Loading...
2001-02-21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES ABBATE ROBERT MC NALLY CHARLES MC NULTY ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE MEMBER JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBER MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE NORMAN HIMES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 95-2000 TYPE II MICHAEL J. VASILIOU, INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: PEGGY ANN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 28 LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM BOTH THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT AND THE MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENT. NOTIFICATIONS WERE NOT ESNT TO ALL ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE PLANNING BOARD REQUESTED A REFERRAL TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 21-1999, 6-2000 ZONE: SR-1A TAX MAP NO. 121-1-2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 LOT SIZE: 32 ACRES TOTAL SECTION 179-19 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 95-2000, Michael J. Vasiliou, Inc., Meeting Date: February 21, 2001 “Project Location: Peggy Ann Road Description of Proposed Project: This application was originally approved on November 15, 2000. Due to an error, by the Town, in the process of notification of adjoining property owners, the Planning Board has referred this application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 28 lot residential subdivision. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the 150 foot minimum average lot width requirement as well as relief from the 1 acre minimum lot size requirement of the SR-1A zone, § 179-19, as follows: Average lot width Proposed Acreage Lot 11 142.66 Lot 12 148.66 Lot 13 0.90 Lot 14 137.50 0.73 Lot 15 137.50 0.73 Lot 16 137.50 0.73 Lot 17 0.97 Lot 19 0.90 Lot 20 0.90 Lot 21 0.90 Lot 22 0.91 Lot 23 0.85 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to create the desired number of lots. 2. Feasible alternatives: Reconfiguration appears to be a feasible alternative. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The creation of 12 substandard lots in addition to the 8 substandard lots previously approved, bringing the total of substandard lots to 20 out of 28 lots, may be interpreted as substantial relief, relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there appears to be sufficient land area for compliant configuration. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Subdivision 21-99 res. 4/27/99 16 lot residential subdivision (17 acres) AV 26-2000 res. 4/21/00 relief from min. lot area and width requirements Subdivision 6-2000 sketch plan phase approved 9/28/00 28 lot subdivision Staff comment: Lots 1 through 17, on the proposed map, consist of 18.78 acres; this represents 17 lots on almost 19 acres. Lots 18 through 28, on the proposed map, consist of 10.59 acres; this represents 11 lots on less than 11 acres. Overall (not considering road) this represents 28 lots on 29.37 acres. Density is not an issue; therefore, what limits the applicant from creating conforming lots? Density calculations reflect maximums allowable, not minimums. The property can be subdivided without relief. There appear to be feasible alternatives to the creation of a subdivision in which 70% of the lots do not meet the minimum requirements. a petition for rezoning might be better suited to address the applicant’s desire for smaller lots. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-Mr. O’Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, for your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant, and with me is Matt Steves from Van Dusen and Steves, who is the surveyor for the project, and basically what happened was at the prior hearing, the Town did not notify everybody within 500 feet. There’s a strip of property to the east of the project, that apparently did not get notices. When we received the variance from the Board, we then went through the Planning Board process of getting sketch approval, preliminary approval, and final approval. As part of that process, the burden for notification shifts from the Town. Under your variance procedure, the notification burden in on the Town, the Town Staff, to send out notices. When you do a subdivision, it’s up to the applicant to send out notices. So we sent out notices to everybody within 500 feet, which included a number of people who didn’t get notices at the time of the variance, and all of a sudden everybody is saying, well, why didn’t we get notice at the time of the variances? And that’s what brought this all about. We stipulated with the Town, the Town Attorney, that we would accept final approval or subdivision, subject to us coming back and in fact re-applying for the variance, which we thought we already had. So, our process tonight is to be here and ask for your variance. Basically, the history of this property is that, to the west, some time ago, we came in and got variances for what was part of a 16 lot subdivision. At that time, we got 12 variances for having less than the required lot width of 150 feet. We did not require any variances for lot size, when we got the first phase approved, if you would. We didn’t, at that time, know it was the first phase. The property to the east of it was not available, although we had tried to buy it. After we got our approval, the people to the east of us said they would sell it. They, in fact, approached us. We looked at that, and with that property to the east, we could use a cookie cutter subdivision, and we’ve gone through this presentation with you before, I don’t mean to be too redundant, but I want to have a complete record, that we could have a cookie cutter subdivision, by Code, for 12 lots, but we thought it made better sense, from a planning point of view, the Planning Board agreed with us, Highway Department agreed with us, Water Department agreed with us, everybody agreed that it would be much better if we had a looped subdivision, as opposed to two dead end roads with cul de sacs at the end of them. So we then made the application for the second variance. When you look at the second variance or the combination, if you will, with the 28 lot subdivision, we are asking for lot width variances on the lots as recited in Staff Notes, except we really don’t need a lot variance for Lot 11, and we don’t need one for Lot 12. We do need one for Lot 14, 15 and 16, and I’m presuming that Staff didn’t mention the fact that in Phase I we had, and still are using, lot width variances on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 25, 26, 27, and 28. That was part of the Phase I, if you will, subdivision, and we’re still using those variances. The acreage variances that we are requesting are as set forth on the Staff Notes. There are 10 lots that are a little bit less than one acre. The proposal that was put to you, though, is that, using the cookie cutter subdivision planning scheme, if you will, we could have the 28 lots. In fact, I think, not including roads, we have an excess of 28 acres. So what we’ve proposed is not anything in the nature of increasing the density or increasing the burden on the neighborhood or the Town or anything of that nature. We simply are configuring our lots in a manner which allow us to do this loop type road configuration, as opposed to having two dead ends, and we think that there’s really no burden on the Town. In your balancing of considerations, there is, in fact, a benefit to the Town. It’s a better traffic pattern. It allows for better connection of the water. It makes it easier for the Town to maintain it, as far as the highway plowing it and what not. It just makes a lot of sense, and that’s basically it. Any questions, I’d be glad to answer them. I should state for the record, too, that what we are proposing is not out of character with the neighborhood. If you take a look at the location map that’s up in the corner. That actually shows the adjoining properties. It shows how they were subdivided. The lots in those adjoining subdivisions, for the most part, are much smaller than what we still propose in our subdivision. There are a couple of lots that are over an acre, that are in the corners of the adjoining subdivisions, but for the most part they’re all 30,000 square feet, or approximately 30,000 square feet, and I would say I think we satisfied most of the neighbors, after the last meeting we had with the Planning Board, explained to them how we got to where we were. It wasn’t us that didn’t give the 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) notice, and what type of housing we were going to propose in there. The housing is in keeping with the neighborhood. In fact, it may be a little bit more expensive than the existing adjoining property. MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? MR. ABBATE-Yes, please. Thank you. Good evening, folks. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. MR. ABBATE-Please help me clear this up, and bear with me and allow me to take some of the wording from Staff Notes that I think are appropriate. Then if you’ll respond to them, I really would appreciate it. Staff Notes make it quite clear that this may be interpreted as substantial relief, and Number Two, and I have to read these, by the way, they indicate, and I certainly agree, that it’s self- created, and Number Three, and probably more important, they agree with you that density is not an issue. Therefore, what limits the applicant from creating conforming lots? And those are my three questions. If you could respond to those, I’d appreciate it. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I think it’s always a subjective question as to what is substantial and what is not substantial. Simply because we have a number of variances, I don’t think make the application substantial. If you take a look at each of the lots we create, and what we’re talking about, as far as the variance, whether it’s 137.5 feet, as opposed to 150, that’s a difference of 13 feet. We did offer, and we do continue to offer in our subdivision no cut zones, which is different than even the adjoining properties. We’ve shown the no cut zones on the map. We have no cut zones on each side line, and on the back of each lot. If the width of the lot is to give some type of aesthetic sense of more open space, more green space, I think we’ve compensated for the relief that we requested by offering the no cut envelope, if you will, and that’s been incorporated into the subdivision approval that we did obtain. Is this self-created? Yes, it is self-created. There’s no doubt about that, but that’s not a bar to an Area Variance, where it is to a Use Variance. It’s a consideration, but it’s not necessarily a fatal consideration. In fact, it’s a very lightly held consideration. It’s a balancing act. When you talk about this, I think you really have to balance what we’re trying to do and not do. We’re trying to have a neighborhood establishment, if we can, as opposed to two dead end cul de sacs. We’re trying to make it a better subdivision, from a planning point of view, and we think that that compensates the self-created issue, and everybody has agreed with. In fact, the Town has already accepted part of the road, and there’s been some construction started on the project. It’s not that it’s irreversible, but, I mean, I’m not sitting here telling you that people are happy with this, without proof that they are happy, is basically what I’m saying to you. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, I guess basically what you’re saying, it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Probably, but I think you really have to look at it in connection, take a look at the other subdivisions that are in the area. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I just had one. Was there any attempt made to try to interconnect with any of the other subdivisions that are adjacent at all? Because I see that as something that’s kind of missing, over in that Peggy Ann corridor, where, if a kid’s riding a bike, they’ve got to go back out onto Peggy Ann Road, to get over to the next subdivision, where, I don’t know if you’ve got space to put one of those? MR. STEVES-In this particular subdivision, and to the south is the City of Glens Falls property, and to the east is Pheasant Walk subdivision, and to the west is Land O’ Pines, or Tyneswood as it’s commonly known, and they’re all individually owned lots, with no, you know, they’re all buildable lots. They’re all actually home lots, at this point, and there is no opportunity to provide for a connector, and either one of those two subdivisions, the same token. They didn’t leave a connector to this property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I was thinking maybe in the greenways or something, that maybe that eventually could get worked out, but not at this time. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s no place to connect to, and it’s unfortunate, we’re the last guy on the block. We wouldn’t be asking for the variances if we were under still the same zoning that they were developed under. They were developed under 30,000 square foot lots, or 20,000 square foot lots. I mean, we’d probably have even a greater density than what we have here. MR. HAYES-Anymore questions? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. ABBATE-One more. I had this underlined and I forgot to bring it to your attention. Wouldn’t a petition for rezoning be better suited to what you’re attempting to accomplish? MR. O'CONNOR-You’d be serving the purpose of the one owner, and I think you’d be subject to attack as spot zoning. It’s not a neighborhood type thing. MR. STEVES-I think the re-zoning would fall more into the density issue, and we’re not exceeding the density in the zone. It’s a one acre zone, and not including roads, we have 29.37 acres, with 28 lots. So we wouldn’t need a re-zoning for this. MR. O'CONNOR-You also run into a traditional type issue that, with the re-zoning, you’re pretty much given a blank check. With a request for a variance, you put conditions on it. You say that we build it as we have it here. As we’ve submitted it, and you have much more control over it. What would we create? Would we create a brand new zone? I don’t think you have a 20,000 square foot lot zone, or would we go back to a 20,000 square foot zone, which would probably be more equitable, but then the neighbors would be concerned about the density issue. MR. ABBATE-Craig, is it that complicated as all that Counsel makes for a petition for rezoning? MR. BROWN-It’s definitely not the easiest thing to do. I think a big factor is what the surrounding properties are zoned. I’m not sure if the surrounding subdivisions are still zoned consistent with what they were when they were approved. MR. O'CONNOR-No. They’re all nonconforming lots. MR. BROWN-Okay. So I don’t think it would be feasible for this, this application. MR. O'CONNOR-They’re all nonconforming lots, the adjoining lots. MR. HAYES-Okay. At this time, I’d like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition to this application? Having no takers, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, you may want to check for correspondence. MR. HAYES-Excuse me. Is there any correspondence, Bob? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess I will start with Roy on this one. MR. URRICO-Well, I feel a little awkward in this situation, because we once reviewed this application, and at that time, I had some problems with the substandard lots, but on balance, I ruled in favor of it, and I just don’t see enough to sway me from that stand this time. So I’m going to stay in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Back on the 15, I was opposed for the purpose, and I think I made that clear at that th time, that the purpose of applying for a variance is to make an exception to the rule, and in this case, when you have 20 substandard lots out of 28, now all of a sudden the exception becomes the rule, and I know that there is somewhat of an argument that the surrounding subdivisions are all nonconforming, and so forth and so on, but in my view, I think that all the time and effort that went into designing this, that a little bit more effort would come up with, instead of 20 substandard lots, would come up with maybe two or three substandard lots, and so I would be opposed to it, as I was on the 15. th MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Until Allan gave his little dissertation, I wasn’t exactly sure, but I have a tendency to agree with Allan, and based on what has been said, in the interest of brevity, I probably will not be in favor of the application. Thank you. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. HAYES-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m kind of sitting on the fence on this one. I would have to agree with the other two guys that just spoke previously, that, you know, it’s, you know, to create so many lots that are smaller, but then again, your argument that all the lots that surround it are being even smaller than these lots, and the last time I sat out and listened, and I kind of agreed at the end, too, that, you know, the fact that you are going to have substantial non cut zones around the perimeter of your property, that this is in some way going to preserve the individual lots and not have it all just one big mass of houses in there. So I guess that I still would agree that I would go along with it. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I think I’m inclined to look at this, ignoring what’s surrounding it, because the whole area has been rezoned, and the wisdom of the people that rezoned said that it ought to be one acre lots, and they must have recognized that they were creating a lot of nonconforming lots. However, I look mainly at the density, and as has been pointed out, there are 28 lots, and 29 plus acres here. So we’re keeping the proper density, and the real issue was just changing the size of some of the lots to make it work. An Area Variance is a balancing act. It’s not like a Use Variance. So there’s pluses and minuses, and I think the benefit to the surrounding neighborhoods, to the residents of this neighborhood, to the developer, to the Town, are all going to be positive, because of the requested modifications. So I’m going to inclined to vote the way I did the last time, and that is in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I voted in favor of it the last time. My position hasn’t changed. I’m in favor of it. MR. HAYES-I agree. My position hasn’t changed, either. I think in the cumulative sense, using the balancing test, I think that we still only have 28 lots in 28 plus acres. So the density has been preserved, and the benefits to the Town, to the applicant, in this case, to me, and to the overall positive design, by comparison, I think outweigh the weight of the relief that’s been requested, and I also believe that some of the relief that’s been requested is actually going to amount to better lots in this particular case, you know, well designed lots. So I would be in favor. Having said that, is there a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 95-2000 MICHAEL J. VASILIOU, INC., Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Peggy Ann Road. The applicant proposes a 28 lot residential subdivision. Specifically, the applicant requests relief from the 150 foot minimum average lot width requirement, as well as relief from the one acre minimum lot size requirement of the SR-1A zone, that is Section 179-19 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, it’s specifically as depicted on the plot plan which the applicant has submitted to the Town. The benefit to the applicant would be that they would be able to create the desired number of lots and additionally to construct the subdivision with a looped driveway, versus a less desirable road configuration. I would call that a lollipop type configuration. The feasible alternatives are limited, though in some sense I think this is simple another way of squeezing out 28 lots, because they certainly have enough room to build 27 conforming lots as it currently exists, but I’m willing to buy into the argument, at least this time, that this is better for the community, so that the relief is not substantial relative to the Ordinance. On balancing, the effects on the neighborhood or community are negative or very few impacts to the neighborhood will result. The lots of this subdivision that are proposed are going to be, on average, equal to or greater in size than the lots in the I immediate developments, and the density certainly is not going to be that much greater. Therefore, it probably would reflect at least as good, or better homes, as the surrounding community otherwise would reflect. For these reasons, I believe that the variance application should be approved, and I move it’s approval. This is subject, of course, to the development being developed as depicted on the application. This is a re-approval of an existing approval that we already have, and it’s 179-19 that we’re talking about. Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2001, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. HAYES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2001 TYPE II MIKE & HOLLY DANSBURY AGENT: PHILIP J. HAAKENSON OWNER: MIKE & HOLLY DANSBURY LOCATION: 9 HEMLOCK DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 8 FT. BY 6 FT. DORMER TO BATHROOM ON THE SECOND STORY. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ALSO, SEPTIC VARAINCE REQUESTED FROM TOWN BOARD OF HEALTH ON MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001. OLD TAX MAP NO. 43-2-19 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-31 ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 PHIL HAAKENSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 3-2001, Mike & Holly Dansbury, Meeting Date: February 21, 2001 “Project Location: 9 Hemlock Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 48 sf second story bathroom addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 13.12 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement and 6 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Also, the applicant seeks relief 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 construct an additional bathroom in the home. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration of existing interior space. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 13.12 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate, while 6 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, however, a portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the existing location of the home. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Septic Variance pending 2/26/01 Town Board of Health (encl. Resolution) Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant has proposed an upgrade of the on site septic system. The existing location of the home appears to be contributing to the difficulty of compliance. This project will require review and approval by the Planning Board for the expansion of a non-conforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-I’m assuming you’re an agent. So could you identify yourself. MR. HAAKENSON-I’m Phil Haakenson, and I’m representing the Dansbury’s best interest. I’m not a lawyer. So be patient with me. MR. ABBATE-That could be to your asset. MR. HAAKENSON-At least I’m not threatening, right? Originally this seemed to be a simple project, so I’m being educated in the same process here. Our request for 48 square foot is equal to a sheet and a half of plywood, it doesn’t get any closer to the lot line. So I guess I’m just still kind of overwhelmed and amazed at what all this triggered. The conveyance of going to the bathroom upstairs might almost be offset by the headaches involved, but the owners have chosen to proceed. We have, in the process, applied for a new septic system, which has been designed. Last time I came to this Board, our request was tabled until the septic design had been approved. That has since been dealt with, but the Board has asked for our engineer to move the leachfield 10 feet. He has resubmitted that application, but unfortunately his next hearing is not until next Monday. So basically what I’m requesting is that you could consider approving this pending the approval of the septic design. MR. HAYES-Craig, how does that work procedurally? Is that okay? MR. BROWN-Yes. I think that that’s reasonable. Typically what we do is we like to see that, if there’s an upgrade required to the septic system, or a modification, that that be dealt with prior to issuing a variance. In this case, I think it’s in the works. You could condition it that he receive his variance, if you are so inclined, upon him getting a septic variance. The way it plays out is we don’t issue building permits until the septic’s dealt with anyway. So the variance isn’t going to go anyplace. The bathroom addition isn’t going to happen until a septic variance is granted. So you’ve got the ability to table this until next week, which is Wednesday after the meeting , but, I mean, that puts it off a week. It’s up to you guys. