Loading...
2001-08-15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 15, 2001 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ALLAN BRYANT PAUL HAYES CHARLES ABBATE NORMAN HIMES JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT MC NALLY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2001 TYPE II SCOTT AND CAROLE HUNT AGENT: PAUL E. CUSHING, ARCHITECT P.C. PROPERTY OWNER: SCOTT AND CAROLE HUNT ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 15 SUNSET LANE, ASSEMBLY POINT, LAKE GEORGE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO THE SOUTH END OF EXISTING BUILDING; ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING FLOOR AND ALTERATION AND ADDITION TO SECOND FLOOR. RENOVATIONS AND REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING DECKS. RELIEF REQUIRED FROM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. CROSS REF. SPR 33-2001 CROSS REF. SEPTIC VARIANCE: RES. NO. 23.2001 BOARD OF HEALTH 5/21/2001 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/8/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 8-9-7 NEW TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-6 LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 PAUL CUSHING, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT; SCOTT HUNT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-2001, Scott and Carole Hunt, Meeting Date: August 15, 2001 “Project Location: 15 Sunset Lane, Assembly Point, Lake George, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of additions to an existing seasonal camp. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10.58 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement, 10.62 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement and relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16 for a 25.79% FAR where 22% is allowed. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief from § 179-79 for the expansion of a non- conforming structure. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to enlarge an existing seasonal camp as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to existing site conditions. However, addition to the southeastern portion of the home may be more compliant. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief may be interpreted as moderate, relative to the Ordinance. 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. Addition to the southeasterly portion of the home may alleviate a relief request. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Septic Variance 23-2001 Town Board of Health res. 5/21/01 Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The sanitary sewer issues have been addressed for this site in a Critical Environmental Area. The proposed additions would appear to allow a more intense use of the property…..4 bedrooms to 5 bedrooms. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-And we have, “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 8, 2001 Project Name: Hunt, Scott and Carole Owner: Scott and Carole Hunt ID 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) Number: QBY-AV-54-2001 County Project#: Aug01-34 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of an addition to the south end of existing building; alterations to existing first floor and alteration and addition to second floor. Renovations and replacement of existing decks. Relief is required from front and side setback requirements as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area. Site Location: 15 Sunset Lane, Assembly Point. Tax Map Number(s): 226.19-2-6 Staff Notes: The existing building is non-conforming in at least three ways under the Town’s ordinance: 1) the parcel does not meet the minimum lot size of one acre (this parcel is 0.18 acre), 2) the parcel does not meet the minimum lot width requirement of 150’ (the parcel is approximately 85’ wide), and 3) it does not meet setback requirements on two sides (the front setback is only 19.42’ where 30’ are required and one side yard setback is only 0.97 from the property line, a deficiency of 19.03’). The proposed action would increase the number of bedrooms from four to five plus a ‘quiet room’ and a ‘study/office’, and the number of bathrooms from one to 1 ½. The applicants propose a 1700 gallon polyethylene septic holding tank with alarms and hold downs that was approved by the Town Health Board in May of 2001. Staff is concerned about the impact to Lake George from lot overcrowding in an already overdeveloped area of the lakeshore. Staff recommends discussion. This proposed action has also been referred by the Town for County site plan review (Aug01-35). Local actions to date (if any): A Public Hearing is scheduled for August 15, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board August 10, 2001. MR. STONE-Gentlemen, identify yourselves, please. MR. CUSHING-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name’s Paul Cushing. I’m an architect for Scott and Carole Hunt. Sitting to my left is my client, Scott Hunt. We’re here to request the changes as proposed in the applications that the secretary has just read out. On the board are a set of drawings comparable to the ones that you all have. I understand that members of your Board have visited the site. With regard to Staff comments, it’s true that it’s a very, very tight site. You, Mr. Chairman for one, living in the area, know that the Shore Colony situation was set up as a very, very small lot situation, and that’s what we have to deal with. With regard to some of the comments that the Staff made relative to the possible relocation of the additions to the southeast, we looked at that aspect, and we made the decision, because of the size of the lot, that we would be violating the site plan situation, with regard to 65% of the lot, and therefore we felt that a more compact design would be more beneficial to, one, the clients, first of all, and, two, the overall Town aspect. Other than that, I’d be happy to answer any questions that you gentlemen may have relative to this project. MR. STONE-Just a quick question. The County report said 1700 gallon tank. I believe, Mr. Hunt, you told me there were three 1700 gallon holding tanks? MR. CUSHING-There are three, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CUSHING-They are installed, as per the drawings. They have been approved by the Town Building Department, and they are operational. MR. STONE-Do they go from one to the other, or do they have? MR. CUSHING-They go from one to the other. You’re absolutely correct, just the way it shows on the drawing. MR. STONE-Okay. I see, okay. All right. Would you like to comment about the Floor Area Ratio, which, of course, is something that we’ve, as a Board, we have been quite concerned with over the past couple of years since it’s been in the Code. MR. CUSHING-Yes. I understand your concern, Mr. Chairman. On these very, very small lots, existing conditions that are modified, the percentage that changes is a very, very miniscule amount. If you go through the numbers that are shown on the Floor Area Ratio map, you understand exactly where that is occurring. Really, we are filling out this existing second floor that was never done originally. That is the basic largest part of the addition that we’re proposing. The two other additions are relatively quite modest. One is only six feet by fourteen feet. The other is only nine by twelve, and as a result, when you add those three up, you get a fairly large amount. I’m not so sure that the Staff comments relative to the nonconforming expansion, as I understand the Code, you’re allowed to expand up to 50%, and if you look at the Floor Area situation, the total existing is something slightly under 1500 square feet, and with the addition, it’s slightly over 2,000, just under 2100. My mathematics teacher told me that if you divide 1400 by 2, you get 700, and if you add it you get 2100. So I’m not so sure that that is really germane to this issue. MR. STONE-Well, let me just ask Staff, did you do this, Mr. Brown? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. BROWN-I did, and the relief for a nonconforming structure doesn’t have anything to do with the 50% rule. It’s the fact that the expansion doesn’t meet the setbacks, and Paragraph E in that Section 179-79 talks about, you can expand it as long as the expansion meets the setbacks, this expansion. MR. STONE-So it’s not the 50%. It merely, it triggers another Section? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. CUSHING-It triggers another Section. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you both for helping. Questions, gentlemen? MR. HIMES-I have one, Lew. Could I ask you, sir, you mentioned that the upstairs, that there’s nothing other than interior changes? The structure is already there, and hadn’t been used? Is that what you said? MR. HUNT-Yes, sir. MR. CUSHING-If I may. This is the existing second floor plan. It shows a stairway and three bedrooms. It shows the roof over the existing annex. It shows the roof over the lower floor. MR. HIMES-Okay. That’s what I thought. MR. CUSHING-Yes. So really what we’re doing, we’re expanding here, as it’s shown here, and we’re modifying this area here and with a small addition here and a small addition there. MR. HIMES-Okay. MR. CUSHING-And frankly, one of the things, this photograph was taken on the neighbor’s property to the west. He’s looking down on it, no matter what happens. This is the view that you see from Sunset Lane. This shows, visually, a two story structure, no matter whether that addition happens or not. So, I don’t see that it makes a moderate impact on the neighborhood. MR. BRYANT-When you’re talking about addition to the second floor, you’re really only adding these three bedrooms, a roof, you’re changing the pitch of the roof, or what are you doing? MR. CUSHING-We will probably be changing the pitch of the roof, only because we can make it more efficient, utilizing a truss system as opposed, we would take down the existing roof. It would not be any higher than the existing ridge of the second floor. MR. BRYANT-So the only addition to the second floor really is the three bedrooms in the front? MR. CUSHING-Correct. MR. STONE-So you’re not going to take down the second floor? MR. CUSHING-No, no. MR. STONE-So the ridge line is going to be the new ridge line? MR. CUSHING-Correct. The pitches will change, but that’s all. MR. HAYES-When I talked to you today, you thought it was going to be four foot higher? MR. HUNT-Yes. Maybe I was wrong on that. I thought maybe it was going to be a couple of feet higher, and that was all I saw. MR. STONE-Mr. Cushing, your client and you seem to have a disagreement there. MR. CUSHING-No. MR. HAYES-It’s just a clarification. MR. STONE-It’s not going to be any higher. MR. CUSHING-I do not think that it’s going to be any higher. At this point, as far as I’m concerned, it will not be any higher. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-So you’re basically saying, in spite of the interior modifications, the exterior will basically remain the same? MR. CUSHING-The exterior will basically remain the same, as far as the basic building is concerned. We are adding, and I’ll show you exactly where those are. If you see the dotted line on here, this is six feet this way by fourteen. This is a nine by twelve foot addition. The second floor is the fourteen by twenty-eight. MR. BRYANT-On the first floor, that new quiet room, is that an addition? MR. CUSHING-That is correct. That’s the nine by twelve addition. MR. BRYANT-So basically you’re expanding the first floor with the new quiet room, and this small addition to the family area? MR. CUSHING-Correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and then of course the deck. MR. CUSHING-And the deck is replacing the existing deck. It’s only expanded by six feet by eighteen and a half feet. MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen, before I open the public hearing? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Are there any further questions? All right. Let’s talk about it. Jim, let’s start with you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think this is a bit of a difficult one because we’re always faced with these decisions on these smaller lots, and, you know, I have a bit of a problem with the size of the expansion as proposed, but I think it’s tapered somewhat by the fact that they’ve added these new holding tanks, and I think that kind of minimizes the impact of the addition, if it’s granted, but at the same time, I’m looking at a 1.88 acre lot, which is one tenth the size of a WR-1A lot, and as you explained, it’s not to your fault. It’s a matter of the way the original lots were set out up there, but at the same time, I think that we have to look at the amount of addition that you’re proposing, and I think that, you know, I look at rooms where it says, you know, quiet room or study and things like that, and I don’t know how many people study when they go up to camp in the summertime, but I think that possibly we’re looking at a little bit of excess here that maybe we could taper some of this back and forego the addition down on the first floor and the expansion of that existing sitting area down there also, and possibly allow two rooms upstairs, instead of the three rooms up there. I don’t know if it makes that much difference, but. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. On the favorable side of this thing, it can be seen that the structure is certainly not on the water’s edge. It’s back quite a ways. However, the aspect of increasing the intensity of the use in any way, such a small lot, bothers me. The size of the structure in relation to the lot is pretty big now, in my opinion. So I’d certainly like to see, the fact that it’s a seasonal thing, rather than a year round is another positive factor. On the other hand, you still have something that’s quite large there, and supports quite a bit of use. Certainly it’s commendable that they’ve done something about the septic system, but of course it was necessary because of what is the uses undergoing, and I just, at this moment, think that that stands against the application. I’m a little bit more on the negative side of the equation than on the positive. So I tend to be not in favor of it. Thank you. MR. STONE-All right. Chuck? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really having a difficult time with this application. That is not to say I’m not in favor of it, nor am I in favor of it. The rationale behind it makes sense. You have a growing family, and I don’t quarrel with that. I think any normal individual would want additional space. The three 1700 gallon tanks, certainly it’s commendable. However, as one of my colleagues just stated, because of the increase in volume of individuals going there, this sort of a situation is really mandated, if you will, particularly when you talk about a .18 acre. I am at a point right now, before I make a decision on where I stand on this, I would really like to hear what the rest of my Board members have to say. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I, too, believe that the addition is a little on the excessive side. As you look at the, this is a seasonal camp, and as you look at it there are five bedrooms, a quiet room, a study. It’s kind of excessive for a seasonal camp, and had I come to the meeting and just looked at the notes and the drawings, I probably would have been opposed to it. However, in visiting the site today, the topography of the site is such that all of your neighbors to the back and the side are really elevated. So anything that you do back there is of no impact to any of your neighbors, and I don’t see, other than the fact that the lot is so small, I really don’t see that there would be an impact. So, on that basis, I think I would go along with the application. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I think I agree with my fellow Board members, that this is certainly a very tight application, in terms of a balancing test. Certainly the benefit to the applicant, you have a growing family, and you need some additional space. I believe that feasible alternatives in this case are limited, based on the sheer size of the lot. It’s a very small lot, as Mr. Cushing has pointed out. As far as the relief itself, versus the Ordinance, I don’t think that, it exceeds the Floor Area Ratio, but it doesn’t exceed it by a dramatic amount, an amount that would normally cause me a great deal of alarm, and coupling that with the fact that it is a small lot, and any addition, the very fact that it’s that close to the Floor Area Ratio surprises me, with the size of this lot. I guess, for me, you know, if there’s any negative, it’s the fact that we could be setting precedent again for over development, in my mind, on lots that were not intended to have, as has been pointed out, five, and maybe by Jim, six bedrooms here, as labeled. So I would say, on balance, I would be in favor of this application, largely because most of the additional space is going to be in the existing footprint of the house as it is, and as Allan pointed out, that addition is not going to affect the view shed of any of the immediate neighbors, in my opinion whatsoever. So the fact that most of the addition is being incorporated into just above what’s already there, I think I could go along with this application narrowly. So, I guess I’m slightly in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I feel about like the last two commentors did. It’s certainly a lot on a small lot, but the addition is basically over an existing footprint, with very little enlargement of the footprint. The other thing that helps me a lot, I think in this case, is the fact that you’ve already gone ahead with the holding tanks which assures me it’s going to be a seasonal camp. It’s not going to become a year round residence, and I would have a serious problem with this if it were going to be a year round residence, but given that it’s over the existing footprint basically, and has been pointed out, I don’t see where it’s going to impact any of the neighbors at all, other than possibly having a few extra kids and people on the lot that you might not otherwise have if you didn’t have as many bedrooms. So, I, too, can I think go along with this. MR. STONE-Before I start, I just want to ask, you do guarantee that this is and will be a seasonal residence? MR. CUSHING-Mr. Chairman, by law, with holding tanks it cannot be. If Mr. Hunt’s grandchildren’s grandchildren are blessed with sewers, they may change the situation, but I have lived on the area of North Queensbury for over 40 years and I’ve given up hope whether I will ever see them. MR. STONE-You’re as optimistic as I am. MR. HUNT-Let me make a comment. It’s been a seasonal dwelling for 42 years. It was one of the original dwellings built on Shore Colony, and it will stay seasonal. MR. STONE-I know the law, except the Town Board has taken a while to come to that understanding. So, it’s good to know that we now understand what’s going on. Surprisingly, I am not concerned as much as I have been on similar situations, particularly on Rockhurst, where I have, quite frankly, opposed most second floors that have been put in there because I think we get into a towering effect. I think we get into what I have described as a wall street. I think the applicant is 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) very fortunate. Mr. Hunt is very fortunate that his house sits at the bottom of the hill. I am surprised that his neighbor to the east has not said yes or no, publicly. I mean, it just surprises me that he didn’t have a comment, but certainly the people uphill from you are not going to be impacted. They’re looking at your current second floor, and there’s no way they’re going to even probably see the front of the house, and I think as somebody said , the fact that the two rooms are basically going to be where there is deck now. I mean, there is house, if you will, there now. So, having put that all together, I think I concur with the last two or three gentlemen who have said, on balance, and that’s what we’re here for, on balance, when you consider the benefit to the applicant and the feasible alternatives and substantial relief and the effect on the community, I think the balance comes out in favor of the applicant, and, having said that, I would like a motion to approve this application. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2001 SCOTT AND CAROLE HUNT, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 15 Sunset Lane. The applicant proposes construction of additions to an existing seasonal camp. Specifically, the applicant requests 10.58 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement, and 10.62 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement, and relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16, for a 25.79% Floor Area Ratio where 22% is allowed. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief from Section 179-79, for expansion of a nonconforming structure. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to expand his existing seasonal cottage, as depicted in our drawings. Feasible alternatives, I believe that feasible alternatives are limited in this case, based on the extremely small size of the lot, and the existing position of the house. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that certainly the amount of cumulative relief in this case has to be weighed and considered, but the small amount, or percentage amount, above the Floor Area Ratio does not trouble me, in this particular case. It’s a little more than three percent over the existing requirements. