only for buildings, right. MR. BROWN-I would suggest, though, if that’s a wish of the applicant to reserve an area on the property for the storage of RV’s, a question would be, would that require an increased gravel area? Would that effect the permeable calculations? And the plan probably should be revised, so that the Planning Board has a full view of what the site plan approval should be. MR. STONE-I understand. So in other words, long term storage in itself creates impermeable surface. MR. BROWN-Correct, and that’s not shown on this. If there’s going to be an area to the west, that should be. MR. SCHERMERHORN-This is what the person that was running the project for them would identify to the customer that would come in. They’d say, you’re Building C, Unit 16, and a lot of (lost words) obviously is based on income or potential income. Right now there’s currently 30 people that are paying, $16, $13, $15, the average is $16 a month that people are paying for outside 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) storage. Now, I do not care to have the ones, the pick up trucks that have the old car parts and that. So it’s probably going to eliminate quite a few. There are like builders that have trailers, and there’s RV’s. I don’t care for the way they have them in front, but I mean, who’s to say I don’t put them way in the rear and still have adequate space. MR. ABBATE-Have a dedicated area. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I don’t believe there should be anything in the front, I agree. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, I’ll tell you what, these look like bird cages for a bird sanctuary, as far as I’m concerned. MR. STONE-Mr. Schermerhorn, while you were up here, your Counsel, we were involved, if you had storage, we won’t go into whether it’s a Type II or not, it becomes, for any length of time it becomes impermeable surface, if you have a bunch of RV’s, technically it becomes, because obviously the rain’s going to hit the roof and it’s not going to go underneath. MR. BROWN-I think what you’d be looking at, with outdoor storage and the nature that the applicant’s proposing is, your principal use here is enclosed storage. I think it’s reasonable to assume that accessory to that would be some outside storage. It’s a storage facility. I don’t think, if it was brought to make a determination, is this allowable or not, I think outside storage would be accessory to the principal use would be allowable. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And it’s certainly going to be limited. MR. STONE-Would be allowable. MR. BROWN-It would be allowable, subject to Zoning Board interpretation, but I think I’d have to make that call. MR. LAPPER-So one condition, to answer Chuck’s question is, in terms of a designated spot just on that side, by the Glens Falls DPW garage that would be put on the ultimate site plan, as a condition, and it would be a minimal area, minimal storage. MR. HIMES-Is that another variance we’d be making or what? MR. STONE-Well, it’s probably not a variance, because I think that. MR. ABBATE-He says that accessory is acceptable. MR. STONE-Accessory use, Customary Accessory uses and accessory use structures incidental to a permitted use. So storage is storage, one could argue. MR. BROWN-As always, any determination that comes from the Zoning Administrator is susceptible to your interpretation. So if you feel differently about that now, now’s the time to make that determination. MR. STONE-Well, nobody has made that determination. MR. BROWN-No, but I think you’re at will to interpret the Code any time you want to. MR. STONE-We’re entitled to, no, I understand that. Okay. Let’s go on, for the moment. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, as I look at this project, I think in this particular case that the cumulative relief is substantial. The northernmost building as it exists now is already in the buffer zone, and I think that that’s kind of being placated or put aside, but there’s already been an encroachment in the buffer zone. Dimensional relief has already been given on this property as it sits now. I mean, as I look in the sheet before, I see there’s a subdivision. There’s area variances. There’s additional variances. So there’s been a lot of dimensional relief that’s been granted on this property in the past, and I think when we decide what the cumulative effects are, or the impact on the neighborhood, I’ve kind of been on the record, historically, of being against variances on variances. I think it’s a dangerous business, going into the future. The idea is, in my mind, that this difficulty is also self-created because the person under the application is paying a price for this property, which he stated is based on income and revenue streams, and I think that’s what the property’s worth. He wants to build a new building. I guess that’ll increase the revenue streams, but I think I agree with the Staff notes that I don’t think that a reasonable, as it is now, I don’t think the applicant would be deprived of a reasonable use of the property. There’s hundreds of units on the property as it is now, and including outside storage, which are on the rental rolls. I don’t think that necessarily the Code should be asked to make an investment sweeter, if you will, and as far as the buffer zone, it seems like a minimal 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) encroachment, but I think that, you know, buffer zones start out as unnecessary annoyances, like, we’re not buffering this against that and that shouldn’t really matter, but we have to take into account what might happen in the future, and I think that, you know, what commercial project or light industrial project might be next to that in the future. What are we buffering? Buffer zones start out as annoyances, but in the end, they’re intended to buffer properties over the long term, to reflect a necessary distinction between different applications or different zones, and like I said originally, I think it’s a self-created difficulty, because the applicant could buy the property as is and whatever that purchase price is I think should, you know, could be reflected in his reasonable use of that property, as it is now, without expanding at the expense of the Code. So, I would be opposed. MR. LAPPER-If I could just quickly respond to what Staff mentioned, in terms of that he wouldn’t be deprived of a reasonable use is really a Use Variance standard rather than an Area Variance standard. So I don’t think that that’s really appropriate in this case, and it’s really just more in terms of the layout that’s practical and makes sense, but I understand what Jaime said. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, Jaime’s stolen most of my thunder. I agree 100% with what Jaime said. My biggest hang up is with the buffer. Buffer zones are set there for a reason, and as Jaime pointed out, while right now we’ve got a storage facility on one side and a ladder company on the other side, it’s hard to say what will be there in the future, except for the variance. If we grant the variance, the variance will still be there, and getting what is it 45 feet into a 50 foot buffer, you’re basically eliminating the buffer, and I’m definitely opposed to doing that. The rest of the project, if the northernmost building was eliminated, I would have no problem with, but as it stands now, I’d be opposed. MR. LAPPER-That buffer, remember, is a green space buffer, so that 45 means that there’s 5 feet of green space. It’s not the building setback. Because that’s still far from the property line. It’s just, in terms of, to comply with the buffer, you’d have to leave it completely green, and I’m just not sure that in that area of Town that it matters if it’s green, in the back there, but I understand what you’re saying. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I’ve got to say that when I visited the site today, I went next door to Albany Ladder and I talked to a fellow in there, I guess his family originally owned the whole lot, and it was subdivided and he went through the whole process, and of course he’s not opposed to the problem with the buffer zone, and he’s not opposed to any of this, but as I sit here and I listen to this discussion, I’ve got to agree with Mr. Hayes and Mr. McNulty. You have real, viable alternatives. One of them is to eliminate that northern building, and that’s where you put your RV’s, okay. The other one is to shift all these buildings over. We’re not asking you to spend more money. That’s a viable alternative that’s not going to effect the outcome. You’re still going to be able to snow plow. You’re still going to have the same security. Everything is going to be the same, and we don’t have to have this discussion. So, I’ve got to agree with the other Board members, that for lack of a viable alternative, I would say, well, yes, let’s go along with the project, but you have an alternative. A lot of people that come to this Board have no alternative. This is their structure. They’ve got only so many feet to deal with. You have some room where you could move these buildings, or make some adjustment, and not lose any units. So I’d have to be opposed to the project, as proposed. MR. STONE-I guess I agree, partially, with the last three Board members who have spoken. I guess I would much rather see the buffer zone just remain, just because buffer zones were created for a particular purpose, and we shouldn’t be sitting here judging, well, what’s the use on one side versus the use on the other, because they don’t stay forever. I would much more be inclined to allow the outdoor usable vehicle. I put the word “usable vehicle” in there, in the buffer zone on the northern side, than have the building sitting in the buffer zone. On the other hand, certainly the possibility of rearranging these particular buildings so that you can still get five in somehow, I mean, that’s obviously your concern, but I guess as I listen to everybody and I think of why we put buffer zones in, we certainly did a great deal of thinking about them, in connection with the new Zoning Ordinance that is, I mean, it’s something that we feel very strongly about. I would like to see some concession, if you will, either take out the one building and say, okay, I’m going to put, I mean, I’m perfectly willing, from my end, to say that vehicle storage of a usable vehicle is an accessory use in the Light Industrial zone. I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem when you say, Mr. Schermerhorn, there are things there with the grass growing up through them. I don’t regard those as usable vehicles, but if somebody wants to take an RV and say in October, I’m going to park it there until Spring, I would much prefer that to some of the requests that we’ve had for oversized buildings to put RV’s in. So I certainly would encourage you to accept, when I say usable vehicles, my interpretation, but I would like to leave the buffer zone alone. Having said that, and I think the other thing that comes into play, I think as Jaime said, is the cumulative effect. We’ve had so many variances on this particular property, and I mean, I think what you’re proposing is a very good use. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) There’s no question that it’ll be a very nice project, but I just think there’s a better way of doing it, and as I count the votes up, I think if we voted straight, the way it is right now, we would deny the application, if my tally is correct. So it’s in your court. MR. LAPPER-All right. Hearing what the Board has to say, what Rich is thinking is that if we eliminated that northernmost building, and designated that area for outdoor storage, and requested the 40 foot variance at the road, perhaps the Board would support that. MR. BRYANT-I have no problem with the road. MR. STONE-No problem? Okay. Fine. Okay. So you’re changing the project to remove the northwest building and designating that area for what I would call, may I use the term outdoor usable vehicle storage. Okay. So, in other words, they’re not going to be there for 15, 20 years. Do I get a consensus that that’s reasonable for most people? Having said that, I need a motion to that effect. Are you comfortable with that, Jaime? I mean, are you on this thing now? MR. HAYES-I still think the cumulative relief is. MR. STONE-All right. Fine, then I need a motion from somebody else. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-2000 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC., Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Dix Avenue. The applicant proposes construction of four self-storage buildings. The applicant requests relief from the minimum road frontage requirements of Section 179-70, as the subject lot has no frontage on the public right-of-way. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to build four additional storage buildings at the facility. Feasible alternatives, this is one of the feasible alternatives. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The relief of this Section might be considered moderate. However, they do have a right of way on a private road to compensate for that. The effects on the neighborhood, there would be moderate effects on the neighborhood. The difficulty can be interpreted as self-created. It is recognized that, as an accessory use in the Light Industrial zone, that the applicant be permitted to store useable vehicles outdoors in any location on the property, and this vehicle storage can be in the buffer zone on the northwest corner of the property. Duly adopted this 20 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. BROWN-The only thing that I’d be cautious about is, in the spirit of compromise, which is what you do, going too far away from what the original application requests, and the acknowledgement of the accessory outdoor stuff is okay, but just straying too far from the original request. You may just want to be cautious. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but wait a second, Craig, that was based upon a statement by Mr. Schermerhorn, what he intended to do. That’s why we raised that issue. He said it would be nice if we could store this and this. MR. STONE-And we agreed that that’s an accessory use. MR. ABBATE-So he opened the door to that issue. We didn’t. So we have to address it. MR. BROWN-Right, but that’s not what was in the original application for outdoor storage. It wasn’t advertised that way. MR. ABBATE-True, but the door was open. MR. BROWN-Okay, that’s fine. MR. STONE-We are recognizing that outdoor storage of usable vehicles is an accessory use. That’s all we’re doing. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re also asking that it would be in place of that northwestern building. MR. STONE-And that it can be in that area. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-2000 TYPE: II DOMERS GOLDEN PROPERTIES, LLC OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 22 GUNN LANE, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING RESIDENCE AND SEPTIC SYSTEM AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 12-3-21 LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Area Variance No. 81-2000, Domers Golden Properties, LLC, Meeting Date: September 20, 2000 “Project Location: 22 Gunn Lane, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2280 sf single family residence. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6.5 feet of relief, on both sides, from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement, and a 3.7% relief from the 22% Floor Area Ratio requirement of the WR-1A zone, §179-16. Further, the applicant is requesting 35 feet of relief from the 85 foot average shoreline setback of the residences on the adjacent parcels, per § 179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a new single family dwelling. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration to allow for compliant construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 6.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. Similarly, 3.7% relief from the 22% FAR requirement may be construed as moderate relief. However, although the proposed construction meets the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback, 35 feet of relief from the 85 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, as the removal of the existing camp would allow the applicant to “start from scratch” and meet the requirements. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. With the removal of the existing structure, the applicant has the ability to maintain all required setbacks. It does not appear as though compliant construction would be an unreasonable alternative. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 13, 2000 Project Name: Domers Golden Properties, Inc. Owner: Domers Golden Properties, Inc. ID Number: QBY-AV-81-2000 County Project#: Sep00-25 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes the replacement of an existing residence and septic system and seeks setback relief. Site Location: 22 Gunn Lane, Cleverdale Tax Map Number: 12-3-21 Staff Notes: The applicant proposes replacing an existing non-conforming residence that is only approximately 20’ from Lake George with one that meets the required shoreline setback, though it somewhat worsens the side setback deficiencies (see attached site development data sheet). Given that the applicant is conforming with the shoreline setback requirements and the side yard deficiencies are not severe, Staff does not identify any significant impacts to County resources. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing will be held September 2000 County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board 9/14/00. MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper, nice to see you again. MR. LAPPER-Hello again. Jon Lapper and Mike Gargiulo. I’d like to start off by explaining that this lengthy and official sounding name, Domers Golden Properties, LLC, is just a family company of Mike, his dad and his sister, but it sounds like a big deal. With all due respect to Craig, I don’t think that he gave us sufficient credit in the Staff notes for the fact that we have a house that’s 20 feet, 18 feet, 20 feet from the lake, and the way most of my clients would have me come in these days is to say we want to keep that footprint and we want to add something in the back or we want to add something upstairs, and here they’re saying, we have a septic system which has been there for a long time, and a house that’s real close to the lake, and they’re saying, we’re going to move the septic 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) system. We’re going to move the house 50 feet from the lake, and as a tradeoff for that, because of the dimensions of the lot, they can’t comply with the 20 foot side setbacks, but they’re really doing a lot, and they’re doing a lot for the neighborhood and they’re doing a lot for the property, and so I think we deserve some credit for that, but Craig’s always conservative, but in terms of what they’re asking for, I don’t think it’s a lot. In this zone, the setback is 50 feet from the lake, except, if your neighbors are farther back, you take the average of those two. Virtually everybody in this area, and you can see on the tax maps that Staff provided, the houses are right by the lakes, with the exception of Mike’s neighbor, who’s all the way at the back of the lot, 135 feet from the lake, and when you take those two averages, that how you get to 85 feet, but that’s certainly not typical, and it wouldn’t, and it would be virtually impossible for them to comply and move the thing 85 feet back on a lot that size, but to go 50 feet back is in character with the neighborhood, and for both of these adjacent properties, because right now, the existing camp is right up at the lake, at 18, 20 feet from the lake. That blocks the view, and the fact that it’s moving back the 50 is certainly going to improve everybody’s view, and the other thing I want to just point out, in the Staff notes, the total square footage, the footprint is 2280, but when you count the second floor, and right now there’s an existing detached garage that would be include. So we’d include the garage, which is the way you count it here, under the Floor Area worksheet, the proposed construction comes out to 3472, when you include the first floor and the second floor, and the garage. So that’s just wrong, in the characterization. MR. STONE-What do you mean it’s wrong? MR. LAPPER-In the Staff notes. MR. STONE-It’s more than. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HAYES-It’s more than the original top line, 2280. MR. STONE-Well, the 2280 is the first floor? MR. LAPPER-Yes, the footprint. MR. STONE-But you have it up on the primary house. MR. LAPPER-If you look at the sheet before that, the Site Development Data, building footprint. MR. STONE-Yes. I’m just saying that on the Floor Area Ratio Worksheet. MR. LAPPER-Yes, I see what you’re saying, but at the bottom, in the big box, 3472 when you add everything up. MR. STONE-Okay, that’s including the 400 for the garage, or is that out? MR. LAPPER-That’s including, the garage is no longer detached. It’s included. MR. STONE-It’s included, and where does that show up, on the first floor? MR. LAPPER-In the 2280, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-That’s in there. MR. STONE-Okay. So the 3472 is the correct amount of floor building. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. HAYES-Square foot of single family residence, essentially. MR. LAPPER-Exactly, but just for comparison’s sake, if you took a look at the floor area ratio of the 1950 that’s there right now, and you added 50% to that. MR. STONE-Twenty-seven. MR. LAPPER-Yes. So they could do that, stay on the footprint, build out to the back, and it’s not a huge amount different from what they’re proposing, and they could have a detached garage also. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. HAYES-For expansion of a nonconforming structure, you’re saying. MR. LAPPER-Yes, for expansion of a nonconforming structure, and keep it 18 feet from the lake, and just build into the back of that house, just for comparison’s sake, for this discussion. MR. STONE-If we were to allow it. MR. LAPPER-No, that we could do. MR. HAYES-You’d still need the side. MR. STONE-No, you couldn’t. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. STONE-If you build on the back, if the house is nonconforming, and you’re within the 50 feet on the back side, you can’t do it, if you go up, or side relief. MR. LAPPER-Even if it’s no closer to the lake? MR. STONE-Even if it’s no closer to the lake. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. STONE-If it’s within 50 feet. Right, Craig, am I being correct? MR. HAYES-In this case it was within 85 feet. MR. STONE-Well, this is very different. MR. LAPPER-That’s certainly not what we’re here for. MR. STONE-No. You want to build a new house that is, at one point, 50 feet from the lake. MR. LAPPER-At closest. MR. STONE-Closest, and that has a floor area, a building square, whatever the term is these days, the building square footage is 3472, which, and the allowed is actually 2970. MR. LAPPER-Right, exactly. MR. STONE-That’s it. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. STONE-Okay, and the side setback. MR. HAYES-So is the 3.7 feet of relief still accurate, as far as? MR. STONE-3.7%? MR. BROWN-3.7%, yes. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And you’re moving the building further, as a humanitarian gesture, you’re client is moving the building further in so the neighbors can have a better view of the lake, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s the reason. MR. STONE-I have a question. Is this next door neighbor the same Hewlett that we just were talking about? MR. LAPPER-You know, I heard that tonight. MR. STONE-It is the same one? MR. LAPPER-It’s a small world, small town. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I can tell you, I, personally, have no problem with the 50 foot. I mean, I think that, in this particular case, the average is an unrealistic situation, and the fact that you are willing to go to 50 feet, and that is at a very small point. I mean, you’re talking just the closest point to the lake, and I appreciate that you’ve done that, personally. I think that’s good. I don’t have any real problem with the side setback. I am concerned with the floor area ratio. I’m just sort of asking questions. I know I’m ahead of myself. All right. Any other questions of the applicant before I open the public hearing? Anything you want to know? Okay. Then I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes, we do have some correspondence. MR. STONE-Good. MR. MC NULTY-We have two letters from Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Hewlett and I’ll read them in date sequence. The first one dated September 15, “In reference to the above property’s request for relief th of building requirements, we are unable to give our approval for several reasons. There are no elevations to show what is actually being built. There are no contours to show what earth elevations and drainage conditions will occur. We believe that drainage is also a Town concern. All areas east of Gunn Lane are higher in elevation. Heavy rain and spring thaws, therefore, go to Gunn Lane. Northeast of the property above and our property is a manhole which is supposed to take this water and flow it through a ditch north of our property into the lake. Now it flows north down Gunn Lane and crosses Gunn Lane onto the above and our properties. If this water went to the manhole, it would ease water and grading problems for both properties. We are also sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Richard Missita for his review. Very truly yours, Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Hewlett” A second letter from the same people, Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Hewlett, dated September 18, “Dear th Zoning Board Members, We are the adjacent neighbors immediately to the north of the Domer’s/Gargiulo property and we support the grant of the requested area variances. Domer’s Golden Properties, Inc. has agreed to lower the elevation of the first floor height 2’0” from the original height shown on the plan. We also have agreed on the drainage problems. We thank them for their cooperation and wish them great happiness in their new home. Very truly yours, Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Hewlett” MR. STONE-So that was a reversal, right? MR. MC NULTY-That was a reversal. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-They had their concerns taken care of, apparently. Okay. We have a letter from Robin and Gary Inwald, “We are writing to object to the granting of any setback relief or relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements to Domer’s Golden Properties, LLC. We hope that our views will be shared at the public hearing to be held on Wednesday, September 20 that we are unable to attend in person. When the new owners purchased the property at 22 Gunn Lane, they were responsible for understanding the limitations and zoning restrictions in this neighborhood. They purchased this property before most of the neighbors even were aware that the property was for sale, suggesting that they were familiar with the area and may have known the past owner. The properties in this area of Cleverdale are very close together and have traditionally consisted of summer cottages. Maintaining the character of this neighborhood is very important to us, and we do not want to see houses built that are larger or in different positions than the rest of the surrounding houses. The view from our restored cottage at 23 Gunn Lane includes a nice sunset and partial lake view through the trees of the 22 Gunn Lane property. We do not want a new house or garage to obscure that view, though we realize that maintaining that view as it is may not be possible. However, we certainly do not want a large home, that is closer to the property lines than is allowed with current zoning rules, to be constructed on that site. On the Sandy Bay side of Cleverdale Road, our friends, the Longs, had heir summer home dwarfed by a much larger home than was supposed to be built on the north side of their property. They are now left to look at the results every day, even though the people who built this home had to sell it only a few years after they finished building it. This trend on the lake is unfortunate, and we would like to see the zoning rules enforced as they stand so that everyone can enjoy their privacy in this small community. Thank you for your consideration of our request to deny relief from current setback and Floor Area Ratio requirements to Domers Golden Properties, LLC. Especially since the owners are part of a corporate entity, we believe they had every opportunity to properly and thoroughly investigate the character of this community and its requirements before they purchased their property at 22 Gunn Lane. Therefore, we believe that they should be required to construct their new house within the confines of the current rules. Sincerely, Robin Inwald Gary Inwald ” And we have one other letter from Judge Merle N. Fogg, Jr., “Dear Sirs: Please file this correspondence in the above matter as MY OBJECTION to such 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) proceedings to change the existing residence specifications, per above. I am a property owner at the intersection of Gunn Lane and Cleverdale Rd. There have already been too many changes to this area in the last 10 years. There comes a time to say N O to more changes on Gunn Lane and this IS that time! Very truly yours, Judge Merle N. Fogg, Jr., (ret.)” MR. STONE-That’s it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do you wish to comment on anything you’ve heard? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Mike knows the property owner, so he’d like to talk about it, to objecting. MR. STONE-Okay. MIKE GARGIULO MR. GARGIULO-Referring to Robin’s objection, I’ve kind of got to give you, if you looked at the. MR. STONE-Let me ask you, before you start. How tall is this building going to be? Is it going to be less than 28? Because I don’t have any numbers on these things. MR. LAPPER-Yes, it’s within the restrictions, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Mike, they have this map attached to the Staff notes. MR. GARGIULO-Okay. So if you look at the 12-3-18.3, that is the land that Robin’s referring to. She owns that summer cottage there, and she actually owns the year round residence, right on Cleverdale Road. I think it’s Parcel 21. I’m pretty sure it is, from the looks of it. So the only view she really has right now, through our property, if you’re looking at the map that we have up on the board right now, it’s alongside of our garage that’s now out by the road, and the garage is actually 11 feet from the property line, and the proposed structure is going to be 13 and a half feet from the property line. So, really, she’s going to pick up two and a half feet of view, if you will, down that side of the property. Judging from where her house is located, she doesn’t have a view down the other side of our, toward the north, she doesn’t even have a view down that side of the property. She only had a view down the south side of the property. Right now the garage is 11 and a half feet, or 11 feet from the property line, and we’re proposing the house to be 13 and a half feet. So it’s actually going to pick up view in that area. That house that she’s talking about, as far as I know, she bought it and she put a tennis court behind it and doesn’t even stay in it. It’s rented out periodically during the summertime, but she’s not even a resident of the house. MR. STONE-Tell me the 13. I see 20 and 17, and. I’m talking his property from the property line. MR. LAPPER-The side setback. MR. STONE-The side. I’m sorry. I thought you meant the garage was that close to the road. Okay. I’m with you. I thought you were saying this wall was 13 feet from here, that’s my problem. Okay. I see what you’re saying. You’re saying the opening between your property line, which of course is a huge 10 foot wall, and the house, no, it’s not. Okay. MR. GARGIULO-In responding to the other fellow, is it the guy in the white trailer? AUDIENCE MEMBER-He’s on the corner. He’s not even a neighbor. MR. GARGIULO-Yes. That’s actually a sore spot for most of us on Gunn Lane. He owns like a white trailer. AUDIENCE MEMBER-One of these real old trailers, like 1960. It’s around the corner. MR. STONE-But Harry’s cottages are on the front part of all those lots, and it’s empty out to Cleverdale. 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. GARGIULO-Right. He’s across, you know where Harry’s cottages are, he’s, it’s a landmark, actually, for people who I’m giving directions to. I say just find the dumpy trailer and take a left. No one’s gotten lost yet, and so that’s, that trailer is the gentleman. I never even met him. As far as Robin’s comments of being a corporate entity, we’re a family, the three of us. We all went to Notre Dame, and we tried for Golden Dome, when we went to get our, and it was taken. So we ended up with Domers Golden. That’s really the only reason why we have. So that’s it. The area square footage portion of the house, we’re one of those people who are putting a big garage on. I mean, what’s really throwing us over on that is the size of the garage that we’re choosing. MR. STONE-How big? MR. GARGIULO-It’s long enough to hold a boat. So it’s 28 feet long, which is making it go out 672 square feet total, but that’s what’s throwing. MR. LAPPER-It makes it seem like a bigger house. MR. GARGIULO-Yes, that’s what’s throwing it. MR. STONE-That’s okay. As long as you didn’t say 901, you’re in trouble. MR. GARGIULO-It’s a regular three bedroom house, other than that, with a pretty open floor plan . We’ve got a big family. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Chuck. MR. ABBATE-This is a pretty straightforward application. I, jokingly, indicated that for humanitarian purposes, you’re moving it back 50 feet. Well, in effect, you are. You really are moving it away from the lake, which certainly is a plus. No question about it. I don’t think your requests are unreasonable, and looking at the configuration, and some of the concerns from, theoretically, your neighbors, the one she spoke about, or he, is east south east of you, and you’re going to be moving back, and that will give her approximately two more feet of, really, lake view property. So, I have to take into consideration her comments, but as far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t carry too much weight. I don’t have a problem with this, quite frankly. I think it’s reasonable. Let it go at that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think given the fact that you’re moving it back substantially from where the old camp was, and the fact that the septic system’s going to be upgraded, you always think that, you know, we would like to preserve what the lakefront has been, you know, but I think the general trend is to go to these bigger homes and it would be nice to have it be setback a little bit more from the property lines, possibly, but I think it’s reasonable. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with my other Board members and, essentially, with Counsel as well. I think, in this particular circumstance, if the applicant wanted to make an overly aggressive application, they would have proposed to go up and behind, and like other people have, but I think this application kept in mind balancing interests right from the start. I certainly think that sacrificing dimensional relief on the side of the property for reduced relief toward the lake is a great compromise, and one that we should embrace wherever possible, and I think we have in the past. The view for the neighbors is going to be improved, and we have the additional benefit of moving the septic system further away from the lake, which, in my mind, is important as well. I think that we don’t necessarily know the condition of these older septic systems, and moving away from the lake and replacing them is also a positive aspect of any application. As far as the relief that’s being requested, 6.5 feet of relief and 3.7% on the floor area ratio, to me, seem fairly minimal. I don’t think that they’re asking for a stretch, in this case, that I can’t make. For a decent sized home, which this is, I think that the feasible alternatives. So, in the cumulative sense, I think that the effects on the neighborhood or community are, I think it’s going to be an improvement. I think it’s going to be a nice home. If I was a neighbor, I would be in favor of it. I think that the neighbors have expressed that feeling to a large degree, the immediate neighbors anyway, and I think, on balance, that this easily passes the test. I would be for it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I think, on balance, I’m for the proposal as well. On the negative side, I hate to see a continuation of replacing small seasonal places with larger year round places, because any time that happens it adds more of a load to the lake, and its surrounding area, but I’ve got to agree that this action in total is an improvement. It’s going to be moving the building back from the lake, and in this case, the average of the two adjacent setbacks, I think, works a hardship on this property. If the average was a result of two places that were further back, both of them further back, I would feel differently, but in this case, it’s an improvement. It’s going to be back further than one of the side 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) buildings, and I’ll agree that the side setbacks, I don’t feel, are significant, what they need for relief, and certainly, improving the septic system, moving it back, is a definite improvement. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I agree with what the Board members have said so far about the improvement and tearing down the old building an building this new building, but I think that’s where I have to draw the line. I think that, once you tear down the old building, and the old garage, you have the opportunity to build a building that’ll comply, you know, with setbacks, and the fact that you designed this building is great, but it doesn’t fit on this lot. So, I think that’s where I have to draw the line. I think that a little bit more work should have been put into the design to allow for the setbacks. If we’re talking a few feet on each side, and I understand the concept of the lake, and I could go along with it, but I still think the building could go back a little bit more. I think the whole thing should be redesigned to meet requirement. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Finding a way to agree with everybody here, the pros and the cons, what Allan has said keeps running through my mind. Here’s an opportunity to maybe be a little more compliant. The aspect of moving back from the lake is fine. My understanding is that in the front area, the front will be on the side of the lake, floods a little bit in the spring, a lot of runoff and this, that and the other thing, and that might have entered into the decision to move away from the lake perhaps, but in any event, it’s a benefit to all of us to have it moved back, regardless of the reasons. Some of the neighbors came out while I was there, and after some huffing and puffing they came around and said, well, you know, it’s probably not too bad an idea. One of the things is the driveway that goes in now, not where the old garage is, but it’s crushed stone or something, in there. Is that going to be lawn? MR. GARGIULO-Where the parking area is right now? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. GARGIULO-Yes. That all goes back to lawn. MR. HIMES-Okay. MR GARGIULO-Just to address the question of setback from the lake, in order to get a complying septic system in, we’ve already had to go to an Elgin system from a conventional. We push the house back any further, we’re going to be applying for a variance as to how close we can get this to the road. MR. HIMES-I wasn’t looking for anything further back. I’m just saying, I said what I said, that one of the people were saying that that area where your driveway and the neighbor to the north of you are almost in common. Some of that runoff, (lost words) comes from the road tends to go over onto him. So the fact that you’re going to convert that to lawn, I think, is beneficial too, and I do think that I’d give a lot of thought to what Al has said here, in that I don’t know if you could squeeze that down a little bit to be a little bit more compliant. On the other hand, I recognize you’ve got the garage in there. It’s a pretty good sized garage, which was separate. So, I guess I have to say, overall, I’m in favor of the application, and I certainly wish you could get it a little more squeezed in on the lateral aspect of it. Thank you. MR. STONE-Part of me wants to say, no way, only because of the floor area ratio. I think the other parts, and I’m in favor. I don’t want to hold you in suspense, but I think you are to be congratulated for the 50 feet, as I started to say earlier, because that 50 feet translates into almost probably 60 to 75 feet from the, if you go straight out from the house, in terms of the way people normally look at pieces of property. So I think that’s fine. The only thing that bothers me is the floor area ratio. Because that’s the thing that is supposed to keep houses from getting too big, and I was doing some noodling here, that if you put the side setbacks back to say 15 feet, which is still not going to be, well, no that’s not compliant, but if you did that, and you took off three feet from the house and it’s 60 feet long, the maximum you could save is 180 square feet, and you wouldn’t do that because of the cut out here. So you’re still going to be over if you have any kind of reasonable sized home. I think, as long as this house is no more than 28 feet high, and set where it is, I can live with it. It bothers me to go around the floor area ratio, but, I mean, I don’t care how you design this thing, I suppose if you made it a square box and made it smaller and didn’t make it a very good looking house, you could probably get much closer to the 2970 feet you’re supposed to have, but on balance, I think it’s a reasonable project, and I would be willing to grant the variance as requested. Having said that, I need a motion to approve. 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-2000 DOMERS GOLDEN PROPERTIES, LLC, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 22 Gunn Lane. Domers Golden Properties proposes construction of a 3,472 square foot single family residence, and he is requesting relief of 6.5 feet of relief on both sides from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirements and 3.7% relief from the 22% Floor Area Ratio requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Additionally, the applicant is seeking 35 feet of relief from the 85 foot average shoreline setback of the residence on the adjacent parcels per Section 179-16. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant will be permitted to construct a new single family dwelling and that in itself, of course, is a benefit, when one takes into consideration the current structure that is there. Feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration to allow for compliant construction. However, in totality, I think the plans submitted are reasonable. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 6.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. Similarly, 3.7% of relief from the 22% Floor Area Ratio requirements may be construed as moderate relief. However, although the proposed construction meets the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback, 35 feet of relief from the 85 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, and the effects on the neighborhood, in my opinion, the effects are positive on the neighborhood. The old building comes down and a new building goes up, as well as a new septic system. Is this difficulty self-created? Well, whenever you remove a new building and put up an old building, certainly it’s going to be considered self-created. However, in this case, I think it’s self-created in a positive way, and in view of that information, Mr. Chairman, I submit a motion for approval. Duly adopted this 20 day of September, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. STONE-There you go. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. GARGIULO-Thank you. MR. STONE-We have one other thing to discuss quickly, guys. Do we want to suggest to the Town Board that we meet more than twice a month, with no more than six items per evening, for a total of 18? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. STONE-Craig, is that right? I’m saying we’re going to suggest no more than six items a meeting and a total of 18. MR. BROWN-Whatever you guys are comfortable with. It’s, you know, what’s your suggestion to handle all these applications? More meetings, less meetings? MR. STONE-Yes, we’re suggesting more meetings, but 18 a month is all we’re going to consider. MR. BROWN-Right now the current standards or this current policy says 16 a month. Two meetings, eight items a meeting. MR. STONE-We can’t do it. We get Mr. Lapper here some nights, we just can’t do it. MR. BROWN-I’m just saying, that’s what the. MR. ABBATE-Well, the Chairman’s proposal is reasonable in a number of ways. Number One, if we take into consideration the individuals who are here, the citizens of the Town, it’s unreasonable to expect them to stay here until 1:20 in the morning. Secondly, it’s unreasonable to those folks who work for a living and have to go to work the next day. So, in my opinion, the Chair’s proposal is reasonable. MR. STONE-How about the rest of you guys? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree. I think as it’s been stated, it’s unreasonable for either the members of the Board or for the public or for the applicant to stay here well past 11, at any point. At the same 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) time, I think it’s unfair to the public to too severely limit the number of applications we’ll consider in any month, and this proposal is, in effect, increasing the number that we might consider by two. If there’s a lot of business out there that needs to be done, then it’s our responsibility to meet it. At the same time, we don’t want to overload Staff. So there has to be some kind of a guideline. I think up to three meetings a month, no more than six. MR. STONE-How many are in favor of recommending that to the Town Board? No more than three meetings a month, no more than a total of 18 applications in a month. MR. HAYES-Well, before we vote, I just think there has to be, we have to be careful that we don’t harden it to the point, I mean, where we just, six minimum. If we have 13, we don’t want to have, obviously, three meetings. Do you know what I’m saying? There’s got to be some, I don’t know if we want to say six maximum, or that’s what we’d recommend each week. MR. UNDERWOOD-Six new ones per meeting. MR. HAYES-I mean, if we have 14 applications, do we want to have six, six and two? I wouldn’t want to have that, but, I mean. MR. ABBATE-No, that wouldn’t be reasonable, no. MR. BROWN-Well, right now the requirements say you can have two, four new and four old. MR. ABBATE-How about four new and four old? MR. BROWN-That’s rarely. MR. STONE-We seldom have four new, four old. MR. ABBATE-Why not say a maximum of eight per meeting? MR. HAYES-Well, maybe a maximum of seven, but I just think if you say six, and we have fourteen. MR. ABBATE-All right. Come up with a number, guys. MR. STONE-You could make that argument for anything. What do you think? MR. BROWN-This isn’t really something you have to decide on. It’s just a discussion item, as we’ve been throwing it around. MR. MC NULTY-Can we say something about shooting for a target of six, or a maximum? MR. BRYANT-Rather than limit it by the situation, why don’t you limit it by the clock? MR. ABBATE-That’s an excellent idea. MR. STONE-I thought about that. MR. BRYANT-If you go to court, or something like that, and you’re in court, and they don’t get to you, and it’s three o’clock, guess what. MR. ABBATE-You’re out, right. MR. BROWN-You’ve got to make it out of here alive. If you say to people who have been sitting here for four hours, at eleven o’clock, sorry, come back next week. MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s not fair, either. MR. BRYANT-I mean, you’ve got to be reasonable. Okay. MR. STONE-Except you never know. You get into some of these, they look like very simple things, and you never know. MR. ABBATE-How about this wording, a maximum of no more than eight per meeting. MR. HAYES-I don’t think we go over that now, do we? MR. MC NULTY-But the six has been working out about right, time wise. 58 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. ABBATE-All right. A maximum of six per meeting. MR. HAYES-All I’m saying is, why don’t you say that our goal is to have six per meeting, outside of some circumstance where. MR. STONE-Yes, I mean, if it’s 13, we’d certainly try to squeeze one in. MR. HAYES-Or even 14. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I think, instead of saying an absolute maximum of six, if we can say, a target of six or. MR. HAYES-A soft cap. Call it like a soft cap. MR. STONE-But do we want to set a total per month, though? That’s another. MR. ABBATE-A total per month, now that’s an interesting point. A total per month. MR. BRYANT-So you’re saying if you needed four meetings, you had 32 applications, you would have four meetings? Is that what you’re saying? MR. ABBATE-That’s a lot of applications. MR. STONE-I don’t want to have four meeting. MR. HAYES-Right now the maximum is 16. MR. BROWN-I don’t want to review 32 applications in one month. MR. STONE-I mean, technically, we’re supposed to have two meetings a month, no more than two meetings a month. MR. BROWN-You can have special meetings on your accord. MR. STONE-Yes, special meetings, but that’s bull crap. They’re not special. It means we need another meeting. MR. BROWN-Regular meetings are the third and fourth Wednesdays. Anything else is a special meeting. MR. HAYES-By definition. MR. BROWN-And you guys are doing that to facilitate the applicants. You don’t have to do it. MR. BRYANT-Well, let me ask another question. Is there something that we can do to the format of the meeting to maybe speed it up? There is a lot of wasted time at the meeting. Okay. Is there something that we can do to speed up the process. MR. STONE-Well, what do you have in mind? We’ve got to read it into the record. MR. BROWN-Well, Lew and I have talked about this before. You don’t have to read staff notes in. You don’t have to read the Warren County stuff in. Those are things that are part of the record. If somebody wants to know, they can look at the record. MR. BRYANT-Can’t you say that. MR. BROWN-Warren County recommendations, approved, you don’t have to read the whole. MR. STONE-Okay. Fine. MR. HAYES-We should definitely do that, then, because that’s not impacting. MR. STONE-If we could do this. If we have copies of staff notes available for the public. MR. BROWN-But, you’re right, if somebody wants to know about it they listen for the Board to read it in, and they don’t take advantage of the staff notes that are here. It works out great, because people get an overview of Staff’s position, the County’s position. It helps. MR. STONE-I’m comfortable with that. 59 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. BRYANT-I’m just curious. Do you have to read the entire application? I mean, if you’re referring to a specific application, do you have to read everything? MR. BROWN-I think if you read in the legal advertisement, which is what. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but you don’t have to read all this criteria, the five, you know, any of that stuff. You could eliminate that, right? That might save a little, a few minutes. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but that’s minimal. MR. STONE-We don’t have to read their part in. Do we have to read their part in from the application? MR. BRYANT-You don’t have to read their application. MR. BROWN-No. You have read it, as Board members. You know what the application is. MR. HAYES-And the FOIL request that’s in the file. MR. STONE-Well, why don’t we read that in. MR. BROWN-Don’t change the whole MO. MR. HAYES-The Staff notes, all we say what the relief is anyway. It’s right in the first section. It’s automatic. That’s what we do our motions from. MR. STONE-I think we need the Staff notes. MR. HAYES-Yes, but do we need the applicant’s thing? MR. STONE-No, I don’t think we really do. MR. ABBATE-But we still have to, none of us want to work until one o’clock in the morning. I think we should, I think what we should do is have a maximum of no more than eight per meeting. MR. HAYES-That’s fine. I don’t think we do anymore than that now. MR. ABBATE-Well, I mean, that’s reasonable. MR. HAYES-Yes, but I think maybe we should think about cutting it back. MR. STONE-I think we should cut it back. MR. ABBATE-No more than six per meeting. MR. STONE-I would think our target is six. I think we ought to say our target is six. MR. HAYES-Put a soft cap on it. MR. ABBATE-So we know there’ll be flexibility. So our target is six. Let’s do it that way. MR. BRYANT-We’ve had six, though, end at 10 o’clock, though. MR. HAYES-Right. Well, that’s why if we had 13, what we’d want would be two meetings. MR. STONE-You have leeway in who you set for what meeting, don’t you? MR. HAYES-He probably should do it first in, first out, to some degree. MR. BROWN-Yes, some depends on, again, we’re trying to facilitate an applicant. If you need a variance and a site plan, we put all the ones that need site plan on the first variance meeting, so they can go to the next Planning Board meeting and get it all done in one month, hopefully, if they get. MR. ABBATE-Craig, based upon what you haven’t said, can I assume that Staff is supporting what we’re suggesting, limiting the time? MR. HAYES-I think we have to be careful, as public employees. 60 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. BROWN-It doesn’t matter. I just, logistically, see a problem with three meetings every month. You’re going to run into advertising deadlines. You’re going to have, three applications with three meetings a month, you’re bumping up the number of applications you want to do a month, which, do you have the time to give it the review that it needs? MR. STONE-I think we need to set a minimum, a maximum number of applications. MR. ABBATE-And I agree, I definitely agree. MR. STONE-First come, first serve, and then within that, if we can help the public, by having those that need site plan on the first meeting, fine. MR. HAYES-The hard problem with that, though, is the ones that need site plan are the ones that are in depth, most of the time, too, as a rule. There’s more too them, but the site plan people are the ones that have lawyers and experts. MR. HIMES-I think you’ve got to take into consideration, in connection with the overall number, the economy going the way it is, for one thing. In total, the matter that every time a new house is built, there’s another potential, down the road applicant that sooner or later he’s going to run into the matter that your pipeline fills up, and you never get to the bottom of the pile, and that reflects badly on the Town and its management, not just us. So I think we have to be wary of saying we’ll do a total per month, as a Board. MR. STONE-We can say total, and then if we start to get a back log, we can say, okay, we’re going to have an extra special meeting this month. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STONE-To try and clean up the back log. MR. HIMES-So that is what we’ve been doing, the thing being maybe with eight items is what drags us into 11, 11:30, 12. MR. ABBATE-And quite frankly, I’m not so sure we’re that efficient at one o’clock in the morning. I know I’m not. I’ll be very honest. MR. BROWN-To speed up a meeting to get more applications through, I don’t think that’s what you guys should do, process more applications. MR. HAYES-But Allan’s point is well taken, though. If we’re doing some things that are redundant, which you can make the argument the reason the applicant and the staff notes is redundant, and that’s five minutes an application, that’s a half hour a night, and it doesn’t change anything about investigating the facts or interviewing witnesses or anything like that. That’s just time. I mean, I don’t know about yourself, but I only listen to one or the other. I don’t listen to both. Do you know what I’m saying? I mean, is there anything being accomplished by that? MR. STONE-It’s for the public. It’s not for us at all, but I don’t think we need to read the application. MR. BROWN-Once you announce the application, here’s the number, here’s the tax map number and here’s the applicant, that’s 50% of it right there. Then if you read, I think you may want to read in their responses to the criteria question. MR. STONE-Well, then that’s what we’re doing now. MR. HAYES-But most of the time they just say no, though, or yes. MR. STONE-They usually show their ignorance. MR. HAYES-Exactly, you don’t want to say, but that’s usually what happens. I mean, is there an impact, no, is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, no. MR. HIMES-Let me ask, is there any bearing on the time that people have available with three meetings? I mean, are they all going to be in the last two weeks? Say, if you have three meetings, or however many you have, are you going to? MR. STONE-Well, we had three this month starting the second week. 61 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/20/00) MR. HIMES-So I can’t, for example, couldn’t continue on Wednesday nights the second week of the month, for example. MR. HAYES-It’s hard. It starts to become like a league or something, when you start having three. MR. STONE-Yes, but one of the reasons that we have nine people. MR. HAYES-That’s what I was going to say, it’s a big improvement. MR. STONE-Yes. We have had a full group every night since we’ve done it. MR. ABBATE-That’s a good point. We have no extraordinary powers, any more than the Town Board or the Planning Board and they don’t go past eleven o’clock, because they state that they can’t function. So what makes, why can we function? MR. STONE-The Planning Board’s gone well past one o’clock. The Town Board on a couple of occasions. MR. HAYES-Plus, Craig’s right. I mean, you start drawing these perfect lines in the sand, and we’re going to have open rebellion in certain circumstances. Not that it’s not a good idea to resist it, but, I mean, the Gargiulo guy might have gotten cut off, for example. I mean, he waited patiently. It wouldn’t have been right. MR. ABBATE-I think three, based upon the current amount of business, I think three meetings a month is appropriate. Now if the business is reduced, in terms of growth, then we go back to two meetings a month. I think it’s unreasonable to go, you know. MR. HAYES-You’re not saying three meetings no matter what the case load is, though, right? MR. ABBATE-No. MR. HAYES-Because the case load in like November and December, traditionally, has been lower. MR. ABBATE-Right. Of course. Then we have to schedule two meetings. MR. HAYES-We had one time where we had one meeting three months in a row. MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, that’s okay. I have no problems with that either. MR. STONE-Well, actually, what we’re getting down to is let’s continue the way we are, but let’s try to have no more than six a night, and if we have to have three meetings, we’ll have three, and if you want, we could even play to be a Board of nine, and assign people to be here. I don’t know if that was the intent of the law. It wasn’t? MR. BROWN-It was to use the Board members first, and only use the alternates in case of conflict schedule. You can’t regularly rotate them in as regular members, no. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Six meetings, right? MR. HAYES-Soft cap. MR. STONE-Soft cap. Yes, right. If we have 13, we’re not going to meet three times. MR. ABBATE-So our goal is six a meeting. MR. STONE-You and I can talk about what we maybe can drop out of it. The meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 62