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. HAYES-Well, he was just asking for a modification. It was already approved, and they were asking for a modification. MR. BROWN-My understanding is that the Town Board, the Town Board of Health, requested that the septic system be relocated to be as far as possible from the adjoining wells, and they be able to grant relief from property line setbacks, more so than, they’d be more inclined to do that than they would to be separation distances between the wells. Thus the redesign, relocation, new project, they have to re-advertise it, and that’s why they’re back in front of the Board for another public hearing. MR. HAYES-I think we can proceed. I think this application was put off last month, and an honest effort was made to obtain that, and we certainly will condition any variance that we give on getting a septic approval. So I don’t see a need to re-advertise and take you through the process again. I guess, did you have anything more to add to your application, or to explain about the bathroom, to the Board? MR. HAAKENSON-I don’t think so. It’s really about as minimal as we can, you know, make and still provide that service for them. They have only one bedroom on the main floor. So they have two bedrooms upstairs. So it’s definitely for their advantage to have a bathroom up there. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from the Board at this time? MR. MC NALLY-As I understand it, you want to build a six foot by eight foot bathroom on the second floor, along the side where the cedar row is, the row of cedar trees is? MR. HAAKENSON-Yes, but straight up from the existing bathroom. I’m not getting any closer to the lot line than. MR. MC NALLY-It’s at the rear of the second floor addition? MR. HAAKENSON-It’s actually just about in the center. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions at this time? Okay. At this time, I’d like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that’s in favor of this application? Is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition to this application? Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. HAYES-Okay. At this time I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And I will take a poll. I’d like to start with Allan this time. MR. BRYANT-Let me just ask, how many bedrooms do you have down? MR. HAAKENSON-Just one. MR. BRYANT-Just one, and how many do you have up? MR. HAAKENSON-Two. MR. BRYANT-After looking at the property and reading documentation, I really have no problem with it. It doesn’t really change the original configuration of the house. It doesn’t extend on the encumbrance on either side. So it really, I would be in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I think your request is reasonable. Any approval I would certainly suggest that it be contingent upon approval of the Health Department for the septic thing, but your request, to me, is reasonable, and I certainly have no objection to it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would be in agreement. I think compared to most of the re-dos that we get requests on the lake for, that this is quite reasonable, and the benefit to the applicant of 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) having the other bathroom upstairs would be good. Mr. Haakenson did ask, you know, I guess Dave Hatin had talked to him about removing that really great big white oak tree that was in the backyard there, and if there was some way to preserve that from having to be cut down, the owners, I guess, would request that that be taken into account. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I basically agree with the other Board members, so far. I don’t think this is a big change. Most of the relief is required because of the pre-existing house, and I don’t think it’s going to change the character of the neighborhood much at all, or anything. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-The relief is minimal, and for the reasons stated by the other Board members, it will have no effect on the community, and I’m in favor of it. MR. HAYES-I, essentially, agree. I think the benefit to the applicant is important in the day to day lifestyle, certainly, and the feasible alternatives are certainly limited, based on the lot and the existing house, and this particular idea or application seems very minimal, and you’re within the same footprint, so I see the impact on the immediate neighbor as being very minimal, if any. Certainly the upgrade of the septic system is a benefit to the lake environment, in general, and so, on balance, I think that this easily carries, on the balancing test. So, having said that, I would look for a motion. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, did Mr. Urrico get a chance to comment on the application? MR. HAYES-I’m sorry, Roy. I apologize. MR. URRICO-It’s an upgrade of the property. It’s not infringing on anybody else in that neighborhood. It’s certainly an improvement. I’m in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Okay. Having heard that, I will ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2001 MIKE & HOLLY DANSBURY, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Bryant: 9 Hemlock Drive. The applicant proposes the construction of a 48 square foot second story bathroom addition. Relief required. The applicant requests 13.12 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement and 6 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Also, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The benefit to the applicant, in my opinion as stated this evening, the applicant will be permitted to construct an additional bathroom, and I understand that the bathroom will be immediately above the current bathroom. Feasible alternatives, the feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration of the existing interior, which I don’t believe is appropriate. Is this relief substantial relief related to the Ordinance? 13.12 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate, while 6 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. The effects on the neighborhood or community, minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Is this difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, however, a portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the existing location of the home, and I offer this approval based on the contingency of approval by the Town of Queensbury Board of Health of the septic system. Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2001, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-Thanks for coming. MR. HAAKENSON-Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2001 TYPE II GREGORY & DEBRA JELLEY AGENT FOR PROJECT: MICHAEL O’CONNOR AND VAN DUSEN & STEVES PROPERTY 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) OWNER: GREGORY AND DEBRA JELLEY LOCATION: 40 NACY ROAD (SOUTH SIDE) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,352 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SPR 6-2001 ZONE: WR-1A, CEA OLD TAX MAP NO. 44-1-16 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.06-1-30 LOT SIZE: 0.32 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-2001, Gregory & Debra Jelley, Meeting Date: February 21, 2001 “Project Location: 40 Nacy Road (south side) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 1352 sf addition and seeks setback relief as well as relief for the expansion of a non- conforming structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 5 feet and 4.78 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Further, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure, per § 179-79, A, (1) & (2). The existing 1292 sf structure could be expanded by 646 sf without relief from this section of the Ordinance. The addition of 1352 sf requires 706 sf of relief for the proposed 105% expansion. 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 addition in order to convert the dwelling to a year round residence. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller addition and reorientation of the addition to meet the setback requirements. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 5 feet and 4.78 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate while the 1352 sf addition, (105% expansion) may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP2001-002 filed 1/2/1 1352 sf Residential addition Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant appears to have sufficient area to locate the addition in compliance with the setbacks; however, the proposed addition appears to be an “in line” extension of the existing home. While the proposed addition is in excess of the 50% expansion rule, the proposed total Floor Area Ratio is 18.7%. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and I’m here representing Mr. and Mrs. Jelley. Mr. Jelley is with me at the table. Mrs. Jelley is sitting in the audience, and with me also is Matt Steves from VanDusen & Steves. We’ve got a number of things to talk about, with regard to what is basically a renovation of an existing structure on Glen Lake, and I’ll try and do it in a manner that I don’t get it too complicated. Basically, we’re looking for an Area Variance, or two Area Variances. One Area Variance has to do with an interpretation which I think is correct, although it is one that changed from the time we started this process, or at least as I understood it, it changed from the time we started this process to the time that we are here, but we’re talking about what your setback is required, on a lakefront lot, and using the formula of averaging the front and the rear lot width as being the key to what you’re entitled to. I don’t disagree with the interpretation that’s been put forth that 20 feet is the appropriate setback. We are asking to vary that in two instances, and I’ll show you on this map over here. This is the lake out here, and on the easterly side there is a small sliver of the proposed addition which goes beyond the 20 foot line. The 20 foot envelope is drawn on the map, if you take look at it. It’s not the whole width of it. It’s just this corner, and secondly, this portion here, which is also the front corner, which is tucked in behind the existing structure. We also, in the sense that we are changing the slope of the roof on this end of the building, we’re not changing the building. We’re not changing the footprint, but we’re just changing the pitch of the roof. That could be interpreted as also being in violation of the area setback. The other area where we’re looking for a variance is that we are in excess of the 50% expansion of a pre-existing building. That, I think, is really an academic variance, in the sense that we could tear this whole thing down, and build a bigger building than what we propose, given the ratio of square footage of the land to the building that we have, and I think that’s a comment that Staff made that we are at 18%. I think you are required to be at not less than 12% or something of that nature. MR. HAYES-No. MR. BROWN-Twenty-two. MR. O'CONNOR-Twenty-two percent. MR. BROWN-Floor Area Ratio. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but we’re in excess of that, our ratio. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. BROWN-You’re less than that. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re less than that, okay. I’m going the opposite way. So, I don’t know if that’s a real concern. It should be a real concern when you get into balancing. We’re not talking, again, about greater density than what you would be allowed on the lot, but because we’re trying to save the existing building, we’re talking about a different configuration, if you will. Instead of tearing the building down and building from new, which would allow us greater square footage, we’re trying to incorporate some of the square footage that’s in the existing building. The proposed addition is a 26 by 52 foot, one story addition. The roof will pitch so that it runs to the sidelines. It is a pre-fab building. It will come to the site already constructed, in two different sections, and be put together. We’ve talked about whether or not we could angle the building a little bit or cock the building a little bit so we could get it more in conformance. If we do, we then create a gap between the existing back wall of the existing building, and what we would have, which would create some construction problems for covering that process up, or making it up in some way. Basically, what they’re doing, if you take a look at it, and you went through it in steps, if you look at your map, there’s an extension on the back of the building. That is coming off. In the front porch part of the building, there is a deck that’s going to be put on the top and a rail around the front of it. That does not require a variance of any nature, but just tell you what they’re doing. They’re talking about changing the pitch of the roof. As opposed to going toward the lake, or away from the lake, it’ll pitch down toward the lake, and they’re talking about doing all this in earthen colored tones. So it’ll blend in to the neighborhood. They’re talking about changing the pitch and the height of the floor or the second floor of the existing building. Right now part of that is areas that you have to bend over. You have a knee wall, if you will, on the outside of the building. They want to make that an eight foot ceiling with a roof pitched to the sidelines. We’ve got an architectural rendering of the building that shows you more detail than maybe I’ve given you. It is a building that we think fits into the neighborhood well. It really does not overcrowd the lot. They’re talking about construction of a brand new septic system, a modern septic system, that will serve the three bedroom house that will be the end product of what we’re talking about. We’ve talked to adjoining neighbors, and these letters are dated back in October when this first started. We thought, we have a letter from Virginia and Thomas Etu, and a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Swezy. Mr. and Mrs. Swezy live on the west of the property, and Mr. and Mrs. Etu live on the east of the property, and in fact I visited with Mrs. Etu today, about five o’clock or five thirty, and walked over the property with her, and showed her where the stakes were, showed her where the new building would be, and she indicated that she did not oppose the application. I think she has submitted a new letter today, which you’re going to read as correspondence. She has a pre-existing 1902 garage that sits on the top of the hill here, partially sits on top of the hill and partially leans on top of the hill. She wants us to recognize that, and we do recognize it, and I think we’ve even told her if she were to come here and look for a replacement, as it sits, we would have no objection to it. That’s very close to the property line. It’s about a foot off the property line. She also has some trees on her property that she wanted to be sure that there was no excavation that would harm the trees, and we’ve shown her where our excavation will be. Basically it’s, well, it’s 15 feet off of that property line. It’s far enough back that it should not affect the tree root system in any way, and basically it’s excavation in that area of about three feet, because the level of the second floor is going to be the level of the, the level of the single floor in the back is going to be the level of the second floor in the front, and actually, there will be a cellar under this extension, and that cellar wall will act as a retaining wall for that bank and for any grading that’s there. I give you a couple of pictures that show you the inside of the 26 by 50 foot addition that’s going on the back, and we’ve got a collage here of some pictures of the existing building, and I’ll start one maybe, well, I’ll put them both here. This is staying on, but the roof is going to be changed and pitched. This roof, the main building is going to be raised and pitched differently. This is coming off. These are the actual pictures, and they might be even better to look at. From the lake, you’re not going to see what we’re talking about, and 15 foot, on this side is not an unusual setback. This existing building, right now, is 7.95 feet, and this side of the building will be tucked in behind that, from the lake. There’s also, if you went out and looked at the property, a good deal of difference in grade between the front of the building and the lake surface. I doubt that you’re going to be able to see behind that building, or behind the crest of the hill, that is just about at the front of the camp. You aren’t going to be able to see in the back, if we’re talking about saving aesthetics, saving view. There are no properties behind it that we’re going to block a view shed of the lake, and actually, if you look at the Swezy property, which is to the west of it, they have almost the same finger like extension that comes off of the back of their building, that what is proposed here. So, basically, I would go back over, what we plan on doing is demolishing that rear extension, add a deck over the front existing extension, with a rail but no roof. We would raise the roof on the existing principal structure, so the inside dimension of the second floor rooms have an eight foot ceiling, change roof pitch to a seven/twelve, and change the direction of the roof so that a gable will run from the front of the lot, at the lake, to the rear of the lot on Nacy Road. The addition is 26 feet by 52 feet, to the rear of the existing main structure. After the extension on the rear is removed, the addition will be a single floor, single story with a floor level equal to the floor level of the second floor of the existing home. The addition will have a full basement but will not be finished as living space. The roof on the addition to have a pitch of five/twelve and a gable running from lake to road. The entire structure, both the new addition and 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) the old, will have the same siding, when we’re done. So we basically put new siding on the front to match the siding that comes on the unit that’s on the back. The septic system will be installed, a new septic system as shown on the plot plan for a three bedroom home. I think that’s basically it. So on one side we’re showing less than 20 foot by 5 feet, and on the other side we’re showing a continuation of the existing building, where it is with the change of that roof, so that it’s pitched toward the lake, at this corner of the structure, and then we’ve got a small triangle of the new structure that will be less than 20 feet, about a five foot variance there. I don’t know the square footage of those two small triangles, but they are not really significant, if you take a look at the whole site. Any questions? MR. HAYES-Does anybody have any questions for the applicant at this time? MR. BRYANT-I do have a question. MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. BRYANT-You mentioned that you could conceivably tear the building down and build a bigger building, which is probably true. From a cost perspective, with the changing the pitch of the roof and elevating its ceiling height and all of that, wouldn’t that be the better way to go, just out of curiosity? MR. O'CONNOR-I think it’s a decision that the owners have made. GREG JELLEY MR. JELLEY-We’d like to retain the bottom part of the original camp, for my son, as a play area, rec area, and by tearing the whole thing down, we’d wind up losing that portion of it. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but as Mr. O’Connor stated, you could build a bigger building. MR. JELLEY-Yes, we could. MR. BRYANT-It would probably, actually, be cheaper, if you’re going to do it pre-fab. MR. JELLEY-It would come out to be about $20,000 more. Basically we did the cost of bringing it all down and tearing down and starting all over again. We figured it out, my wife and I, and went both ways, and it would basically be around $20,000 more, in cost factor, to do it that way. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Sometimes I get that figure. I didn’t get it in this instance. You would end up having to have a lot more foundation and more structure up front. I think you would have some saving, based on what they’re doing. MR. JELLEY-We’re kind of recycling what’s there, the walls, the decking, and it has to be (lost words) upstairs, and we’d like to retain that. It already has a stair system that already goes upstairs. So it has features and comforts that we’d just have to duplicate by ripping it down. Plus you’d wind up with, aesthetically, it looks a lot nicer the way it is, otherwise you’d wind up with a pretty straight trailer type of house. MR. BRYANT-There’s one big difference, though. You put a new pre-fab building and meet the setbacks and you wouldn’t have to be here. MR. O'CONNOR-We tried hard not to come here, even with a lawyer. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, you mentioned something. I didn’t pick it up. You indicated that the adjacent property owner had no objection, providing there was a recognition and a preservation, I think, of the current tree line, and you mentioned something else, and I didn’t pick it up. MR. O'CONNOR-They have an old garage that’s right on the property line. MR. ABBATE-The falling down building? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and they wanted us to. MR. ABBATE-Recognize it. MR. O'CONNOR-Recognize it, not later object to it, if they, I think, the best I could tell, if they try to replace it on that same property line, because that’s the configuration of their driveway and everything else, and their septic system, and Mr. and Mrs. Jelley will go on the record and say they have no objection if it’s replaced where it is. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. ABBATE-How do you describe this falling down? MR. O'CONNOR-A garage. MR. ABBATE-How would you describe it? I need it for a reason. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I have a survey. MR. BROWN-I believe there’s a photo in the file some place, of at least a portion of it. MR. MC NULTY-It’s attached to the letter that we’ll read in, there are three photos to pass around. MR. BROWN-It was submitted today by Mrs. Etu. MR. O'CONNOR-We have a survey of the property. MR. ABBATE-All right. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We have a survey of Mr. and Mrs. Etu’s property which shows the garage that we’re speaking of. If you want to refer to it by. MR. ABBATE-No, I have it here. Thanks anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. HAYES-Do you have any further questions, Chuck? Is there anyone else that has any further questions on this application? MR. MC NALLY-I understand that, in the rear of the building, there are those two triangular areas that extend beyond the 20 foot setback. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And I understand that they’re minimum. There’s a lot of land back there. Why couldn’t it be reconfigured so that it did meet the 20 foot setback? MR. O'CONNOR-If you’re buying a rectangular shaped, pre-built structure, and if you angle it, you’re then going to create a void between the existing back wall and the structure, which then probably could be filled in, as far as flooring goes. I’m not sure what they would do roof wise. Because the roof comes pre-constructed on the other unit as well. I think you’d create a floor, the little bit that you would gain, you might create a construction nightmare. What would you do with the triangle that you’d create? If you take. MR. MC NALLY-So you’re saying it’s easier to make the addition perpendicular to the existing structure, rather than angling it at any point? MR. O'CONNOR-Right. If you come in like that, then you’ve got this void over here, with the back wall, the existing, and the front wall of the new property, wouldn’t serve any purpose, and you’d have a roof problem, I think, more than anything. MR. MC NALLY-So you’re here just for those two triangular areas, and for the expansion of the nonconforming use, in terms of anything else you may need? MR. BROWN-Non-conforming structure, not a non-conforming use. MR. MC NALLY-Non-conforming structure, excuse me, right. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and I believe we’re also here, and we talked about the variance should be because we’re changing. MR. MC NALLY-You’re here for the roofline and everything else like that? MR. O'CONNOR-No. It’s the right height. MR. MC NALLY-I’ve got 26 foot on your drawing. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. O'CONNOR-This roof on this side, that’s on the west side of the building, only goes to the center of that little jut. The proposed roof will be a flat roof that’ll, like a shed roof that’ll run all the way for the full width of that little jut. MR. MC NALLY-Out to the front of the building? MR. O'CONNOR-Out to the new building. MR. HAYES-That’s still an Area Variance for a non-conforming, there’s no variance to go higher, if it’s within Code. MR. MC NALLY-You’re not building out beneath the roof toward the front of the house? MR. HAYES-Right. MR. BROWN-It’s just a re-roof. MR. O'CONNOR-Just a re-roofing. MR. BROWN-Just the little portion to the west, I guess, if you will. I think we talked about that before. It’s just a re-roof. They may have put a new ceiling. I’m not sure if they have put a new ceiling on. MR. MC NALLY-But you’re not extending that addition out along the side? MR. O'CONNOR-We spent two months arguing about whether that required a variance or didn’t require a variance. My idea is it’s repair of a roof. It doesn’t require a variance, but if you’re asking, technically, I would like to have that in your resolution, if you’re going to approve this. Then I don’t have an issue later. MR. HAYES-You don’t have a problem with that? MR. BROWN-No, I’m comfortable with stipulating that there’s no problem, it doesn’t require a variance. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The roof goes like this right now, (lost words) it’ll be a flat shed roof, to figure into the architectural style they’ve tried to create with the new front of the building. MR. HAYES-Okay. As long as Staff’s comfortable with it, I don’t think that’s an issue then. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the application? Is there anyone here that would like to speak opposed to the application? Is there any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes, we do have some correspondence. Two quick notes that Counsel has referred to. One is from James and Nancy Swezy. The other is from Thomas and Virginia Etu. Both read the same. They say, “We are neighbors of Debra and Gregory Jelley, at 36 Nacy Road, Queensbury, New York, and we have no objection to any additions that the Jelleys are proposing to their property at 40 Nacy Road, Queensbury, New York.” That was the Swezys. The same note from the Etu’s, except they’re at 42 Nacy Road, and then we do have an additional letter from the Etu’s, dated February 21. It says “As adjoining property owners to the applicants, we do not st oppose the applicant’s construction of a 1,352 square foot addition. We are requesting, however, that the granting of any variance include consideration of the pre-existing structure located on our property that is currently a single car garage. This structure is decades old and does not meet current Town setback reliefs. We request that any approval of the variance application to the current or future owner of the applicant’s property will not impact or infringe upon our future plans to replace this structure. I have included photographs of our current “garage” to be included in this matter. Thomas and Virginia Etu” And then they’ve got a postscript on it saying, “As an additional notation, based upon the applicant’s removal of a number of trees and grading done on his property in recent years, it is imperative that the applicant’s proposed addition does not include any additional disturbance to the property lines shown in the photos. Any further disturbance of this “bank” property will result in further erosion and disturbance of the root beds to the trees on our property.” And there are some photographs attached. I’ll pass this down for the Board to look at. MR. HAYES-I just want to point out to the Board that we certainly take into account all correspondence, but the nature of that garage or the continuation there of it is not part of this 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) application, and we’re not making our motion such. So, we can do that. Okay. At this point I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And I will take a roll of the members, and I’ll start with Chuck. Keep it in order. MR. ABBATE-Okay. On balance, Counsel’s argument is, in my opinion, compelling and reasonable. Certainly, the new structure would be an improvement over the current structure. In the event that this application is approved, I would, did you indicate earlier, excuse me. Let me pause for a second. Did you indicate earlier we could not have contingencies in there that they maintain the tree line, recognition of the garage? Did you say we cannot do that? MR. HAYES-We can certainly make contingencies. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then let me continue with my comments. Okay. Then if you don’t agree with me, it’s up to you. In the event of approval, you know, I would recommend that there be three contingencies, one, that they recognize that structure which is currently titled garage, falling down. Number Two, I would also have it contingent upon retention of the tree line, and, three, I think I would recognize this roofing modification that Counsel indicated earlier, that there was a slight change in the pitch of the roof. MR. HAYES-I guess I’m fine with that, except that the recognition of the garage is just that it’s there, versus any sanction that, the replacement thereof. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Fair enough, Mr. Chairman. I’d just put recognition in quotes, how’s that? Fair enough, Counselor? Do you have any objection to that? MR. O'CONNOR-We have no objection to that. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-But for clarification, the trees that we’re speaking of are not on our property. They’re on. MR. ABBATE-Her property. MR. O'CONNOR-Their property, and the bank that adjoins our property line and their property line will not be disturbed. It’s already staked out. I showed it to her this afternoon, at 15 feet. We’re cutting into the bottom of the bank, which is about three feet in, from where it is level, which is well below where the trees, the tree root system is. MR. ABBATE-So there’s no disruption of the root system? MR. O'CONNOR-There should not be. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we have to recognize the fact that when we have these older camps on the lake over there, that when people want to expand and turn them into year round homes, that the expansion is going to be above 100% in many cases. So I’d be in favor of the application, as it is. MR. HAYES-Thank you, Jim. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’m inclined to agree. While I get concerned about a lot of the conversions that are occurring, from seasonal to year round homes, because of the impact that they potentially place on Glen Lake or Lake George, in this case, really the setback relief from the side setbacks is minimal. The part of the addition is already, is attaching to the house that’s already in more severe cut into the setback. So we’re really only looking at the sliver that’s at the back end, and while it’s a substantial expansion of a nonconforming structure, as has been pointed out, it would be possible to build a completely new structure in there, as large or larger, and not require a variance if it were relocated. So I think, sum total, the balance falls to the benefit of the applicant, and I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you, Chuck. Bob? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. MC NALLY-I generally agree. Certainly that you need a larger home for a family. This is a small camp. It’s understandable, the need for an addition. I think it is a feasible alternative to tear it down and basically to re-orient it, because it’s not set straight on the lot already, but six of one, half dozen of another. This is the way they want to spend their money, I don’t think that’s a determinative factor. The amount of relief that they’ve requested, particularly with that embankment and the trees on the other side, is relatively minimal, and I don’t think it’s going to have any impact on the neighborhood whatsoever. So, on balance, I don’t see this having a significant effect on the area. It’s a 105% increase in the Floor Area, but the total Floor Area, again, since the existing structure is so small, is only going to be on the order of 18%. So that’s not determinative either. I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-I commend the applicant for coming up with a design that blends with the area and still manages to improve it at the same time, and I’m in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I agree somewhat. I think it’s a sign of the times. There are still a lot of cottages in that whole area, Glen Lake area, but you see so many more of these houses that are built year round type dwellings, and it’s just inevitable. I also believe that the relief requested is minimal, and I would be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I, essentially, agree. As I looked at the property, when I viewed it, it’s an older property, and certainly, from the plans that have been depicted, this is a significant upgrade, and should be a very nice home when it’s finished. The Floor Area Ratio is the criteria we’re given to preserve over development of lots in lake front areas, and in this particular case, they, even with this expansion, which is a large one, they are significantly under that percentage, and that’s an important criteria, in this particular case. They’re not blocking anybody’s views. So, as I look to the impact on the neighborhood, I think they’re probably going to be positive. I think the addition itself is consistent with the home. The way that it’s depicted and proposed I think is actually the most logical extension, and most importantly, that extension and addition is entirely away from the lake, and that, to me, is a very big factor in the applicant’s favor. So, on balance, I believe that the relief, while moderate, certainly the benefit to the applicant and probably improvement of the neighborhood, outweigh those two things, and I would be in favor of the application. Having said that, is there a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2001 GREGORY AND DEBRA JELLEY, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 40 Nacy Road (south side). The applicant proposes a 1,352 square foot addition and seeks setback relief, as well as relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Specifically, the applicant requests 5 feet and 4.78 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Further, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure per Section 179-79A, 1 and 2. The existing 1,292 square foot structure would be expanded by 646 feet, without relief, but the addition of 1,352 square feet requires 706 square feet of relief for the proposed 105% expansion. Benefit to the applicant would be that the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition in order to convert the dwelling to a year round residence. Feasible alternatives, I guess you could tear down the whole thing and start over and meet your setbacks, but everybody has monetary requirements, and the applicant feels this is the best way to accomplish this project. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 5 feet and 4.78 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement, I would say that we could interpret that as minimal on the side lines, and the 1,352 square foot addition, though it’s a 105% expansion, we have to consider the original size of the camp, which is quite small. Effects on the neighborhood or the community, I don’t think there’ll be any negative effects on the neighborhood. This is going to be a nice looking house when it’s completed, and it should fit in well with the lake. Is the difficulty self- created? It would be interpreted as self-created, but it’s pretty much based upon the fact of where the original camp was built, and the size of the lot and the configuration of that lot. I would move that we approve this project. The shed roof on the western side is basically not going to stick out any further than it is already. It’s just a replacement, to meet the architectural drawings. Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2001, by the following vote: st MR. HAYES-Do we need to handle that shed roof issue now, or is that a non-issue? MR. BROWN-That’s at your discretion. I think that the applicant’s agent has asked for that to be recognized in the application. I think you can do that. I’m comfortable that we’re not going to require any relief for it, but if you want to acknowledge it, that would be fine. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s on the western side, the shed relief? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-The shed roof on the western side would be, you know, minimal, I mean, it’s basically not going to stick out any further than it is already. MR. HAYES-It’s just a replacement to meet the architectural drawings. MR. O'CONNOR-As long as we’re here, I’d just as soon have it mentioned. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you, Jim. Does everyone understand the motion? Do I have a second? MR. ABBATE-Second. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 8-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN H. OWEN PROPERTY OWNERS: OWEN, FRASER, DAVIES LOCATION: 7 OLD ROUTE 9L, ADJACENT TO NEW CLEVERDALE POST OFFICE APPLICANT HAS ESTABLISHED A NONPERMITTED RENTAL SELF STORAGE USE AND SEEKS RELIEF TO ALLOW THE USE ON THE PROPERTY. CROSS REF. SPR 1-2001 ADIRONDACK PARK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING ZONE: NC-1A, CEA OLD TAX MAP NO. 10-1-8.1 NEW TAX MAP NO. 240.09-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.57 ACRES SECTION 179-25 JOHN OWEN & PETER FRASER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 8-2001, John H. Owen, Meeting Date: February 21, 2001 “Project Location: 7 Old Route 9L, adjacent to new Cleverdale Post Office Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has established a non-permitted rental self-storage use and seeks relief to allow the use on the property. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the allowable uses as outlined in the Neighborhood Commercial zone, § 179-25. Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267of Town Law: 1. Can the applicant realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence?: Based on the information submitted by the applicant it appears that the property currently realizes a positive return. 2. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? This property, along with 4 others, makes up the entire Neighborhood Commercial district in the Cleverdale area. This property does not appear to be the only property in the district, which, apparently, cannot be used for an allowable use. 3. Will the requested variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. There are no self-storage units in this neighborhood. The current zoning ordinance allows self-storage units only in the Light Industrial zones. 4. Is the alleged hardship self-created: The alleged hardship could be interpreted as self created. The current owners purchased the property in 1997. The current zoning ordinance, which proscribes the applicant’s proposed use, was adopted in 1988. Reasonable diligence by the applicant would have revealed the allowable uses for this property. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 98-373 c/o issued 2/17/00 United States Post Office Staff comments: The information submitted by the applicant appears to depict a monthly income of $1380; $555 from the Post Office and $825 from AvEx office use and a monthly expenditure of $1003 for heat, electric, taxes, snow removal and insurance. This information indicates a return, albeit minimal, is being generated by the property. (please note the significant differences between the application information (expenses) and the additional information supplied in the 1998 & 1999 Partnership returns) It would appear that the 1800 sf in question could reasonably be converted to an allowable use, currently existing on the property, (professional office) and the property could realize a larger return. What were the renovation costs for the conversion of the 1200 sf currently occupied by AvEx and the 666 sf by the Post Office? These figures might be useful comparisons. Written estimates for the necessary remodeling may prove beneficial. Individual finance situations should not color the findings for a use variance. Findings should be developed by considering the potential financial return, uniqueness of the hardship, neighborhood 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) character and the responsibility for the hardship of the proposed use while reviewing the viability of allowable uses of the property. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Project Review and Referral Form February 14, 2001 Project Name: Owen, John H. Owner: Owen, Fraser and Davies ID Number: QBY-UV-8-2001 County Project#: Feb01-20 Current Zoning: NC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has established a non-permitted rental storage use in an existing former firehouse building and seeks relief to allow the use on the property. Site Location: Route 9L. Adjacent to the new Cleverdale Post Office. Tax Map Number: 10-1-8.1 Staff Notes: This use variance is for a storage use in a portion of an existing former firehouse. Staff does not identify significant impacts to the surrounding neighborhood character, to State Route 9L or to Lake George from this reuse. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for February 21, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley Warren County Planning Board 2/15/01. MR. HAYES-Thank you. You’re on. MR. OWEN-Good evening. John Owen and Pete Fraser. We both own this building, partial owners. The first thing I’d like to address is one thing that you said that you were reading, comments of mine, is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned, no, and you’ve got down, $2.40 a square, it should actually be $5.00 a square. I guess those papers didn’t get inserted. MR. BROWN-There’s a revision sheet in there somewhere. MR. OWEN-That was a math mistake of mine. Secondly, these figures that were developed, that you’ve got, that we gave you, were developed originally when we purchased the building, so that we could, and a lot of these costs were estimated, if the whole building was up and running as an office, or whatever. So that’s why there’s a little bit of difference between the P & L statements that you have sitting in front of you, and these particular figures that are, that we brought to you. As I said, these were developed when we first were looking to rent it out, and we also, as it was stated, put into the paper for approximately three months trying to find someone to come in and, you know, possibly build for them, or, you know, work out some type of agreement where we would supply them an office. Luckily, we got AvEx I think about a year and a half ago, and they’ve taken the upstairs. Beyond that, also what you should know, and I’m not going to repeat all the history of the building, other than to say that, for some of the uses, obviously, a real estate business, we don’t really want to have that put in there. I know it’s a Catch-22 situation. We probably could put a real estate office in there, but I’m a, you know, one of the principals of Owen, Davies and Associates. I certainly wouldn’t want to see another real estate business in there. As far as a grocery store is concerned, Pete Fraser, who’s sitting next to me, who owns the Cleverdale Store, certainly wouldn’t want to see, you know, the Cleverdale Store have competition there. That’s one of the reasons that we obviously bought it. All we’re trying to do, at this point, is get back enough money just basically to pay the bills, and we’re not even taking into consideration the principle that we all put up for this particular property, namely, I think with closing costs, I think it worked out to $155,000 roughly, that we put up. You’ll notice on those P & L Statements, there’s no interest put in there. Any of us, the four principals that went out and borrowed the money, or got the money, out of their pocket, that is not reflected in that. That’s for our, each of our $37,000, $38,000 that we put into this thing. We had to make our own financial arrangements for that, and, therefore, get the deductions, if we can, for it. So, beyond that, I think probably you’ve got a pretty good history of the building, and I guess I’ll leave it up to you, if you have any questions. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? Allan? MR. BRYANT-I have a few questions. I’m a little confused by your application. In one case, you say that, in 1997, that you decided to buy the property when it went out for bid, because it was the only Neighborhood Commercial property available in Cleverdale, and then the other side of the coin is you say that it’s too expensive to renovate, to make it a conforming use, and I’m not understanding. Which is it? MR. OWEN-It’s both. It’s this. When you both have established businesses, which we do, which Cleverdale, between, basically, 149 and the Lake George Village, is the only piece of commercial property left, and one of the potential bidders on this particular property happens to be in the real estate business, and talking to Stewart’s, as well as the Post Office, all of a sudden two businesses are threatened. We have, Pete has basically the only full service grocery store, country store, if you want to call it, on the east side of the lake. We have the only real estate business on the east side of the lake. It was a good business decision for us to purchase that, or we would have lost out. There would have been another real estate business in there, or there may have been a Stewart’s, obviously taking away from our business. So we had to just go out and buy it, basically. We had to put in a bid for it, through the fire company, and we had to buy it in order to protect our interest and protect our business. That was just good business planning. So then we were in a Catch-22 situation. Okay. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) Now how are we going to make it pay for itself, and we’re not, you know, we’re not concerned, at this point, in making a profit. Yes, we’d love to make a profit. Yes, we’d love to have lawyers in there, but let’s be realistic. This is an area that is basically used during the summertime. Yes, we have a few more people, and I’ve lived up there 50 years, and I know that, you know, every year we get a few more people on the bus and a few more, you know, people living year round, but pretty much, because Peter even closes down his store from, what, November, December, Christmas to Easter, because he doesn’t have, you know, he can’t make ends meet. So now we’ve got a double burden, or he’s got a double burden. He’s a got business that closes during the wintertime, and he’s got another building that we’ve got to figure out, you know, what to do with in order to make it just pay the bills. MR. BRYANT-Let me ask you one more question. I see the ad that you put in I guess it’s the Post Star? MR. OWEN-Right. MR. BRYANT-What month did you put it in the Post Star? There’s no date in the top of it? Did you put it in in the winter, when all the businesses are closed, or did you put it in in May, June? MR. BROWN-I think it’s dated 10/25, right on the copy. MR. FRASER-October to the beginning of January. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So that’s the time when nobody’s going to rent that space anyway, right? MR. OWEN-Not really. Anyone that’s going to have a viable business, that’s looking to have a viable business, like AvEx, they were up there during that time. So he was committed to that area. It’s not transient people that you’re going to get money from. That’s not going to be the person that’s going to come in. MR. BRYANT-I’m going to open a shop that’s going to, you know, entertain the local transients, okay. I’m going to look in the paper, maybe in March or April, so that I can get open by the Fourth of July. Is that a reasonable thought? MR. OWEN-To some extent, yes, but, again, I’d say it’s going to be somebody that’s going to live up there year round, that’s going to want to open up a place in that particular area, that’s going to want to be in that area. It’s going to be somebody that’s going to be year round, not somebody that’s coming in during the summer and then leaving during the wintertime, and people know it’s available. Obviously, going to the Post Office, they know that it’s available. MR. URRICO-Do you have any takers lined up for the storage use of it? MR. OWEN-Yes, we currently do. As you know, building is quite abundant up there, and Phil Morse, who had a robbery, and all of a sudden they’ve got, well, stonemasons, what they’ve got is they’ve got the items in there, and they’ve had them in there for a number of months. So, yes, they are. The rest of the time it has been sporadic. Obviously, this is not like something that you’d see down off the Northway or something where there’s cubicles or, we don’t want to get involved in that. We don’t want to get involved in gasoline. We don’t want to get involved in propane. The building is alarmed, and it’s also got a CO detector. So, you know, we’re staying away from that 2 stuff. It’s just contract materials, basically. MR. URRICO-Now, AvEx is a year round business? MR. OWEN-Yes. AvEx is year round. He just purchased, he’s building a house up here, and he’s got his national headquarters there. MR. URRICO-Now, originally, was your intention to protect yourselves by purchasing that property? MR. OWEN-Absolutely. MR. URRICO-It wasn’t to develop it? MR. OWEN-Obviously, that became the second most important thing, and now it’s become the first most important thing, just to make it pay for itself so we aren’t putting our own money into it. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-Where is AvEx? What part of the building does it occupy? MR. OWEN-They occupy the upstairs. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. MC NALLY-And then the post office is on the right corner? MR. OWEN-The post office is downstairs on the right hand side, as you look directly at the building. MR. MC NALLY-And your tax returns, at least for ’99, show a net income from rental activities of $5,326? MR. OWEN-That’s correct, before you take into consideration the monies, obviously, we had to put together to purchase the building. You’ll notice the line that says “interest”, there’s no interest deduction there. MR. MC NALLY-So when you say interest, you’re talking about the money that you owe for having purchased it? MR. OWEN-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-The mortgage payment, if you will? MR. OWEN-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-And what does that equal? MR. OWEN-I have no idea, because that’s, each separate individual that’s invested in this, which is four, basically, they have their own agreements. MR. HAYES-It’s the opportunity cost of the money, then, essentially? MR. OWEN-Basically, yes. MR. ABBATE-Good evening, gentlemen. Let me preface my remarks by saying, it’s not my intention to be harsh, but I’m only bothered by some of these areas, and since I’ve been a member of the Board, I have advocated conservative interpretation of the guidelines for the Use Variances. Now, having said that, are you aware of the fact that he current Zoning Ordinance allows self-storage units only in Light Industrial zones? MR. OWEN-At this present time, yes, I am. MR. ABBATE-You are. Okay. How would you respond to a statement that I might make that reasonable diligence on your part would have revealed allowable uses for this property? MR. OWEN-I’d absolutely agree. MR. ABBATE-You do agree. Well, this might be easier than I thought, then, and then, why not convert this to some allowable use, such as some type of a professional office, other than what you’ve stated earlier, real estate wouldn’t be appropriate, and so on? MR. OWEN-We would love to. Find us somebody, we would happily do it for them, as long as they paid for, as AvEx did, paid for, you know, changing it over, doing the modifications. We would have no problem with that. In fact, actually, in the future, that’s what we planned to probably do. MR. FRASER-Just a part, as the additional office space, the lot size and the amount of parking spaces that are required by the Town of Queensbury, we’re kind of maxed out on the number of parking spots that are required right now. So, to add anymore additional office space, might create a problem there. That’s why, of the 10 uses that are allowed in Neighborhood Commercial, with the gasoline station, that’s rather costly, and, not to be selfish, but when you own one right across the street, you really don’t want to compete with yourself. The same goes for a grocery or meat store, or a seasonal produce business. That leaves you with a day care center, a drugstore/pharmacy, a stationary store, or a barber and beauty shop, which are all questionable for that area. The only, last one is a housing unit in combination with a commercial facility, and we’re really not looking to be that type of a landlord. We stumbled across this, not self-storage, we’re more or less leasing a garage bay to a contractor, to make it more convenient for him, so he doesn’t have to travel to the more congested areas of Exit 18, so that he can have access to his equipment. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and my final statement or question to you is basically this. Have you folks searched out, researched out, the very stringent requirements for a Use Variance? If not, I’m sure Staff would be happy to provide them to you. MR. OWEN-No, not until this point. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. ABBATE-Not until this point. Well, I would certainly suggest that you research that out. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions? MR. MC NALLY-I do, just again, you show us the ’98 returns, you show us the ’99 returns. The Year 2000 is over. What happened in the Year 2000? MR. OWEN-We haven’t gotten them back yet. MR. MC NALLY-You showed a profit in that year, I take it? MR. OWEN-Yes. I would suspect it’s probably, it might even be a little bit more because AvEx obviously has been there a longer period of time. MR. MC NALLY-They came in during ’99, some mid point? MR. OWEN-Yes, early ’99 they came in. MR. MC NALLY-What was that term you used about the cost of their money? MR. HAYES-Opportunity cost of when you put your own capital in. I mean, you can impute interest, essentially. MR. MC NALLY-Just so I understand, you purchased this at $155,000? MR. OWEN-Basically, $150,000 plus closing. MR. MC NALLY-Closing costs and things like that. MR. OWEN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And you used your own monies then? MR. OWEN-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-And there were four partners. MR. OWEN-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-So there’s no mortgage, per se? MR. OWEN-Nobody got a mortgage. We just all wrote checks, and how each one of us got the mortgage, that’s, you know, there is no mortgage on the property. MR. MC NALLY-So, on your returns, where you show the profit, there’s no interest cost deduction because there is no interest cost? MR. OWEN-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-It’s the use of your money, though, that’s generating the $5,000 profit in ’99, and a little bit more in 2000? MR. OWEN-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I just wanted to understand. MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions of the applicant? At this time, I’d like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anyone opposed? Correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I find no correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. HAYES-I’ll take a poll of the Board members. MR. MC NULTY-It’s an Unlisted Action. MR. HAYES-It’s an Unlisted, I guess we should probably ask that question. It’s an Unlisted Action. Do we need to do an Impact Statement if it’s Unlisted? Jon? JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-You need to go through the Short Form. MR. HAYES-Okay. Then we’ll do so. I think we do that before the. MR. MC NULTY-I believe we’ve been doing it before we discuss, make a final decision. MR. HAYES-Okay. At this time, I’d like to go through the Environmental Assessment, Short Form for Use Variance No. 8-2001, John Owen, and the Project Location is 7 Old Route 9L. Part A, “Does this action exceed any Type I threshold in 6NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. MC NALLY-No. MR. HAYES-No. “Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6NYCRR?” MR. MC NALLY-No. MR. MC NULTY-No. MR. HAYES-Part C “Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. MC NULTY-No. MR. HAYES-Then I guess not any substantial at this point, right? MR. MC NULTY-Not substantial, no. MR. HAYES-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character?” MR. MC NALLY-No. MR. HAYES-“C3. Vegetation, or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats or threatened or endangered species?” MR. MC NALLY-No. MR. HAYES-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. MC NALLY-This is a change of use they’re looking for. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. HAYES-“C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” I would say no. MR. MC NULTY-No. MR. MC NALLY-I agree. MR. HAYES-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in C1-C5?” MR. MC NALLY-No. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. HAYES-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)?” MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think so. MR. HAYES-“D. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a CEA?” MR. MC NALLY-No. MR. MC NULTY-No. MR. HAYES-“E. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. MC NULTY-No. MR. HAYES-No. “Part III – Determination of Significance”. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think any of, matters, including the change of use, would have any significance under this Short Form. MR. HAYES-I would agree. Okay. So we’re finding no significant impact. Okay. Now, it was Unlisted. So we just went through the Short Form. MR. BROWN-Right, and I think at some point the resolution to the fact that you’ve done it and there’s no significant. MR. HAYES-Okay. Whoever’s going to do the resolution, just want to include the fact that we did the Short Form Environmental Impact Statement. MR. BROWN-There should be one in there some place. MR. HAYES-Well, we did it already. MR. BROWN-I think there’s a form resolution that Lew had. MR. HAYES-Okay. Do you want to do that as part of the resolution? MR. BROWN-Typically you do them separate. MR. HAYES-Okay. Why don’t we do it right now, then. Since we just did it. MR. BRYANT-Why don’t we do it after we discuss the resolution? MR. MC NULTY-This is just pertaining to the environmental impact. MR. HAYES-Separate. MR. MC NULTY-Nothing to do with our decision on whether we approve or disapprove. MR. BRYANT-That’s done after we vote. Because really it really is of no significance. MR. HAYES-Well, that’s what we have to say with a resolution. Like an official resolution. Why don’t you try and find it, and I’ll go MR. BROWN-You have to make a SEQRA finding before you make a vote on the project. MR. HAYES-While he’s looking for that resolution, I’ll poll the Board members here, before we go through it, in the interest of expediency. So, this time I’d like to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. My only concern is that if we grant any kind of relief, whether it’s an interim relief for you to rent out those bays to contractors, that there has to be some eventuality where you work out some kind of a contract with somebody for its property use on the site there, you know, as it is permitted right now, and I think probably what you need to do is actively search during the high season for somebody to fill in that building, you know, for whatever use it happens to be, but at this time, I could see giving some kind of interim relief or something, you know, say, well, you could rent those bays out, but, you know, with the fact that come spring you’re going to actively pursue some kind of permanent solution to this, and this’ll be a filler just to make, help you pay your rent or whatever it is, in the meantime. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. HAYES-And unfortunately, there are no temporary Use Variances. So, basically. So, I’m taking that as a no then, essentially? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thanks, Jim. MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Going down the requirements, all of which need to be met to grant a Use Variance. The first question is that the applicant needs to be able to prove that they cannot realize a reasonable return, as shown by competent financial evidence. I’m not convinced that the applicant couldn’t receive a reasonable return. Although I understand that probably he doesn’t want, but as was indicated, one of the reasons that they bought this property, because there was a potential of some real estate firm buying into it, and a potential for a convenient store buying into it. It strikes me that those are two possible allowable uses that would provide a reasonable return, although, as I say, I understand the business reasons, not wanting them. Is the alleged hardship unique and doesn’t apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood or district? Again, I’m not convinced that it’s unique to this property. I think the same thing would apply to any of the other pieces. Third, will the requested variance not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? There I will agree that probably a variance allowing this kind of use would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. In fact, some of the allowable uses might tend to alter it more, but the fourth one, again, the alleged hardship has not been self-created, I think almost by the admission of the applicants, the hardship was self-created. They deliberately bought this piece of property to preclude the competition. As Staff has pointed out, the Zoning Ordinance pre-existed the time that the property was purchased. So, in my view, the hardship was self-created. I’m going to be inclined to vote, no. MR. HAYES-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I sympathize with anyone looking for a Use Variance. The criteria, all four criteria, have to be met in order to grant that Use Variance, and in this case, I can see how, if you have a storage facility, and it’s quiet, no one comes in and out except once in a blue moon, it’s use is probably ideal, because it’s not as intensive as other uses might be, but we didn’t make the rule that the Town Board said that this has to be, under 179-25, the Neighborhood Commercial uses it has to meet, and our hands are tied, unless you can show and meet all four criteria. I kind of think that Chuck was right, that you unfortunately don’t. The first criterion is that you have to show that you can’t make a reasonable return, and that’s true with respect to any of the potential uses that the property can be put to, and I think the proof that you’ve shown us is that you’re making a return, albeit a small one, of three percent with 1800 square feet still unoccupied and unused with an allowable use. The second criteria is whether or not the hardship you’re claiming is unique, and I don’t think it really is, because the limitation in usage’s apply across that Neighborhood Commercial zone and other properties seem to be significantly making a reasonable return on their business in that zone. The third criteria is whether the Use Variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and the Town Board has decided that the essential character of this neighborhood is going to be a Neighborhood Commercial zone, and certain uses are allowed and some are not, so if we go beyond that, we are changing what is that essential character, and the last criteria that you have to meet is to show that the hardship is not self-created, and that’s a tough one because you purchased the property in ’97. The Zoning Ordinance pre-dated that. So, presumably, you purchased it, knowing that this was a Neighborhood Commercial zone, and I think you purchased it not necessarily with the intent of not being able to use it for all the reasons that you wanted, but by limiting and choosing, by yourselves, to limit the possible uses, and not allowing another store, or not allowing another real estate office to come in there, it’s an election that you’ve made, and I think the property could be converted to an allowable use. So, unfortunately, I have to say that, I can’t be in favor of it. MR. FRASER-I think we’ve shown, I mean, due to the lot restrictions, that another professional office cannot go in there, due to the parking size. The other uses that are allowed, we’ve shown on the graph that are not financially feasible. Yes, a day care center, drugstore, pharmacy, stationery store, barber or beauty shop could be converted, but those uses are kind of a thing of the past, as far as that type of zoning is concerned. We’re not really looking for the self-storage units with high traffic. We’re just trying to rent the bays out, as they exist. As far as Craig’s summary, as far as what happened upstairs, part of AvEx was already an existing office. So, to convert that over wasn’t all that expensive for us, but to do it downstairs, to convert a truck bay to an office, according to the graph, would be fairly expensive, and the other part, as far as that tax return, was for our partnership on the building. It doesn’t show the mortgage that I have on it, which, I guess would have been better for us to bring along, that I do have a mortgage on it. I didn’t go to the bank. I went to my family members, but I do have a mortgage on it, and it is a burden to me, and as far as these 10 uses, 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) you can’t really use, you could put in a grocery store, and I guess you’re not really looking at it that two grocery stores on that little corner on a little hamlet, isn’t going to work. Sure you could do it, but should I invest money, put in another grocery store, which the allowable space that we’re asking for isn’t big enough to put in a grocery store, by the time you’ve dealt with the Town of Queensbury, with the handicap standards, you’ve dealt with the Board of Health and what they require. You’d have no room left for a grocery store. It’s just, it’s not feasible. We’re kind of maxed out on the uses, and what we’re looking for is really low impact. I’ve talked to a lot of neighbors that go to the post office back and forth, and they don’t really, they thought we were building self-storage units behind this building when they saw it in the paper. What we’re trying to do is just rent out some of the bays, as they are. I think we did meet the criteria on those questions, but maybe we’re not looking at it in the same light. MR. MC NALLY-No, as I said, I sympathize with you. I think that probably it would be a low intensity, low impact type use, but it’s not allowable under the Code. I mean, a barber or beauty shop, I have no idea whether someone would throw in a shop there. I know they’re all over the Town, and I don’t know what a return on something like that would be, but it certainly would result in a greater income than you have now, and I can’t imagine it would cost very much to convert a garage bay into a small beauty shop or something like that. Who am I to say, but, I mean, that’s your burden to show us, that every single use is not possible. We talk about professional offices. There are other offices besides real estate agencies, and, again, what is a small, accountants, a satellite office, you folks even mentioned Stewart’s, as a possible purchaser of this property, which certainly would have resulted in a great return, I’m sure, but you elected to purchase it because you didn’t want Stewart’s to come in there. MR. FRASER-But as far as the professional office, you can’t have any more office space on the property. MR. OWEN-No parking space. MR. FRASER-Yes, I know, but, you can’t put in an office if you can’t park a car. MR. HAYES-Theoretically, you could. You’d just have to ask for a parking variance to do that, and the standard for that is dramatically less than the standard for the variance you’re asking for now. It’s just a balancing test. MR. FRASER-I didn’t know that was a possibility, but the way the lot exists, there’s no more room. MR. OWEN-Also, you’re talking about ingress/egress. With the post office, granted it’s not congested now, it’s functional, but you start getting something with a high, you know, traffic count, you’re going to have a major problem there, and even though it does have a light there. MR. FRASER-And we’re concerned about the rescue squad on the other side, being able to get in and out, as they respond to their calls, and with professional office, not only you need parking, but you create more traffic. If you were to put a doctor’s office in there, not only do you have the doctor’s secretary, you have patients going in and out. With the leasing of the bays to the contractors, they’re in there at 6:30 in the morning, you don’t see them for another week., sometimes. Sometimes they might come in, drop some tools off in the afternoon, but for the most part, who we rent to, which we really don’t rent to them anymore because we’ve been told by the Town to terminate the lease, it’s very low impact. MR. HAYES-Roy? MR. URRICO-Well, I understand your predicament. I understand the frustration you must feel, having tried to protect yourself, and then not being able to develop that piece of property to what you consider the ultimate or better situation you’re in now, but the rules, for us, are very stringent. We really don’t have a whole lot of leeway on this, and from what I can see, the criteria that we’re basing this on, we really, I don’t have a choice but to turn this one down. I’m sorry. MR. HAYES-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I basically feel the same way. I think I pointed out in my questioning that I feel that the application is contradictory. Mr. Owen, you are a seasoned real estate person. You’re the only real estate agent in the County, I mean, in that whole area. MR. OWEN-I’m not the only real estate agent in the County. MR. BRYANT-So you know how commercial real estate goes. I mean, you put an ad in the paper for three months. I mean, you could sit for six months before you get the tenant, talk about the 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) feasibility and expense of renovating it for a tenant. Your other tenant paid for the renovation. I think you mentioned that. MR. OWEN-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-There are a lot of tenants that will pay for renovation, depending on the rent that you charge. MR. OWEN-Not to interrupt you, but, you made a statement, and I think, in the Town of Queensbury, particularly down in the Aviation Road area, yes, that’s true, but I don’t see it in a rural setting that we have, where we are. I just don’t see that happening. Eventually, in a few years, yes, there won’t be a problem. MR. BRYANT-But I think being the seasoned individual you are in this area, I think you realized that in 1997, when you bought the property, okay. I don’t think that you would have overlooked that. You must have realized that it would be difficult to rent that property out for the type of usage that it was approved for. Now you haven’t mentioned attorneys. I mean, all the building that’s going on in that area, all these attorneys sitting around here, they need a satellite office. You might have a customer sitting here in the room, but, no, realistically, I would have to vote against it. MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I’m trying to make this as easy as I possibly can. My Board members have basically said it all, and when I asked you how you would respond to my statement that if you were to use reasonable diligence on the use of this property, you said, yes, I agree with you. Based on my past positions as a person who has a conservative interpretation of Use Variances, I could not, in good conscience, support this application. I would, however, and I think this is a problem, I would, however, suggest that our Staff provide you folks with guidelines for Use Variances. One of my Board members had indicated this earlier, there are extremely stringent requirements for this, and I understand the problem, and if I were in your position, I would take the same position that you folks are taking right now, but unfortunately, as I indicated, I cannot support this Use Variance. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I agree, essentially, with the rest of the Board members. Particularly Allan. To me, this application seems like a contradiction, from the outset. I’m a businessman in this Town, as well, and I certainly understand purchasing property to protect existing, going concerns. It’s a logical thing to do, and it might even be a good investment, but having done that, and putting that behind you, you’ve moved on to asking us to solve your problems on this piece of property, which has been zoned by the Town as it is, Neighborhood Commercial, and to do that, we have some very specific guidelines, and I certainly could elaborate, but I don’t think, I know, in my mind, you have not gotten past the fact that this is a self-created hardship. I mean, you purchased the property for your own reasons, and for a price that was determined by you, and whatever return you anticipated, that should have been, in my mind, determinative of what price you could pay for this property, so, in my mind, without elaborating, you don’t pass the criteria for this particular variance. I, personally, sympathize with what you’re trying to do there, and if you were here for a parking variance, or one of the things we’ve already discussed tonight, I think you would certainly have a lot of potential from this Board. So, but having said that, I will ask for a motion. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, you probably should do the SEQRA motion first. MR. HAYES-Exactly. Excuse me. MOTION THAT, BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2001, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-That’s the environmental motion, and now I would ask for a motion based on the merits of this application. MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 8-2001 JOHN H. OWEN, Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) 7 Old Route 9L, adjacent to new Cleverdale Post Office. The applicant has established a non- permitted rental self-storage use, and seeks relief to allow the use on the property. I believe that it does not meet the criteria suggested. Specifically, I believe that the applicant has not shown alleged hardship, and that this hardship has been self-created. Cannot realize a reasonable return substantial as shown by competent financial evidence. I believe that the applicant has not shown that to be the case, since, in the last two years, he has actually had a small return on the property. The applicant has not shown that the hardship is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. It is true that the application does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and it is low impact. However, it doesn’t comply with the recommendations of the Town law, and finally I already addressed the alleged hardship. For those reasons, I move that it be denied. Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2001, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone MR. MC NALLY-I’m sorry. AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2001 TYPE II PETER C. & DIANNE A. JOHNSON PROPERTY OWNER: PETER C. & DIANNE A. JOHNSON AGENT FOR PROJECT: PAUL E. CUSHING, ARCHITECT, P.C. LOCATION: 278 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 277 SQ. FT. FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND AN 1,148 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SPR 2-2001 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING ZONE: WR-1A, CEA OLD TAX MAP NO. 13-3-24 NEW TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-42 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 PAUL CUSHING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2001, Peter C. & Dianne A. Johnson, Meeting Date: February 21, 2001 “Project Location: 278 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 277 sf first floor addition and a 1,148 sf second floor addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 2.1 feet and 2.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Also, the applicant requests relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure per § 179-79, A, (1), (2). The existing 1008 sf home could be expanded, without relief, by 504 sf. This proposal requests an additional 921.92 sf for a total increase in living space of 1425.92 sf, or a 141% expansion. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to enlarge the home as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include smaller additions in compliant locations. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The sideline setback relief may be interpreted as minimal. While the expansion request, (141%) may appear to be a substantial request, the proposed Floor Area Ratio for the site will be at 16%. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, however, a portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the location of the existing home. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 99-574 cc issued 11/1/99 256 sf deck BP 94-713 issued 12/20/94 boathouse renovation BP 93- 591 issued 11/15/93 septic alteration Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Again, while the proposed expansion appears to be a significant request, the total Floor Area Ratio will be 16% when the project is completed. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 14, 2001 Project Name: Johnson, Peter C. & Dianne A. Project Owner: Peter C. & Dianne A. Johnson ID Number: QBY-AV-9-2001 County Project#: Feb01-17 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicants propose a 277 sq. ft. first floor addition and a 1,148 sq. ft. second floor addition and seeks relief from the setback requirements as well as relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: 278 Cleverdale Road. 4 th house South of “Mooring Post Marina” on the East side of the road front on Sandy Bay. Tax Map Number: 13-3-24 Staff Notes: The applicant proposes a second story addition with bedrooms 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) (number unspecified, but unlikely to exceed three), and two small first floor additions. This proposed action has also been referred for County review of a site plan (Agenda item 15 under the name Paul Cushing). Please see that application form for a copy of the site plan. The existing side yard setback deficiencies would not be worsened by this action, but the proposal would increase the size of an existing non-conforming structure by more than 50%. Due to concerns about potential water quality and aesthetic impacts from lot crowding, Staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been set for February 21, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Thomas E. Haley Warren County Planning Board 2/15/01. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Cushing. MR. CUSHING-Yes. Paul Cushing. I’m the architect for the Johnsons on this project. What they are trying to do is to expand their home to a total of four bedrooms. The existing building has a bedroom on the main floor, as shown on the drawings that were submitted, and a bedroom that’s in the basement, which is not permitted. We’re planning on expanding the building to four bedrooms. The existing building shows a bedroom on the main floor, and a bedroom in the basement, which is not permitted by State law because it’s not habitable space according to the definitions in the State building code. Perhaps it could be grandfathered, but my client would just as soon eliminate this and add three bedrooms on the second floor, which accounts for the magnitude of the expansion. The expansion is behind, partially behind the existing garage, which is an existing, nonconforming structure, and is an addition that’s basically 18 and a half feet by 15 feet, on the first floor and the second floor. The other small addition is a 10 by 14 screened in porch, which would be on the south side of the building that’s shown on the drawings. Actually, my client probably started planning this project back in 1993, when he made application for the construction of a new sewage disposal system for this property, and had his engineer design it for four bedrooms, and that’s what was built and inspected by the Town of Queensbury Building Department. The original building is very close to the north line, and that portion of the building will remain as such. The relief for the new additions are primarily the fact that it does not comply with the 20 foot setback, side setback on the west side. There is a small, six foot cantilevered second floor addition on the east side, which extends partially over the existing deck, and again, you have the same relative amount of differential with regard to the side setback relief that we’re requesting. With regard to the lay of the property, the road elevation is about elevation of 334. The lake is about 319. The main floor is approximately 330. The grade, at the patio on the east side, the existing patio, is down about six feet from the first floor, say five feet we’re down there, and it just slopes gently all the way to the lake, and more than half the property is grass. I’d be happy to try and answer any questions you gentlemen might have. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Cushing, I have a question about the drawing. Maybe I’m missing a drawing or something. I have Drawing Number One that shows existing first floor and it shows the property layout there, and it also shows the existing basement. Then two is the east and west elevation, and three is the north and south elevation. Where’s the floor plan for the second floor? MR. CUSHING-Nobody asked for the floor plans of the proposed addition. MR. BRYANT-Okay. You’re adding three bedrooms? MR. CUSHING-On the second floor. MR. BRYANT-That’s it? MR. CUSHING-Correct. MR. BRYANT-No bathrooms? MR. CUSHING-And bathrooms, but bedrooms are the controlling situation, as you well know. People make waste. Bathrooms do not make waste. MR. BRYANT-Because based on the configuration of the house, those are pretty big bedrooms. MR. CUSHING-Yes, but we are not using the entire second floor of the 36 by 28 structure below, because of the sloping roof, in order to provide a legal space, to comply with the building codes. MR. HAYES-Yes. I guess there’s a little bit of confusion exactly where the expansion is going. I mean, what directions and. MR. MC NALLY-Are you going beyond the existing footprint? MR. CUSHING-No. Only on the, yes, I’m sorry. If you look at the site plan, there’s the 15 by 18 foot addition. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. MC NALLY-That’s on the south side. MR. CUSHING-That’s on the west side. MR. HAYES-Away from the lake, then, essentially. MR. CUSHING-The south side is a 10 by 14 foot screened porch addition. MR. HAYES-So the striped area, that’s the only increase in footprint? MR. CUSHING-Correct. Plus a little bit of the deck that wraps around that addition. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have a floor plan, or do you have something that you can show us what that second floor looks like over the existing structure? MR. BRYANT-I’m not clear, by the elevations, as to where the second floor is actually going to cover. MR. CUSHING-The west elevation shows the two story addition right there. MR. HAYES-That’s the 18 by 5. MR. CUSHING-That’s the 18 by 15. MR. HAYES-Or 18 by 15, right. MR. CUSHING-The existing roof as Mr. Hayes, I believe, was there today, and this gentleman, Mr. Underwood also, the existing roof slopes in like this. It’s an existing hip roof with a small gable on the end for ventilation. MR. BRYANT-That front piece is the actual proposed? MR. CUSHING-Addition. MR. BRYANT-Addition. MR. CUSHING-On the west. MR. BRYANT-The second floor, though, is going to be above the existing structure. MR. CUSHING-This is the second floor, yes. MR. BRYANT-Yes. Okay. So it’s going to basically cover almost all the existing buildings. MR. CUSHING-Except those corners of the second floor, where you cannot get a legal space. MR. BRYANT-Where the roof pitches. MR. CUSHING-Correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I understand what you’re saying. It still leaves quite an area. MR. CUSHING-Yes, that’s true, but the total is still 16%, and it’s, you know, less than 75% of what is permitted, and we’ve all listened, earlier tonight, about the fact of, you could tear it down and make it bigger, to go up to that situation and comply with everything. MR. BRYANT-No argument. I’m just curious as to how big that area was going to be. MR. CUSHING-Yes. MR. BRYANT-But it is 16%, but it’s also 140 plus percent. MR. CUSHING-Yes, that’s true, and you had one that was even bigger than that earlier this evening. MR. HAYES-No, that was 105%. MR. CUSHING-I thought I heard 180. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. HAYES-No, it was a 105% expansion, if memory serves. MR. ABBATE-One hundred and five or one hundred and eight. MR. BRYANT-This is bigger. MR. HAYES-One hundred and five. MR. MC NALLY-Just so I understand, Mr. Cushing. On the west side you’ve got 18 by 15 addition? MR. CUSHING-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-And that’s a two story structure? MR. CUSHING-Absolutely correct, a two story structure. Ground floor there, second floor there. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and then on the south side you’ve got the screened porch, which I show as. MR. CUSHING-Ten by fourteen. MR. MC NALLY-It’s a single story. MR. CUSHING-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-Well, it’s a single story with a, is that a roof above it, not a livable space? MR. CUSHING-No. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. CUSHING-That’s the architect’s license in order to solve some roof problems in connecting a flat roof to a sloped roof. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and that has to be gabled at the lake side, and go from front to back? MR. CUSHING-That is correct, and you see a second floor addition that’s actually cantilevered out over the existing deck. MR. MC NALLY-Over the existing deck? MR. CUSHING-Yes, the existing deck is off to this side. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. CUSHING-And partially over it. MR. MC NALLY-So in other words, the second floor toward the lake it going to be further to the lake than the existing structure is? It will be cantilevered over the existing deck? MR. CUSHING-Six feet, and not as far out as, the deck is out 12 feet from the existing building now. MR. ABBATE-The Floor Area Ratio is at 16%? MR. CUSHING-That is correct, sir. MR. ABBATE-In spite of that 141% increase? MR. CUSHING-In spite of that. MR. ABBATE-It appears to be contradictory, but I understand that. In spite of everything, the bottom line is 16%? MR. CUSHING-Sixteen percent, and that is based on the simple fact that the existing building is a one story structure, 36 by 28. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions, at this time, for the applicant’s agent? Okay. At this point, I’d like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Now let’s talk about it. This time we’ll start with Chuck. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. While this seems like a substantial increase, when you look at the percentage increase, I think, as Staff has pointed out, and the applicant’s pointed out, we’re still going to end up with a relatively small structure compared with the size of the lot. It’s going to be 16% coverage, and while I don’t necessarily like to see expansion on the lake, doing the balancing that we’re supposed to be doing, I don’t think adding the second story is going to be as severe an impact on visual quality from the lake. I think the expansion may make the neighborhood seem a bit more crowded, but I think the benefit to the applicant is going to be greater. So, in total, I’m going to be inclined to approve. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Craig, what’s Staff’s position on this? MR. BROWN-It appears to be a reasonable request. It’s within the Floor Area Ratio requirement, the setbacks aren’t increasing, or the setback violations aren’t increasing. MR. MC NALLY-That 16% is accurate? MR. BROWN-Based on the calculations submitted by the applicant. MR. MC NALLY-And, Mr. Cushing, you live right to the north of it, don’t you? MR. CUSHING-Exactly. MR. MC NALLY-You don’t have much of a problem. MR. CUSHING-No. MR. MC NALLY-If I look at the five requirements, the benefit to the applicant is certainly they’d be allowed to enlarge their home to make it more of a year round, regular size home. The feasible alternatives are limited, only because this is an existing structure, which was placed on this lot close to the north line, closer than our current Code allows. MR. CUSHING-That is correct, sir. MR. MC NALLY-It would be possible, I suppose, to tear it down and start all over again, but given the existing structure, I don’t think that’s terribly cost effective or feasible. The relief is not substantial, when you talk about floor area ratio, because, while it is a great increase in the size of the structure, it certainly is well within the permissible limits already, and with respect to the side setback, the existing structure is, in large part, 7.6 feet from its north line, and this is simply going up and then sloping away with the roofline. So it’s not as significant as it might otherwise be. I don’t really see any effect on the neighborhood. I don’t think that setback where it is is going to have an effect on the adjacent homes, particularly if Mr. Cushing doesn’t care, and it’s certainly not going to have any effect on the lake since it’s in excess of 135 feet from the lake where you propose to build it. MR. CUSHING-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-The difficulty is self-created. However, that’s the result of the existing placement of the house. So, I’m in favor of it overall. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-I basically concur with Bob and Chuck. The only criteria that might be questioned in my mind is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, and 16% floor area ratio is not excessive. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) In fact, it’s under, and it balances out the 141% of expansion request. It more than balances out, in my mind, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m in favor of the application, but I really don’t like the application or this type of application. We’re seeing more and more of it, and we mentioned it earlier, that a lot of these summer residences are being converted into year round homes on the lake, and, yes, they’re beautiful homes and it looks great, it improves the appearance of the whole area, but I think it defeats the founding fathers’ concept of the area, but I would vote in favor of this, and I would the next time when you do a drawing, put the second floor so we can see what the bedrooms look like. MR. CUSHING-The Staff did not require them. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Other than what’s already been said, I really don’t have too much to say about this. Allan’s point is well made. My previous Board members made a good case, and if we cloak, if you will, mask, temporarily, the 141% increase, 16% floor area ratio is rather reasonable, and I agree with Allan in one respect. However, I think this new construction, or expansion, will certainly add something to the property, and I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be in agreement with my fellow Board members. The only thing I would like to see would be, you know, I think that at some point you people that live up there on Cleverdale have to assume some responsibility for what your neighborhood looks like, and right now it kind of appears to be suburban paradise. As you said, it’s mostly grass out in front of there, and maybe as an architect and as a neighbor, you people could get together and maybe try and do a little reforestation and try and turn it into some semblance of what it once looked like in the area up there, rather than having these beautiful homes built that just stick out like a sore thumb, but, you know, I think that’s something that needs to be thought about anyway, as a consideration for the future benefit to the lake and groundwater and things like that. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I essentially agree. I think the setback relief is easily looked over in this particular case. It’s not being increased with the project. So there’s no real, or more impact on the neighborhood or the neighbors in that sense. Certainly 2.1 feet of relief and 2.4 feet of relief are relatively small numbers. I think if anybody has had any trouble with this application it has to do with the relief, whether it’s substantial or not, and I guess, in this particular case, our biggest concern in that area, in order for me to be consistent, has been over-development, and a floor area ratio of 16% I think precludes that idea, in my mind. I think that that’s significantly below what would be allowable here if this was a new application, significantly, and in that case I think that this represents a lot that can handle this particular addition. So I certainly agree with the other Board members reservations about the changes that are going on in that area, but we, I don’t think that we can necessarily take that out on any one applicant. Each one of these applications has to be determined on its own merits, and therefore I think that, on balance in this particular case, the benefit to the applicant outweighs the fact that the relief is significant. I won’t say substantial, because of the contrary indication of the floor area ratio, but I will say that the benefit to the applicant, in my mind, outweighs the impact of relief, and therefore I think the balancing test falls in favor of the applicant. Having said that, I’d like a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2001 PETER C. & DIANNE A. JOHNSON, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 278 Cleverdale Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 277 square foot first floor addition, and a 1,148 square foot second floor addition. Relief required. The applicant requests 2.1 feet and 2.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, 179-16. Also, the applicant requests relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure, per 179-79A 1 & 2. The existing 1,008 square foot home could be expanded without relief, by 504 square feet, but this proposal requests an additional 921.92 square feet, for a total increase in living space of 1,425.92 square feet, or 141% expansion. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to enlarge the home as desired. The feasible alternatives may include a smaller addition in a compliant location. This relief, the side line setback relief may be interpreted as minimal, but while the expansion request is 141%, it may appear to be substantial, the proposed floor area ratio for the site would be at 16%, which is well below what we would like to see. So that’s okay. The effects on the neighborhood. Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, and whether this is self-created, it may be interpreted as self-created, but part of that is due to the portion of the home that’s already in this location, and it’s already taking up that space. Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2001, by the following vote: st 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. HAYES-Do you think, in this case, it’s important to make it conditioned on being constructed as depicted or? MR. BROWN-I think that’s part of the application on the drawing. MR. HAYES-Okay. So we don’t need to do it, then. Okay. Thank you. Does everyone understand the motion? Do we have a second? MR. MC NALLY-Second. AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone MR. CUSHING-Thank you, gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2001 TYPE II KEVIN & MARYBETH MASCHEWSKI PROPERTY OWNER: KEVIN AND MARYBETH MASCHEWSKI LOCATION: 73 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS ADDITIONAL RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. AV 9-2000 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING ZONE: WR-1A, CEA OLD TAX MAP NO. 6-1-10 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-24 LOT SIZE: 0.25 ACRES SECTION 179-16 KEVIN & MARYBETH MASCHEWSKI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2001, Kevin & Marybeth Maschewski, Meeting Date: February 21, 2001 “Project Location: 73 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 1013 sf addition and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 12.10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. The requested relief is 3.10 feet additional relief to the 9 feet granted in a previous variance; AV9-2000. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the desired addition/deck as constructed. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the deck to meet the requirements. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The requested relief may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty appears to be self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc): BP 99-142 cc issued 7/12/99 septic alteration BP 99-264 issued 5/27/99 boathouse repair Site Plan Review 12-2000 res. 3/28/00 seasonal to year round conversion and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. AV9- 2000 res. 2/23/00 single family addition and deck, setbacks & FAR BP 2000-125 issued 3/30/00 single family dwelling Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The previous variance granted the applicant the ability to expand the dwelling to within 7 feet of the northerly property line and within 11 feet of the southerly line. The home was constructed in accordance with the relief granted along the northerly side. This application is for additional relief along the southerly property line. Apparently, an error occurred in calculating the proposed setback on the southerly side. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Project Review and Referral Form February 14, 2001 Project Name: Maschewski, Kevin & Marybeth Project Owner: Kevin & Marybeth Maschewski ID Number: QBY-AV-10-2001 County Project#: Feb01-18 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicants have constructed a single family dwelling and seek additional relief from the setback requirements due to an error in the original parcel survey. Site Location: 73 Assembly Point Road. Route 9L to Assembly Point Road. Approximately ¼ mile on Assembly Point Road on left. Gray color cedar house w/green detailing - #73. Tax Map Number: 6-1-10 Staff Notes: The Warren County Planning Board reviewed a requested Area Variance for these actions at its February 2000 meeting. Due to the lack of a quorum, the Board did not take action on the request. The Town approved the application with the condition that the septic system be determined to be adequate for the new construction by the Building & Codes Department or a Building Inspector. Due to an apparent error in the original parcel survey, the side yard setback deficiencies are more extreme than the applicant or Town believed a year ago. The original survey indicated that the structure was 11.85’ from the border at its closest point at the SW corner. A new survey has revealed that the structure is actually 6.63’ at this point. The original structure was also 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) much closer to the N boundary than was previously thought. The original structure was set back 10.61’ from the border at its NE corner. The new structure’s expansion in this direction leaves the porch corner only 7.9’ from the border. The second story deck ‘catwalk’ indicated on the attached site plan is not subject to Board review in relation to this variance request. While variances on lakeshore parcels are generally closely scrutinized by Board members due to the potential for lot crowding, the septic system is to be examined by an inspector prior to a certificate of occupancy, the structure is set 60 feet back from the Lake, and the lot permeability requirements are presumably met (no variance request). Staff recommends a determination of no County impact. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for February 28, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 2/15/01. MR. HAYES-The Maschewskis. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Hello, gentlemen. Kevin Maschewski and my wife, Marybeth. I somewhat find myself in an uncomfortable and unfamiliar situation here, but I’m very aware of the Board’s attitude and outlook at coming back after the fact. I sat here last month with another applicant, and the first applicant going forth with Matt Steves had the same scenario. In that situation last month, the applicant added on a porch that brought it over the setback. I’d have to assure the Board that this house, as designed, and as submitted in the drawings has been built exactly the way I proposed it, and in the exact location I proposed it. In fact, the foundation, I’m on the old foundation. So there’s a couple of things that kind of went wrong. I would assume, after sitting on this issue now for about six weeks, it appeared it’s ugly head back in the first part of January. So it’s been about six weeks, a lot of time spent with Matt Steves looking over everything that’s kind of developed. A year ago I sat here in front of you folks and put a proposal in front of you. I did receive a variance, and I’ll go over the setbacks for the members that are not familiar with it, but I did make two assumptions on the original survey I had. The first assumption was that the original survey that I have submitted there, the setbacks were to the roof overhang. I’m an engineer. There’s pretty much no gray area. A setback is a setback. Previous towns I’ve worked in, the setbacks were always brought to the roof overhang. I made that assumption, and I’ll go through, if I was wrong at that, what it did for the setback, and the second assumption was that I believed that that original survey was correct. I had no other way of not believing it wasn’t. Coulter, who is no longer in business, who has been McCormack and Coulter, was not available to do any research on the original survey, but if you would, let me just walk up and, for the Board members that weren’t, I don’t think, if I recall, some might not have been there last year. It was approximately a year ago tonight. I think it was February 23, but I had received a variance, lakefront. This is the new survey, a lakefront of 55 rd feet. In actuality, it’s 60. I had received a variance for 11 feet on the north side, and in actuality it’s 7.9. On this side, on the, I’m sorry, it’s the south side. On the north side, the setback that was granted as an existing setback of 6.2, it is not 6.63. So there’s a five foot variance here, a six inch variation here, and a little over a three foot variation here. Talking about the two assumptions I made back a year ago was the original survey of 14.05, which I had submitted, and I did a little sketch here that might bring it out a little bit. I assumed that that setback of 14.05 was to a roofline. In that assumption, I had a one foot overhang, brought it back and I struck that line and went straight out, and that line would be the exterior wall of the existing camp, which projected to the 11 foot addition I had gotten a variance for, and a 12 foot deck, and I brought it out an additional 23 feet, did the math, the difference in angle, 2.2 feet. The existing camp was 28 feet wide, came out with the variation between that and then just multiplied that by the additional 23 feet. Lo and behold, I came out with 11 feet. That’s what was on my application for a variance a year ago. If that assumption that I made that was the roofline was wrong, what would have happened was I was off a foot, and it would have been 10 foot. In fact, it’s 7.9, an additional 2.1 feet that showed up. I don’t know how it showed up. I did ask Matt Steves to attend this meeting, and discuss a little bit of maybe my assumption on the roof overhang. Again, in the past, with setbacks, I’ve always seen them to the roofline. Matt has assured me that Queensbury does not do that. It’s to the exterior wall. So, if I could, Matt, would you be available to just discuss maybe some other discrepancies in the survey? MATT STEVES MR. STEVES-Again, my name is Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves, and I performed the current surveys in front of you. After reviewing the older survey that was performed, the previous survey that was performed, in locating the actual foundation of the original building on my survey, this time to show you the actual lines, I can agree with the shape and the size of the original building. As far as the setbacks, I cannot, you know, sit here and say how he came up with his setbacks, or what he measured to, but I can tell you that the shortest distance from the corner of a building to the property line is a perpendicular line, and back in the 60’s, when that survey was performed, as well as our company did at the time that that survey was done, most surveyors used an extension of the building line to the property line as the setback distance, because that was the easiest way to compute it at the time, by knowing Point A and Point B, which would be your actual line of your building, and extending it out, not calculating the perpendicular, and the perpendicular, in this case, is quite a bit shorter because of the fact, the angle of the building against the property line. So that, in effect, it 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) made up quite a bit of the difference of about eight tenths, as far as the setback of the building, and extending that forward even more, therefore the closer to the property line than what was originally anticipated. That would be my explanation, as best as I can tell, by looking at the previous survey that was done, I believe, in 1960. MR. BRYANT-If I could just ask you a question about that. If you extended it from the building line, in one area, wouldn’t that also infringe on the setback even more, because of the top area, the way the building hangs over? MR. STEVES-Any time you measure a line, no matter how you’re building is tilted, even if it’s tilted this way, if I used this line, in line with the front of the building, the line perpendicular to the property line is still your shorter distance, either way you look at it, both sides, it is still the shortest distance. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I see. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Again, I don’t know what’s right, what’s wrong on the survey and the aspects of it. The only thing I know is, as the new survey looks at the new positioning of the structure, again, it’s over that existing foundation. The distances on the north side increased, as these decreased. So, what became worse on one side became better on the other. In addition to getting the final survey, you know, I had approval at 55 foot variance from the lake front setback. It is now 60. So, again, there’s a capture of five feet there. What I would present to the Town, to the Board, and it’s asking, is that possibly, if the variance can be re-written from a year ago, instead of 55, to be 60, it’s more stringent on me. Right now, I can still build this deck out five feet toward the water, and maybe re- write the variance of 6.2 to 6.63 feet, which brings me six inches farther away from this corner. So I’m basically giving back to the Town five and half feet, and asking for this variance here of 3.1 feet. I don’t know what’s the lesser of the evils, but, I’m kind of, again, back between a rock and a hard place. So, that would be my request, if we can re-write those variance dimensions. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions of the applicant at this time? MR. MC NULTY-I have one. MR. HAYES-Okay, Chuck. MR. MC NULTY-In your response to Question One, about the benefits of granting this variance, you make the point that the buyer’s been found, a contract of sale written, and the comment goes on to say, deposits were made by the buyers, and subsequently used for additional upgrades. Is that, in fact, what happened, or have you used the equivalent amount? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. We had used their money. Is that the question? MR. MC NULTY-That’s my question. Because normally when a deposit’s made for purchase of a home, it’s held in escrow by the real estate. MR. MASCHEWSKI-It was a nonrefundable deposit. Paid to us, to Kevin and Marybeth, and used forth for additional upgrades. The house that was built has, believe it or not, about $75,000 in upgrades, which they had put forth the money for those upgrades. They came out of the buyer’s pocket and put forth, yes. No money went in escrow in a real estate’s office. I’m familiar with that. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. MR. MASCHEWSKI-I do have some photos, for the members who might not have been available last year. I’ve only got three sets. MR. MC NALLY-You’re an engineer, right? MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-Licensed, I take it? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, a civil engineer. MR. MC NALLY-And who built this place? MR. MASCHEWSKI-I did. MR. MC NALLY-And you worked off the 1960 era survey that Coulter had done? 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. MASCHEWSKI-I did. MR. MC NALLY-You had no survey done to update it, make sure it was verified in any way? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, I didn’t, but I had known that, after the improvements were done, I’d be doing a new one. I’d be getting another one. MR. MC NALLY-You were looking for an as-built, where the foundation was, basically? MR. MASCHEWSKI-As an as-built. The bank didn’t request one. The Town didn’t request one. I pulled my own dimensions to verify, you know, it’s hard to pick up hundredths of a foot, or hundredths of an inch, but I did use the existing one, yes. I had no reason to believe it was incorrect or invalid. MR. MC NALLY-How far is the corner of the frame house from the southerly line? Not the deck, the house itself? MR. MASCHEWSKI-The house is approximately 11 feet out, which is about half of the distance between the 10.61 and the 7.9. The house is 11 and the deck’s 12. So it’s approximately half. MR. MC NALLY-What’s to stop you from taking a chainsaw and cutting off the porch to make it conform to the existing variance? MR. MASCHEWSKI-The actual porch won’t. I mean, taking off the porch will, but the house is also over that line. MR. MC NALLY-We’ll get to the house in a minute, but there’s nothing really to amend that porch, to make it conforming, then? You could do that if you had to? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, I could, but. MR. MC NALLY-How do I know how much of the house is beyond the variance, the house itself? These are small numbers, and this is a small diagram. I can’t tell where that variance line necessarily would be. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, it would be, obviously, backing up from that 10.61. I don’t have a calculator. I mean, I can figure out in a quick second the differential in that. MR. MC NALLY-Another half foot? MR. MASCHEWSKI-One thing, and I know Staff notes did indicate it, and I understand where you’re going with it, is on the deck. When I designed this, the deck is pretty much an integral part of the front façade of the house. I figured I’d be at 55 feet and get an as built survey. There’s still an extra five feet to go. If the Board would make me do something with the deck, and it’s actually not a porch, it’s a deck, you know, there is an additional five feet out there, that you might want to re-think about just tearing the whole damn thing down and just redesign something that takes an additional five feet out, and then alleviates that other corner. It’s a possibility, but financially, I mean, it’s a $12,000 deck. MR. MC NALLY-We had an experience last year with a deck in a similar circumstance. Are you saying that you would build it out an extra five feet closer to the lake, if we make you cut it back three feet along the side? That’s what you’re telling us? MR. MASCHEWSKI-I probably would. Because to tear, how do you make it look good? It would look like a car with a wheel off it. I mean, just aesthetically, because it continues that line on the house. It comes out to a very rectangular deck, and just maintains the same lines. MR. MC NALLY-I look at this deck, and what is it, something like maybe 15 by 30? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Twelve by, if you go to where the leader line is of 60 feet, that’s basically 12 by 27. MR. MC NALLY-And then beyond that the stairs is another five feet or so? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, that’s a landing. Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So 12 by 32? Something like that. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. MASCHEWSKI-Believe me, six weeks of turmoil and sitting back and thinking of ways to mitigate this, you know, the only thing that I could come up with that was feasible and kind of a give me and take me scenario is that five feet. I don’t need that extra five feet. I have 55 feet to the water is approved. I’m at 60. If anything, take the five feet, not the deck. MR. MC NALLY-The southwest corner of the house, that’s a two story right there, isn’t it? Basically. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, the whole front façade is. Yes. MR. MC NALLY-If you had to remove a portion of the house, how would you physically do something like that? I mean, what would you do to change that? MR. MASCHEWSKI-I don’t know. I don’t think there would be anything feasible. MR. MC NALLY-What’s in that corner? Do you have a floor plan somewhere? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, I don’t. MR. MC NALLY-What’s behind that wall? Is there a living room, dining room, is it a bathroom, what is it? MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s a living room. MR. MC NALLY-And can you give me the approximate dimensions of the room? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, it’s what I call a Great Room. It’s the exact dimension of the existing foundation line, the dark line that stripes across, to the edge of the house line. It’s a Great Room, 11 by 27. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. MASCHEWSKI-And that’s the addition. That addition proposed was a Great Room. MR. MC NALLY-And is that two stories internally? MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s two story. That is cathedral. There’s no second floor there. MR. MC NALLY-So there’s no second floor joist system or floor system or anything else like that? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, but there’s a $10,000 window system, facing the lake. MR. MC NALLY-I hear you. Again, it’s been a long time since I saw your plans. Do we have a picture of what the front of that house looks like on the lakeside? Or do you have any drawings with you showing that glass system? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Craig, do you have drawings with you? MR. BROWN-I can look in my file. MR. MASCHEWSKI-I apologize. I brought in an abbreviated file. MR. BROWN-These are drawings from the building permit file. MR. MC NALLY-So this is the glass system right here. It’s on the south side? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, this is the corner, but I’m not showing the railing across here, just because I wanted to make sure the windows got correct. MR. MC NALLY-Where’s the chimney along that south side? How far is the chimney off that south side? It’s internal, isn’t it? MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s in that Great Room, yes, there’s a chimney in that Great Room. MR. MC NALLY-And it’s right on that wall? MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s right on that wall, yes. Yes, I mean, I did everything I could, I mean, even on that other side of the chimney wall, it might be depicted in the pictures, there’s a big Birch tree, and I saved a Birch tree. There’s a big Oak, huge Oak, probably over 100 years old, in front of the 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) deck, saved that. I mean, I did the best I could in the situation I was in. I sat in front of you folks, again, once I realized the foundation was inadequate, over on the north side. I had to replace part of the foundation. It just, you know, in hindsight, tear the whole thing down, get a variance and tear it down. I do know one thing, though. I’ll be sitting in front of this Board again quite a bit, and just spoke to a potential customer on Assembly Point, out on the Point. I’m assuring all of my potential clients is get an updated survey. Get an updated survey and keep the surveyor that did the pre- construction survey and utilize him for the post. This way there’s no discrepancies. MR. HAYES-Okay. Roy? Excuse me. Did we open the public hearing? I thought we were just asking questions at this point. Is there anybody that has any further questions for the applicant? At this time, I’d like to open the public hearing. Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? Mr. Salvador? This may be a first in my experience. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I, too, am an engineer, and I’m thoroughly confused. Do I understand correctly but for the change in a technique of a survey, this applicant would have no problem? He would not be here today if it were not for the change of a surveying technique? MR. HAYES-That’s a proposed explanation. MR. MC NALLY-The reason he’s here today is because the house is closer to the line, period. MR. SALVADOR-No. He’s here because of a change from 1960 to the present day, in the way we measure the distance from a dwelling to a side line. That’s a technique. MR. HAYES-But that’s still your presumption that’s the reason why. MR. SALVADOR-Well, Mr. Steves mentioned that. MR. HAYES-He said that was a possibility. MR. BRYANT-That’s a possibility. MR. HAYES-He can’t testify to what the actual reason is. He didn’t do the survey. MR. SALVADOR-Well, it’s clear that in 1960 one method was used, whatever it was, it was used. We have to presume that’s done by a licensed surveyor, and he’s using the technique that is acceptable of the day. MR. MC NALLY-That’s your assumption, correct. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I presume Mr. Steves, doing the survey today, is using the accepted technique that we use today. MR. HAYES-Yes, you’re presuming, that’s right. MR. SALVADOR-Well, what else can I presume? MR. MC NALLY-Mistakes can happen, and that he didn’t do it right back in the 60’s. That’s what you can presume. MR. SALVADOR-Well, how do we know he didn’t do it right back then? MR. MC NALLY-We don’t know one way or the other. All we know is that we voted a variance allowing 11 foot setback for this house. It was the applicant’s responsibility to find out where that line was and to build the house in accordance with the variance. MR. HAYES-And it was a narrow application at that. MR. SALVADOR-And he took the most conservative approach. He measured from the overhang. He measured, I mean, he gave up, he could have measured from the foundation. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Salvador, can I ask you a question? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, sir. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. BRYANT-Okay. You’re an engineer? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I am. MR. BRYANT-Okay. You buy a piece of property, you’re going to build a house. As an engineer, would you then build a house using a survey that’s 40 years old? MR. MASCHEWSKI-As an engineer, let me answer that one. MR. BRYANT-I asked Mr. Salvador if he would build a house. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Mr. Salvador, Kevin Maschewski. Are you hear to help me? To answer your question, if I was to demolish that, take it down completely, dig a new hole, I would assure you, I would not be here. I would have a complete new survey, yes. MR. HAYES-You might not be here because you might not have gotten those setbacks, if it wasn’t an existing foundation here. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Right. Exactly. MR. HAYES-You’re jumping to a conclusion that I don’t agree with. MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. The conclusion is, if I was starting anew, digging a new hole, I would absolutely have a new survey out there. MR. HAYES-But you never would have got those setbacks for a new build. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Regardless, I’d be surveying anyway. My point, the question was, if we were building a new house, would you rely on an old survey, the answer is absolutely not, but because I was building on the old foundation, why should I have gone forth and gotten a new survey? I built on that exact footprint. MR. BRYANT-The survey was 40 years old. If there was a bank involved, they may have required a new survey. MR. MASCHEWSKI-There was a bank involved. They did not, and in addition, neither did the Town. So, you know, I mean, nobody required it. MR. BRYANT-The question was for Mr. Salvador. He took the effort to come up here and talk. MR. SALVADOR-If Mr. Steves used the same technique in measuring the setback from the property line that Mr. Coulter used in 1960, would we be here today? MR. BRYANT-That’s based on the assumption. MR. HAYES-We might not be here because we might not have granted that additional relief. MR. SALVADOR-Wait a minute. He used an even more conservative approach. He included, he measured from the overhang. MR. HAYES-(Lost words) not by his standards, by ours. MR. SALVADOR-He couldn’t have done any better. MR. HAYES-It doesn’t matter what he did. MR. MASCHEWSKI-What even complicates this issue is the house to the north is owned by Ernst. It’s a tan color, brand new. They just put it up two years ago, had a survey, as built survey done, completed, probably a year and a half ago. I had asked Craig, just for example, to bring a copy of that survey with him. Did you bring that, Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes, I did. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. Thank you. On my new survey, there was a dimension on the north, to the adjoining house. It is 19.66, and that was, this survey was just completed within months. There was a survey completed at the neighbor a year and a half ago. Craig, what’s that dimension there? MR. BROWN-To which corner of the building? 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. MASCHEWSKI-I believe it’s the only corner. It’s the east one, toward the lake. MR. BROWN-To the foundation, it’s 20.8 feet. MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s 20.8, that means it’s 20 foot 10 inches. Our survey shows 19 foot 8 inches, a discrepancy of a foot, two, to the foundation. MR. MC NALLY-Did Mr. Steves do that? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. Now, not to throw Mr. Steves in, but, hell, I don’t know. It appears that my whole property lines on the new survey is moving, is too close this way, to the north, which, again, this, my survey’s been certified, Matt Steves, I don’t know. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, can I interject something here? MR. HAYES-We’re at the public hearing. We’ll come back to our, all right. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak in favor of the application? Is there anyone here that would like to speak opposed to the application? Is there any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have four notes, let’s see. One is from Mr. and Mrs., I believe it’s D’Ambrosio, at 67 Assembly Point Road. “Please be advised that we are in support of granting a variance to Kevin and Marybeth Maschewski on 73 Assembly Point Road, Lake George, NY Variance #10-2001. Thank you. Mr. and Mrs. M. D’Ambrosio” And we have a letter from Linda and Jim Weinman, residence address is 8 South Hollow Drive in Ballston Lake. “We Linda and James Weinman agree to the Area Variance No. 10-2001 (Type II) for additional relief from the setback requirements for the single family dwelling belonging to Kevin and Marybeth Maschewski located at 73 Assembly Point, Lake George, New York, tax map number 6-1-10. We consider the dwelling to be an asset to the community, done in excellent taste, and we welcome its completion. Sincerely, Linda and Jim Weinman” And we have a letter from Sharon Davies, licensed real estate broker, “I’m writing you in support of what I hope will be a favorable determination in your review of Kevin & Mary Beth Maschewski’s Side Yard Area Variance #10-2001. I have known the Maschewski’s throughout the purchase, design and construction of this beautiful home. I sincerely believe that the placement of the home closer than the permitted side line set back was an honest mistake. An error that was totally unintentional on the Maschewski’s part. We were all shocked when a new survey showed the problem. Kevin was working from an old survey which shows a discrepancy with the new survey, also complicated by the fact that he was using part of the existing foundation which angled to the south instead of being perpendicular to the lot. Rest assured that we all learned an important lesson about significance of a current survey. In the future we will always stress the importance of an updated survey locating the foundation prior to major construction. The end result, however, is a house that is esthetically very attractive. Many of my customers have commented on how appealing the house is as I drive them around looking at property. The Maschewski house is pleasing from both the road and lake views. It is well balanced on the lot and not oversized. It is the size the board approved. I feel the Maschewski house is definitely an enhancement to the neighborhood, and I think the neighbors concur. A negative resolution of this variance would cause the Maschewski’s undeserved hardship. I sincerely hope you will give their variance request a favorable resolution. Sincerely, Sharon W. Davies Licensed Real Estate Broker” And a note from Norma and Edward Baertschi, “We find no problem with Kevin and Mary Beth Maschewski’s request for additional relief from the setback requirements.” MR. HAYES-Is that it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. At this time, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And are there any further questions for the applicant? MR. URRICO-I have a question for Craig. Is there any expiration date or time limit assessed to a survey? I mean, does the applicant have to provide something that’s up to date or is there no date requirement? MR. BROWN-No, I don’t think they go bad. I think techniques improve, you know, with technology, but I don’t think, once you do a survey, there’s anything wrong with that. I think Matt might have a better answer to that than I would, but. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. STEVES-Can I say something again? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. STEVES-Matt Steves, again, for the record. As far as my survey agreeing with Mr. Coulter’s survey, absolutely, as far as the property line is concerned. As far as what type of structure, the scrutiny that properties are under now, as far as setbacks and the location of the building, height of the building, green space, that kind of stuff, wasn’t as, I should say, under as much scrutiny back then, in 1960. So, as far as the property line, I want to make sure that the Board understands that I have completely agreed with Mr. Coulter’s survey of 1960. I have no problem. I didn’t find any, you know, increase or decrease in the size of the lot. It’s how the lot, how the property, or I should say the improvements on the property, were depicted. I cannot guarantee the accuracy of that depiction but I can guarantee the accuracy of the property lines themselves, and I did agree 100% with that. From the iron pipes and rods that I found, in relation to what the record distances are, I’m talking within a quarter and half an inch, from the rods that are found, and, I mean, those get banged and bumped when you mow your lawn, and you snow blow and that kind of stuff, and as far as, again, like I said, the distances to the side line, I can’t sit here and say 110% for sure how he measured his setbacks, but according to locating the old foundation and measuring his, or looking at his setback distances, I can say in probably 95% certainty that he used an extension of the building line, not perpendicular to the property line. MR. BRYANT-And with that being said, then, it negates everything that Mr. Maschewski has said, because at one point you took the perpendicular from the corner of the building to the proposed property. If the property line in your survey is the same as the one in 1960. MR. STEVES-No, no, no. I’m not saying that. I’m saying his measurement is an extension of the building line. Mine is a perpendicular from the property line. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but Mr., that’s not what I’m saying. Didn’t you say that you determined, when you laid out this drawing here, this diagram, you determined the setbacks by taking a dimension, a perpendicular, from the corner of the existing foundation to the proposed property line in this 60’s survey. That being the case, and the property line being the same, it hasn’t changed, you would have made that determination in the beginning. MR. MASCHEWSKI-I had utilized the existing survey, and projected the line similar to the way that original survey did. I’m not a surveyor. I was not aware of that issue which Matt is talking about. There was no intention there. I didn’t intentionally make this appear. If I knew, obviously I would have demonstrated that in my original application. Yes, I mean, I did. I used that old survey, and continued the line across. MR. URRICO-Then I guess my question to Craig, that started this conversation, was that he fulfilled the requirement that was asked of him, that he provide a survey. There’s no time or date stipulation on that survey, it has to be of a recent vintage. MR. BROWN-There’s no requirement, currently. MR. STEVES-As far as the Town of Queensbury, there’s no requirement as far as the date of a survey. That’s correct. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Matt, Mr. Steves, just so I understand things right, I look at your survey, and I see the iron pins found, and blah, blah, blah, blah. You’ve drawn your line between these pins and other markers along that southerly boundary, okay, and you draw the line, north 65 degrees, 42 minutes, 33 seconds west. That’s what you say. Coulter’s map shows the iron pins found and this and that and the other thing. I have no idea if they’re the same. I’m assuming that they’re the same, but then he shows a line north 65 degrees, 38 minutes west. A difference of four minutes. Does that have anything significant to do with the location of this line? MR. STEVES-Absolutely not. That’s a difference, that is just, you take a compass and everybody here buy a compass at the store, and everyone of them could be slightly different. MR. MC NALLY-Right. MR. STEVES-That’s nothing more than a change in magnetic bearing. MR. MC NALLY-Both of you took those pins and drew a line between them? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. MC NALLY-And then where you determine it depends upon where the magnetic north and everything is, whenever it was done? MR. STEVES-Right. I’m sure Mr. Coulter had probably tied into a survey he had done previously, and you don’t like to have your own survey not agree with your other one, even though the property line is the same line, as this Board is aware of. That you can have a different bearing on it. I can call this north, and somebody else can call this west, but it’s still the same line. That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-Did you do the Ernst property, the survey for the Ernst property? MR. STEVES-No, I did not. MR. MC NALLY-Who did the survey for the other property? MR. MASCHEWSKI-That was Sterling Surveyors. I did do a little research and try to locate them because they had all that information from the year previous. No longer in business. Just for the record, the written documents there, Weinman, which I believe was the second or third one written, they are the people in question on the south side, and Beth and I had spent a lot of time with them. I showed them the survey, showed them what happened, the situation, and they are on record for writing that letter of approval. They don’t have a problem with that. Again, they were there the whole time I built it. I was there every day during the construction, and they knew exactly where the house was. What they didn’t know was the dimension. So, you know, I just wanted to make note that the Weinmans were, they are the folks on the south side of where it infringes. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any further questions from the Board members? Roy? MR. URRICO-I know there are members of the Board that are champing at the bit to rule against somebody that’s already gotten a variance and extended beyond what the variance entailed. Having not been here for that one, I’m going to try to weigh this on what’s in front of me right now, and if he came before us today and asked for a variance on a footprint that already exists, I assume that most of us would be in favor of it, and I sort of look at this as an honest mistake, an unfortunate mistake, but it was an honest one. At least that’s the way I’m looking at it, and when I look at the five criteria that we’re inclined to base this on, the benefit to the applicant, he would be permitted to maintain the desired addition, if that was new. He would be permitted to build this new addition as depicted, which would be on using the original footprint of the building. Would there be feasible alternatives? Yes, he could have built a smaller deck, which we might have required, had we known the true dimensions at that time. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? It’s substantial, but it’s also, it’s not anymore substantial than it was prior to it being built. The footprint was there. In actuality, the north side is actually further away than the variance that was granted, and the south side is shorter. So there is some balance there, in a sense. We’ve heard from the community members. They don’t seem to be bothered by it, and is it self-created? Well, yes, in a sense perhaps Mr. Maschewski could have used a more recent survey, but we were all operating under the same survey at the time, and I would be inclined, reluctantly, to go along with approving this variance at this time. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you, Roy. MR. MC NALLY-Now, from my perspective, okay, this is Assembly Point, and it’s lake frontage, and we are always very, very careful about the extent of variances that we grant, and that includes the frontage, or in this case the side setback, where the houses along Assembly Point here are a little bit close to one another. The lots are certainly relatively narrow, and this house takes up a good chunk of the width of that lot. We’ve said before how we don’t like the idea, and people have actually sat in front of us and told us that the contractor says the Zoning Board won’t do anything to you, the Town won’t do anything to you, just do what you please, and I know that you’re not like that, but it’s something that happens over and over again, and to be honest with you, I think in the last year we’ve had an application like this at almost every meeting, where something is built, and then an after the fact approval is sought. I respect the neighbor’s opinions, that they won’t have any problem with it, and I do think the house is beautiful, no question about that, but I always feel uncomfortable about granting variances just because they did a good job in building it. I mean, the idea is to maintain a certain density, to maintain a certain setback, and just because you do a good job, you put a lot of money into doesn’t mean you can just build it irrespective of what we’ve already granted a variance for, but I understand that the test we usually do is, if you came to us today, and you asked us for a variance, at 7.9 feet, would we grant it to you. So we try to set aside all those pre-existing ideas about what’s good or bad. We try to look at it with a fresh face. Now the benefit to the applicant is that you’d be permitted to maintain the desired addition and deck as constructed. The feasible alternatives include downsizing the deck to meet the requirements, and potentially downsizing the house to meet the requirements, but that goes into feasibility. I don’t think we’ve come across a case where I would feel comfortable saying take down the house or the corner of the house yet, in most cases. I have voted to take down porches and decks, and I think that, in this case, that would be an 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) appropriate alternative. It would let you keep your house, but at the same time take down a chunk of it to demonstrate that we want to maintain these side lot restrictions. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? You have a 20 foot setback requirement. We granted relief to 11 feet, which was nine feet of relief, which is substantial. This is a narrow, congested neighborhood, and they’re lovely homes, but it’s congested, and the Town Board wants us to maintain distances between houses. So coming back now and asking for another three feet is significant, I think. So the relief requested is certainly significant or moderate. In all, the effect on the neighborhood is probably small. It’s a nice house, a beautiful house. It’s got a lousy deck on the corner there. It’s not taking up that much space, but the difficulty is certainly self-created. I don’t know what happened. I don’t know the reasons for it happening. I think Mr. Steves has suggested some. Mr. Salvador, perhaps, suggested others, but it’s always been my perspective that the duty is on the applicant to build in accordance with the zoning restrictions and the variances that are made, and in this case, it wasn’t built in accordance with what we let you have beforehand. So if there’s any hardship in removing three feet from a deck, then it’s self-created, and I would have to ask, you know, I think an appropriate remedy would be to change that deck by requiring them to meet the setback requirement that we gave them, and granting relief as to the existing structure. It’s, on one hand, a slap on the wrist, if you will, but it’s definitely a demonstration of our desire to not see this happen again, and to me, (lost words) pleased with it this time, and the house, well, that would be too much of a burden. That’s not feasible. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Can I intervene? MR. MC NALLY-Sure. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Is there any thought, and again, I’m five feet closer, or five feet away from the lake. I mean, I keep bringing that issue up, and it’s an important issue, because it’s a lakefront setback. I mean, if any issue, any setback is important, it’s that lakefront. Is there, you know, I know where you’re going. Is there any way that the Board members would want to re-visit those side yards and lakefront and make me adhere to the 60 feet, adhere to the 6.63, and adhere to the 7.9, pretty much that little corner of this property never being developed again, never being built on, never put a five foot deck extension on. Because, if I’m going to alter this deck, I’m probably going to go five feet with it, because I’ve got a buyer that is just hanging on right now, just hanging on, and that was a conversation, well, if we lose our deck, and I told them, I said, this is a possibility that you’re going to lose a portion of the deck. I’ve been here enough, so the other thought was, because we’ve got the 55 feet variance, we can go five feet closer to the lake, and I said absolutely. So we might be redesigning that whole deck and going out that five feet. I don’t want to. I mean, I really don’t want, it’s all custom, it’s custom railing and everything, but I know where you’re going. So, in lieu of that, I’m asking if maybe we can revisit that 55 to 60, and revisit the two side yards, and leave it at that. MR. HAYES-At this point, I’m going to intervene and suggest that we continue with the polling of the Board members, and if somebody wants to put that into their motion, as a possible remedy, that is a choice for a Board member to make, but I don’t think we right now, at this point during the process, want to get into horse trading and linear variances. I just don’t think it’s appropriate. So, I’d like to move on. Allan? MR. BRYANT-My turn? MR. HAYES-Yes, he finished his thing, because Roy already spoke. MR. BRYANT-Mr. and Mrs. Maschewski, I was out to your house today. It’s a beautiful house. You did a wonderful job. The wind was whipping around about a 150 miles an hour, and I lost the three hairs that I had left, but seriously, you’ve been before us a bunch of times, and we’ve been fair. If memory serves me correct, you got everything you wanted except for the height of the house. Is that fair to say? MR. MASCHEWSKI-On this project? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. HAYES-There was a window reduction, too. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. There was window reduction, there was. MR. BRYANT-But I mean, you got basically everything you wanted. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, I’d say that’s fair. MR. BRYANT-My point is, you know, I really, I do agree with Mr. McNally somewhat. I can see, I don’t want to get into a horse trading situation. I’m not really going to complain about the three feet, 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) but somewhere along the line we have to draw the line, you know. We’ve said a number of issues, and now we have another issue, you know, and I’m kind of on the fence. I don’t know where to go here on this one. The house is beautiful, but I do agree with you, Bob. I think we probably should be trading part of the porch for the balance of the house, you know, that goes over the line. When you say that you may redesign the deck and add five feet, I don’t want to even go there. MR. MASCHEWSKI-I know. I don’t mean to put that forth as kind of a trade off, but I don’t know how I can make that. MR. BRYANT-But you know, you’ve got a deck already on top of the dock, right? There’s a deck on top? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, I’m trying to think, aesthetically, of what I can do to chip off a corner. MR. BRYANT-You’ve got a beautiful deck already on top of the dock. We’re talking about a little corner of a porch. We’re not talking about a lot, and I understand what you’re saying about the design, but it’s not like you’re losing part of the porch. You’ve got a gigantic deck on top of the dock. So you have the deck. MR. MC NALLY-If you look at it and you take three feet off it, it’s still going to be 15 by 29 feet. That’s a substantial deck. MR. MASCHEWSKI-I can’t feasibly put, that’s what I’m saying, the railings, I’ve got windows. What do I put, a railing into the window? MR. BRYANT-You’re the engineer. I understand what you’re saying, but right now, I kind of side with Mr. McNally on the issue. MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Well, I’ve heard everything that’s been said this evening. If this were a criminal case, I would say you’re not guilty. Because I’m approaching this from the point of view of intent. There’s no doubt in my mind that you did not intend to do what happened, because you’d be here this evening. There’s no doubt in my mind that for six weeks you and your wife have gone through a high degree of frustration and stress. The house is beautiful. I understand where some of these folks are coming from. This is an honest mistake, and you’re an engineer. Perhaps, as I told my students, p to the sixth power. Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance. You’ve learned that lesson. I’m not going to brow beat you. However, I do feel that, under the circumstances, based upon intent and standard of fairness, you’ve learned your lesson and I would support the application. MR. HAYES-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to agree. I think that, at this point in time, it’s brow beating. It’s a matter of common sense. I mean, the house is done. To say you’re going to rip off part of the deck and it’s going to make things better, it’s not. It’s just going to, it’s a punitive solution, and I think at this point in time it’s unfortunate that it occurred, but you did build the house the way you agreed to build it, and I don’t think there’s any question of that, you know, and whether the original survey was different than the as built survey, nonetheless, I think that we have to give you the benefit of the doubt. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can agree with a lot of the comments that have been made. I’ll agree it’s about time that this Board stopped approving variances for mistakes that have been made, and if this were a freshly built house on its own new foundation, I’d be inclined to say no, but in this case, as has been pointed out, I think the applicant built the house essentially where he said he was going to build it. The house didn’t move. It’s the property lines that, in the figures, that came up wrong. Likewise, I don’t like chewing off corners of things that an engineer or an architect has designed, just to get a compromise. I think the deck that’s on the lakeside was put there for a reason, and I hate to chew a corner of it off. So I’m going to be inclined to approve, but I think I’m also going to be inclined to take up the applicant on his offer, and I think we should change the lakeshore setback to 60 feet, to insure that either he or the new owner or the owner after him doesn’t add another five feet to the front. MR. MC NALLY-Can we change a setback? MR. HAYES-Well, we could make that a contingency of approval, I guess, essentially. I’m not sure how that works, retroactive. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. BROWN-Yes. I think, once you have the application back in front of you, you can modify or change or do anything you want to a previous decision that you’ve made. This is a new application. It’s not modifying an old one. So you have to deal with what’s in front of you. So you could keep it at 60 if you wanted to. MR. HAYES-I think my, you know, there has been a lot of important points made on this application, and I think the Maschewski’s certainly have a difficult situation there. That being said, I, personally, would probably agree most with Bob. I think, taking aside all the rationale, the use of the deposit for the construction funds, it is an important feature for you. I can understand that from a financial perspective, but I think these things cloud the issues, and really, it comes down to, when we come into an application like this, I have to view this is as, would I approve this deck going further into the setback relief than I would have the first time, and I know, I was in for your presentations before, which were well done, but I know that, I viewed that application as just the most I would have granted in my mind, and that’s an honest statement, and as far as you were getting setback relief on the sides and the front I believe, just a number of different reliefs, and I thought, based on the update of the house, and the fact that I would have, if I was a neighbor, I would have seen the dramatic improvement in the quality of the house as being of benefit to the neighborhood. I thought that that carried the balance of the test, but the house is beautiful now. It’s just a question of would I have gone for this additional variance then, and I really don’t think that I would have gone for a variance that was over 60% at that point. I just think that, like Bob pointed out, it’s a very congested neighborhood. It’s very tight there, and the Weinmans wrote a note here that it doesn’t bother them, but, you know, we all have a limited time on this earth, and it might bother the next applicant, you know, the next owner of that house, and I just think that 60%, in my mind would have moved that relief to the substantial stage, as a matter of this test, to the point where some of the other benefits that were happening, I would have just said, no, I think that’s too far for that, and can you make the deck smaller, and I have to say that I honestly believe you probably would have, to get that relief that you were being granted. So, if I use the historical test of, would I have approved it before the build and come up with no, then I think I have to stay with that now. So, in that case, I would be against the application as it stands now. Having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2001 KEVIN & MARY BETH MASCHEWSKI, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 73 Assembly Point Road. The applicant has constructed a 1,013 square foot addition and seeks setback relief. The applicant requests 12.1 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, 179-16. The requested relief is 3.1 feet additional relief to the nine feet granted in the previous variance. I’d like to also condition that, it’s conditioned on them maintaining a 60 foot setback from the shoreline, and the current setbacks as they are. We’re decreasing the variance that we gave in Area Variance No. 9-2000. Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2001, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone MR. MASCHEWSKI-Thank you, gentlemen. What came out of this is I’m going to make sure any of my clients get an updated survey. MR. ABBATE-P to the sixth power. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2001 TYPE II CLAUDIA & DAVE MONTANA DON & LYNN KING PROPERTY OWNERS: MONTANA AND KING AGENT FOR PROJECT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. LOCATION: 19 AND 23 ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANTS PROPOSE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS AND SEEK RELIEF FROM THE AREA AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING ZONE: WR-3A, CEA OLD TAX MAP NO. 1-1-6 AND 1-1-7 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-6 AND 239-17-1-7 LOT SIZES: 0.81 ACRES AND 0.59 ACRES SECTION 179-16 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2001, Claudia & Dave Montana, Don & Lynn King, Meeting Date: February 21, 2001 “Project Location: 19 and 23 Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes boundary line adjustments, which create non-conforming setbacks and cause a pre-existing non-conforming lot to become smaller. Relief Required: Applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum side setback requirement as well as relief from the minimum lot size requirement of 3 acres, per the WR-3A zone, § 179-16. The applicants propose a total land transaction of 2335 sf. The Montana lot; 25,790 will increase by this amount while the King lot; 35,294 will decrease by the same. The actual land areas within the Town of Queensbury are unknown. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to reconfigure the lots as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller land transaction in order to maintain the required setback. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 20 feet of relief from the 25 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Parcel 1-1-6 BP 90-472 c/o 5/7/91 two car garage BP 90-564 c/c 7/17/92 septic alteration Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. 80% relief from a setback requirement, where no construction has taken place or is proposed is an unusual request. The applicant’s (Montana) desires to improve the aesthetics of the property are acknowledged, however, the landscaping could be performed in the area without any property line adjustments or property transfer. Consideration should be given to the intent of the ordinance; 45 foot separation between buildings on these adjacent parcels (20 ft. and 25 ft property line setbacks) and such a condition might be included, if approval is considered. The proposed property line relocation would create two non-conforming structures and a lot containing 25% (prev. 27%) of the area required by the ordinance. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Project Review and Referral Form February 14, 2001 Project Name: Montana, D & C, and King, D & L Project Owners: Dave & Claudia Montana, Donald & Lynn King ID Number: QBY-AV-13-2001 County Project#: Feb01-19 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicants propose boundary line adjustments and seek relief from the setback requirements for accessory structures. Site Location: Rt. 9L to Antigua Road, #19 & #23. Properties are on Lake George side. Tax Map Number(s): 239.17-1-6 239.17-1- 7 Staff Notes: No new structures are proposed, nor would an additional lot be created. Staff does not identify any impacts to State or County resources. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for February 28, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 2/15/01 MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-Could I ask Mr. McNulty to just read into the record my short cover letter, because it sets out the request? MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. A letter addressed to Mr. Lew Stone, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, signed by Jonathan C. Lapper. “On behalf of the Kings and the Montanas, adjacent land owners on Antigua Road, I hereby submit this request for side yard setback. The Kings and the Montanas have agreed that the boundary between their adjacent properties will be adjusted so that an area of 1,990 square feet and an area of 345 square feet will become part of the Montana parcel. This boundary adjustment will not create any additional parcel. The 1,990 square foot area is located in the Town of Queensbury and the 345 square foot area is located in the Town of Lake George. The reason for the boundary adjustment is to enable the Montanas to own and maintain the area designated “A” on the survey so that they can cleanup, landscape and maintain this portion of the property. The “B” area will enable the existing Montana dock to become conforming as to side yard setback. A variance from the Town of Queensbury is required because the two accessory buildings, an old icehouse and an old storage shed, are each slightly more than 100 square feet (10 x 14 and 10 x 12, respectively). If they were less than 100 square feet a five foot side yard setback would be required, however, since they are more than 100 square feet a full 25’ side yard setback is required in the WR-3A zone. As both adjacent land owners are applicants it is clear that the Kings and the Montanas are both satisfied with the proposed five foot side yard variance to these two outbuildings. Additionally, a variance may be required because, since neither parcel is three acres in size, the Montana lot will become less nonconforming (by 2,335 square feet) while the King lot will become more nonconforming (by 2,335 square feet). I do not believe that this aspect requires an area variance due to the boundary adjustment exception to the definition of subdivision under the Town Zoning Code. No additional lot is being created, the boundary line is merely changing. I enclose an area variance application, survey map and a check in the amount of fifty dollars for the application fee. Please place this matter on the agenda for one of the February Zoning Board meetings. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq.” 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. HAYES-I just want to make it clear that your letter, the Montana lot will be becoming more conforming. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HAYES-Right. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, with both of the applicants, Don King, not the boxing promoter, if you were expecting him, and Dave Montana. I hope that you will see this as a minor application between two neighbors. We look at it differently than the Staff notes, just, and it can be legitimately looked at both ways, because it’s over, these two little buildings are over 100 square feet, albeit slightly, the 25 feet, as I said in the cover letter, the 25 feet is required, but if it was slightly smaller, so it was 100 square feet, it would only be five feet, and that’s why the line was drawn that way, so you can look at it and say, five feet relief, five feet versus 25 feet, or you can say, 100 square foot shed versus the 140 square foot on the larger shed, and that’s how we’re looking at it. It’s significant that these two old buildings are in the back, next to Mr. King’s garage and the building closest to that on the Montana lot is their garage. So none of this affects their houses. Additionally, from the standpoint of the neighborhood, except for the fact that it’s going to be cleaned up, better maintained, mowed, the neighbors aren’t going to notice. I mean, I think that there is absolutely no impact whatsoever on the neighborhood with this five foot variance. Neither garages are, most likely, ever going to be increased, based upon the Queensbury maximum of 900 square feet on a garage. So I don’t think that there’s any issue there, and even if at some point some future property owner wanted to expand the garages, there’s plenty of land on both sides. In terms of the lot size, I submitted the letter. After talking to Craig, he wasn’t, when we talked originally, he wasn’t of the opinion that it would probably need a variance, based upon the boundary adjustment language that if you’re just changing the boundary and not creating a lot, it doesn’t require subdivision approval, but regardless, I don’t think there’s any significance of that, because, even though it’s now in a three acre zone, there are virtually no lots in this area that are, and in fact Mr. King’s lot, which would be decreased by this couple of thousand square feet, he has a substantially larger lot than most of the lots in this part of the lake. So we hope you see this as very simple, because it’s not going to change anything whatsoever, other than a line on a piece of paper, and both of the applicants are here to answer any questions. MR. URRICO-Do we know what the date on the survey was? MR. LAPPER-1960, no. This was done. MR. MC NALLY-Did Mr. Coulter do it? MR. LAPPER-None of the above. This was done just for this application, for the boundary adjustment. MR. BROWN-September 6, 2000. MR. UNDERWOOD-Would you elaborate as to what your landscaping plans are? Does that mean you’re going to cut down everything that’s up there and put grass in, as you’ve said? DAVE MONTANA MR. MONTANA-No, no. There’s some nice pine trees, and there’s one tree, it’s got to be 200 feet high. No, none of that’s going to change, but it’s all low, and it gets full of leaves and crap in there, and whenever I snow blow my driveway, whatever we do, everything winds up in there. So it’s just going to be an area to, you know, clean out around the trees that are there and put some better looking shrubs in there. MR. ABBATE-I just want to, if I may, direct something to Counsel. I notice that you interjected humor. Does that suggest optimism on your part? MR. LAPPER-No, regardless, a little humor is always helpful. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-Let me ask you a question about the existing property lines. Mr. Montana, the existing property line is right to the right of your driveway? MR. MONTANA-Yes. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. BRYANT-Okay, and as you follow the driveway all the way down to the lake, the dock must be right on the property line. MR. MONTANA-It’s 10 feet to the, 10 feet from the north property line. MR. BRYANT-From your property line, that’s your dock, though? MR. MONTANA-Yes, sir. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So now when you move the property over, although that’s in Lake George, now the dock is going to be? MR. MONTANA-Twenty feet. MR. BRYANT-Further in your property. MR. MONTANA-Right. MR. BRYANT-Let me ask you a question. If it’s your concern just to landscape that area, cut the grass and clean the leaves, why don’t you just do that? Why do you have to do this? Are you going to change the driveway somewhere down the road and make that driveway swing in a little bit better, or something, make the driveway wider? MR. MONTANA-No. The driveway’s got a pretty big swing as it is. No, I don’t need to do that. I don’t know, I just would feel funny about going on someone else’s property and doing anything. I mean, that’s just the way I am. MR. BRYANT-I don’t know. I’ve got a little piece of walkway that I never snow blow and my next door neighbor takes care of that. So, I mean, you know, we have this mutual agreement. I won’t snow blow, and he does it. So, I don’t understand all this because you want to pick up the grass. MR. LAPPER-I think part of the answer is just because it’s not just picking up the grass. It’s also cleaning it up, getting rid of the brush, but just that it’s an opportunity, because you don’t have an opportunity to expand your lakefront lot too often, and since Mr. King is offering it for sale, Mr. Montana is interested in purchasing it. It’s just, it will improve the value of Mr. Montana’s land to have this, to have the 10 feet from, the extra 10 feet from the dock. It just improves his lot. MR. MC NALLY-Are there any development plans? MR. LAPPER-Well, the Montanas are talking about a small addition to the house, but it has nothing to do with this, a mud room and a sun room. There’s no, they own a substantial piece of property across the road that’s contiguous to this. So there’s no floor area ratio whatsoever, and this is separate and apart from the small addition. They don’t have any setback relief or anything. It’s just a matter of a site plan, when they get to that. MR. MC NALLY-Is that because, with the change in the boundary, is that going to result in an increase in square footage, so that it’s not a problem? MR. LAPPER-No. It wouldn’t be a problem. MR. MC NALLY-Irrespective, it wouldn’t be a problem, is what you’re saying? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. MC NALLY-How about along the frontage on the lake. Is there any change planned there, as far as boathouses or whatnot? DON KING MR. KING-No, I just rebuilt it last year. We rebuilt on the existing crib. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? Okay. At this time, then, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Let’s take a roll of the Board members. We’re back to starting with Roy. MR. URRICO-Okay. Come back to me. MR. HAYES-I can. I really can. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Chuck already told me I’m next, so I’m ready. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BRYANT-I don’t understand this whole concept, but I don’t see any adverse effects. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I don’t have any problem with this. If you folks agree this is what you want to do, be my guest. If it makes you happy, so be it. MR. HAYES-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I guess my only concern would be the woods up there. It is the “North Woods”, so to speak, in the Back Forty there, and, you know, just the fact that I would assume that you’re not going to go cut down all those beautiful trees up there. I mean, I think you’ve seen enough of it on your road down the other end there where they’ve whacked down everything and, you know, it really does change the character, but as long as you’re just intending to do a little clean up, that’s, I’d be agreeable to it. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t have any problem with it, and I can understand that the owner would be more comfortable working on landscaping if he had his own piece of property, rather than doing it on someone else’s, and in this case I think there’s more than enough space that the minimum setback to the two little sheds is not going to make a big difference to anybody, even subsequent landowners. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m always a naturally suspicious person. I’ve been looking through the book trying to figure out, what the heck are these guys really thinking, but the real issue is whether or not the boundary, being so close to those two little buildings, is going to have a substantial effect upon the neighborhood or community, and whether or not the other factors are of any real importance in this, and for the life of me I can’t figure out why it would be significant. There is, as Chuck said, a significant distance between those two buildings and the next adjacent structure. So the purpose of the Ordinance, in order to keep density down, is pretty well taken care of. I’m going to figure out this thing yet, or maybe, but right now I’m in favor of it. MR. LAPPER-And just for the record there, the Montanas own, how much land across the road? MR. MONTANA-Three and a half acres. MR. LAPPER-Yes, three and a half acres. So it’s not a floor area issue. MR. BROWN-It’s a separate parcel, though, right? MR. MONTANA-Yes. MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s not, I mean, you said floor area ratio, it’s not included in this parcel. It’s a separate parcel. MR. LAPPER-But if they were going to do anything. MR. MONTANA-Yes, but if I was going to take any trees down or clear anything out, I’ve got a whole woods across the street. I’ve kept it just the way it is. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. KING-And he will, as long as I’m his neighbor. MR. HAYES-Roy, we’re back to you. MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of it. The only question I have is the Staff notes which say that we should give consideration to the intent of the Ordinance, this 45 foot separation between buildings. Is that something we should think about? MR. MC NALLY-But the distance, I think, between those two sheds and the next garage is going to be at least 45 feet, and they’re existing. MR. URRICO-I have no problem. It looks like an up to date survey, too. MR. HAYES-I, essentially, agree. I think in this particular case that we have a positive situation where two neighbors actually agree on what they want done on each other’s property, and that makes for certainly a nice situation. The benefit to the applicant, that he could reconfigure these lots, certainly is a positive. The feasible alternatives seem limited, particularly if one of the applicants wishes to increase the property setbacks to improve your dock setbacks, which is actually increasing your compliance with the Ordinance at that point, right? I mean, is 20 feet the requirement? MR. BROWN-That’s in the Town of Lake George. MR. HAYES-That’s in the Town of Lake George? MR. LAPPER-Yes, but that’s the same 20 foot requirement. MR. HAYES-Okay, but certainly that’s a positive in regards to the Ordinance, and as far as is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, I don’t think, in this case that it is, based largely on the fact, which has already been pointed out, that these are two old buildings, which are, they’re smaller buildings and they’re significantly away from any other buildings near parcels, and I think that that reduces the impact of the relief, in this particular case, and I agree with Counsel that I don’t think there’s any effect to on the neighborhood or community by this boundary line adjustment. The land area that’s being taken is not being taken. It’s just being traded between two contiguous property owners. So I don’t see any problem there at all. So, based on that, I think the test falls in favor of the co-applicants in this particular circumstance, and I would be okay with it. Having said that, is there a motion out there anywhere? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2001 CLAUDIA & DAVE MONTANA DON & LYNN KING, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 19 and 23 Antigua Road. The applicant proposes two boundary line adjustments to create non- conforming setbacks to cause a pre-existing, non-conforming lot to become slightly smaller. Specifically, the applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum setback requirement, as well as relief from the minimum lot size requirement of three acres, per the WR-3A zone, Section 179-16 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. The applicant’s propose a total land transaction of 2,335 square feet. The Montana lot, the 25,790, will increase by this amount, while the King lot, 35,294 square feet, will decrease by the same amount. The actual land areas within the Town of Queensbury are unknown. I move the approval of this application for the following reasons. First, the applicants would be permitted to reconfigure their respective lots as they desire and as good neighbors they hope their boundary line to be. The feasible alternatives might include a smaller land transaction. This does seem a minimum amount, and I don’t think that that would be reasonable, given the desire that these two applicants have to do landscaping and what not. The relief, in my opinion, is not substantial relative to the Ordinance, since these are pre-existing buildings, they’re relatively small in size, and the distance between these two small buildings and the next adjacent one are large enough that they effectively have the setback requirement already. The effects on the neighborhood or community are going to be nonexistent, because the land is basically maintained as it has been. The buildings are already there, and the difficulty is self-created, but I don’t see that as a factor in this case. For all these reasons, I move the approval. Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2001, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/21/01) MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-I don’t think we have any minutes to do tonight, do we? There’s none in my packet. MR. BROWN-The minutes of last month’s meetings. MR. HAYES-Of January 17? th MR. MC NALLY-I got them. I don’t know if anyone else. MR. HAYES-Okay. CORRECTION OF MINUTES January 17, 2001: NONE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PROVIDED FOR THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING, JANUARY 17, 2001, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2001, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-I move that we adjourn the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman (Vice Chairman) 50