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that there will be very few in this particular circumstance, largely because the applicant has proposed constructing the large part of the addition over, within his existing footprint. There’s two small additions, what would be to the east I believe, but there’s also a small structure there now. So I believe there won’t be any impact on the existing neighbor’s view shed of the lake, which, in properties that have a view of the lake, that is a strong consideration, but in this particular case we’ve been assured that the roofline, or the ridge line of the roof will not be any higher than exists currently. Is the difficulty self-created? I believe that it is in this case, based on the fact that they have a camp now and they’re obviously trying to add to it, but on balance I believe that the test, in the cumulative sense, falls in favor of the applicant and I would move for its approval. The applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-79 for expansion of a nonconforming structure, based on his application for dimensional relief, which is Part E of that Section. Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Would you consider putting in a reference to 179-79, that this is not a size, not a 50% addition, merely that because it does require setback relief? That’s why that’s triggered. Do you think it should be in there, Craig? I mean, we haven’t had this one before. MR. HAYES-I covered that specific relief, though. I’ll put it in, though. That’s really not a problem. The applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-79 for expansion of a nonconforming structure, based on his application for dimensional relief, which is Part E of that Section. MR. STONE-“B”, there is no “E”. MR. BROWN-179-79? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-“E”? MR. STONE-“B”, “In no case shall any increase or expansion violate or increase noncompliance with the minimum setback requirements”. MR. BROWN-Of the shoreline restrictions. MR. STONE-Yes, of the shoreline restrictions. MR. BROWN-But if you go to “E”, it talks about all setbacks. MR. STONE-I don’t have an “E” in my book. MR. BROWN-We’ll have to get you one. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. CUSHING-Nor do I. MR. HAYES-I guess we’ve got a motion anyway. MR. STONE-Yes. We’ve got a motion. Okay. I thought I was up to date. All right. Any questions about the motion? Do I hear a second? MR. BRYANT-I’ll second. AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. STONE-There you go. MR. CUSHING-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. HUNT-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2001 TYPE II MARTIN S. AND SUSAN M. FARBER AGENT: LITTLE AND O’CONNOR PROPERTY: OWNER: MARTIN S. AND SUSAN M. FARBER ZONE: WR-3A, CEA LOCATION: 33 ANTIGUA ROAD, EAST OF ANTIQUA MOTEL APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OFA BOAT COVER WITH A SUNDECK AND STAIRS. PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-16 PRIVATE BOATHOUSE AND COVERED DOCK REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 31-2001 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/8/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 1-1-10 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.90 ACRES SECTION 179-60, 179-16 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2001, Martin S. and Susan M. Farber, Meeting Date: August 15, 2001 “Project Location: 33 Antigua Road, east of Antiqua Motel Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a sundeck/boathouse over an existing dock. Relief Required: Applicant requests 12 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations per § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration, purchase of additional lands and construction of a similar, smaller structure above the adjacent slip, closer to shore. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 12 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to significant. The proposed plot plan depicts an eight foot setback from the property line to the new construction. The proposed setback appears to be a scaled distance. Accurate confirmation may be considered. 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? A portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the existing dock structure. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable….no references to a necessary building permit for dock resurfacing. Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Consideration may be given to a smaller boathouse/sundeck, closer to shore and more in character with the surrounding properties. While a strict application of the ordinance may present undue difficulty to the applicant, it is not unreasonable to consider a smaller proposal by which the applicant could gain the desired result…boat shelter and an outdoor lakeside recreation area. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-And we have a “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 8, 2001 Project Name: Farber, Martin and Susan Owner: Martin and Susan Farber ID Number: QBY-AV-55-2001 County Project#: Aug01-32 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicants propose construction of a boat cover with sundeck and stairs. Applicant seeks relief from side setback requirements. Site Location: Antigua road, east of Antiqua Motel. Tax Map Number(s): 1-1-10 Staff Notes: The applicants wish to construct a dock and boathouse using existing cribbing. It is not clear whether the proposed dock/boathouse actually crosses the extended property line, or if it is set back 8’ as the applicants claim. The required setback is 20’, so this represents a deficiency of 12’. The applicant has ample 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) shoreline along which to construct a new dock and boathouse (196’). The applicants essentially wish to rebuild a nonconforming structure and continue the encroachment upon the property line simply because there are existing cribs in that location. The encroachment upon the property line is especially a concern because the boathouse opening faces that property line so that boats will cross the extended property line each time they enter or exit the boathouse. However, the impact upon neighboring property owners is more a local than a County concern, provided that the shoreline is not unduly crowded. Staff will attempt to learn from the Town whether the boathouse as proposed crosses the extended property line. Staff recommends discussion. This proposed action has also been referred by the Town for County site plan review (Aug01-33). Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing is scheduled for August 15, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board August 10, 2001. MR. STONE-Gentlemen. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent Dr. Farber and his wife Susan, and Dr. Farber is here with me at the table, with the builder, Bob Sutliff. Before I begin, I had sent up to Staff a very abbreviated consent type form, signed by neighbors on each side of the project, which I obtained one evening. I understand that one of the neighbors is here, and one of the neighbors intends not to let the Board know that they do not consent at this time, and I’ll get into that as we go along. Let me show you first, if I can, photographs. If you’d pass those down through the Board, the first three photographs are what was there this spring. What we’re talking about is an Area Variance only for the boat cover, or a sundeck that’s going to go above part of the existing wharf. Prior to this spring, there were two boat covers that covered this set up of dock slips if you will. The first one near shore was approximately 400 square feet. The second one, which was out further, was some 1300 square feet. There’s a total of 1700 square feet of boat cover in existence on this site, and I’m not sure how long, but long before the Lake George Park Commission started keeping track of docks. I think on the engineer’s report that was submitted to you, we have one of the old photos that the Lake George Park Commission had of the record of this. So we’re thinking it’s 50 years at least that these boat docks were in place, that the covers were in place. They were in great disrepair, and the attempt here was to upgrade them. The two docks, or the two boat covers as you look at them, were peaked. They were different than what we propose now. They did not have a sundeck, but the total height of them is in excess of what we propose now. By scale, we believe it’s anyplace from 15 to 16 feet, and it might even be a little bit more, we’re being conservative, above the mean high water mark. Our total construction that we are proposing here will be 14 feet above the mean high water mark. If you take a look at the engineering draft that was submitted to you, basically we’re talking about an open boat cover on the farthest two slips. So that we can cover two boats. There will be an opening of about seven and a half feet from the top of the deck to the bottom of the apron that will go on the sundeck. The actual level of the sundeck will be nine feet above the deck of the dock, and the top of the rail is 12 feet, 2 inches. You give that and the distance between the top of the deck and the mean high water mark is how we tell you that we will have 14 feet in height when we’re all said and done. The deck that we have, or that we propose, is a lot less in size than what was there before. The actual deck of the sundeck is 28 feet by 28 feet, and I think I’ve written you a letter that shows you that that is some 784 feet. If you consider the apron that would go off the side, and say that that’s part of the mast, if you were I guess flying above the deck looking down at it, it’s actually 1,089 square feet, but that still is compared to 1711 feet of boat cover that was there before, boat cover that was higher and probably more solid than we’re proposing. If you take a look at the peak of the roof, those pictures, I think, were taken in the wintertime, but you get an idea of what was there. Basically, if the owners maybe had come to me before, we would have left everything there and come in and asked permission to remove the two, and I don’t know if you’d be looking at it different or not. Basically, that was there intent from Day One, when they started this project, was to remove the two covers and replace it with one. Now, Staff comments, when they’re talking about feasible alternatives, I think if you understand the construction of the dock, you’ll find out that there aren’t really feasible alternatives. Yes, you can probably spend money and do anything you want to do, but I don’t think from a practical point of view. To demolish the existing cribbing, which is extensive as it goes out and goes around through here, and to replace that cribbing would be probably about $80,000. Mr. Sutliff has done this at other projects where he’s had to do it, or whatever. This is fairly deep water that’s out here. If you take a look at the second series of the photographs that you’re going to see there, you’re going to see it would be very difficult to get any sizeable equipment down near the shore on this particular site. It would all be done by hand probably. I don’t know if they could go over the building and bring it up over the top of the building or something of that nature, but if you’ve been to the site, there’s a great deal of elevation difference between the roadside, the building area, and then down into the water. I don’t think that that is a practical solution, to say, remove all of your existing cribbing, remove your decking, and move the complex within the property. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, let me interrupt you for a second. Since you’re focusing in on the deck there, is that an encroachment I see? MR. O'CONNOR-Not that I’m aware of, no. In this corner right here? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-It appears to be, yes. MR. ABBATE-It is an encroachment? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s a pre-existing, this is something that goes back 50 years. MR. ABBATE-All right. MR. O'CONNOR-What we’re talking about is putting a boat cover over this portion of it, which is further away than this. Staff also said maybe move it closer to shore. The closer you move this to shore, the more encroaching it gets, the closer it gets to the side line. MR. STONE-Can you go over that again, Mr. O’Connor? Where is this cover, the deck going to be? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s over the area on the survey map that’s showing boathouse. MR. STONE-Okay, into the lake. MR. O'CONNOR-On the furthest extension. MR. STONE-So this inner side will not be covered? MR. O'CONNOR-No. It was covered before. MR. STONE-Right, I can see that. MR. O'CONNOR-But it won’t be covered in this instance, and we talked about relief of 12 feet. Relief of 12 feet is at this corner only. It actually gets to 14 feet at this corner. So we’re talking about 12 feet of relief here and six feet of relief at the farthest corner. Staff made a valid point that we’ve scaled these figures. We would be willing to stipulate that we will have a surveyor set some type of guide so that we do not construct anything closer than the 12 feet or the 14 feet. I presume what they can do is shoot out, you know, stick some type of extension out here, and shoot from shore an extension of this line, mark it back and tell us if that’s where the corner has got to go, and we’d also be willing to submit an as built drawing, if that’s a requirement, so that there’s not an issue down the road. We’re not talking about changing the traffic patterns of boats or the use of it. This is in existence. The wharves are there, docks, whatever you want to call them, docks I guess the Lake George Park Commission calls them, wharves. We’re not talking about changing that at all. All we’re talking about is putting a boat cover, so that we can cover two boats in the farthest part of the slips. When the property was bought, they could cover three boats, and it’s an odd property line if you actually take a look at it, and I put both extensions on there. Our law read literally says you take the extension of the property line at the last course as it hits the lake or you go at right angles, whichever produces the less distance, I guess. If you do it from this angle right here, that’s why we needed 12 feet of relief. If you do it from there, we need the six feet of relief here. If you actually go to the main property line, between the two properties, and come back and extend that line, directly out into the lake, we don’t need relief. We’re well in excess of the 20 feet. There’s only, I think, 17 feet 6 inches of property line that actually causes this problem. It’s a little bit unique. It’s a little bit different. I don’t know who changed the property line or why they made the property line that way. MR. ABBATE-I’m confused. You’re saying 17 feet. Here it indicates 14 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-On the survey map here. MR. ABBATE-It shows 14 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-No, look up here. I’m talking about the only thing we’re talking about is the extension. MR. ABBATE-This leg right here. I see. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s what we’re trying to compare to. That’s what we’re trying to do battle. If you look below it, I’ve done a dotted line, which is an extension of the main line, or the main property separation between the two properties, and that goes out, it’s well in excess of the 20 feet, if 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) you were considering that, but I think the statute literally read, says that you take the point of property line as it hits the shoreline, and you do a right angle or you do an extension of that line out into the lake. MR. HAYES-So if you did a boundary line agreement, you could, you might not even have to be here then. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and if you take a look at the properties, and maybe if you have, I don’t know, did you get the two mylars? MR. ABBATE-I don’t think we did, Mike. MR. STONE-No. MR. ABBATE-No, we didn’t. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Then that went to site plan? MR. BROWN-Probably. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We submitted different applications to whatever. If you actually line up the properties, I did this for the heck of it. I didn’t tape them together, but if you pass it down through, I have outlined the size of the prior boat covers underneath, in green, to give you an indication of the reduction in boat covers that we’re actually asking for, even though we’re still asking for a variance. I think they’ve made a good faith attempt here to make this as compatible and not give up the ability to cover some boats on the lake. That’s coming off entirely. This entire area in the back is coming off. This is coming off in the front. This will actually, the front of this boat cover will actually be further back than even the front of the pre-existing boat cover of the larger docks. So, I think it would be foolish to tell the applicant that he ought to throw out $80,000, simply to gain a setback of 12 feet or gain a setback of six feet, when in fact we’re not changing any traffic or any usage of what we’re going to cover. What we’re going to cover is there, and it’s going to remain there. The question is simply whether or not we can cover some of the boat slips, and I think if you were up there, and I know all of you take the time to go to see most of these sites, I don’t think that we, in any appreciable way, effect anyone’s view shed. The top of this structure, which is a total of 14 feet is probably about the level of the foundation of the adjoining, of our house and the adjoining house. If you sit in the adjoining house, you’re going to be looking over it, you could be looking at any place. You will see it, but if you look down six feet, or eight feet, ten feet, you’re going to see the docks, too. You’re not going to see a new activity, simply because you allow us to cover the activity. We’re talking about a stairs on the back side, away from the adjoining property, toward our property. We’re not talking about a land bridge. We had discussion on that with the Planning Board at the County level. We had full discussion of the application before they recommended approval. They wanted to know what we were going to do and how we were going to build. They wanted to know what color we were going to have. It’s a natural color. It’s going to be cedar shakes on that little bit of roof apron that you see in the engineering plan. Staff talks about the purchase of additional lands. We don’t know that any are available. We don’t know that a boundary line agreement would be available that would allow us to say we don’t need a variance. If you talk about a smaller structure, over the adjacent slip closer to shore, in fact we would be increasing the encroachment that we’re talking about, and you then would be able to cover only one boat. You wouldn’t be able to cover two boats. That’s a small slip that’s near the shore part of it. We don’t think it’s significant, what we’re talking about. It’s something that historically was there, been there probably 40, 50 years. We did show the plans to Mr. and Mrs. McKenzie. We did show the plans to Mrs. Brown, and Mrs. Brown did submit or signed an indication that she had seen the plans and had no objection. I’ve submitted that. I don’t know if that’s in your packet or not in your packet. I apologize for the fact that, or I don’t necessarily apologize, but I hope I made clear that the signature of the McKenzie’s is on here, that they have indicated by phone last evening that apparently they would like to talk about the application and they’ve withdrawn their consent. I have one more, I think. There are other boathouses in the immediate area. In my visit to the site, the McKenzie’s property, right next door to us, is a covered boathouse. It is enclosed. It’s not open like what we are proposing. If you go around the bend a little bit, I could see in the immediate area three other boat covers that were open, and oddly, this is I think the, if you look at the engineer’s submittal, the property that we’re talking about is the property of, it’s shown on here as Crannell, Wilbur H. Crannell. That is the Farber’s property right now. The property that is to the east of it is the property that’s owned by Mr. and Mrs. McKenzie, and if you’ll notice, and maybe this is the way that everybody did whatever they’re doing, they built, or their predecessor built their covered boathouse immediately adjacent to their property line, as close to their property line on that side as we’re talking about building, or probably closer than we’re talking about building now. The property to the west of us, that is not shown, is the Antiqua Motel complex, if you will, and if you went up and looked at the property, you will see that they have somewhat of a mini-marina right adjacent to our property line, on that side on the east. It would not be as good of an area for us to establish our swimming 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) and our use of our property as where we presently have. I’m not sure, I didn’t count the boats, but there are probably six or eight fairly good sized boats that are docks right there on a regular basis, and I think they are seasonal rentals. They are people that don’t have property upland, but they come and utilize the boats to go out on the lake and stay on their boats. Some of them are fairly good sized. So I think the practical difficulty here is the cost of starting over again, the cost of removing the existing cribbing and docks that are there, and I think that outweighs any impact that we might have if we might have an impact, and I think the elevation difference between the lakeshore and the houses, our house and even our adjoining house, take care of any potential, as far as blocking of view. I think the historical use of the property, we’re not presenting something different. The sundeck on top is different than the peaked roof boat covers, but other than that, it really is not of great significance. I think the actual distance from the McKenzie house is probably 150, if I tried scaling it approximately where their house is, it’s probably 150 feet or better out to the dock. So it’s quite a distance away, because they’re setback too. Any questions? MR. STONE-How many docks do you consider there? How many are berthed at that dock? MR. O'CONNOR-There’s currently two. There would be slips for three. My reading of it is that. We’re not talking about, I don’t know the issue. MR. STONE-I’m just looking, it seems like a lot of docks. I agree, technically, it’s one dock, I think, from the definitions as I read them, but it says up to three vessels. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think the dock’s at issue, though, Mr. Stone. What we’re talking about is covering one bay that contains two boats. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. O'CONNOR-The dock is there. We did get a building permit for the dock, or for the work that was done on the dock, and that’s been completed. MR. STONE-Mr. O’Connor, I still can ask the question, even if it has no. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. For the purpose of the record, I want to be sure. MR. STONE-I understand what you’re saying. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I, for one, Counselor, was overwhelmed with your argument, and it would seem to me the Staff comments are rather harsh, particularly they said that this should be more in character with the surrounding properties. They go on, strict application of the Ordinance may present undue difficulties to the applicant, it’s not unreasonable to consider a smaller proposal by which the applicant could gain the desired result, boat shelter and an outdoor lakeside recreation area. I would say that you and Staff comments are about 180 degrees out. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t disagree with your comment. I also didn’t get into, and maybe I should, the 24 foot sundeck gives us a cover to cover a decent sized boat. It does not actually cover the whole wharf, and it’s not the intention to cover the whole wharf, but it is sized so that you can have a 20 foot boat in there, 22 foot boat in there without a problem, and that it will be protected. MR. STONE-Listening to the County, which, as you will argue I’m sure, that it is not necessarily germane, you probably did to them. They say the applicant has ample shoreline along which to construct a new dock and so on. Do you have any comments on that? MR. O'CONNOR-To do that would require us to waste the existing crib system that’s there that would cost us $80,000. Yes, there is adequate shore frontage so that you could construct a dock complex that would be 20 foot setback from each side, no doubt about it, but we’re talking about a pre-existing wharf that we’re simply trying to cover, and I say this, County Staff comments were written before they had any appreciation of some of the aspects. They didn’t have the mylar. They didn’t have any discussion as to the height. Lake George Park Commission, maybe I should say it for the record, has issued a permit for the wharf reconstruction, and they are in the process of issuing a permit for the sundeck without requiring variance, notwithstanding that they have the same type of regulation that you do as far as 20 foot side setback. Now before we got into this application, I did have a meeting with Staff, and it was my position that no variance was required. This was a pre- existing structure. Part of this structure had been removed, in an attempt to maintain it and repair it. The major portion of this structure, the cribbing, had not. They said no because the cribbing had been taken down and in many places down to the water level. They looked upon the boat cover as being different, and I think we got into fuzz land when we started talking about whether we had a 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) peaked roof or we had a flat roof and a sundeck, and I just said I’ll come and I’ll present the application. It’s a decent application. MR. STONE-You believe that the Park Commission will grant permission to build the desired cover? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we’ve been told that. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-And Staff, at this time, should have a better appreciation of the application, I’m assuming, then, given an opportunity, would modify their Staff comments? MR. STONE-I don’t think that’s a fair question. MR. BROWN-I don’t think so. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. BROWN-I’m sorry if they appear to be harsh. They’re not intended to be harsh. They’re just offering alternatives, and for accuracy, I wasn’t suggesting that any docks be removed as an alternative, and I think you might have mentioned it was 24. I think it’s 28 foot, just for accuracy, as far as the application goes. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. All those in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BILL MACKENZIE MR. MACKENZIE-Good evening. My name is Bill Mackenzie. My wife and I own a home on the eastern side of Martin and Susan Farber, and we wish to express our opposition to the variance they’re requesting. Before I go into my prepared comments, which you will receive a copy of, I would like to see if it’s in order that I can comment on some of the information that was passed on to you. MR. STONE-You can comment on anything you want. MR. MACKENZIE-Okay. First of all, I heard it said that no work had been done, in terms of removing cribbage or moving the ballast or the stones. Last weekend, a person who lived in that house visited us, and he was in his boat and was sitting opposite the dock, and he said, boy, they’ve changed the dock, and I said, no, they haven’t, and he said my boat barely fit in to what would be the second slip from the large slip, the second slip in, and he said, look at that boat in there now, there is quite a bit of room on either side, and two other neighbors commented on that. It is my understanding that that part of the dock was moved. So, whether no stones were removed, I can tell you that part of the dock, from what I have been told, has been moved. I think you can maybe find out the answer to that. Secondly, all spring there were huge piles of stone and rock that had been moved, as the top tiers of the cribbage was removed. This being a hardship to take and turn this, move this to another location, I can understand. However, all of that work and the money was spent to that already, without any approval, as I understand it. So I’d like to make sure that’s quite clear. I could be proven wrong by based on someone testifying, but I can tell you I saw it and witnessed it. One dock was removed. So if there was a decision that was evaluated early on, whether or not they could remove the dock and place it further on their property, that obviously was not made, a decision was made not to even look at it, and the funds were spent. So such as that. I’d like to make my statement if I may. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. MACKENZIE-“Our opposition concerns the fact that this variance they will be allowed to build a very large boat cover and sundeck positioned on our adjoining lot lines. Their newly replaced dock complex includes a double boat slip, two single slips and the accompanying deck. This complex protrudes 75 feet into the lake making the structure visually overwhelming. The character of the rest of this small bay consists, with one exception, of one slip boat cover construction all of which protrude 40 feet into the lake. The previous boathouse on this site was originally co-owned by our two houses and that is why the boat slips face toward our home and necessitate the boat and waverunner traffic of the Farber residence to pass through our swimming area directly in front of our home.” You may find out that the Farbers don’t own a personal water craft, but I can tell you their contractor does, and he comes in there flying right in close to the shore. “This is the primary reason 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) why we object to an additional recreation area on the shoreline. It also appears by the newly installed ladders at the end of these docks that their swimming activity will also be in front of our home, not on the other side of the docks as the previous owners chose. If this variance is allowed and the subsequent boat cover and sun-deck are built, another recreational area will be created in front of our home. There are already three areas for such activities on their property, namely, a tennis court and shuffleboard area, a covered front terrace which is the length of their house, and a second floor sun- deck which is also the length of their home.” I would presume they would have to be over 50 feet long, and they are probably 10 to 12 feet deep or more. “The boat and waverunner traffic into their boat slips is, unfortunately, a foregone conclusion, however, with the addition of both the sun-deck activity and the swimming in front of our home, the value of our property would undoubtedly be adversely effected, in addition to the noise and negative visual appearance it would create. We would not oppose a boat cover over one of the boat slips, excluding the docks, however, we strongly oppose the addition of a sun-deck on top of it. The Farbers own 196 feet of lake frontage”, you’ve heard that our, supposedly we have 150 feet, our lot line is 96 feet. “and we would like their recreational activity to occur in front of their house whenever possible. It is our hope that they can achieve covering their boat without bringing their recreational activity in front of our home and obstructing the view which we have enjoyed since 1955. We feel that this can be achieved by eliminating the addition of a sun-deck on top of the boat cover. The previous owner’s boat cover did not have a sun-deck, therefore, there wasn’t any activity or furniture on top of it, it was instead a quiet presence. We would like to invite the Board members to view this problem from our front terrace and front sun porch if they have any questions regarding our complaint. The reason for our opposition would be very evident. Thank you for your consideration”. You will also notice that we include the minutes from the Warren County Planning Board. We have highlighted their concern, which we have expressed. We’ve also included a map identifying our concern and lastly I would like to draw your attention to the pictures we have included, and I presume you have them. Pictures One and Two were taken last night. Please imagine how a covered dock will encroach visually on our home. The remaining four are views from our dock and the front yard. The panoramic picture which I’d like to bring to you shows the difference in shoreline footage. We have less than half of their footage, yet, they would like to have their recreation in front of, area, another recreation area in front of our house. As we look at Lake George, bigger seems to be getting more popular, and I think at some point concern has to be given for those that are there. We will have to live with the boats leaving their docks and returning, and that is a fact we can’t get around. We have not asked that the boathouse be moved. As a matter of fact, the first time we knew anything about, I knew anything about what was going to be built, was about 10 days ago when I was shown a picture that just simply showed their outline of the boathouse with a cover on the top of it, and their attorney said to me, I asked their attorney one question. I said, what would be the height, and he explained to me that it would be between 12 and 14 feet, and he said probably more toward 13 feet. I subsequently found out it was 14 feet, and my curiosity grew, and as I started looking into this and talking to people in our area, I felt that I could not walk away from this without expressing my views and saying to you that their gain will be our financial loss, because of the devaluation of our property by a large structure, and believe me, I think you can all see from those pictures, that is a very significant structure. We are not asking that it be moved. We are asking that we do not want to have an entertainment center sitting right in the front of our house, and we would love to have you all come up and sit in our terrace, come into our family room and take a look and see what you have. I think it’ll answer a lot of your questions. Thank you. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question, sir? MR. MACKENZIE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-I know, if you sit on your terrace, how will this boathouse affect your view, I mean, as you look up and down the lake? MR. MACKENZIE-If you look to the south, toward the Village, it will affect your view. MR. BRYANT-I can see from the lawn, almost every place on the lawn it’s going to affect the view. MR. MACKENZIE-Yes, that is true. However, I think we are willing to say that there is such a thing as compromise. SARA LYNN MACKENZIE MRS. MACKENZIE-Can I answer that a little bit, too? MR. MACKENZIE-Yes. MRS. MACKENZIE-He didn’t introduce me. MR. MACKENZIE-I’m sorry. This is my wife. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MRS. MACKENZIE-I’m Sara Lynn Mackenzie. It’s my family that’s owned the property since 1955, Dr. and Mrs. James Blake, and I think it shows better, the panoramic picture was to show you how much 196 feet looked, and we didn’t get the picture all the way to the end. There’s so much lakeshore frontage for them to have their activity, yet they’re going to put it over in front of ours. I think the two pictures with the boats in place show better how the docks protrude. They are straight in front of their property, but they protrude out, as you look from our property, it’s a visual thing. I mean, if you measure, indeed they are straight with the lot line, but when you’re sitting on our yard or on our terrace, there’s a, visually comes out at you. I think any of these photographs show it pretty well, and also, all of their activities, we’ve had it this summer, with the contractors, workers and so forth. I mean, boats roar in and out I might add different times of night, seven o’clock in the morning, waverunners are swirling around. That’s not the Farber’s. We realize that, but it gives us an idea of what could happen when all the activity is off the ends of those docks, and the ladders have been constructed. So obviously they’re going to swim there. The previous owners had six children. We never had any concerns. There was a slide off the back side, the Farber’s side of the dock. They swam over there. They had a ladder over there. They had a slide over there. They didn’t come and swim in front of our house. That’s where our guests and our family would swim, and our concern is just that we will be sitting on our terrace or up on our sundeck and here the entertainment is going on. MR. BRYANT-Did these docks always face this way? MRS. MACKENZIE-They did. The two homes were originally built and they co-owned the boathouse. Our particular house, the owner got into some financial difficulty and sold the rights to the boathouse to the other house. So then when the next owner came along, that’s why the one slip, tiny little boathouse that we have is over on the other side. Obviously, it would not have been put in front of the slips, from the other one, but when you take away the size of the frontage for our boathouse, and we only have 96 to begin with, we have a relatively very nice but not huge swimming area. So when you have boats swinging in and swinging out or waverunners and people jumping off and diving off the docks, it’s just something we’re not thrilled, we would like to be on the other side, but that is just something that may or may not happen, but the main thing is to have this activity, as Mr. O’Connor said, it could be over 1,000 feet. It’s just about 800, and then when you add the roofing and so forth, it’s over 1,000 feet of structure that’s going to be in front of us, with people and tables and umbrellas and chairs and all sorts of activity going on up there, and it is, would be very visually negative to us. Previously, it was just quiet. There was just a shingled roof over the two slips and no activity going on. So that actually the visual barrier would be quite similar, whether it was a shingled roof or all what goes on, and we have a sundeck on our single, small boathouse. So I mean, we know what can and does sometimes go on. MR. STONE-Were those ladders that are shown at the end of the dock toward your property always there? MRS. MACKENZIE-No. They were just recently put there. That’s what gave us the indication that that’s where the activity is going to be. MR. STONE-I gather, on the basis of what you have said tonight, that we should not read your statement of 8/6? MRS. MACKENZIE-No, unfortunately, and just to say, Mr. O’Connor and Mrs. Farber came over unexpectedly a week ago Monday night, and we were eating, and they knew we were eating, because they said, oh, you’re eating, and so we rushed and he showed us something and we said, okay, okay, and I called Mr. O’Connor and spoke directly with him the next morning and said, is this anything legally binding that we have to take care of, because, you know, I don’t know what our feelings are going to be, but we don’t want to be held to that. No, that was something that our stomachs dictated instead of our brain, I guess. This little map shows it very well, how it sticks out in front of our, because it is difficult to, I was just saying to my husband, it’s difficult to understand, because the lot line is here, and nothing is beyond that line except for this variance area, but the way that it protrudes when you get into our yard, there it is, and it’s just the way the house is turned, the way the front yard is turned, that’s what we stare at, and we realize that, if I had a nice big boat, I’d want to cover it, too. So we realize that we’re not opposed to them having a boat cover, but we just don’t want a huge boat cover, just over the one slip, but primarily it’s the sundeck that we are apprehensive about. MR. STONE-This drawing you gave us, or this addendum, it doesn’t appear to coincide with the property lines that we have been given by the applicant. MRS. MACKENZIE-I got this from the Lake George Commission. In fact, I might correct something Mr. O’Connor said, because I spoke with Molly Gallagher just today, and got the written, 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) they were about to send a letter out to us. They do not know, at this point, if a variance will be required, and they definitely have made no decision as far as whether they will allow anything or not. MR. ABBATE-Would you please help me clear something up? Because I certainly don’t want to, I want to make the records absolutely clear. Did I interpret you correctly earlier, either yourself or your husband indicating that construction has already started? MRS. MACKENZIE-Of what? MR. ABBATE-Of this boat dock? MRS. MACKENZIE-The docks are near completion. MR. MACKENZIE-You can see the pictures of the docks. MR. ABBATE-I know, but I want you to answer. Did I understand you correctly by saying that it’s your opinion that construction has already started? MRS. MACKENZIE-It’s our opinion that the dock complex is near completion, I would guess. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I said it right. MRS. MACKENZIE-And over the time we have not been vigilante as we should have been, because now three neighbors this weekend kept saying, what is, why don’t you, that sort of thing. We put our faith in the Town of Queensbury, and Craig, and in the Lake George Commission, and we know that one dock was removed and they had permission to do so, that enabled them to have the very large first slip that they have now. The other one appears bigger than it was, according to the person who kept his boat there for many years while Jim Miesner was alive, but I saw those boys throwing stones constantly. Our friend, Bob Hayes, said, why are those boys throwing stones, because there’s crib changing going on. The stones would be piled down here, and then the stones would be piled over there, and then, you know, there’s a different pile for those stones every time. MR. ABBATE-You submitted another document, it’s dated August the 13, 2001, Warren County Planning Board, and you highlighted the fact that the encroachment upon a property line is especially a concern because the boathouse opening faces the property line so that boats will cross the extended property line each time they enter or exit the boathouse. Is this correct? MRS. MACKENZIE-It does. MR. ABBATE-It does. MRS. MACKENZIE-And it does. It always had, but they had the same concern. It always has and it always will. The concern is now because of another recreational activity. They’re going to have the boats going in and out. Do we have to have the swimming? Do we have to have the sundeck also? And it’s just that they had stated that was a concern, as the basis of our concern, too. MR. ABBATE-And I’m sure, Staff, they’ll determine whether or not a permit has been issued. MR. BROWN-No building permit’s been issued on the property. Today a building permit was filed, to do the dock resurfacing, but it hasn’t been issued yet. We just received the information today. MR. ABBATE-Are you suggesting that construction could start ahead of that permit? MR. BROWN-The resurfacing of the dock has been done without the issuance of a permit. MR. BRYANT-Well, if the cribbing was changed, would a permit be required? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. HIMES-Can I ask a question, Mr. and Mrs. Mackenzie? In connection with the activities, the boats in the past always came and went kind of across your area, and that, I guess, is not a problem for you? MRS. MACKENZIE-Well, it’s life. The previous owner only had one boat and it didn’t go out much. MR. HIMES-So you’ve had the boats coming and going, and it’s worked out. MRS. MACKENZIE-It’s worked out. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. HIMES-But you would anticipate and have an objection to them using that same area to also swim in and do other activities. Is that correct? MRS. MACKENZIE-Right. MR. HIMES-And in connection with the sundeck and so forth, the activity there is what you object to, more than the fact than there’s something there? If they put up something without a sundeck, that would be all right with you? MRS. MACKENZIE-Correct, because they, I think they should have a boat cover if they’re anticipating the boat. MR. HIMES-So, it’s the any recreational activity going on in your water in front of your house, other than the exit and entrance of boats in and out of those slips, for those reasons only? MRS. MACKENZIE-Right. MR. HIMES-And the recreational, so to speak, leisure activity going on on the deck? MRS. MACKENZIE-Right. MR. HIMES-So it’s the activities? MRS. MACKENZIE-Right. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MACKENZIE-Yes. I’ve watched that boat activity for 46 years and it hasn’t been a problem. There’s been two previous owners. Ironically, they had four slips. They owned one boat, but that’s not an issue. That’s the way it goes, and, you know, as long as they go out slowly. MR. HIMES-I just wanted to know how our conversation was going to go. MR. ABBATE-One more comment. Am I interpreting the both of you correctly? Are you stating that approval of this request would have an adverse effect on your property? MRS. MACKENZIE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. MACKENZIE-Without question, I think without question there would be a financial impact on our property in terms of its resale value. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else? MRS. MACKENZIE-No. I think it’s clear that the boat activity is not a problem, but because it’s already existing, we just don’t want some more activity. MR. STONE-We thank you for your comments. Anybody else wishing to speak in opposition? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-A couple of pieces of correspondence. MR. STONE-I would read the one with only the one name. MR. MC NULTY-Great. This is a note on the bottom of a memo that came from Queensbury Community Development Staff, and it says, “We have reviewed the plans and have no objections”, and it’s signed by Ann H. Brown. MR. STONE-Who I assume is associated with Antiqua? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MRS. MACKENZIE-Can I say something? Did you check that she’s one of the owners? She’s signing as an owner. They aren’t married. MR. STONE-Well, it doesn’t say she signed as an owner. She just, it’s a person and she lives there, but it’s a good point. Go ahead. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. There’s also a letter, signed by Craig F. Brown, saying “I’ve reviewed the proposed construction of a boat cover with sundeck and stairs. I am in favor of the Zoning Board granting our neighbors, Martin S. & Susan M. Farber, relief from the side setback requirements. Please consider this letter as my complete response because I will be unable to attend the August 15 th meeting.” MR. STONE-That’s it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Mr. O’Connor, do you wish to make comment? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I do. I don’t think the applicants wish to make this confrontational, and I think if you see the nature of their construction, you may get a flavor of what they’re trying to do. There are certain comments, though, that probably should be made, just so you don’t think something is mis-characterized or what not. The ladders that are placed on the dock, we have no problem if you condition your approval of our sundeck that we remove those ladders and we’ll put the ladders on the other side of the dock. It was not the intention to create some new activity that the adjoining owner would find offensive. They really were put there without real consideration, and if that’s an issue, we will do that. I haven’t seen the photos that you have, or what not, but I can tell you that I visited the site. You visited the site, I think most of you. Basically, we’re talking about an activity that’s off to the left. When I used the figure of 150, I didn’t mean their frontage. I meant that the activity from their house or from their patio is probably 150 feet away, and if you were to deny the application, and they not put a boat cover on, I don’t think you have any different activity at that 150 feet away. It would then take place on the wharf, on the existing dock. The difference is whether it’s eight feet higher or nine feet higher in the air, or on the existing docks. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me understand the 150. The Mackenzie’s said their property is 100 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-Their frontage. MR. STONE-Their frontage is 100 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-All right, but take a look at our survey, and they can show you where their house is, and get an idea of the scale of it. They sit back a distance. MR. STONE-You’re saying away from the lake. MR. HAYES-Away from the activity. MR. O'CONNOR-Away from the activity. I mean, this is not right on top of somebody is the point I’m trying to make. MR. STONE-Would you like to look at these pictures? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Take these. Go ahead. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think they show anything different than what I’ve said. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I just make that comment. I’m sure there’s a question of perception. I don’t know what Mr. Mackenzie does for a living. I do a lot of real estate. Whether you look at the historical activity on that property and the two docks that were there, or what’s going to be constructed, I don’t see that there’s any real showing that there’s going to be any detriment in value. I’m not an AI certified appraiser, but I’m sure that Mr. Mackenzie’s proof that you have is very subjective at best. If we thought we were going to get into that issue, we probably would have had a 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) realtor prepared to talk about it. What we’re thinking of, or what we thought was really insignificant, in the sense that the activity that is there, the activity that encroaches, is already there. The builder is here. Some of the rocks were removed from the upper part of the cribbing, so that the cribbing could be repaired. The upper part of the cribbing had rotted as well as the wharfing, but the cribbing has not changed. You can go up. You can look at the cribbing if you want. The Town Staff can go up and look at the cribbing. What is going to happen is that one crib is going to be reduced in the middle of the boat area, so that we can put two boats under the one cover, and the wharf that was in that far out section actually will be smaller. There’ll be less dock here when you get done than what there was when you started. Molly Gallagher was at the property two days ago, to measure the docking, to see whether or not there was any change. The Lake George Park Commission issued a permit for the wharf work, and she indicated that there was no change, that there was no additional docking. I’m not sure whether this is a perception issue of somebody who used to use the property or not, but in fact Staff can go up, they can look at the cribs. The cribs have been there for odd number of years. MR. STONE-Would you comment on what Mr. Brown said about, that no building permit was issued and one should have been sought prior to construction? MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not aware that it had not been issued. I know that when I filed the applications, or the day that we had our Staff meeting, to talk about whether or not a variance was necessary, Mr. Sutliff went out to his truck and got a building, he was told that he had to have a building permit to complete the decking that was there, and he filed it then, which was some time ago. It wasn’t just the last couple of days. MR. BROWN-No. I think the application came in today. Today is the first day I saw it. BOB SUTLIFF MR. SUTLIFF-Bob Sutliff, contractor. I went to Molly to resurface the dock, and you didn’t need a permit at that point to resurface the dock. If you’re leaving the dock as is, you can resurface a dock. You don’t know until you get into a project what you get into. You open up a can of worms. You get into the dock and two or three boards down are rotten. You have to, you know, you can build over top of that. I mean, this is 12 foot of water on the deepest end. I mean, that’s extensive. To tear that all the way down and go new, that would be a very extensive job, but just to go down, and Craig said to me, you need a permit for that. So I stopped and I didn’t get back into the work. I brought the permit. I didn’t have enough of the permit done. He said, no, you need a cross section. So then I came back in. I was delayed. It’s not, it was my, I delayed the permit issue, but he said that I could resurface the dock. I could start construction without a permit to resurface it. So you get into a project, and then you get down and you get rotten boards. I’m not going to build on top of that. So that’s what happened there, sir. MR. O'CONNOR-The cribbing, though, is in the same place. MR. SUTLIFF-Molly came out and measured the whole job, and it’s right where it was. MR. STONE-Do you want to comment on the rock? MR. SUTLIFF-Well, yes, I mean, there’s cross members, to get in there to get these things out, and crow bars, and this thing’s piled up higher than a crib. You build to the crib, the rock is higher than the water. I mean, the dock is that high off the water, right. Well, that’s filled with rock. You can’t, you’ve got to move a pile to one end, work on it, and then move a pile. Yes, we did move a lot around. MR. O'CONNOR-But we didn’t go down the 12 feet and remove the cribbing. MR. SUTLIFF-No, sir. The whole front lawn would be rock, if that was the case. MR. O'CONNOR-Which is a requirement of the Town, and I was surprised when we read that, but apparently if you abandon or disuse, just quite continuing a wharf, you have to completely remove it out of the water. So that’s how we get to the figure that you’re talking about, $80,000 if you’re going to throw out the window if you’re going to try and reconfigure the dock. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-But again, we’re not trying to get confrontational. I did visit the neighbor. It was at suppertime. We were invited in. We said, you know, sorry to bother you, and it was, I thought, a congenial type thing that we were invited in and we talked. I had the same set of drawings that we had here, with me that night, and we showed those drawings. I had the same file. I didn’t keep part of my file not there. Again, I don’t want to get confrontational. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. STONE-No, well, but there is such a thing as buyer’s remorse, as we all know. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I just want to continue just a little bit for the record. MR. STONE-Sure. Go ahead. MR. O'CONNOR-The conversation that I had with Mrs. Mackenzie was, was what she had signed the night before legally binding. I said, no, it’s not legally binding. It’s your expression of your intent. She asked me if I would fax it to a number so they had a copy of it. She didn’t, at that time, indicate she was withdrawing it. I did fax it to a number that she gave me. I did get a receipt for faxing it. So I totally respect their right to come here and express what they’ve expressed tonight, but I don’t want somebody to look at the record and think that I have mislead the Board in any manner as to my recollection of what took place. Again, we’re talking about a dock complex that’s large, maybe a dock complex that you wouldn’t get a permit for today, but it pre-exists, and what we’re talking about is building a boat cover sundeck over a portion of it. A boat cover/sundeck that is some 700 square feet less than what was there before. Yes, there’d be some activity up on top of it, that there was not before, but you’re going to have that activity on that dock, if you don’t have it up there. They talked about three other places on the property that you could have this activity. Well, if you visited the property, the people that are swimming aren’t going to put their picnic table up on the tennis court. If you look at the property, the people aren’t going to put their picnic table up on the deck that runs along the front of the house. They’d have to go through the house to get down. I don’t think there’s an outside stairs. MARTIN FARBER DR. FARBER-There is an outside stairs. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. DR. FARBER-The construction of that deck, if you put stuff on it, that’s, you know, like a table leg, that’s going to puncture that. It’s not built for heavy traffic, and it’s inappropriate to have those kinds of activities on a tennis court. We resurfaced the tennis court so it’s not an asphalt tennis court. It’s a good tennis court. So that’s not appropriate, and if I may, I have some other comments. MR. STONE-I don’t think you stated your name. DR. FARBER-I’m Martin Farber. I’m co-owner of the property with my wife. A couple of other statements. I don’t want the Board to feel that this was something that was sprung on the Mackenzie’s. I had a number of conversations with Mrs. Mackenzie, and she applauded the idea of a sundeck. She told me lots of wonderful stories of the good times she and her family had on their sundeck and said what a wonderful idea it was. Furthermore, this cove, one of the nice things about this cove as we’ve spent more time in it is how friendly the people are and how Bob Hayes swims across and back, and I swim over and play with the Mackenzie’s dog and speak to Mrs. Mackenzie and swim over to Bob Hayes. If our swimming activities are in that direction, it’s because we thought we had friends and acquaintances in that direction. If we don’t, we’ll swim on the other side. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I guess I should comment on the shuffleboard. Both the shuffleboard and the tennis court that was mentioned, just for purposes of the record, are at a completely different elevation than any activity that would take place on the dock. You’d have to go out, you’d go across the whole front of the property down the stairs down to the dock. I mean, there is no generally level area down at the dock or the water level that you can have a social or a leisure activity, unless you do it right on the dock, there’s a lot of space on this dock, or you do it on the sundeck, and if you’re on the dock, you know, you’re six feet away from your boats and everything else. I think the idea is try and get a little bit away from that, the clutter of it. I don’t think it’s unreasonable. I think if you go around the lake you’ll see numbers of people that have decent sundecks and they appear to get along well. I’ve not heard about real problems, complaints about people, because they had a sundeck next to them, or people that had problems with sundecks next to them. Maybe you’ve had more experience than I have with the people on the lake. MR. STONE-I don’t have any sundecks on either side. It has nothing to do with anything. MR. O'CONNOR-I seriously question whether what we propose will have any detrimental effect of a financial basis on the adjoining property, and based on my experience with lake properties and the use of lake properties, as much as anything else. I’m not an AI appraiser. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. STONE-If I haven’t, let me close the public hearing. I don’t know if I did or not, just to get it closed. Any questions of the applicant before we talk about it? Okay. Norm, let’s start talking about it. MR. HIMES-Thank you. Well, this has been interesting. I think that much of my feeling here revolves around the possibility for some kind of a compromise to be worked out, but mainly the questions that I asked and the objections by the neighbors, mainly that it’s the activity that bothers them, more than the structure, and if there were some kind of a party on the sundeck and swimming, into the water, with a group of people, it would probably be bothersome, and I think I can understand that, and I think it’s already been agreed by Mr. O’Connor that, well, that ladder will be removed and that kind of activity would go on on the other side of the docks. So, the boats going in and out do not appear to be a problem now, any more so than they were in the past. So that isn’t a particular factor. I note, too, of course, that the Mackenzie’s do have a deck on top of their dock, and we’re speaking about possibly a slightly larger covered building, so to speak, with a deck on top of it here, but it still is a smaller structure, from what I get out of what was said here, than that was there previously, notwithstanding the use of it, but the structure is smaller. So the condition being that the use of the structure, or a very, very similar one, absent the dock, the patio, the deck, has been there all along. So, I really, this is a very close one. I tend to favor the application, with, again, the conditions that the swimming, the activities that, other than the neighborly thing that Dr. Farber referred to, where somebody might swim over to say hello, allow that kind of thing, that that be not done, or that some other kind of a cover be put up, some kind of a compromise, perhaps, be sought after, but that’s my feeling, at this point. It’s very close, but I tend to favor it. I’d like to see a little bit of compromise, if possible. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perception plays an important role in all of our decision making processes, and particularly as we see something, we perceive something, and we must respect these perceptions. Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. and Mrs. Mackenzie have their perception of what may occur, the results. Dr. Farber has his perceptions. The Staff comments have their perception, and I think we must respect all these perceptions. I feel that in order for me to go on the side of approval, there must be a compromise between the Mackenzie’s and Dr. Farber. If there is a compromise that meets both parties’ reasonable expectations, then I would probably go along with approving the application. If not, I would not approve it. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? Before we leave you, do you have any idea what compromise, what area you’re talking? I don’t want to put you on the spot. MR. ABBATE-That’s quite all right. You have a right to say that, and I have a responsibility to answer it. Now, I attempt always to place myself in other parties’ shoes. I place myself in Dr. Farber’s shoes. I place myself in your shoes. If I were the Mackenzie’s, I would probably raise the same objections that you have, and I’m being very realistic about it. If I were Dr. Farber, I would probably play close attention to the Staff notes. Now I facetiously said that maybe they might want to change their mind, but I knew they wouldn’t. They talk about a smaller proposal. That is a compromise. A smaller proposal would be a compromise, in my opinion. The removal of those ladders would be a compromise, in my opinion. Probably an addendum to an approval that certain recreational activities would not take place on other individual’s properties if that is the case, and also, you want perception, the encroachment upon a property line is especially a concern, because the boathouse opening faces the property line so that boats will cross the extended of the property line each time they enter and exit the boathouse. That wasn’t my comment. That’s the Warren County Planning Board’s comment. So there I stand, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, may I respond in part to that? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Those boats will cross that line whether you approve the cover or don’t approve the cover, and we had some discussion with Christine, who wrote up the Staff notes for the County, and she said, I guess you’re right. So she didn’t know why she put that in there, but I mean, I just say that to you. The idea of discouraging swimming from that side of the dock, we’re willing to do that. We’ve said that, as far as taking the ladders off. Having a cover isn’t going to encourage swimming on that side of the dock in any manner. The steps, in fact, are going to be on the back side, away from the Mackenzie’s, so that you come down onto the dock, onto that side, and we’ll put the ladders over there. So I don’t know. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I guess, Counselor, what I’m saying, basically, is perception. It is the Mackenzie’s perception that approval of this construction will adversely affect, now this is their 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) words, will adversely affect not only the property value, but probably intrude on their peaceful co- existence, if you will, and I hope I stated that correctly. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Is it my turn finally? MR. STONE-I think so. MR. BRYANT-At these meetings, a lot of times we’re approached with questions about replacing existing structures with another structure, and in my mind, in my view, when a person makes an application to replace a structure that is actually existing, that’s one condition, but once the structure’s removed, then it’s no longer existing. So this is another condition. When I visited the property today, I stood on the Farber deck and I looked around it’s a very beautiful view, but I never thought to go to the Mackenzie’s property and look at from that point of view, and I think the Mackenzie’s, with their photographs and their presentation, raised an important issue. This is a recreation area, and I know, Counselor, you mentioned that their area is 150 feet from the dock, but that’s not necessarily true. If they want to sit in their yard, if they want to swim in their area, they’re going to be affected by that new recreational area. So, frankly, with that in mind, I would have to be opposed to the proposal. MR. STONE-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree that certainly this application is a very narrow one, again, which many on the lake are, but in this particular circumstance, I think I agree with Norm, and his outlook on this case. I think that the feasible alternatives are limited by the cribbage, which, based on my own experience, is a pretty lofty financial thing to change at any given time. I think that the applicant has agreed to control the swimming toward his property is an alternative, and it’s now being put on the table, and it would certainly be on that I would not back an approval without that contingency, because I think in this particular case we’ve got an existing dock. We’ve got existing usage into what would be the Mackenzie’s property, and controlling that in any way that we can, outside of taking away a historical right, is a good idea, and a compromise. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I don’t think that 12 feet of relief, in this particular case, is as significant as it could be, based on the fact that as I look at the survey map, it’s actually a jog in the property line right down by the lake, that places the radius or the extension of the property line more towards the dock. If that was a straight property line right out to the lake, they wouldn’t have to be here. They’d certainly still be close, but from a definitional standpoint, they would not have to be here, and that, to me, when I look at the relief that’s requested, that’s an important caveat. As far as the effect on the neighborhood or the community, historically, there were two covered boathouses here, and there was the same dockage, as has been testified. Historically, that’s the neighborhood. Now they’re proposing to have one that’s 1,000 square feet, and the coverage before was 1700 square feet. That’s like a 40% reduction in the overall coverage over these docks. That, to me, is a compromise. That’s a reduction. That’s possibly a positive effect on the neighborhood or community. So, you’ve got docks were there. Now the docks are going to be smaller. They’re going to control the swimming toward their side of the property. The slide is still there, that I saw, there was a slide there. No slide? The slide’s gone? Okay. The difficulty is certainly self-created in that the applicant wants a sundeck, and I think that everyone here that would have property is going to be concerned about if things, if parties or if activities became a distraction from their own usage of the lake, and certainly the Mackenzie’s are entitled to quiet enjoyment of their property. There’s no doubt about that, but I don’t think it’s self created in the sense that, unfortunately, and this is the pivotal thing in my mind, is that to come to the understanding that the property owners before shared these in common, and that the property owner prior to the Mackenzie’s sold the rights to the dock to these people, to me, is very controlling. If we don’t grant the Farbers the right to build a cover on these docks, and they had the right before, a right that they purchased, I think the flip side is that the Farber’s have lost value and the Mackenzie’s have picked it up, and I’m not sure that that’s a result that I think, looking at the historical nature of these properties, the fact that there was a boat cover there, and they enjoyed them together, I’m not sure that that would be fair in reverse. So I guess, on balance, I would think that replacing 1700 square feet with 1,000 square feet, with a sundeck that’s actually lower, to me, is a compromise in itself. I think it’s a compromise that I can live with. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, several thoughts. One, if this had been a project that had come before us before it was started, so it included the dock and the cover and everything, I think one of the first things I would have wanted to see is whether or not it was practical to reverse the access to the docks, so that it put it over on the side where the user is, but that’s gone. I can understand the Mackenzie’s concern about activity on top of the sundeck. I think allowing a sundeck there indeed 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) does change the nature of the situation, since it was just simply a boat cover there before, and I certainly agree that the swimming should occur on the side of the docks that, where the owner’s house is, but I guess, bottom line, given the concern and the objections, I’m going to be opposed to a sundeck. I would be inclined to approve a replacement cover, but not in the form of a sundeck. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to have to agree with Chuck. I think that we have to look at the change in intensity and use of what’s down there, and I think that if we reflect upon the historical record, the boats have always gone in and out from there, and I’m sure that people have always used caution and care in doing that, and I don’t think that’s really a concern. I think that the fact that those boat slips were covered for a considerable length of time, probably not originally, but they were covered at some point, also means that they probably have the right, you know, vested right, in covering up those boat slips so the boats can have some shelter, but I don’t have any doubt that if you put a deck up on top of that boathouse, that it’s going to increase the intensity of use down there, to the detriment of the neighbors, the Mackenzie’s, and I think that the Mackenzie’s are correct in their assertion that it is going to change their perspective of the lake, and I don’t think that decks out on boat sheds are an entitlement type situation up here on the lake. I think that a lot of people assume that they can put one on, that it’s not going to be a concern, but I think it is a concern, and I would be against putting a deck on top of it. I think covering the boats is fine. MR. STONE-Okay. Before try to explain why I get paid the big bucks for being the Chairman in a situation like this, I just hope that the applicant and the public that’s here appreciates how we operate, in our expression of individual thoughts. We do put ourselves on the line, and I’m very proud to be a member of this Board. It is a very, it’s not an easy job. We sit here and we do a lot of thinking, as you know. Having said that, again, we’re talking about balance. I appreciate the fact that the ladders will go, if we allow anything, and as I also understand, any construction, whether it’s a cover or a cover, a flat cover, is going to require a variance. So, I mean, we’re here to say yes or no on doing anything above the level of the dock. So, having said that, let me continue. Again, I appreciate the willingness to remove the ladders on the Mackenzie’s side. I also, as I’m thinking about this, living on the lake, I wonder, do you go water-skiing from the dock, and do you take off in that direction, if anybody does that, or do you go out another way? I mean, if that’s something that we could also say you shouldn’t do that. I mean, you can do it legally. DR. FARBER-Can you? I didn’t think you could operate a boat that fast, that close to the lake. MR. STONE-For pulling a skier away from the dock you can. DR. FARBER-We always ski, we go out. MR. STONE-That’s good. We’ll leave that issue alone. I certainly agree with Mr. O’Connor and the Mackenzie’s that we don’t want neighbors to fight. There certainly is the matter of the cost of removal. Obviously, we all have perceptions when we come to this, any situation, and, yes, I would like the dock to be somewhere else on the property. I would like the dock to be not as big, but that’s not on the table, and I recognize that, but when I think about the fact that as I said at the beginning, that any kind of cover, and you’re certainly entitled to have a cover on a dock, is going to require a variance. I think the addition of the flat roof is minimal, in this particular case, and I am willing, when I do the balancing test, of the benefit to the applicant, and obviously there’s an alternative. It can be a roof, no roof, or a roof, a flat roof with a dock. It’s substantial relative to the Ordinance. I mean, this is one that we don’t think about very much, except when it comes before us, the fact that many docks, and we’ve seen them before where they encroach, it was the way people built years ago. They put docks out on the property line. I don’t know why, but they did, but when I consider everything and the fact that certainly this difficulty is, as Staff notes talks about, not necessarily self created, the cribs are there. I think the applicant, through his agent, has made a, put a reasonable price on the cost of removal of the crib. I mean, it’s money down the drain, if you will, and I don’t think any of us want to do that. I think the Mackenzie’s are concerned, the effect on the immediate neighborhood, but I think if we minimize, and the applicant seems to be willing to do that, to minimize the amount of impact on that side of the dock, and I don’t think the Mackenzie’s are suggesting you can’t swim across to see your neighbor, I don’t think anybody is, but certainly minimizing activity in the water, and, in and out of the water. You’re going to take care of that with the ladders. I’m inclined to grant this variance, and as I read the numbers, I think we’re slightly in favor of granting this application. So I need a motion to approve. MR. HIMES-Lew, could I just throw something out for discussion possibly? I don’t know what to extend to the people here, but I’m still right on the line just about. MR. STONE-Okay. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. HIMES-And I don’t know what, if the applicant and the Mackenzie’s were to have a short discussion, if we went on to the next application or something, to see whether or not, I think we’re all okay as far as the impact of the variance, in terms of the number of feet we’re at. It’s the activity. It seems to be the thing that sticks in our craw, that makes this decision difficult. It’s not the fact that it’s two feet or eight feet, and since I’m wondering if anyone might agree that if these folks could just discuss it for a few minutes, and maybe they can’t go any further than already has been said, maybe they could, can reach some understanding that maybe they could walk out of this room feeling better about each other. Would that be agreeable, at least could we do the next application and then come back to it? MR. O'CONNOR-We’d be happy to do that. MR. STONE-Are the Mackenzie’s willing to discuss anything in private? MRS. MACKENZIE-Not with his attorney. We don’t have an attorney. DR. FARBER-I don’t have my wife here to back me up. MR. O'CONNOR-Let’s not go there, guys. Let me focus on something, and maybe even sitting here we’ll try and work out something. Okay? You’re talking a sundeck of 784 square feet. That’s what you’re talking about for a sundeck, and of the members that have said they don’t object to a boat cover, but they appear to object to potential activity of the sundeck. If it’s, I don’t know the difference between having 784 square feet, nine feet higher or at lake level. That’s really what you’re talking about. You can have a 700 square foot dock, in any configuration that you want, by our Ordinance, and I’m trying to think whether or not, physically, and I’d ask the builder whether or not we can still have the same boat cover on the slips that we have, and make the deck smaller, on the top part. MR. BRYANT-I don’t think that that’s the objection, the way I read it, and, Mr. Chairman, I think you better take a count again, because the way I read it, it’s four opposed. MR. ABBATE-I agree, it is four opposed. MR. BRYANT-And I think the opposition is. MR. STONE-Well, I didn’t get an opposed. He needed a compromise he said. I thought one of the things that Mr. Abbate threw out was one of the things they were willing to do. MR. BRYANT-I think Mr. Abbate, and I think Mr. McNulty, and they were saying that they would approve, basically, a cover, as opposed to a deck, and I think that’s where the objection comes in. The objection comes in to adding a recreational area that will encroach on the Mackenzie’s space. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, let me ask you this. If we limit the sundeck to an area that is in compliance with the setback, so that the sundeck does not violate the 20 feet, only the boat cover portion, does that satisfy you? Because then we don’t need a variance, technically, for the sundeck activity. That’s what it seems to be coming down to is that you think that because we’re asking for a variance for the sundeck activity, it’s something that you have a problem with, but I can configure that boat cover so that the boat cover itself, yes, would be in violation of the 20 foot setback, but we can do railings, we can do a decent job, I would think, to do the sundeck portion and keep that within compliance so that the sundeck is not legitimately objectionable. MR. STONE-Well, we’re talking about construction, and it’s the type of construction. I appreciate what you’re trying to say, and it certainly helps me. It makes me even more happy with what I said, but I think the point is, it’s the variance for encroachment of any new construction. If you want to modify it, and that makes some of the Board members more willing to agree, that’s one thing, but I think a variance is a variance. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, okay, but I’m talking about the practical effect, the perception effect. Some people talked about perception. Some people said, are you open to compromise? Yes. I think we are, and I don’t have an objection to Dr. Farber, unless you still do. MR. STONE-So you’re saying to put, the sundeck being off center, so to speak? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I can see that easily being done, and being in compliance. I’m not even 100% sure, if you gave us permission to build the cover, that you’re going to say you can’t, we can’t modify it, even afterwards, if we modify it within the Code requirements, the modification. I’m not trying to be fancy. I’m not trying to be tricky. I’m not trying to be less than up front with you, but if you’re concern is that, and I think your concern is, we’ve got this activity and here’s what you’ve got to think about. It’s closer than 20 feet to their projected property line, and you don’t like that 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) activity. Okay. We’ll take it away. We’ll make it 20 feet, the activity, but we still need the boat cover to cover the boats, which is not objectionable from what I’ve read to anybody. MR. HIMES-Lew, can we ask the Mackenzie’s what they think of that? MR. STONE-Well, I think it’s really important what we feel at the moment. MR. MC NULTY-What I’m thinking about now, too, is not just what the Mackenzie’s and the Farbers might agree to, but this variance, if it’s approved, goes with the land. So it’ll carry to whoever else owns the property in the future, which I think is part of what we’ve got to think about, regardless of what these folks think is a good idea, and that leaves me opposed. MR. ABBATE-Point well made. MR. O'CONNOR-Which is why I’m willing to make it a physical thing, not just an agreement thing. MR. STONE-I understand, but if it were off center, beyond 20 feet, it would still bother you? MR. MC NULTY-It would still bother me. MR. STONE-Okay. How about you, Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes, it would bother me. MR. STONE-It’s not enough of a compromise? MR. ABBATE-No. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-I think the objection is based on the deck itself. If it’s just a cover, I have no problem with just a cover. That doesn’t add any real offensive recreational activity in that area, okay, and I think that’s how I’m reading the other Board members. Is that correct? You don’t object to just a cover? MR. MC NULTY-Just a cover I don’t object to. MR. BRYANT-No. MR. MC NULTY-But I would want to see conditions in the motion at this point that that’s what it would remain. MR. STONE-Okay. So you would not like anything other than a cover? MR. BRYANT-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Why would you take away some of their property rights, based upon having a boat cover? I think that’s my point. You’re going beyond the 20 foot no build area, if you will, when you start talking about activities that take place outside that 20 feet, and those activities aren’t related to what we’re asking for in the 20 feet. I think you’re going beyond. MR. ABBATE-Mr. O’Connor, you’re right. We don’t have the authority to take away property rights, but I don’t think that’s what we’re suggesting. MR. O'CONNOR-We have the right to have a sundeck that’s 20 foot offset of our property line. MR. STONE-If they built, if they took the cover, and I’ll use cover in a very broad sense. If they moved that back away from the property line, so it was 20 feet, they could do either one. They could do just a cover, peaked roof, or they could put a flat top up there. Craig, I’m speaking correctly, aren’t I? MR. HAYES-Well, they don’t even have to move the cover themselves. They just have to move where the flat area of the deck is going to be. MR. STONE-Well, no, I’m trying to be very general when I say that. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. O'CONNOR-That’s my point of what you’re taking away. You’re giving to somebody else a right that the applicant actually has, and I don’t think that’s your intent. MR. ABBATE-No, it’s not. MR. STONE-See, they could build that deck, that porch. MR. O'CONNOR-If that compromise is necessary to get the approval, we’re willing to stipulate to that, and if you want, we can do it, I don’t know, let me ask a question. MR. STONE-Do you understand what we’re talking about? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. STONE-He could build, he could cut this thing down to let’s say 600, bring it back to the west, I call it the west, all right, and put a flat roof on. MR. HAYES-He doesn’t even have to do that. He could keep it 1,000 and just offset the part that’s flat toward the interior of their property line. MR. STONE-That’s what he’s compromising, but it’s not helping here. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. ABBATE-Well, in effect, that’s what the Staff recommendations were. MR. O'CONNOR-If you want, and we seem to get a consensus, we’ll come back with an actual drawing. I’m not trying to create something out of air here, and have you have a question of the validity of what we create, but I can show you that the activity that you have an objection to, that the neighbors have an objection to, which we are entitled to actually have, if it’s 20 feet away from the side line, I can show you that in the construction drawings, that it will be 20 feet away. You’re not giving up anything that they have a right to. They have a right to object to that within 20 feet, but I don’t think they have a right to object to it after the 20 feet, notwithstanding the funny crook in the property line. I mean, you asked about a compromise. We’re trying to do something that works. MR. STONE-Yes. That’s why if I miscounted, it was because I thought there was a compromise on the table, as far as Mr. Abbate was concerned. I’m not saying your vote. MR. O'CONNOR-I think it’s clear that if we move, the only thing that we need the 20 feet for is for the cover that’s within the 20 foot side line. If we’re willing to stipulate that the cover within the 20 feet will be used only as a cover, I think we should have answered the concerns that you raised, that you’re entitle to raise. You’re saying don’t bring these other recreational activities, if you call them recreational activities, within their 20 feet. MR. BRYANT-Are you shrinking down the deck? Is that what you’re doing? MR. STONE-That’s what he’s saying, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. BRYANT-But how big would the deck be? DR. FARBER-I’d have to measure it and see where it is, where the 20 foot setback is. MR. STONE-Do you want to come back to us? Could we come back next week? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I would be willing to do it if that’s convincing. I mean, I’m saying that you shouldn’t be looking beyond the 20 feet. MR. ABBATE-I think what Mr. O’Connor proposes is reasonable. I don’t object to that, if he wishes to come back with a drawing. Quite frankly, I’d prefer to see it, so to speak, in writing. DR. FARBER-Before we go through that, I think we’d like to know if that compromise would be acceptable to you. I don’t want to go out and get a drawing, etc. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m talking about in general, so that you can, you can visualize, I’m speaking directly to Chuck and Allan. I mean, in general, so that you can visualize what we’re talking about. MR. ABBATE-I would appreciate it, yes. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. STONE-We can’t put it on the agenda for next week, can we? MR. BROWN-You can table it until next week, sure, but just so everybody’s clear, and I think that’s the point you’re trying to get across, you may want to see that compromise, but I think what Dr. Farber is looking for is, are you going to give me approval when I come back, and I don’t know if you can do that. If you’re comfortable doing that, that’s fine, but you may want to see it. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not asking the Board to do that. I don’t know if it’s appropriate, but I’m asking, certainly don’t send us out to do a wild goose chase. I mean, if it’s a fair representation and we can clearly show you that we call the 20 foot area a no man’s land, we’re not going to quote you, in that no man’s land, with the activity that you objected to, we’ll keep on the table the stipulation that you change the swimming ladders. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, I don’t want to put my Board members on the spot. I can’t ask them, until we go to a motion and a vote, but I hear, for me, and I think you’re going to have the same perception, that there’s a possibility if you are willing to give us that, in hard drawing, that maybe there would be enough positive votes to approve. MR. BRYANT-The only thing I just want to make clear, as far as the cover versus the deck, you know, adding two feet of cover and then 26 feet of deck is not a compromise. If you’re going to add X number of feet of cover, sufficiently enough to buffer them from that recreation area, then that’s a compromise. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think we’re talking about changing the outline of the cover in any manner. What we’re talking about is changing the upper part of it or the use of it. MR. BRYANT-Of the deck. MR. O'CONNOR-Of the sundeck, yes. The sundeck as shown right now is 28 feet by 28 feet, 784 feet. MR. STONE-In other words, if this is the cover, and it’s all flat on top, their talking pushing this edge, and it’s not going to be at the edge, I recognize that, but pushing the porch railing back here. So that you’re dealing only with an enclosed area that’s closer to the stairs coming up, to the west, I call it the west. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and I think, ideally, we would have the portion that we’re not going to use be sloped. Aesthetically I don’t know if we can do that in a pleasing manner from the lake. MR. STONE-Well, you put glass out there so people can’t step. Please, that’s a joke, guys. MR. HIMES-Just a question for Staff, on item three on the notes, where you say the proposed setback appears to be scaled, just for accurate confirmation, did that play any role in this, in terms of, there’s some question as to exactly where this line is? MR. BROWN-I think Mr. O’Connor addressed that in his opening remarks. He said he’s going to do some survey work. MR. O'CONNOR-We can tell you that we won’t go beyond that. MR. BROWN-That’s fine. MR. O'CONNOR-In actuality, even the boat cover is further back than the pre-existing boat cover, because the pre-existing boat cover went out to the end of wharves. MR. HIMES-I’m just saying if we know where the line is, then we know how far away he can go. MR. O'CONNOR-Matt Steves is going to stand out there on the water and hold the posts. MR. STONE-Okay. With agreement. MR. O'CONNOR-I would ask that it be tabled until next week, next Wednesday night. MR. STONE-Next week. All right. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2001 MARTIN S. & SUSAN M. FARBER, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) 33 Antigua Road. Until the meeting of August 22, so that the applicant can furnish a revised nd drawing of the cover, with a reduced sundeck. Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. O'CONNOR-I would respectfully ask that we also table, when is the Planning Board? MR. BROWN-I think you’re on the last meeting. So it’ll work. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. If it doesn’t work, I’d like to jog it, to the next. MR. BROWN-You’ll have to talk to the Planning Board about that. AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you for your consideration. We’re sorry it took so long. MR. STONE-All right. See you next week, gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2001 TYPE II ROBERT K. AND LORI A. PETERSON PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: OLD IS SR-20, CURRENT IS SR-1A LOCATION: 13 PHEASANT WALK/SUBDIVISION NAME: PHEASANT WALK APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 6 FT. HIGH PRIVACY STOCKADE FENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE HEIGHT AND STYLE RESTRICTIONS FOR FENCES. OLD TAX MAP NO. 121-9-28 NEW TAX MAP NO. 301.14-1-4 LOT SIZE: 0.48 ACRES SECTION 179-74B(3) ROBERT & LORI PETERSON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-2001, Robert K. and Lori A. Peterson, Meeting Date: August 15, 2001 “Project Location: 13 Pheasant Walk Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a stockade fence in a yard where such fences are not allowed. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from requirements of the Fence Ordinance per § 179-74, B., 4. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired pool screening. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives, which would still meet the screening requirements for pool on corner lots, may include landscaping/plantings, picket fence or a combination thereof. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The requested relief may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there appear to be alternatives available. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Pool Permit 2001-541 issued 7/24/01 Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The combination of landscaping and picket fencing may offer the desired privacy of a stockade fence without a solid “wall” appearance. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-No County? Mr. and Mrs. Peterson. MR. PETERSON-Yes. MR. STONE-Anything you wish to add? MR. PETERSON-No. The main reason we’re asking for the privacy fence is basically for privacy. When you go swimming in the pool, you want to be sheltered from people walking down the street or driving by in their cars, and as far as putting up a picket fence, I suppose, with shrubs, you’d have to buy a, a shrub you’d have to put in right away would be mature plants which would be pretty expensive. You’d have to go like 50 feet along the line there to cover that whole area, and putting a pool in and a fence has put a dent in my pocket as it is. Putting the shrubs would be a little difficult to do at this time, but, later on down the line, I foresee doing that anyway, in front of the stockade fence that we plan on putting up, because I’d like to cover that up also, but for the immediate we’d like to have the six foot. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. STONE-Just for the record, you are not using the pool? You do not have a Certificate of Occupancy because there is no fence, is that correct? MR. PETERSON-That’s correct. It’s not in yet. They’re building it right now. MR. STONE-I thought there was a pool there? MR. PETERSON-The pool permit’s there, yes, but the pool isn’t. MR. STONE-I thought there was a pool. MRS. PETERSON-There’s a big hole in the ground right now. That’s it. MR. STONE-Maybe I wasn’t looking at the right one. MR. BROWN-Did you go to 16 or 13? MR. STONE-On the corner, right? MR. PETERSON-Yes, on the corner, the corner of Pheasant Walk and Lambert. MRS. PETERSON-No, that’s 15. Fifteen has a pool, and nine has a pool. MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t go to the right place. MR. PETERSON-It’s right on a corner lot. MR. STONE-That’s where I thought we were. According to your directions on your application, I went where you told me to go. You said Quail and Pheasant Walk. MR. PETERSON-To turn off of Peggy Ann to get to where we are. That’s the easiest way to go. MRS. PETERSON-Right, and it would be the far right hand corner of Pheasant Walk. MR. STONE-Okay. I know where you are. I looked all the way around there. Okay. I think you made a comment in your thing that there are similar fences. MR. PETERSON-Yes. MR. STONE-I’m not aware of many stockade fences. MR. PETERSON-There, on the corner of Pheasant Walk and Peggy Ann. There’s, it’s at least five fence, and it’s solid fence, and it goes over his back yard, yes, there is. MRS. PETERSON-On the corner of Pheasant Walk and Peggy Ann. MR. HIMES-I thought I saw one just behind what I think is your house. MR. STONE-Yes, but he isn’t technically, I don’t think, a corner lot. MR. PETERSON-Well, it’s the corner of Peggy Ann and Pheasant Walk. MR. STONE-But I think there’s a wood there, isn’t there? Isn’t there a buffer zone? Staff did not give us maps this time. I don’t know if you know that or not, but we didn’t have any. Okay. I’m not aware of many of them, and we do know, for example, and I don’t mean to prejudge this thing, there are a lot of fences in that part of Queensbury that, given the time, we are going to find ways to make them conform. How’s that sound? Does that sound good, Staff? There are a lot of illegal fences out there. MR. PETERSON-Yes, there is. MR. STONE-And we’re aware of that. In fact, you should be aware that we have, in one case in recent years, made a person take out every other slat. MR. PETERSON-Really? MR. STONE-Yes. This is just for background. I don’t mean, every case is different, but I think you ought to know that. Any questions of the applicant? I mean, they have the problem that we’ve seen 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) with many people, that you don’t have a side lot. You’re on a corner and our Code is very specific when it comes to corner lots. MRS. PETERSON-And our fence is going to be from the back of the house, and we’re. MR. PETERSON-It will not block the intersection as far as the line of sight is concerned. MR. STONE-It isn’t necessarily just the sight line. It’s the fact that it’s very obvious to anybody driving by that here is a stockade fence. MR. ABBATE-Mr. and Mrs. Peterson, if you were here earlier, we talked about perception. Please tell me the difference, in terms of degrees, of privacy between a stockade fence and a picket fence. MR. PETERSON-Well, you can see through the slats. MR. ABBATE-Well, I understand, but. MR. PETERSON-Well, some people don’t like to be seen in swimming suits. MRS. PETERSON-That’s me. MR. PETERSON-And if they had a stockade fence, it wouldn’t subject the community to that. MR. ABBATE-As the Chairman pointed out earlier, a stockade fence is not allowed, period. I’m sure you’re aware of that. MR. PETERSON-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And in terms of perception, I understand, my question was somewhat facetious. I understand the difference between a stockade fence. It’s not transparent. It’s not translucent. The picket fence, if you go through, they have little picket slats which you can see through, but I suppose it’s a question of perception, on your part. On my part, a picket fence would be fine, but that’s my perception. I have no other questions. Thanks. MR. HAYES-I have a question about his question, but I guess the thing that comes to mind immediately to me is, you know, you guys have been here probably longer than you’d like tonight. I’m sure most people feel that way when they come, but is there a compromise that’s available here? I mean, I guess part of the thing we try not to do is create a precedent that, you know, by granting it to one person then somebody else next door says, well, he has a stockade fence. I’d like a stockade fence, and, I mean, I’ve seen fences that are like five feet high and the last foot is ornamental. You can see through it a little bit but, I mean, something that doesn’t have the negative aesthetic value of a stockade fence as it’s perceived. I mean, is there anything out there that you guys have investigated or know about or you can offer us to make it easier to do this? MR. PETERSON-All the ones that I’ve seen are pretty good sized gaps in them. So, I would prefer the stockade, and like I said, what I’m going to do initially later on is I’m going to be putting shrubs in front of that stockade fence so it, you know, there will be some shrubs there, but it’s going to take a while for them to grow, actually. MR. HAYES-I understand where you’re coming from. It’s just that sometimes stockade, I guess the stockade fences have a negative perception because of kind of the Fort Apache effect. Do you know what I mean? When you see them, they have the spiked tops and I just wondered if there isn’t anything that you could offer us that would make it, you know, so somebody else across the street isn’t going to come in and say, well, that’s what I, or the person that we denied a couple of years ago kind of dramatically the same thing. MR. BRYANT-Let me ask Staff a question. This is not a question about the stockade fence. It’s a question about the height. Stockade fence is only not allowed in the front yard. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. BRYANT-So that’s not the front yard. MR. BROWN-It’s considered a front yard. MR. STONE-It’s a corner lot. There is no side lot on a corner lot. MR. MC NULTY-They’ve got two front yards. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. BRYANT-So no stockade fence at all. MR. BROWN-Not on either of the yards that fronts on either of the streets. MR. UNDERWOOD-Could I interject? The last one that we had here was the Kopels. I don’t know if you guys remember that one. That was over on the other side, off of, but they were on a corner lot, too, and they wanted a fence but they had substantial trees, and plantings there that would buffer the effect, but it wasn’t a stockade fence. It was a standard, what is it, four foot’s the minimum, five foot’s the max, I think is what we can have. MR. HAYES-What is the max? I know four foot is the State law for attractive nuisance. Right? MR. BROWN-Well, there’s a couple of issues here. What’s the minimum required for a pool enclosure is four feet. MR. HAYES-That’s what I mean, for attractive nuisance. MR. BROWN-The maximum allowable per the Sign Ordinance, for this, well, it’s difficult because the house is turned at an angle. On a corner lot there’s two yards. One’s your architectural front yard, and one’s your “other” front yard. In the “other” front yard, you’re allowed to have up to a five foot tall fence, it can’t be stockade, in the front yard, but it can be as tall as five feet. I think you could make an argument that this area where they’re proposing the fence is the “other” front yard. MR. HAYES-I think it is, too. MR. STONE-Yes. I think it is. MR. BROWN-So you could go with the five feet, but you’re back to the stockade part. MR. STONE-I don’t know what you told the Petersons, but if I came to you, with a corner lot, do we have a standard suggestion, or do we just say, you need to try to get a variance? MR. BROWN-Well, it’s tough to have a standard suggestion, as you know. MR. STONE-Yes, I know. MR. BROWN-They’re all different. MR. STONE-We’ll just hide behind, for the moment, our job is to interpret the, whether a variance is allowable. MR. HAYES-We’re not hiding behind it because as you said, there’s illegal fences out there, and if they’re illegal, they’re illegal. MR. BRYANT-One question in that regard, then, and what Mr. Peterson was saying about the house. I did see that house. I looked around for stockade fences, and that house on the corner of Peggy Ann and Pheasant Walk has a stockade fence all the way around it just about. I don’t know that it’s five feet, though. I think it’s smaller than that, but there’s a substantial amount of stockade fence. I mean, they are, you see them a lot on corner lots. MR. STONE-And that’s one of the things, that’s why there are two gentlemen now sitting at the table over there in terms of enforcement. MR. BRYANT-Is two better than one? MR. STONE-We hope so. MR. BROWN-Isn’t more always better? MR. ABBATE-But the bottom line is that a stockade fence is illegal. MR. STONE-Is illegal. MR. ABBATE-Period. That’s a fact. MR. BROWN-Yes and no. MR. ABBATE-What do you mean yes and no? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. STONE-Well, it’s still under the zoning code, it still comes under our purview. MR. HAYES-In other places it’s not. If it was in his back yard, it wouldn’t be. MR. BROWN-Stockade fences in front yards that were erected prior to 1993, they’re pre-existing nonconforming. You can maintain them. Anything constructed after that date would be considered an illegal stockade fence. So you may see stockade fences out there that could have been there before ’93, and that’s another issue. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me rephrase it. Applications, as of today, for stockade fences would be illegal? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-And they are. That’s why they’re here. MR. ABBATE-That’s what I’m saying. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-But when you say illegal, they are contrary to the zoning code, and a variance can be granted, if we so choose. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then we set the precedent. MR. STONE-You’re right, Chuck, yes, but that’s why they’re here. MR. ABBATE-I understand. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-I was just going to suggest that you come up with some kind of a five foot fence where there’s anchor fencing with the little slat things that go in to give you your privacy, and in the interim, in the interest of, you know, beautifying your property the cheap way, you can go across Peggy Ann Road in the Queensbury Forest over there, over in the watershed property, and there’s tons of pine trees, you can dig them up in two minutes and bring them back and you’d be surprised how fast they grow up and buffer the look from the street, and the nice thing about the trees is, they’ll grow really tall. You can have them grow 30 feet tall and no one will see in there. MR. STONE-Are you suggesting, on the record, that that they pilfer trees? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. They’re in the roads where they drive the skidders down. They’re going to get mowed down anyway. So, that’s where I go to get mine. MR. STONE-We’re not condoning this particular action. Any other comments? I mean, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Now we’re right back to where we were. Well, if we have no questions and we, the applicant has nothing further to add, let’s start with Chuck and let’s talk about it. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. This is the predicament as I see it, Mr. and Mrs. Peterson. You’re saying we want a stockade fence or nothing. That’s a pretty. MRS. PETERSON-Not necessarily. MR. ABBATE-All right. Tell me what you’d like, in place of a stockade fence, then. MRS. PETERSON-Well, no, that’s what we wanted to get. We didn’t say it’s that or nothing. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. ABBATE-Okay. MRS. PETERSON-Definitely not. MR. STONE-Well, we can only say that or nothing. MRS. PETERSON-All right. MR. STONE-I mean, we either grant the variance or we don’t, and you come up with something that doesn’t require a variance. MR. ABBATE-Right. Exactly. MR. BROWN-Or some sort of compromise. MR. ABBATE-And I was going to follow up with this, or you folks come up with a compromise. Because as it is right now, it’s a question of, we want the stockade fence or nothing, and we have to vote on that, unless you come up with some sort of a compromise. MR. PETERSON-Well, what would be a compromise? I mean, it’s either six feet or lower. MR. ABBATE-A good compromise would be a picket fence. MR. PETERSON-Six feet? MR. ABBATE-No, five. MR. PETERSON-But there’s no variance needed for a five foot. MR. STONE-They would need a variance for six feet. MR. PETERSON-Yes. We don’t need a variance for five. MR. STONE-So, in other words, either they need a variance for a stockade fence or certainly for a six foot stockade fence, or for a six foot picket fence. MR. HAYES-They’d need a variance for a stockade fence period. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-Yes, but let’s say we give it, we still have to specific height. MR. ABBATE-Or a four foot picket fence would solve the problem. MR. HAYES-Even a five foot picket fence. MR. ABBATE-Would you agree, Staff? MR. BROWN-That a five foot picket fence is okay? MR. ABBATE-A five foot picket fence would resolve the issue. MR. PETERSON-But we don’t need a variance for that. MR. BROWN-They wouldn’t need a variance. MRS. PETERSON-What about a five foot privacy fence? MR. STONE-Well, we’re talking about the stockade fence. When we talk about it, let’s talk about the alternatives. MR. ABBATE-I would not approve this application. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-I don’t know. Frankly, I really don’t know. the only variable her is the fact that it’s a corner lot, from my understanding. I mean, if you were in the middle of the block, you could have a stockade fence and there wouldn’t be any question, and that’s one side of the story, but the other side 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) of the story is, and Mr. Abbate mentioned it, if we approve the stockade fence, then we’re setting a precedent, and I don’t know if the Pheasant Walk/Peggy Ann stockade fence is illegal or what the story is with that, but that’s one thing this Board very rarely does is approves something that’s never been approved before. So I really don’t know where I am. MR. STONE-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I would say that I think Mr. Peterson’s correct. A compromise has to work both ways. So, and I’m not saying that I wouldn’t look favorably on anything outside of what’s already legal, because that’s part of why we’re here is to possibly grant minimum relief. So, I would be in favor of a six foot picket fence with screening, if you put some screening in there, minimum screening. I would be okay with that, anything outside of granting a six foot stockade fence, which in my mind sets up a position for every corner lot in Queensbury to expect the same thing, and I think that’s something we’d be, that’s a runaway train, if you ask me, and I don’t think we want to, I wouldn’t want to set that precedent. Corner lots are tough. I live on a corner lot myself, but that’s a choice to buy there. So, I’m in favor of some relief, if you can just come up with something that makes sense. MR. STONE-Chuck? Mr. McNulty. MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree. I guess two things with the stockade fence. One, it strikes me, even though it would be set back next to your house, it struck me when I was out there that it might well be overwhelming, it would be too much. So even ignoring the precedent thing, but I don’t totally ignore the precedent item either. I think that’s also a factor. So I think I’d definitely be opposed to a six foot stockade fence. I could go along, as Jamie suggested, I think, with a five foot picket fence. I might even consider a six foot picket fence, with shrubbery plantings eventually would grow into something that would screen it somewhat. I guess that’s where I’m at. MR. STONE-Okay. Before I get to you, Jim, let me ask Staff. If we were to consider a six foot picket fence, do we need to re-advertise? MR. BROWN-I don’t think so. MR. HAYES-No. MR. STONE-I made him think. MR. BROWN-No. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s fine. I’ll accept that. I have no problem with that. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would agree. I would go with a six foot picket fence. That’s fine, but I won’t vote for, as we advertised this time, you know, with stockade fence. It’s up to you guys. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes, I don’t know that I can add anything to what’s already been said. I think that the, given where you live and so forth, there are certain things that you do have to put up with. Obtaining a certain degree of privacy with anything other than an indoor pool is going to be a problem. I’m not in favor of a stockade fence, and I believe you can get sufficient, although it’s going to be a little more expensive, perhaps, take a little more time, you can get sufficient property, excuse me, privacy, within the scope of the Code, and you wouldn’t need any variance of any kind, be it six feet or anything else, what the Code says, I believe, is enough. I think you’re far enough away from the road where, you know, latticework and so forth, you’d have to have a pretty good eye to see through that, and (lost words) walk in your yard and climb up the fence to look in anyway. So I would not be in favor of this application. MR. STONE-As it stands, but a six foot picket would be all right? MR. HAYES-No. He said he’s not in favor of any relief. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m sorry. I haven’t heard you’d consider a six foot, but it appears to me, regardless of what I say, that a stockade fence, and I would agree that a stockade fence, I’m not going to open that can of worms. I don’t think we should have a stockade fence. I do think I could be comfortable with a six foot picket fence, because of the reason, one of the reasons you mentioned earlier, it is way back. Wherever you put it, it’s not going to look like a six foot picket fence. It’s going to look probably from a distance more like a five foot picket fence, and I don’t think anybody is even going to notice that it’s higher than it might be. So I would be willing to vote to grant the variance to build a six foot picket fence in your alternate front yard. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. HAYES-With screening, right? MR. STONE-With screening, yes. MR. PETERSON-What about a five foot privacy, is that a possibility? MR. STONE-Well, I didn’t hear anybody who wanted a stockade fence. MR. PETERSON-No, I’m talking about a five foot privacy fence, five foot. MR. ABBATE-What is a privacy fence? MR. STONE-What do you mean by a privacy fence? MR. PETERSON-No gaps at all. MR. STONE-Well, that would be a stockade, in our. MR. ABBATE-That’s a stockade. MR. STONE-That’s the definition. MR. PETERSON-I see. MR. HAYES-If it has more than 50%. MR. STONE-Is it 50, or is it somewhat less? MR. BROWN-You know it when you see it. MR. STONE-It’s got to be open. I mean, you’ve got to be able to see through, maybe you have to get right up next to it, but you’ve got to be able to see through it. MR. PETERSON-So what if you put up a picket fence with latticework? Now you’re covering all that area up, more so. Well, we’re trying to cover as much as we can, because, I mean, you’re in the pool swimming, you don’t want. MRS. PETERSON-Plus you’re right up next to the fence, too. MR. PETERSON-Close. MR. STONE-The only thing I can suggest that we do, and we always hate to do it, but is to, we’re going to deny a stockade fence. I mean, that’s clear. We’re going to deny it. The alternative you have is to make a proposal to Staff, and then to us, about what kind of fence, other than a stockade fence, that you might be willing to let us consider. I mean, we can sit here and talk one inch, three inches, seven inches, and I don’t have a good idea at all, quite frankly, but if you think that you could, you know, you would like a five foot picket fence with whatever gaps, because the Code is not clear, in terms of the distance between. It merely says that they have to be open spaces, but I would leave it to you, because right now we’re going to vote down a stockade fence. Then you’re going to have to come back anyway to get, if you want anything other than a five foot fence, or if you want six foot on the side, you’re going to have to get relief. Any stockade fence, you’re not going to get it. We’re going to deny a stockade fence. Now, a five foot picket fence, that’s okay. Sure, you don’t even have to put screening on it. MRS. PETERSON-What is screening? MR. HAYES-Vegetation, you know, balances. MR. STONE-But a five foot picket fence you can put up right now, in your alternate front yard. MR. PETERSON-Can I get my $50 back? MR. STONE-They’ve got to pay us. MR. PETERSON-All right. MR. STONE-Now, if you want to withdraw your application and then come back, that would be the best thing. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. BROWN-If they withdraw and they propose a five foot picket, there’s no need to come back. MR. PETERSON-There’s no reason to come back. MR. STONE-That’s right. That’s what I mean. MR. ABBATE-Exactly. MR. STONE-If you want to come back with six foot, then you’d need a variance. MR. PETERSON-Then I’ve got to pay $50 again. MR. STONE-Unless you want to table it. MR. PETERSON-No, we’ll go ahead and go for five foot. If that’s all we can do, that’s all we can do. There’s no sense in coming back. MR. STONE-Okay. So you are withdrawing the application? MR. PETERSON-Yes. MR. STONE-For a variance. MR. PETERSON-Yes. MR. STONE-Would you say that, please. MR. PETERSON-We are withdrawing the application for the variance. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. PETERSON-You’re welcome. Case closed. MR. STONE-Next on the agenda is a request by William and Linda Nizolek. REQUEST BY WILLIAM AND LINDA NIZOLEK THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DETERMINE WHETHER THEIR CURRENT PROPOSAL IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-2000 THAT WAS DENIED ON OCTOBER 25, 2000. THE APPLICANT PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING 768 SQ. FT. CAMP WHICH WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A 2,288 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF WAS REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. THE APPLICANT’S CURRENT PROPOSAL WOULD RESULT IN THE SAME SIZE BUILDING AS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED. SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO RELIEF IS REQUESTED AS WELL. LOCATION OF PROPERTY IS 25 ONEIDA DRIVE, CLEVERDALE OLD TAX MAP NO. 11-1-27; LOT SIZE: 0.05 ACRES; SECTION 179-16 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.08-1-31, ZONING: WR-1A AND CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA JON LAPPER & BILL MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, William & Linda Nizolek, Meeting Date: August 15, 2001 “Project Location: 25 Oneida Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the addition of a second story addition to an existing 768 sf camp. Relief Required: Applicant requests a determination from the Zoning Board of Appeals as to the current proposal for addition/conversion is different enough from their previous application to warrant the hearing of an Area Variance application for relief. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Area Variance 91-2000 res. 10/25/00 second story addition denied Staff comments: The current proposed addition to the seasonal camp for the conversion to a year round residence does not appear markedly changed from the previous application. While the argument that the basement area does not technically count as habitable space, per the NYS Building Code, and the setback relief requested has changed, the resulting structure appears to be the same as the previously denied proposal. The setback relief requested differs from the previous application due to an error in identifying the proper 12 foot minimum setback requirement (previously identified as 15 feet).” MR. STONE-Now, I’m not sure what we have in the way of, I’m not sure what we have, except the statement that you’ve given us. I’m not even sure what they want to do. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. BROWN-I’m sure Mr. Lapper would be happy to explain it to you. MR. LAPPER-We did submit a detailed application. Did that not get referred to you? MR. STONE-It did not get referred to us. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. BROWN-You guys didn’t get a copy of the application that was? MR. STONE-No. We didn’t get a letter from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes. MR. HAYES-We have this. MR. STONE-We have Staff notes. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. BRYANT-You don’t see the application. MR. ABBATE-We really should see the application. MR. STONE-That’s what he’s going to explain to us, but I’m concerned that we don’t have very good basis to make a determination. MR. LAPPER-Let me a really simple statement that might make this whole issue go away for today. If not, we can get into all the details of how this is different, but when Bill was here last time, and I was not here with him, and Linda Nizolek is here also to answer any questions. The application that was requested for variances included five feet relief from a supposed 15 foot side setback. That was a mutual mistake between Bill and Planning Department, Planning Staff, when they were looking at the zone, and now they’ve determined that it should be 12 foot side setback requirement. So it’s now two foot relief. Because of that misunderstanding, I think that that warrants a rehearing, in and of itself, and perhaps we don’t have to get into the details, and we’ll come back next month for the variance request and get into the details of how this is different and why we think we deserve the relief, but perhaps that would be enough justification for the Board to just vote on it, because there was a mutual misunderstanding, in terms of the relief that was requested. MR. HAYES-What was the relief the first time around? MR. LAPPER-Five foot setback relief from what everyone thought was a 15 foot requirement, and now it would be two foot of relief from a twelve foot requirement. MR. STONE-Well, I think if you read the whole motion to deny, that’s only a part of it. MR. LAPPER-But I think that because that was a misunderstanding, that that’s enough to get us the rehearing procedurally, and that’s my opinion, that obviously you guys are the ones that have to vote. MR. STONE-One of the things that the Zoning Board has going for it are two very big pieces of law. One is in a Use Variance, as you know, that we have to, it’s a very strict determination, and the other is this denial. If we deny, and we don’t deny very often. We may not approve, but we don’t deny very often, is that you have, the applicant has to show to us that it is a very substantially different application, and that’s a pretty hard and fast rule. MR. LAPPER-When you quote that rule, what are you quoting from? MR. STONE-Our zoning law, I believe. MR. BROWN-I believe it’s New York State Town law. MR. STONE-It’s our Town law? Okay. MR. LAPPER-It’s actually Town law. It’s not in our Town of Queensbury Zoning Code. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And what the Town law says, and I’m quoting from Section 267 of Town Law, Board of Appeals Procedure, 267A, Paragraph 12, Rehearing, “A motion for the Zoning Board of Appeals to hold a rehearing to review and order, decision or determination of the Board, not previously 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) reheard, may be made by any member of the Board. A unanimous vote of all members of the Board then present is required for such rehearing to occur.” When we say a rehearing, that is to rehear to review any order, decision or determination, which is the exact order, decision or determination. What I, so that is if we were coming in and saying that there were no changes but we want you to reconsider what we did, and you guys decide that you want to, for whatever reason you want to give us another day in court, you have the right to do that, without a change of facts. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, what’s the citation on that, please? MR. LAPPER-New York Town Law Section 267A, Subsection 12. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-I’ve also brought with me a case, it’s Freeman versus Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, which is a 3 Department Appellate Division, which is the mid level court that covers rd this area of the State, which says it is settled law that there can be a new application and determination by a Zoning Board when new plans materially change the aspect of the case. So we believe that we have submitted a new application, and that we’re not really asking for a rehearing, but it’s a new application. MR. STONE-Do we have any legal, has this been shown to Town Counsel? MR. BROWN-It hasn’t, and I guess before we go too far, I would like to apologize. You did submit the information, the application. I’m not responsible for the mailings. They should have gone out, just so you know, that they were here, and it was an error on our part to get that stuff to you. From what I heard from Mr. Lapper’s quote of the case law, it said new information submitted can be considered a new application. I’m not sure it said shall or should be or must. I think if you want to consider it a new application, you can. MR. LAPPER-I just don’t think that requires the unanimous vote. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. HAYES-Is the setback the only change in the application that’s going to occur? I mean, is there more? MR. LAPPER-No. That’s really the change in the law that applies, in terms of what we’re asking relief from. In terms of the house itself, what they’ve done, this is one of the Takundewide single story 768 square foot cottages, a small cottage. Last time what was proposed was to knock the whole thing down, rebuild it with a second story and a finished basement. What we’ve eliminated now is the finished basement. So that, in terms of the Floor Area Ratio requirement, which is one of the other aspects of the variance, taking off 768 square feet is a huge change, in terms of what we’re doing, because as not finished space, it doesn’t count for Floor Area Ratio. MR. ABBATE-So it’s no longer 101%? MR. LAPPER-Right. Although there’s also a question of. MR. BRYANT-I’m totally confused. MR. STONE-Okay. So what you’re asking us to do is to put this on the agenda for next month as a new application. MR. LAPPER-I would be happy as a new application or a rehearing, but I think a new application, we think a new application because it’s a change, based upon the case that I just read, which I will submit. MR. BRYANT-The original application was to tear down the whole camp and to build a building. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. BRYANT-Right. Okay, and that was the one that’s rejected, and under Staff notes, it says this Area Variance, with the same number, for a second story addition, which that’s not what the variance was for. The variance was to replace the cottage. If you look at the motion and you look at the original Staff notes in October, it was to replace the cottage. MR. BROWN-The current application is for a second story addition only. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. BRYANT-Yes, I know, but what it’s saying here, under Staff notes, that Area Variance 91-2000, for a second story addition on October 25 was denied. th MR. BROWN-Right. MR. BRYANT-That’s not correct. That wasn’t what was applied for. what was applied for was tearing down t he building and building a new building. MR. BROWN-Okay. So scratch out second story addition and just leave denied there. MR. BRYANT-Well, the question here is, maybe I’m not getting the point here. Maybe I’m missing something. It’s kind of late, and I’m all, you know, who knows what I’m talking about. The question is whether the application is different. MR. BROWN-Correct. That’s the question. MR. BRYANT-And when you say different, are you referring to the amount of relief that he’s requesting? The whole proposition, the application is completely different if you read the scope of the words. MR. BROWN-I’m sure Mr. Lapper’s happy to hear your position on that. That’s what he’s looking for. that’s a decision that the Board needs to make, is. MR. BRYANT-I don’t think you’re answering my question. My question is are we seeking a difference in the actual scope of the work, or are we talking about a difference in what the actual relief is required, whether it’s a new building or an add on or whatever they’re doing to it, is that the difference that we’re looking at? MR. BROWN-What you determine is whether what they’re asking for now is different from what they asked for before, and if you think it is, you say, yes, this is fine, I’ll hear it. MR. STONE-It’s a very simple test. Let’s just do the black box bit, okay. Let’s look at it this way. There is a house there. They wanted to do something to this house. MR. BRYANT-They wanted to tear it down and build a new one. MR. STONE-They wanted to do something with this house so that they ended up with a new house that was larger. Okay. We said no, okay. Under the rules that I understand, in order for us to consider doing anything to that piece of property that is going to result in one house becoming another house, we had to decide whether the application, under the rules that I understood, is significantly different in the way they got there. MR. BRYANT-In what regard? MR. STONE-In however they got there. MR. BRYANT-Are you talking about the work itself or the actual? MR. HAYES-It’s actually your regard. MR. STONE-It’s your regard. It has to be, we each have to vote on it. It’s how you feel. MR. LAPPER-The case law looks at both. It talks about if there’s a change in law, the change of request, and also whether you’re building something different. So I think we’ve got it both ways. MR. STONE-Yes. If you were going to build, if they wanted to build on that property a store, which would need a variance, that’s a different application. I think clearly. MR. BRYANT-That’s understandable, but they’re going to achieve the purpose of this new structure in a different manner, based on the two applications, but the question is, are we judging based on the format, or are we judging based on the relief? Because the relief might be the same. MR. HAYES-No, he said it isn’t, though. MR. BRYANT-I know that. Regardless, the relief may be the same, but the format. MR. STONE-Let me fall back on Mr. Abbate’s talk about perception. It is an individual perception, and that is why it has to be 7-0 law, whatever, for us to reconsider this. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. HAYES-Is that what you were saying, or no, Jon? It sounded like you were saying. MR. LAPPER-I think that this is a new application because it’s different, but for the sake of discussion, we’ll go with where Lew’s going with this and hope that we have seven people that agree, and if not, we’ll talk about the other. MR. STONE-I’m saying that was what, when I saw this on the agenda, and I looked at it, it says this is, we’ve done this once or twice where we’ve had a denial and we all have to agree that we’ll let you come to us again, and one time we did that, and, guess what, we voted down the next time. Do you remember that? I mean, we granted. MR. BRYANT-You’re not answering my question. MR. HAYES-Is the new place you’re proposing going to have a basement? MR. LAPPER-It will be unfinished, so it wouldn’t count. We wouldn’t be needing the same relief for Floor Area Ratio. It would be substantially smaller, and the side setback we’re requesting is smaller. MR. STONE-So it’s a different application. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-And I have no problem with that, if you want to say it’s a different application, but what we’re saying is that no matter what we do, we’re talking next month. MR. LAPPER-Right. We’re only asking you to hear us next month, but after talking to Craig, we want to make sure, procedurally, we have the right to be back here next month, and that’s what we’re trying to clear up tonight. MR. STONE-The only thing that I would suggest that we do is that we get with Mark, you have a discussion with him, and you guys agree, Mark Schachner, Town Counsel, for the record, that we can do that. MR. HAYES-I think the only issue is whether you need a 7-0 vote or you need a majority vote. MR. LAPPER-I think that’s the only issue. MR. HAYES-Because we know there’s no procedural question. If he gets a 7-0 vote, that he would have followed the existing precedent procedure. I think the case law that he brought up brings into question whether he needs a 7-0 vote or a majority vote. MR. STONE-I’m not sure we need a vote, that’s the point, if it’s a new application. MR. HAYES-Well, for a denied variance on the same property, we have to, there has to be a substantially different application. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. LAPPER-What I’d say is if the Board believes, either way we’re comfortable, as long as we get here next month. So if the seven of you agree that this is a substantial change because of the issues that we’ve mentioned, and again, we submitted a multi page cover letter and a multi page application with diagrams, but you didn’t get it, which is no one’s fault. So we believe, because there’s no finished basement, because it’s not a tear down, it’s now a second story addition which gets you into the 50% addition rule, rather than. MR. STONE-I would suggest that Staff make the decision. MR. BROWN-I think the decision that we made on Staff was that this application needed to come back to the Zoning Board to determine whether it was a different enough application to be reheard. The applicant didn’t appeal that decision. So that’s why they’re here tonight, and you guys need to decide if this is a different application than the last one. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, Counselor used a rather unique word, and he slipped it in there rather nicely. He said this is a substantial change. Did you not? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. STONE-Well, that’s what he has to prove. MR. HAYES-That’s his opinion, though. We have to determine that. That’s why we’re voting. MR. STONE-Can you, so we can get on with this thing, do you have a side by side? That would be very helpful. Because we don’t have, unfortunately, we don’t have the record, your letter in front of us. MR. LAPPER-Bill can just quickly run through. He’s got a list. MR. MASON-I can talk to you about different things. The proposed cottage is substantially smaller. MR. STONE-Did you introduce yourself? MR. MASON-I’m sorry. I’m Bill Mason, representing the Nizolek’s also. The proposed cottage is substantially smaller than the building proposed last October. The finished basement, which was an integral part of the other proposal, with the wide open stairway and oversized windows, has been completely removed. It’s not finished, and all of that part of it on the inside is gone. It’s an entirely different structure really. The Nizolek’s felt they still needed the unfinished basement for a washer and a dryer, a furnace and an oil tank and storage of bicycles and other gear, to try and keep them from cluttering up the lawn. They are a family of six, with two boys and two girls, all growing, and also two dogs. The proposed cottage will have three small bedrooms and one and three quarters bathroom, and only 1500 square feet. That’s as opposed to the 2300 that the other one had. It’s a very moderately sized home and is substantially smaller than the 2300 square foot home we proposed last year. MR. STONE-So we have basement. We have size. MR. LAPPER-It’s a knock down versus an addition. MR. MASON-Versus addition, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. It’s starting from scratch. MR. MASON-Yes. The way we’re doing the construction really changes all of the figures. MR. ABBATE-So the resulting structure appears to be the same as the previously denied proposal is not accurate? MR. LAPPER-The basement is not finished. MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re still building a new basement. MR. HAYES-Which changes the Floor Area Ratio. MR. STONE-Which changes the Floor Area Ratio. MR. ABBATE-Which is less than 101% now. MR. MASON-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Just want to understand. MR. HAYES-When did we deny this, what time? MR. MASON-October 2000. MR. HAYES-So that’s the difference, because in October you could come back without asking for permission, essentially. MR. ABBATE-Can he? MR. HAYES-One year later, as long as it’s one year later, right? MR. BROWN-I wasn’t aware that’s the provision with a denial. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question. Currently these dwellings are seasonal dwellings. They’re not year round. Correct me if I’m wrong. MR. MASON-Not all of them. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is this one a year round residence? MR. MASON-This is seasonal right now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I’m just going to read you this from 179-69. “The conversion to year round occupancy of any seasonal dwelling shall be permitted only after approval under a Type II site plan review in accordance with New York State Uniform Fire Prevention Code”, etc., etc. I think this should go to the Planning Board for some kind of review before we decide, because if we set the precedent of changing over. I mean, if you’re going to put a cellar in it, it’s going to be a year round residence. It’s not going to be seasonal use. I’m assuming that. I don’t know for sure, but I think that we still have to consider the last application that came in. The only difference here is they’re saying they’re not going to convert their cellar to any use, but, I mean, there’s no cellar there now, is there? MR. MASON-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-There isn’t. So, I mean, it’s a complete re-build, as far as I’m concerned. It’s the same project as we were presented last time, to a great degree, other than we’re not finishing the cellar. We’re saying it’s not counted or something. I don’t understand how we can do that. MR. LAPPER-But also the relief was wrong, because between Planning Staff and the applicant, the Board thought they were requested to give greater relief than what is actually needed. MR. BRYANT-Correct me if I’m wrong. In the original application, I mean, your footprint is 768 square feet. Is that it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BRYANT-The original application, the house was much bigger. MR. LAPPER-What was bigger was that there was a finished basement, which counts as living space. MR. BRYANT-But it was the same footprint? MR. LAPPER-Yes. All the cottages at Takundewide have that footprint. MR. STONE-But again, going ahead from Jim. We do have the five foot, but we also said in here, “Considering the relief relative to the Ordinance, the dimensional setback relief is certainly least moderate. I’ll jump ahead now. Floor Area Ratio. The effects on the neighborhood, that’s where I wanted to start, or community, will be probably substantial, given the size of this expansion, and the small size of the lot, and finally considering whether this difficulty is self created, the difficulty is certainly self created, given the current lot configuration, which, while it was not created by the applicant, nevertheless was existing when the applicant acquired the property.” Then it goes on, “given the anticipated total effect of such a product on the neighborhood or environment, I move that we deny this application.” MR. LAPPER-Those aren’t the issues for tonight, though. That’s applying the standards of whether an Area Variance is warranted, and we’re asking for our day in court to argue those points, with the new application, but tonight we’re only talking about whether this is a new application. MR. STONE-Well, but you said to us, you’ve given us the citation about. MR. LAPPER-A new application. MR. STONE-A new application. I’m saying we have legal counsel, through the Town of Queensbury, and I’m really suggesting that there be dialogue on whether or not we can, I mean, I’m hearing a negative over here. I haven’t even talked to anybody else, and if we have to have seven votes, I’m not sure, listening to Jim, and I’m not putting him on the spot, but there’s one who’s certainly not enthusiastic about this particular thing. MR. HAYES-The thing is the Town Counsel is just going to come back to us still and say, hey, you’ve got to determine if it’s substantially different. MR. STONE-No, but that’s a different story. That means that we have to go with this seven. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. HAYES-But it’s not the same effect. If he doesn’t get seven, then theoretically Mr. Lapper has got to go to Town Counsel and convince him that he doesn’t need seven, which is going to take the time anyway. MR. STONE-Yes and no. MR. BRYANT-I don’t think that the issue really is, you know, whether it’s got to go here first or there first. The question being asked is, is it substantially different, yes or no. MR. STONE-That’s how I approached it when I walked in here. Then I’m listening to Counsel who is giving us an argument, in the legal sense, that maybe we don’t need to do it that way. MR. ABBATE-That’s his perception. MR. HAYES-It’s just a question of what’s the test, as far as the vote count. MR. LAPPER-We’re saying we’re not really asking for a re-hearing. We believe it’s a new application. MR. STONE-Well, if it’s a new application, then we don’t have to do anything. MR. LAPPER-Well, except that Staff wanted you to consider this. MR. STONE-We’re between a rock and a hard place. MR. ABBATE-Well, if it’s a new application, then the issue of substantially changed is immaterial. MR. HAYES-No, it isn’t, because they can’t make a new application without a substantial change within a year. MR. ABBATE-And what was the other date on that? MR. HAYES-October. MR. ABBATE-October. MR. BROWN-And you need to make that determination whether it’s a substantial change. Maybe to answer Jim’s question, I don’t want to appear to argue for the applicant or against, but this application, or this project would be required to go to the Planning Board for a site plan review, because it’s an alteration or a change from a seasonal to a year round. That’s no question. They were in that track the last time when they were denied. Certainly, if you think this is a different enough application that you’d hear it again, prior to hearing it you could refer it to the Planning Board and say, hey, what do you think before we act on their variance? I’m not suggesting you approve it and then do that, but just so you know that, it will go to the Planning Board. MR. STONE-Well, what do we normally do? We normally, we’re first in the process. MR. BROWN-You’re first in the process, and any time you have an application, you can refer it to the Planning Board for a recommendation before you act on it. MR. HAYES-People hate that. MR. BROWN-People don’t like that, but that is the process. MR. LAPPER-Jim, what I would say is that if we don’t get the variance to go to the trouble of going to the site plan, you can hopefully approve it, conditioned upon site plan, and then we can go to the Planning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, but what I’m trying to suggest to you is that whatever ultimately happens with your property out there, I think that at some point in time you’re going to have to come to the realization that what you’re attempting to do in the long term, in the big picture, I think, is to change to year round residences which may or may not be fine. I don’t know. I’m not making that decision. I don’t think we’re in a position to do that either, but I think that you should be thinking of what’s going to streamline that. If we allow one of these places to be done, I think that our concern the last time was the other 32, whether they were all converted, and that’s a substantial change in the use of what’s presently being done out there. I don’t know. MR. BRYANT-I don’t think that’s the issue here. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. MASON-I have to just say one thing. Even though I would agree with you that any of them that we’re building are, you could call them winterized, but it’s because we’re building them under current building code, and that demands all of those things. You can’t build them the way that they were built back in 1952 anymore. So once you go in for the building permits and so on, you have to bring them up to Code. The use, the actual use of them is not winterized homes, but I do have to plow to keep the insurance company and the fire department happy. So we do that, but it is not a winter place, as you probably all appreciate. Any of you who live up there, you all know that it’s a ghost town up there, and I’m one of the ghosts up there alone all winter long. Most people depart. So I don’t know what that, and I’ve never come. MR. LAPPER-You’ve done five of these. MR. MASON-Yes, we’ve done, and they have not had that as an issue. MR. STONE-What about the house that we gave a variance for and then they had to tear down, you had to tear down? MR. MASON-And that one, it was winterized. It was used just exactly the way I described it. I don’t see the owners between October 15 and May 15. You don’t see any of these owners. thth MR. STONE-So it’s a year round home that isn’t used year round? MR. MASON-Exactly. That’s what they. MR. STONE-All right, but Jim still has a valid concern, that we all have to think about. MR. LAPPER-I would say if they have to go to the Planning Board, they have to go to the Planning Board. It’s just a question of, if your Board denies it, then there’s no project. So it would be better for the applicant to come before you and argue for the variance. MR. STONE-Well, the simplest thing I can do is quickly just go down the line and see whether you think we should consider, we should let them submit a new application, and knowing where we come out the last time and where we might come out again, but not rule on the substantial difference. I would prefer to take the road let’s just do it. We still have the question. I mean, our rules still say we have to have a unanimous vote. MR. BROWN-That’s correct, and I think if you do that, and again, this is just for information. It’s not an argument, but if you do that, then you have them in the process, and if you’d review their application and you want to put a bunch of conditions on it, that’s part of the review process. If you want to make it conditioned upon them going and getting their approval first, you can do that. If you want to not hear it until they get an approval from the Planning Board, you can do that, but right now you have to determine whether you even want to hear it, and once you do, and if you do, at that point you can require certain things. MR. STONE-You’re advising us, I’ll put you on the spot, but you’re advising us that we need a 7-0 to make them submit a new application? MR. BROWN-That’s my understanding of the law. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And just before you go through the Board, what I’m saying is that we’re not asking you to review any order, decision or determination. We’re saying that we’ve changed the application, and Jim is concerned that it may not be substantial enough, but we’re saying that the basement is not going to be used, that we’re asking for different relief from the Floor Area. We’re asking for different relief from the side setback, and there was a misunderstanding about what the proper side setback was. So what the Board was considering last time was wrong, and that there will be an addition rather than knocking it down. MR. STONE-See, I would prefer, the advice I’m getting from my Staff person who is charged with giving us advice is that we need a 7-0 vote. Anything less than that, I need guidance. MR. LAPPER-I understand. MR. STONE-And, I mean, I can try and see if we can get seven votes. MR. LAPPER-Okay. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) MR. STONE-If you’re willing to do that, and if you don’t, then what’s the downside? MR. BROWN-They don’t get seven votes and they have to come back with a proposal that’s maybe more changed. MR. HAYES-Or convince Staff that by Town Law. MR. BROWN-Or present an argument other than what I’ve heard from Town Counsel that requires a 7-0 vote. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-And I don’t want to put anybody on the spot. It seems like if you have the application in the pipeline, we’ll call it, then that’s the point where you can ask them for everything. MR. STONE-Well, the only question I have, do we feel, now this is a straw vote. Do you feel you have enough information to say whether this is significantly different or not? Or should we, do we need to actually look at what material that we now have, granted a mistake was made, an error, we didn’t get the stuff, but if you guys feel you can vote. MR. ABBATE-Any individual, any applicant certainly has the right to submit an application. You certainly shouldn’t deny that. We can always say we don’t approve the application, but I think he’s asking for the right to submit an application. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Right, and I think just because last time it was considered with the 15 foot and it’s 12, in my mind, that’s enough that the Board should at least give us a day in court to go back and ask for that, because that was a mistake. MR. ABBATE-All right, day in court, you’re talking about standards of fairness. I think it would be fair to allow the applicant to submit a new application. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’d vote yes? MR. ABBATE-I would vote yes. MR. STONE-All right. MR. BRYANT-Basically, if you look at it from the two points that I was asking earlier on, the whole project has been, before you were going to tear down and build a new one. Now you’re building an addition. The setback requirement, the FAR, all that stuff, that’s all different. So, in my mind, it’s a different project. MR. STONE-Okay. So you would vote yes, on this narrow issue we’re talking about? MR. BRYANT-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I think it’s different enough that, I mean, if the Floor Area Ratio, for example, goes from 101, which was clearly offensive, for lack of a better word, to something dramatically less than that, and then, I mean, it would be a different application. I’m not saying that I would vote for it, as it is now, but I’m saying to me, and the setback and everything, I think that that’s a different application. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I think I feel the same way. I’m not at all convinced I would vote for it, when it’s presented again, but as long as the applicant wants us to hear it again, I’ll agree that there’s enough difference. MR. STONE-No, we have precedent for that, I mean, since I’ve been on the Board, we’ve done that. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know as if I can really say that I think this is significantly changed. I mean, they’re still going to jack up something that doesn’t have a cellar, build a cellar underneath it, and then they’re not going to use the cellar, is what they’re implying, and I think I would still have a hard time saying that that hasn’t been converted to. At the same time, though, I think that your upstairs is going to remain essentially the same as it was presented to us the last time, and I think that a proper review of this by the Planning Board would give us some impact, also, on our decision, and 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) I don’t see that we’re going to change our minds any, I mean, I think some of us may change our minds, but some of us may not change our minds, based upon the changes that have been proposed, but at the same time, I think that we should refer it to the Planning Board, just to see what they think. MR. STONE-The only thing I would argue, we have nothing to refer to the Planning Board. We do not have an application before us. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes, we do. MR. BROWN-Well, you do, but whether you choose to accept it as a new application or not is what you’re trying to do. MR. STONE-But it hasn’t been advertised. MR. BROWN-No, but if you say, yes, this is a new application, at that point you can refer it to the Planning Board. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Jim, if we agree with that, to go to the Planning Board first, would you accept it as a new application? MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly, if it’s reviewed, but I mean, it’s going to be awful hard for me to change my mind from what I had the last time because I see it as essentially. MR. LAPPER-We understand that, but as long as we have our day in court, if you’re saying we should go to the Planning Board next month and then come back to you, at least we’re in the arena. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s fine, yes. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-It’s just an administrative, procedural kind of thing. It doesn’t matter to me much which way we go. As far as I’m concerned, this is, it is the recipe is the same, just that you’ve changed some of the amounts of the ingredients that are involved in the recipe. Translated, that means, I look at it as the same thing again, with a few changes here and there. Well, that means there are changes, so I’d go along with what the Board wants. If it’s a procedural matter, there’s no big law involved, if you want a new application, all right, I’ll go through it, but I look at this as being, I’ll get the new one and I’m going to grab the new one. MR. LAPPER-We know we still have to convince you when we get to that. MR. HIMES-It’s still the recipe. There’s nothing much changed except some of the ingredients within it. That’s the way I look at it. MR. STONE-Well, I am certainly, you’ve heard the amount of reluctance on the Board’s part. I will really say that I will move that we will accept the application with all of the reservations that you have heard, that are on the record, and we have none of us made any commitment as to anything that we will do in the future, and if the Board agrees, when I make my motion, I would put in the motion that we submit this to the Planning Board first. That would, you’d like to see that, Jim, wouldn’t you? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think so. MR. STONE-Okay, and since one vote destroys this whole thing, and Jim says he’ll vote yes if we say that, then I’ll go along and I’ll make that motion. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION FOR WILLIAM AND LINDA NIZOLEK 25 ONEIDA DRIVE FOR PURPOSES OF RECONSIDERING A VARIANCE FOR THEIR PIECE OF PROPERTY, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: With the provision that before the Zoning Board of Appeals takes any action, or even conducts a hearing, that this be submitted to the Planning Board for their guidance, in terms of the long term effects of 179-69. Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: th 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. LAPPER-Thank you all very much. MR. MASON-Thank you. MR. STONE-Sorry we gave you such a tough time, but it’s not an easy one. We’ve got two minutes, I’m told, here, which I have neither of in my presence. CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 27, 2001: NONE MR. STONE-We have minutes from February 27. Well, I know I wasn’t here then. th MR. BROWN-That should say June 27. th MR. STONE-That should say June 27? Well, I did have that one. No, I have the 20. I think I left thth the 27 home. Does anybody have a copy of it? June 27. Those present included Stone, McNulty, thth McNally, Abbate, Himes, Hayes and Roy Urrico. So there are at least five of us here. All right. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES FOR THE JUNE 27, 2001 MEETING, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. McNally July 18, 2001: NONE MR. STONE-Okay. July 18. Those present Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, th Mr. Abbate, and Mr. Urrico. Why don’t you move it, since I can’t vote on it. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING, JULY 18, 2001 OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. McNally July 25, 2001: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE SECOND REGULAR MEETING, JULY 25, 2001 OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOAR D OF APPEALS, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/01) NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. STONE-We’re adjourned, gentlemen. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 47