Loading...
2001-01-17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 17, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN PAUL HAYES CHARLES MC NULTY ROBERT MC NALLY CHARLES ABBATE NORMAN HIMES JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-We have to elect our officers for this coming year. We need to elect a Chairman, a Vice Chairman, and a Secretary. May I hear nominations for Chairman? MOTION TO NOMINATE LEWIS STONE FOR CHAIRMAN, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Thank you, gentlemen. Now for Vice Chairman. Our current Vice Chairman is Jaime Hayes. I would like to nominate Mr. Hayes as the Vice Chairman. MOTION TO NOMINATE PAUL HAYES FOR VICE CHAIRMAN, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-I should have stated for the record that the appointment of the Chairman, even though it was voted on by the Board, is subject to approval by the Town Board, just so that we all know that, not because it hasn’t come up before somewhere, but we won’t get into that. We need a Secretary, and Mr. McNulty is the current Secretary, and I would like to nominate him, if he’s so inclined, to accept that position. MOTION TO NOMINATE CHARLES MC NULTY FOR SECRETARY, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. STONE-Okay. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 100-2000 TYPE II WILLIAM HERLIHY AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER: WILLIAM HERLIHY LOCATION: 9 REARDON ROAD EXTENSION APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A PORCH AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. OLD TAX MAP NO. 44-2-18 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.07-1-34 LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 ZONE: WR-1A MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; BILL HERLIHY, PRESENT MR. STONE-Now, we never did read anything from last month. What did we do? No. We just tabled it. So read the tabling motion, and then go through the full procedure, if you would. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. “Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Resolution Re: William Herlihy Area Variance No. 100-2000 Meeting Date: December 20, 2000 Motion to Table Area Variance No. 100-2000 William Herlihy, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 9 Reardon Road Extension. Until next month’s meeting, because of the absence of the applicant. Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 100-2000, William Herlihy, Meeting Date: January 17, 2001 “Project Location: 9 Reardon Road Extension Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a single family dwelling and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4.1 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, §179-16 for a portion of an entry porch to the home. 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 home as constructed. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include removal of a portion of the porch. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 4.1 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Building Permit 2000-471 issued 7/6/2000 2700 sf single family dwelling Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Apparently the applicant believed the front (Reardon Road) setback to be 20 feet. This inaccuracy coupled with a change in the building plans during construction, in order to create the entry porch in question, may give some explanation for the variance request. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Anything from the County? MR. MC NULTY-I didn’t see anything from the County. MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen. MR. STEVES-Good evening. I’m Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves, and I represent Mr. Herlihy, who is here with me on this application. The Staff Notes pretty much depict what is going on. He bought this property to build a new home, removed the existing home that was on there, had a site plan developed by an engineer, Frank Hardick, who showed the setback for the septic and the laterals and stuff before the building permit portion of the project, and using that to obtain a building permit, showed a 20 foot setback from Reardon Road and went on that pretense, built the house but had set it actually back 30 feet from the road, when he did build the house, as you can see parallel to the north and south lines, and it’s a little bit askew from the Reardon Road, but parallel to the side lines to keep it centered on the lot, and then the addition, or when the porch was actually put on, it just wasn’t part of the foundation plan. The stoop, which is a covered stoop, encroaches on that approximately four feet. MR. STONE-Do you wish to say anything about why we were left at the alter last month? MR. STEVES-Certainly. I wasn’t notified that the client had come in and paid the appropriate $50 fee, and as I have a letter in my file that the fee is not paid, we will not be placed on the agenda, and I never received a notice, a phone call or a fax from the Town of Queensbury to let me know that the fee was paid and they were, in fact, on the agenda. So, therefore, I did not attend the meeting last month. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. STONE-Okay. We, as you know, were here waiting. Okay. Anything else you want to add? MR. STEVES-No. MR. STONE-Any questions? MR. MC NALLY-Just so I understand it, you’re saying Frank Hardick did the sewer plan? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-He showed a 20 foot setback? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-And that’s what the house was built in accordance with? MR. STEVES-That’s what the building permit was obtained with, using the site plan. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and then the house was built 30 foot back and the porch added on the front? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-About four foot? MR. STEVES-Approximately 30 feet back, correct. MR. STONE-Let me ask Staff. The building permit did, in fact, show 20 feet? MR. BROWN-I’m checking right now. There is a 20 foot setback line on the plot plan, but there’s a dimension labeled from the front property line to the front of the house of 30 feet, and that’s what we relied upon, is that written dimension of 30 feet to the house. MR. STEVES-But the setback line, it says 20 feet on the plan, and it shows the house, the back corner of the house, or one corner of the house at 30, and that’s where it was placed, right at 30, and then the addition of the porch on the front, which is outside the foundation plan, because it’s not part of the living surface. It’s a stoop with a post. MR. STONE-Yes, but part of the house, is, in fact, within that 30 feet, forgetting the stoop, if you took the stoop off. MR. STEVES-29.14 feet, I believe it is. MR. STONE-That’s what it says, 29.14, okay. MR. MC NALLY-I was going to say, regardless of what the map shows as a 20 foot setback, the setback is 30 feet. MR. STEVES-Right. We’re not denying. MR. MC NALLY-So they’re not bound by the map or anything. The question is, is the relief appropriate given these circumstances. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, indulge me, will you please. Who set what back, during construction. You said “they”, or “he” set it back when the building was constructed. Who is “they”? Who did this? Who made this move? Who constructed this structure where it’s at at the present time? MR. HERILHY-I did, Bill Herlihy. MR. ABBATE-You did. You’re Mr. Herlihy, okay. Are you a contractor, Mr. Herlihy? MR. HERLIHY-Yes. MR. ABBATE-You are. You received a permit, I take it, on 7/6/00 for the 2700 square foot single family dwelling, right? MR. STEVES-Correct. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. ABBATE-And then that permit, obviously received the permit, you submitted stipulations to the Town, how you wanted this house constructed, and where you wanted it constructed, right? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. What seemed to be the problem? I’m not sure I understand the problem. MR. HERLIHY-Well, the problem was, it was an understanding on my part that it was a 20 foot setback. So, because of that understanding on my part that there was a 20 foot setback, putting the foundation for that porch a couple of feet in front of the foundation, wasn’t any question on my part, and when I turned in my old as built survey, I was notified that I was in violation at that time. MR. STONE-Okay, but you’re also in violation of the strict 30 feet with the house itself. I mean, I admit, it’s a very little bit. MR. HERLIHY-Again, the reason was, was the 20 foot setback. That was the reason that this whole thing is about. There was no reason, other than that. There was one other reason. There was a reason also. It was my concern of being too close to the lake, in relationship to the elevation of the water for the septic, to maintain water runoff, the whole thing. I was trying to do everything, and I met with Craig Brown on three occasions prior to building this house, to make sure that I had no reason to get a variance, and in fact I ended up with one, after all my efforts not to. So it’s not just an oversight that I just didn’t care. MR. STONE-It’s called Murphy’s Law. MR. STEVES-And there are a couple of factors, as you can see, as far as the placement of the septic system, to get the distance from the lake, and also to get the finished floor above what would be required for flood elevation, for flood insurance purposes. MR. STONE-And yet if you, I mean, there’s no dimension between the laterals and the house itself, but that’s certainly more than 10 feet. MR. STEVES-They have to be 20 feet. MR. STONE-All right, more than 20, I’m sorry. MR. STEVES-Yes, they’re just about 22 feet, correct. MR. STONE-Twenty-two, okay. So there’s two feet that could have been closer, to keep the laterals where they are, which we certainly applaud, in terms of keeping it away from the lake. MR. STEVES-So we’re not denying the setback. We’re just trying to give you the history of how it got there. MR. STONE-Well, I understand. As you know, Mr. Steves, you have heard us rant and rave and rail at houses, buildings that are built, that should have had a variance, that were built anyway. I can’t say, it’s not deliberate in this particular case. I think it’s a, there’s an honest confusion, but it’s still, it’s getting us to a point of, and I speak only for myself, but I think there are members of the Board who agree with me, very frustrated state, because we have two options, when somebody comes before us with an as built problem. We can say, yes, or we can say no. We don’t have any other latitude. We either deny the variance or we accept the variance, and accepting it or accepting them has become a bone of contention for a lot of us, because we’ve had a number of them. I don’t want to say any are deliberate, but there’s still too many of them. We have, and I can make a lecture. We have an excellent Building Department. They do their job very well. They’re very knowledgeable, and anybody in Town, and now I’m speaking to the rest of the people in the room, just so that they all know, that if they’re going to build in the Town of Queensbury, go and see them. Don’t trust anybody. Don’t trust your surveyor. Don’t trust your lawyer. We’ve only got one lawyer in the room, but you really have to go check. You really do. Having said that, let me ask, are there any more questions, any comments? MR. HIMES-I’d just like to get the sequence of things again. It was mentioned in the Staff Notes that there was an alteration in the plans. Was the porch added on after the original? MR. HERLIHY-It was the foundation, putting an actual concrete foundation. Basically, there was going to be a porch there in the plans, but it didn’t show any farther on the plans than the 30 foot, not the 30 feet. There wasn’t anything questioned about 30 feet, but in the plan, it didn’t show a foundation, and there was no showing that it would be two foot further out. It was on the drawing, but actually on the plan, it didn’t show that, and I wanted to put a foundation underneath it. It was good building practice to do so. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. HIMES-So the foundation, then, would be, would that have been acceptable? There’s a jog in the house. So we’re not talking about just the porch, actually part of the house, the jog in the front, which, according to the drawing here, is also at a variance. The foundation, which, I guess, is what the Building Department (lost words) looked okay (lost words) the 30 feet? MR. BROWN-I’m not sure if I know what your question is. If there was no roof on it, would just the concrete slab be okay? MR. HIMES-The permit was issued. MR. BROWN-The permit was issued. MR. HIMES-They felt, evidently, that it met the 30 foot? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. HIMES-When it was built, it didn’t. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. HIMES-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-The original foundation plan showed the 30 foot from. MR. ABBATE-And when it was constructed, it was shy of. MR. BROWN-And the little bump out where the entry porch is wasn’t on the original plans. MR. STONE-Okay, but the basic house was at 30 feet or greater? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-I have another question here. This 4.1 feet of relief, when was that discovered, that he required 4.1 feet of relief? When was that discovered, Craig? MR. HERLIHY-I turned in the as built. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So you turned in the as built with the current dimensions. At that time, I’m assuming that, Craig, your department reviewed those plans and then decided that there was a 4.1 foot discrepancy? Is that correct? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And then you brought this to the attention of Mr. Herlihy. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And that’s why these folks are here this evening. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I just want to get the proper sequence. MR. STONE-Let me ask a question, Craig, and I made this little comment earlier. The only alternatives we have, I mean, we’re not new to this, but I just want to confirm it again. We can approve or deny. MR. HERILHY-I’d like to make a statement on the fact that to eliminate a problem like this in the future, if all plans showed a setback, and the setback was approved by the Zoning Department prior to construction, then you wouldn’t have any other reason to believe that you were out of Code. That would probably eliminate this problem. That would be my way of. MR. STONE-But the plans that they had showed you at 30 feet. MR. HERILHY-It showed the setback at 20, also, but if it was corrected at the time of turning the plans in, I would have never been over the 20. I’m just pointing that out. MR. STONE-But that wasn’t the official survey, was it? That was for the septic system. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. STEVES-No, that was the plot plan that showed the proposed house. It was the engineer’s plan that was based upon my survey. MR. HERLIHY-There was a prior survey of the old structure. MR. STONE-Okay, and your survey showed a setback at 20 feet? MR. MC NALLY-Frank Hardick’s did that. MR. HERLIHY-Well, there was a prior survey also showing the 20 foot. MR. STEVES-I’ll drop off the map and you can see what we’re talking about. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-The fact that you filed a building map with the Building Department, that has a 20 foot setback, I understand that. MR. HERILHY-It was shown on the plans. MR. MC NALLY-When they accept the plan, though, they’re not approving everything that’s on that plan. MR. STONE-He’s not a licensed surveyor. MR. STEVES-No, but the meets and bounds and the side lines and the property line was based upon a survey that I performed. MR. STONE-I understand that, the property lines themselves. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STONE-The setback is something he chose, but to put in on his own. MR. STEVES-That’s a proposed. That’s not an existing home. That’s the proposed. That was for the building permit. MR. MC NALLY-Right, and it shows the foundation, though, at 30 foot. MR. STEVES-Proposed. MR. MC NALLY-So that’s what the Town looked at, when they got the application and said, irrespective of the 20 foot setback line, it shows in a proper compliance location. MR. HERLIHY-Well, the building department, at the time, looks at plans also, and if they see something wrong with the plans, they point that out, correct? MR. MC NALLY-Well, the plan for the building was correct. MR. HERLIHY-No, I’m just saying, if you’re saying, how could you prevent this in the future. If you have setbacks, and you correct the setbacks so that they’re actually on the plans, then everybody would be aware of exactly where those setbacks are. They’re on the plans, and then there’s no excuse for. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Herlihy, you’re not suggesting that the burden of proof, in the final analysis, belongs on the Zoning Board rather than on the contractor? MR. HERLIHY-No, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that if it shows the setback, if it was required prior to building to make sure that everybody understood exactly where those setbacks were, you wouldn’t have this. MR. ABBATE-Okay, but would you agree that when plans are submitted, they should be accurate? MR. HERLIHY-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-Your point’s well made. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. STEVES-I don’t want to get too far off on a tangent here. We understand what the thing is. We’re not trying to argue with the Board. What we’re trying to tell you is that if I have a building envelope that says I must maintain 50 feet off the road, and I come in and say I’m going to put it at 60, I know I don’t need a variance if I go an extra five feet when I’m building it, because I run into a large boulder, I run into a sink hole, I run into a problem where I say, gee, I’ve got to push the building four, five feet farther forward. I look at my plan. I’ve proposed it at 30, but I see I have to maintain only 20 feet. So moving it a couple of feet ahead, I’m still not going to be in violation of the setback, that I showed the Planning Department, that I showed the Building Department, that I was issued the building permit on. Okay. Now, you’re saying that we should have known and should have kept it at 30. They also, you know, I can say that it’s a 400 foot setback and propose it 1,000 feet. That’s still, I have an envelope that I should be able to be allowed to move that building in, or move that foundation in, and what we’re saying is that the builder thought that I had enough room to do this because on my building plan, that they approved, I showed a 20 foot setback, and they didn’t say anything was wrong with the 20 foot setback. MR. STONE-You said that? You didn’t say the 20 feet. MR. STEVES-No, no, no. MR. STONE-Theoretically. MR. STEVES-So, I mean, to get back to that, we understand, and we’re not denying this 30 feet. That’s why we’re here. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-And I don’t want to, you know, what Mr. Herlihy is saying is that when you bring it in, as the average layperson, you would hopefully maybe down the road we can start checking the setbacks in the zone and making sure the setback line that is shown on the plan is consistent with the zone at the time before building permit is issued. That’s all he’s trying to say. MR. ABBATE-That’s a valid comment. MR. STONE-One of the things that we have indicated on modifications is that we want an as built. That’s something, because of this kind of thing that has come up. We know with houses, with a new construction, you have to provide an as built. We’re asking it for, it doesn’t apply in this case, but I mean, we’re aware of this, but let me ask you a further question, just since you’re siting both of these things, and I notice the, well, let me ask you a question. On your survey, are the laterals correctly marked? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STONE-They’re different than they are on the septic survey. These are at a different angle. They’re all within the 100 foot setback. MR. STEVES-As far as the laterals are concerned, I can show the distribution box and I can show the tank. I don’t dig up the laterals to find out the exact location of them. MR. STONE-Okay. So you just, you sketch them in? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. So we assume, we can assume that they were put in according to this, to Mr. Hardick’s? MR. STEVES-Absolutely, or I don’t think Dave Hatin and his office would have allowed it to continue. I’m sure that he had to abide by the plan of the septic system that was proposed by the engineer. For the plan that’s in front of you, Craig Brown’s office asked me to put all exterior dimensions on the building and show the approximate location of the septic system. So that’s why I did that. MR. STONE-Okay, but you’re saying you sign off on a survey that has information about which you cannot swear to be correct. Is that true, the position of the laterals? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. I don’t understand that, but if that’s practice, it’s practice. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. STEVES-I’m asked to, on occasions all the time, especially for banks, to show the approximate location of the septic system. I can show, if somebody calls me up when they’re installing the system, I can locate it and give you exactly. Otherwise, I have to rely on as built conditions or proposed conditions that are given to me by the contractor. I don’t typically make it a habit of having my guys dig up septic systems to locate them. MR. STONE-No, I understand that, and yet, this is a legal document, this survey, is it not? MR. STEVES-I don’t know why we’re going here. My point being is that I was asked, if you look at my description on my revision block, I was asked by Staff to provide house dimensions and septic, and that’s to the best of my knowledge what is there. I know where the D Box is and I know where the septic tank is, and I approximate the, according to the contractor, where the laterals are. I’m not going to certify that that’s where the laterals are, no. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-And as you can see, I don’t have a certification on this plan that states I hereby certify that everything on this map is true and correct. MR. STONE-Okay, you don’t. All right. MR. STEVES-I can guarantee and certify to you right now that the location of that building is absolutely correct, along with the property lines and the shoreline. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-As far as the septic system, that’s an as built by the contractor. MR. MC NALLY-I think the issue is that 4.1 feet, still, though. We’ve got to get back to that issue of the 4.1 feet. MR. STONE-I know that, yes. Well, any other questions? We’ll open the public hearing. If anybody has any further thing to say, we’ll get another chance at it. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Let me clear this up in my mind here. What you’re basically saying, that the only thing you can certify is when the building is constructed, as built? Anything prior to that, you cannot certify. Is that what you’re saying? MR. STEVES-I don’t understand the question. How can I certify where a proposed house is going to be? MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s what I’m asking you. In other words, you can certify, you just stated, if I’m not mistaken, that you can certify right now where the boundaries are, because the construction is completed. MR. STEVES-Well, I can certify where the boundary of the property is before any construction. MR. ABBATE-And you can’t do that prior to construction? MR. STEVES-I just said I can do that prior to construction. MR. ABBATE-You can do that. MR. STEVES-The property lines were marked. Everything is there, but how, until the house is constructed, I can’t tell you where it is. MR. ABBATE-Let me re-phrase that. There may have been an error in my approach. Property lines, let me try it this way. You can certify, obviously, property lines as built, correct? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. ABBATE-But you can’t certify prior to? MR. STEVES-Yes, I can. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good. Thank you. MR. STEVES-Which I did. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. STONE-Property lines he certainly can certify. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. STONE-Any other questions? If not, let’s open the public hearing. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-So, any further questions? Let’s talk about it, then. Let’s start with Mr. Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am concerned with this request for an Area Variance No. 100-2000. I am uncomfortable with the fact, as the Chairman mentioned earlier, that we have received several applications requesting a variance after a building has been constructed, which would be in violation of the variances, and I’m uncomfortable with this application. We have a contractor who I’m assuming is fully qualified, and you, sir, I’m sure are fully qualified in your profession, and yet we still see a 4.1 request for relief. I am of the opinion, sir, that I would have a very difficult time approving this application. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Whenever we get a request for an after the fact variance, I, and at least some other Board members think, what the hell would we have done had you come to us beforehand and asked for that same relief before you built it, and we kind of analyze it from that perspective, and if you look at the five factors underlying all variance applications, on balance, I would have to say that I’m in favor of the application. The benefit to the applicant would certainly be that they’d be permitted to maintain the home as it’s constructed. Mr. Herlihy’s home certainly is fine looking. It’s not by any means detracting from the neighborhood. The only feasible alternative would be to require removal of the porch, and from my perspective, this is a small porch. It’s really an overhang over a front entrance, and I don’t see that as feasible, however much it may be an alternative. The relief isn’t substantial relative to the Ordinance. We’re asking to give 4.1 feet of relief from a 30 foot setback. In this area of Glen Lake, it’s not obtrusive in the neighborhood whatsoever. In my personal opinion, there’ll be no effect on the neighborhood or community. The effect it would have is nonexistent, and while the difficulty is self-created, we’ve had people come before this Board and say, what the heck, we just decided to go ahead with it because we figured you wouldn’t do anything to us. In this case, I think Mr. Herlihy and Mr. Steves’ explanations are reasonable, and I have no hint that they’ve done anything but make, well, that Mr. Herlihy, perhaps, may have made an honest mistake. I think it would be silly to take it down. So, with all due respect, I’d have to be in favor of the variance. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me just make one correction to your statement. It’s not just a porch, just so that you are aware. It is the main house, to a very slight degree, yes, it is the main house. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. My comments could be amended to include the approximately one foot bump out. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-That’s what we’re talking about. Again, either of these additions are not significant. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Hayes? MR. HAYES-I think Bob is entirely correct. I think if we examine this strictly on the test of an Area Variance, I think, I really don’t see any problem with it at all. I mean, there is a very, very little, if any, effect on the neighborhood. Certainly the home, if I was a neighbor, would see it as a welcome addition. It’s a positive improvement in that neighborhood. So, I think it passes the Area Variance test handsomely. Also, I think, you know, in the past, as Bob’s pointed out, we’ve had applicants come in under much more suspicious, or certainly less innocent circumstances, in my opinion, and I think things kind of gotten into a runaway train here a little bit. Mr. Herlihy’s a builder with an excellent reputation in Queensbury, and I’ve been on the Board almost four years, and he’s never come before us asking for an honest mistake, and I think in this circumstance, we should take to task 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) the people that deserve it. This appears to be an honest mistake, to me, a minimal mistake to me, and there certainly is at least some mitigating circumstances in this case. So, I don’t have any problem with the application. I think we should save the harsher remedies for somebody that has violated the Code for their own benefit. I don’t see any motivation for Mr. Herlihy having moved this thing four foot forward, the grab space or additional square footage in this house. I mean, they easily could have moved it back four feet if they needed to. I really do believe that. So, I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree with the last two Board members. I can see that it was an honest mistake. I think the applicant’s made a good point. It’s really an attention to detail, and it’s awfully hard when you’re going through all these plans, I think early on, to catch all these little details, but if Staff could have caught that and pointed out that there was a 30 foot setback rather than the 20, it would have avoided the problem, and certainly, when you’re building a house, things happen that you’ve got to make some modifications, and if you assume that you’ve got room, you just go ahead and do it. I’ll agree, also, that I think judging the benefit versus detriment to the neighborhood, I don’t think it’s going to affect the neighborhood much. I think it would affect them more if we required the porch to be torn off, because I think it would change the appearance of the house. So, I think the way it is, it’s an attractive house. I don’t see it as a real intrusion, and I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Mr. Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be in favor of the application, also. I think that they have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was an honest mistake, and they had no intent to build this where it shouldn’t have been built before. I live on the lake and, you know, it’s nice to see a home built far enough back from the water, and I don’t think it’s any intrusion on Reardon Road or that neighborhood either, so I’d be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Himes? MR. HIMES-Thank you, Lew. Yes, I look at my feeling with some ambivalence, here. I certainly feel, as the others do, there was no dishonesty here or any hanky panky in connection with what took place. However, we are faced with something that’s a fact. An error was made, and some assumptions perhaps made that shouldn’t have been made. So I’m not in favor of the application. However, considering the fact that once the porch was taken off, there’s still the house to deal with, I would go along with the porch coming off and reconsider allowing a variance for that part of the house which is a variance. So, to conclude, I vote no on the application, or will vote no, if the vote comes up. MR. STONE-Okay. One of our members, Mr. McNally, mentioned the test that we quite often use, if the applicant had come with clean hands seeking this variance, would we have granted it, and my answer would have been there would have been no reason to grant this variance. It is a very small thing, and the house certainly could be moved back. So, on that basis, I can say, I would say no, because I wouldn’t have granted it in the first place, but, when you do, as many of the people on the Board have done, look at the balancing test, it’s not a hard variance to grant. I mean, it is a slight amount of change. It is an attractive home. Certainly the benefit to the applicant is very strong in this particular case. He’s got a very nice house, and it’s kind of hard to live in a house in the winter when you take the front off, at least up here it is. Certainly, the neighborhood, as evidenced by the fact that nobody showed up to yes or no, but certainly not to say no about this thing, certainly indicates that probably nobody’s even aware, outside of the fact that they were notified, that there’s any problem with this house at all, and, therefore, on balance, I would reluctantly say yes, although I have to admit, when I came in this evening, and I don’t usually prejudge things, I was inclined to say no, just because I really don’t like the idea, and I would not have granted it if you had come in looking for this variance, but, the fact that it’s built, the fact that I would defy anybody to even notice that there would even be a change, if you had to move it back, it wouldn’t have made a difference. So I will reluctantly vote yes. On that basis, I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 100-2000 WILLIAM HERLIHY, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 9 Reardon Road Extension. The applicant has constructed a single family dwelling and now seeks setback relief. Specifically, the applicant requests 4.1 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, that’s Section 179-16 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the construction, after the fact, of a portion of an entry porch to his home. I move the approval of this variance for the following reasons. First, the applicant is permitted to maintain the house as constructed. Second, there are no feasible alternatives. While it may be impossible, or it may be that we could require the removal of the porch, the fact of the matter is, 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) given the minimal nature of that construction, it’s small size, it’s really not a feasible alternative. The relief is not substantial relative to the Ordinance. In seeking 4.1 feet of relief from the 30 foot, there would be no effect on the neighborhood or community. Indeed, in my opinion, those effects would be non-existent. Lastly, while the difficulty is self-created, there’s nothing to hint at it was an attempt to circumvent the Zoning Ordinance. It was the result of an honest mistake, and therefore I move the approval of this application. Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. MC NALLY-Do we also grant him relief from the bump out required, or necessary in this instance? MR. STONE-Yes. No, we don’t have to do that, do we? MR. HAYES-Just the closest point. MR. STONE-The closest point is all we have to do. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-Let me, Mr. McNally, just ask you a question. Would you be willing to put in there the fact that we are getting increasing upset with things that come in pre-built, if you will? If you’re not comfortable. MR. MC NALLY-You mean after the fact? MR. STONE-Yes, after the fact. MR. MC NALLY-Not on this application, I don’t think. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-If you wanted to make a letter to the Town Board that they could do something about that, I’d be happy to talk to you about that later. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, one comment, if I may, please. Is this Board suggesting that we have two standards, and the standards are based upon what we determine to be the motivation of the individual, and that’s how we vote? MR. STONE-I can only speak for myself. I can’t speak for the Board. MR. ABBATE-That’s my question. MR. STONE-It’s a valid question. MR. ABBATE-It doesn’t have to be answered. MR. STONE-No, I understand, and it won’t be. MR. ABBATE-I think we’re on dangerous grounds, but, nonetheless. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got your porch. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 101-2000 TYPE II ROBERT WALL AGENT: KEVIN MASCHEWSKI AND JON LAPPER OWNER: ROBERT WALL LOCATION: 15 ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,178 SQ. FT. FIRST FLOOR ADDITION; 1,326 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AS WELL AS 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) A 624 SQ. FT. GARAGE. APPLICANT SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF, FLOOR AREA RATIO RELIEF AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SPR 77-2000 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 12/13/2000 OLD TAX MAP NO. 1-1-5 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 ZONE: WR-3A JON LAPPER & KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-This is a continuing application, and we tabled it last month. So would you just read the tabling motion, please. MR. BROWN-There’s updated Staff Notes, too. MR. STONE-And Staff Notes, that’s right, you’ve changed the Staff Notes. MR. BROWN-Well, they changed the building. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. “Motion to Table Area Variance No. 101-2000 Robert Wall, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 15 Antigua Road. So that the applicant can make a significant reduction in the floor area ratio of that portion of the property in Queensbury, and that he will have 62 days in which to return, either the January meeting or the February meeting, whichever is suitable. Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2000, by the th following vote: AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 101-2000, Robert Wall, Meeting Date: January 17, 2001 “Project Location: 15 Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,178 sf first floor addition, 1,326 sf second floor addition as well as a 624 sf freestanding garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 9.66 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement and relief for a 25% total site Floor Area Ratio, where 22% is allowable per the WR-1A zone, §179-16. A FAR of 31% is proposed for the lands within Queensbury. Also, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure, per §179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to expand the home as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: A smaller addition may be a feasible alternative. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 9.66 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate, while the FAR relief may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 79-2000 withdrawn 10/18/00 single family dwelling addition. Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The previous variance application requested a 32.4% FAR in Queensbury. This proposal requests a 31% FAR in Queensbury. The total floor area has decreased from 4,809 sf in the last revised proposal to 4,520 sf in the current proposal. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-And I think that’s all there is. MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Kevin Maschewski, and the applicant, Bob Wall. When we were here last month, we had a very lengthy and detailed discussion, and the Board instructed us to go back to the drawing board, and even though Mr. Wall was hoping that he could build the house as proposed, and again, that was a reduction from his initial application which was withdrawn. We understood what the Board said, and Kevin came up with a design that Bob was satisfied with, that essentially cut in half the Floor Area Ratio, based upon our analysis that the Board had accepted, that we were looking at it for the whole parcel, both Queensbury and Town of Lake George, and we were not counting the area under the overhang, for the sake of our analysis, although your notes, we’re looking at it both ways, but we were at 25%, and we came down to 23.5%, looking at it with those standards that I just mentioned. Just to remind everybody, in terms of the side variance, that is just a continuation of the existing line of the existing home, so that it makes sense, and the whole redesign is just a way, which got into the issue with the overhang, the eaves, was a way to reduce the living space, which was done last time, very significantly, but because of the way the Town Code requires that it be counted, the area under the eaves, added to the size, even though the whole intention was to reduce the size of the house, and the size of the house, the bulk of the house, 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) the living space was reduced, and we think that if you asked us to take off the eaves, architecturally it would be much less pleasing for the neighborhood, even though it would technically comply. So, that’s where we are. The garage was substantially reduced, and the building was reduced. I’d like to ask Kevin to just quickly walk you through the reduction this time. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Basically, going back to the drawing board entailed, there were two things that we looked at that could reduce the floor area ratio. One was the garage up by the road. Originally, and all the way back from the original application for a variance, it had always been a 28 by 28 foot garage. Knowing that a substantial amount of square footage is being eaten up with that garage, Robert Wall, Mr. Wall had decided to reduce it to lets say a standard two car garage size of 24 by 26, and, yes, that garage falls entirely in Queensbury. Upon that, the second, really the only second change that could be feasibly done was the second floor addition. The first floor was there. The first floor bump out addition toward the lake has been approved. There’s been a variance granted in Lake George. So pretty much the first floor existing and the first floor proposed, in Lake George, has been approved. So the only thing to whittle away, pardon the term “whittle”, but was really just still the second floor. The previous meeting we sat in front of you folks, we had reduced the sides of the house, upstairs, by approximately three and a half feet. We had taken, for this application, lakefront on the second floor. We reduced the walls back approximately four feet away from the lake. So that reduced the second floor, in addition to the previous application, or the previous meeting, and that’s pretty much it. I mean, you can’t, we’re at the point where we can’t whittle much more off it, other than going right back to the drawing board and start over, and as I previously mentioned, the first floor existing and the proposed first floor, obviously, the first floor is existing. The new addition on the first floor is approved in the Town of Lake George. So the only thing, at this point, to appease the Queensbury would be the reduction in the garage and the reduction of that second floor proposed, and pretty much, that’s pretty much it in a nutshell. MR. STONE-Would you gentlemen comment on Staff Notes, in terms of, I mean, you’re giving us 25 down to 23, but, keep in mind, we have no control over the front half of the house. We’re the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Not the Lake George/Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. We have very stringent rules when it comes to lake property, and Staff is telling us that the change that you’ve made, which is the result of conversations we had last month, took it down from a floor area ratio of 32.4 to about 31. Do you buy those numbers? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Absolutely not. MR. LAPPER-I want to talk about a concept, before we get to a certain number. We think that the number is 30 rather than 31, but we can get that settled with Craig. We can discuss that, but in terms of the concept, certainly you’re asking a valid question. This is a very unique piece of property, not that this is the only piece of property that’s in the two Towns, but the floor area ratio is sort of a unique requirement, in terms of Queensbury. Lake George and many towns don’t have that. It’s a it’s a very good way to regulate development on the lake, but it’s in a situation where you have property of the house in two Towns. Where the line crosses the property is somewhat arbitrary, and to say that the part in Queensbury has to be 22%, without looking at the whole lot, it’s just hard to do that, even though, you know, that’s what the regulations say, that you’re looking at the land in Queensbury, that’s all that you regulate, but to do that without taking into account the whole piece of property, when a neighbor drives by, they don’t see this imaginary line, or legal line through the property. They see what’s there. They see the house and the green space, and that’s what this Section of the Code is trying to regulate. So that’s why we are asking you to consider the whole thing, in terms of one house and one lot, and I think that that’s reasonable, and that this is a unique situation in that respect. So certainly that’s just our position, but that’s what we’re asking you to consider. MR. STONE-It is your position. MR. HAYES-I have one question. What’s going to be the square footage of this house, total, as proposed? MR. MASCHEWSKI-3896 square feet. MR. STONE-That’s using the Floor Area definition in our Code, because the eaves don’t really come into that. MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, that is entire house within Queensbury, within Lake George. The structure will be 3896 square feet, total. MR. MC NALLY-And the garage is just on top of that? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. The garage is added on to that. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. ABBATE-And that’s been reduced, what, 24 by 26, correct? MR. MASCHEWSKI-To 24 by 26, correct. Mr. Stone, to answer your question about Queensbury, just in Queensbury, I’ve come up with 28.6, within just the Queensbury part. MR. STONE-It would seem to me, and I don’t have a calculator in front of me, that this kind of discussion would be very easily handled between you and Staff, sitting at a desk with a calculator. I mean, we’re measuring. You’re using dimensions, and we all know how to multiply, I think. Why can’t we come out with the same number? MR. LAPPER-We did submit Kevin’s analysis, which we did each time, and modified each time as the project was scaled down. MR. BROWN-And I guess I would have a question to try and clarify. Does that 28.6 include the overhang that’s to be calculated with floor area ratio? If it doesn’t include the 297 square feet of overhang, you need to add that percentage to it, in the Town of Queensbury, which I did and brought it up to 31. MR. STONE-The Floor Area Ratio includes overhang? MR. BROWN-It includes covered porches. MR. STONE-Covered porches, right. MR. BROWN-And they modified their design so that the covered porch wasn’t on the, I think it was north side of the house. If you took it off the sides and it’s only on the west side of the house, on the east side of the house, I’m sorry, the east side. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Right, it’s on the east side. The overhang is now actually, by whittling down that second floor, in effect we whittled any overhangs on the sides and the lakefront. The only thing still overhang is the front toward the road, which is the east side elevation. MR. BROWN-Which is the 297, and that’s entirely within the Town of Queensbury. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. BROWN-And that’s what I added to your 28.6, to get you to 31. MR. MC NALLY-So the overhang you’re looking at, Craig, is on the north, the east side of the building? MR. BROWN-The road side of the house, yes. MR. MASCHEWSKI-The only, even in our previous application, or previous, I hate to say application again, but at our previous meeting, the only overhang in Queensbury that was documented last time was 2.4%. MR. BROWN-Right, and it’s stayed the same. MR. MASCHEWSKI-And 28.6, okay, is the 31. That’s how you came up with, from my numbers. MR. BROWN-That’s how I got to 31, right. MR. LAPPER-Wouldn’t it be 30.1? MR. MASCHEWSKI-28.6 and 2.4. MR. LAPPER-I have 1.5. MR. BROWN-But it’s 2.4 in the Town of Queensbury. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. BROWN-Because you use a different land area. MR. LAPPER-Because you’re using a different land area, you’re right. MR. STONE-Okay. So what are the numbers that you all agree, 31 is the current floor area ratio in Queensbury? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. LAPPER-In Queensbury. MR. STONE-Doing everything by the book. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay, versus 22. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’re talking 31 and 22. Norman, you had a question? MR. HIMES-Yes, and it doesn’t deal with the floor area ratio, although I am concerned, as I think everyone else here is, obviously, we’ve been talking about it for three months, I’d like to go to the, and this may be a question also for Staff. The last relief that was talked about for the nonconforming structure, the expansion of it. The numbers here are pretty big in terms of what the completed new house and I’m sure it would be very, very nice, from what I can see of the plans. However, having looked at the site development data, what is done, relating to Queensbury and Lake George and Queensbury only, I wonder whether or not it passes this test. Is this being expanded 50% beyond what the square footage is to begin with. As I look at the regulations, you know, the nonconforming, Paragraph 179-79, and then you look at the definitions in connection with building square footage total, and floor area ratio. The thing is again, the same thing we would have the floor area ratio with where the line goes through the house or what not. Am I the only one, and I should have probably brought this up at one of the earlier meetings. MR. BROWN-To answer your question, in short, if I can. It absolutely is over 50% expansion. That’s why the relief from that Section is listed in the variance. MR. HIMES-We’ve been talking at great length about the floor area ratio. However, if it’s greatly, very greatly. MR. STONE-That’s another variance we have to grant, right. MR. HIMES-And I don’t think we’ve dwelled on that in past discussions, and I would like to bring that up. MR. BROWN-The overall size of the house is more than 50%. I haven’t broken down the numbers, how much house is in Queensbury and is the addition in Queensbury more than 50%. I don’t know that answer. MR. HIMES-I thought you might not, but I think that has, coupled with floor area, as hard as they have worked to bring this down. MR. LAPPER-I have a question there, because we haven’t been treating this as a nonconforming. I mean, we’ve got the two different Towns, but in what respect are you saying that it’s prior nonconforming? Are you talking about the floor area? MR. HAYES-Just probably the side setback. MR. HIMES-Just the sides. MR. LAPPER-The only area that I’m aware that it is nonconforming is just that side setback. MR. HAYES-Which makes it nonconforming, though. MR. HIMES-It’s a nonconforming structure, as it is, before anything is started, and what the zoning code calls for that in order to do anything that exceeds 50%, when the new construction is going to increase the size of the place by more than 50%. MR. LAPPER-But it’s not nonconforming for size. I don’t disagree with you it’s nonconforming as to that side setback, which is a fairly minor, just because that was. MR. HAYES-The question is I guess maybe you would know what triggers the definition of a nonconforming structure. Does any linear, would that qualify immediately as a nonconforming structure? MR. BROWN-Sure. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. HIMES-The setbacks on the side, for example, of the existing house, whether they’re that or whether they’re something else going in (lost words) determined that this would be labeled as a nonconforming structure, but we do know that’s one, the side setback, but the thing being that, in addition to all this, when you have, and why Staff has that, I think that the matter of the cumulative total of all that’s being added here is another indication of the strains being put on us in connection with saying, well, there’s a little something here for convenience or need some, (lost words) Town problems or Town lines, now we have another whammy that I think this variance may be of a greater magnitude than the floor area ratio. MR. STONE-Let me just build on that. Do you take, argue that it’s not a nonconforming structure, for our Code? MR. LAPPER-It’s nonconforming as to side setback. MR. STONE-No, it’s either a nonconforming structure or it’s not, according to the definition, and you’re saying, therefore, I’m interpreting what you’re saying as it is, a nonconforming structure is “any structure which is lawfully in existence within a given zoning district on the effective date of this Chapter, but which is not in conformance with the dimensional regulations for that district.” Therefore, it is a nonconforming structure, yes, caused by the side setback, but we still have to decide whether it’s over 50%. MR. LAPPER-I need to take a look at a Code. I didn’t bring my book. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. STONE-Do you want to take a look at this? It’s very clear, and Mr. Himes is arguing that more than 50% expansion troubles you, I gather, is what you’re saying. MR. HIMES-Yes, well, it’s close to 100. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s a good point. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, we’ve really. It’s kind of rolled. It’s snowballed. You know, this, three months ago, started out at, let’s look at the entire site. I’m very aware of Queensbury’s earning to keep it within the Queensbury site. Now, we spent a lot of time. This is my 11 Zoning/Planning th Board meeting on this project. We started out with a proposal at about 27.2%, on the overall site. Knowing Queensbury 22%, we whittled this proposal down to 23.5%, significant amount of square foot reduced. Right now, we’re at 23.5, on the overall site, and in lieu of what the Board is saying and in lieu of what Mr. Lapper’s saying you really, yes, you do have to look at the whole site. Lake George did when the proposed septic system is in Queensbury. They approved the variance based on that septic system being installed in Queensbury, farther from the lake. I mean, we met everything that we could do, except side yard setbacks, which we got approved in Lake George for the first floor addition. The second floor addition is now three and a half feet farther away from the side yard, which brings it closer to the 20 feet. Painstaking task. I mean, Mr. Wall really didn’t want to do that, you know, we reduced the square foot. There’s no way to take it from. We are approximately 280 square feet above the 22% required, 280 square feet, that’s really it, on the overall project. So, you know, it’s kind of snowballed, but back and forth and things, you know, the nutshell is 284, I think, square feet. MR. LAPPER-I want to just point something out, also, to direct the Board’s attention to, under 179- 79, subsection E, which is distinguished from the 50% rule under A, and it says “An existing structure which violates only the area requirements of this Chapter may be enlarged or extended so long as such enlargement or extension does not violate the area requirements of this Chapter”, and that’s the one that we’re asking for a variance from, because, in terms of the side setback issue that we’re asking for a side setback variance, and I think that that’s the section applies, because the first section that talks about the 50% is really talking about uses, primarily, but then you’ve got E as addressing the situation where it only violates the area requirements, and in this case, the side setback, we’re talking about how many feet over, it’s a very minor expansion. It’s just that if you have an existing home and you don’t continue the same line of the side of the house, but you jog it in, I mean, certainly, architecturally here, it would look kind of strange. So that’s just, the only reason we’re asking to continue that expansion, or that nonconformance, is just to make it look like an addition to the house that makes architectural sense. MR. STONE-I don’t have E in my updated book. MR. LAPPER-I hope nobody updated it out. MR. STONE-They may have updated it out, because I put in what I was supposed to put in. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. LAPPER-This is from Craig. It’s got to be the official one. MR. STONE-Either it got lost or it’s not here. MR. HAYES-He gets the platinum addition. MR. STONE-Yes. That’s interesting, Craig. I mean, I just put stuff in the way it was sent to me. MR. BROWN-It’s not new. MR. STONE-I appreciate that. MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Lapper, what do you say E says, though, in plain English? MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s the Queensbury Zoning Code. I can’t tell you in plain English. It’s a very complicated Code. We all know it’s a very complicated Code. I’m saying that you’ve got A, and then you’ve got E as a separate section, and that A is addressing one situation and E is addressing Our situation where an existing structure violates only the area requirements. It can be enlarged or extended. It doesn’t talk about the 50% rule, as long as there’s no area requirement, meaning that if you move it back, if you build on the other section away from the area where there is an area violation, which we didn’t do because we’ve got this couple of feet in Queensbury, in order to continue this same line, but I believe that’s the section that we’re asking for the variance from, and that’s why we didn’t ask for the variance that Norm was talking about. MR. STONE-Well, I’ll tell you, E is, you’ve got to look up the definition of every word. MR. HAYES-But it does trigger E. I mean, there’s no question that it triggers E, and that’s probably why they. MR. ABBATE-Yes, Counsel’s point is well made. I think he’s standing on very firm ground. MR. MC NALLY-Craig, does the Staff have an opinion? MR. BROWN-Yes. I think I would agree, generally, with what Mr. Lapper said, as far as the interpretation of Section E. If you have a house that doesn’t meet a setback, you can expand that house as long as the expansion is some place that meets all the setbacks, or the expansion meets the size requirements. So you could expand that nonconforming structure, if you do it compliantly. I think the project would still be subject to Section A, as you’ve got a nonconforming structure, and it says in the Ordinance that that nonconforming structure can be expanded, so long as, and I think it lists A, B, C, and that it meets the dimensional requirements, which this one doesn’t. It doesn’t meet the setback requirement, and provided that the expansion is no more than 50% of the existing floor area at the time of the first expansion, which this one is above and beyond. So, you can give general relief from the Section, or we can punch the numbers and give you the square footage and percentages, but I think A and E apply in this case. MR. STONE-And they are opposed to each other? MR. BROWN-No, the project is subject to both. MR. HAYES-There’s a different standard of examination. MR. STONE-Yes, okay. MR. MC NALLY-Craig, are you happy that the floor area, taking the house and the parcel in both Towns as a whole, is 23.5%? Do those numbers crunch? MR. BROWN-Well, I’m happy with the 25, because you throw in the overhang, which constitutes a covered porch. I think it’s entirely reasonable to consider the entire parcel when you look at the floor area ratio. So you’re looking at 25 instead of 22. MR. MC NALLY-The difference between the 25 and the 23.5 is that overhang? MR. BROWN-Correct, that’s it. MR. MC NALLY-That’s 270 square feet or so. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. BROWN-But the house does straddle the Town line. So I think it’s reasonable to consider the entire parcel when you look at the 22% number. MR. STONE-Any other comments that anybody wants to make, at this point in time? MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a couple of comments here. Kevin indicated this is his 11 meeting on this subject, and Counsel and Mr. Wall have been before us three or four times, th and I think it’s appropriate at this time to indicate, or to revive the memories of the Board that in each instance both Counsel and Mr. Wall and the architect have been more than willing to bend over backwards to cooperate with this Board, and, based on the previous decision we made, we have to take into consideration motivation, and I think that Mr. Wall has done everything in his power to comply with the rules and regulations, and I think that should be a consideration. Thank you. MR. STONE-Any other comments before I open the public hearing, since we closed it the last time? MR. MC NULTY-I think I’d be inclined to second the comments that were just made. It strikes me, in some ways I was thinking here earlier that we would have done everybody a better service if we were unhappy with this application, if we had said absolutely not at the first meeting, but, in not discouraging, I guess we encourage an applicant to go back an spend more money, come back with a revision. We send them back again and they do it again, and I think we wedge ourselves into a problem because now, on the one hand maybe we’d like to say no to this, but on the other hand, we’ve caused the applicant to spend a lot of money, invest a lot of time, and it isn’t really fair to say no at this point, and I’m not sure which way I’m going to come down when we get all finished. I think looking to maybe another fresh applicant or something, if we see something that really bothers us, we ought to stand up at the beginning and say, no. MR. ABBATE-Point well made. MR. STONE-The only thing I would say. MR. HAYES-Maybe we should go around and keep it in order. MR. STONE-We haven’t done that yet. MR. HAYES-All right. MR. STONE-We haven’t gotten into that point. MR. MC NULTY-We’re just kind of jumping the gun a little. MR. STONE-We’re kind of jumping the gun. Well, let me just, let me open the public hearing. Do you have anything more you want to say? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STONE-Let me open the public hearing, since we closed it. We opened it and closed it the last time. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions? Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Bob. MR. MC NALLY-I didn’t have the wisdom of my other Board members opinions, since I wasn’t here last time. Why can’t we consider this parcel as a single parcel, even though it straddles the border? There seems to be a consensus that you shouldn’t do that? Why? MR. STONE-We have no control over the Town of Lake George. We only have control over what’s built in the Town of Queensbury. I mean, and it’s possible that the Town of Lake George made some reference to the Town of Queensbury. We have no control over their Zoning Board. We have only control over this Board. MR. MC NALLY-See, from my perspective, the floor area ratio is intended to prevent a single parcel from having too much development on it. So you limit the development to 22% in this zone. Now 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) if you’re only looking at half the parcel, and that half just happens to have most of the house on it, but you ignore the rest of the parcel which has less of the house on it, you’re kind of doing a disservice to the applicant, because it’s really just one lot, one lot with one house. So while we don’t have any control in Queensbury, I don’t think we can be blind to the fact that actually there’s a lot of other land there, and if you do that, it gets us down to 23.5% or 25%, if you count the overhangs, which is a lot less than 31%. MR. STONE-We agree it’s 25% if we take the whole lot and measure it by Queensbury’s standards? Okay. It’s 25%. Let’s not talk about 23. MR. MC NALLY-The distinction is just the overhang, and it is a difference of 270 feet. MR. STONE-It’s a covered porch. Don’t call it an overhang. It’s a covered porch. MR. MC NALLY-A covered porch, excuse me. MR. STONE-That’s the thing. We’ve got to keep our terminology’s straight, otherwise we’re going to be way off in deep end. MR. MC NALLY-And I have a sense that with the 9.6 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback is not a problem with this Board. I don’t have a sense that the expansion of nonconforming structure, with all due respect, is really that much of a problem either. I don’t really have a problem with it. I don’t see a real difficult, in this neighborhood of large homes on Antigua Road this house meeting the neighborhood requirements. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I have one question for Staff. What’s the front setback, what would the front setback be if this lot was all in Queensbury? Is it the 75, or is it 50 feet? MR. BROWN-The front setback or the shoreline setback? MR. HAYES-The shoreline setback. MR. BROWN-Seventy-five feet. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. STONE-It’s a three acre zone. MR. HAYES-Initially, I think I would agree with Bob’s overall look at this parcel. I think that sometimes, you know, we don’t want to overanalyze to the point of doing a disservice to the applicant, but in this particular case I disagree, in that the applicant expanded the parcel by what I can see, and I could be wrong, expanded, is that the proposed expansion is actually going in to what would be the Queensbury setback from the lake, and in this particular circumstance, I don’t think you can ask to be considered cumulatively, when it’s in your favor, and then use the Lake George Code when it’s in your favor. I don’t think you can pick and choose when you’re going to be married, in this particular case. I think that they’re taking the best of one, and then the best of the other, and I don’t think that that’s a fair analysis in this particular circumstance, and as far as the Floor Area Ratio, I think if they’re going to use the Lake George setbacks from the lake, that we should use the Queensbury floor area ratio. MR. LAPPER-If I could just make one quick comment in response to that, because it doesn’t show here. The houses on either side are at 25 feet and 50 feet. So in terms of the character of the neighborhood. MR. HAYES-Certainly. I mean, I wouldn’t disagree with that, but I think in this particular case, I think some advantage has been taken by moving the addition closer to the lake, based on the fact that that’s in the Lake George portion of the property. I really do. I wouldn’t, I can honestly say that I would not approve that if that was entirely in Queensbury going closer to the lake, and I think as a Board we’ve been very consistent in not approving additions toward the lake. So, I think in this particular case, I’m going to examine it as a split piece, because I think that’s how it’s really been built on and proposed. MR. LAPPER-I’d also just like to point out that, for the last application here, and I know that you weren’t at the meeting, but for the last application, the house was moved five feet back from what Lake George granted, so even the variance, in order to satisfy this Board, the variance that the Town of Lake George granted would have allowed it to go out another five feet closer to the lake, and that that was, as a concession to reduce square footage, that was changed, and I know that this has gone 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) on for a lot of months, but Mr. Wall and his designer have really tried to continue to reduce the house to satisfy everyone. Certainly, that’s been the intention. MR. HAYES-Yes, I mean, intention aside, I guess, unfortunately, as a panel, we’re charged with deciding when exactly that line has been crossed, and was and hasn’t, and I think that has to do with, you know, with the further part of my analysis. One hundred and twenty-nine square feet on the main house, on a thirty-nine hundred square foot house, is a three percent concession. To me, honestly, I think that that is not really a large concession. I don’t think that, if we were applying the balancing test to this, I’m not placing a lot of emphasis on that, as far as a concession to this Board. MR. LAPPER-Well, not to be argumentative at all, but you missed the last meeting, and we left with the distinct impression that the Board really was supportive of the project, but asked us to go back to the drawing board and to just see what we could do to get, we were talking 25%, and just to get that down farther. So we really did, as Mr. McNulty said, we really did get the sense that if we just went back one more time and did what we could, and we were looking to reduce it in Queensbury, because we had that discussion. So that’s why we went to the garage, and, you know, just because you weren’t here, I just wanted to. MR. HAYES-Respectfully, I read the minutes of the last meeting. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. HAYES-And, you know, I listened to the opinions of the other Board members, but basically we’re charged as individuals, just to decide this very balancing test, and that’s, in my mind, I mean, Kevin even used the word “whittling”, and I’m not so sure that that wasn’t accidentally the truth. I’m not sure that, you know, this seems like a kind of a very small tweaking, to me, as far as a concession. So as far as the benefit to the applicant, I have no problem. I understand what’s trying to happen, but as far as feasible alternatives, I think that a reduction of 129 feet on a 3900 square foot house is really not much, you know, there hasn’t been a lot done as far as feasible alternatives, in the balancing test, and that’s in my mind, and I won’t disagree that this Board, you know, gave a direction or at least gave an indication, but I still think on each and any given night we have to consider things on their merits, and 129 square feet, to me, is not a concession, and is not something that I think is adequate. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I think it is. I think almost 10 feet on 20 feet on the side setback, and you’re expanding that, that linear variance, and the floor area ratio in Queensbury of over 30, cumulatively, there hasn’t been a lot of work done here to reduce, you know, the relief that’s been asked relative to the Ordinance. I think it’s substantial. I don’t think that there’s, you know, any real negative impact on the community or the neighborhood in this particular case, but I think, on balance, I think that feasible alternatives, the relief that’s been requested, in terms of the Ordinance, and really I think it’s a self-created difficulty. I think that the applicant wants to have a big house on the lake, and that’s what he’s shooting for, but I just think he’s shooting for a little too much, in my opinion, at least on the Queensbury side. I think a floor area ratio of over 30 is a dangerous precedent to be setting next to the lake, in this particular circumstance. So I would be against the application, as it’s been proposed. MR. STONE-We’ll go to Mr. McNulty, but I just want to read the tabling motion again, so that we know what it said. “Significant” reduction, was the wording that I used, that the Board agreed to. “Significant” reduction. Chuck, what do you think? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I am torn, but I think I basically agree with Jaime. If I look at this as strictly what’s in the Town of Queensbury, then the floor area ratio bothers me greatly, and I think I’d be opposed to it on that basis, and listening to his point that if you take the entire property, then you’ve got to take the entire property into consideration for everything, and if I consider the entire property then the floor area ratio doesn’t bother me as much because it drops drastically, but the fact that then we’re into the setback from the lake that we would normally allow here does bother me, and I recognize that the other places nearby are also closer to the lake, but again, the zoning was set up by people that when they drew it up they knew there were places that were closer to the lake, and what they were saying is we don’t think they should be, and future development should be 75 feet back. At the same time, I frankly feel badly, because I think we have tended to lead the applicant on, and I guess this is a place that, for me, I’m going to draw the line and say a significant change probably isn’t going to be sufficient for me. It just strikes me that this is too big a place for the area that it’s in, and I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-All right. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m still taken aback by the over 100% size change in this building, you know, if you include both sides, the Lake George and the Queensbury side of it. The floor area ratio is still way out of bounds from what I would consider reasonable, and, you know, driving out from Lake George Village along the shoreline there and looking at the palatial homes that have been built recently, and how large they are on the lots there, where they don’t have a floor area ratio, I think it’s 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) very important that we have a clear message sent that, you know, this should have a substantial change. Whether you have to decrease the length of this house and reconfigure it somehow, but I just think that, you know, to continuously think that we’re going to do this up on the lake, and that it’s all right that we can rationalize, well, half’s in one Town, half’s in the other. Let’s just consider the whole thing, but in the Town of Queensbury, maybe we’re different. Maybe we do have a little bit more concern, and I think that it still needs to be significantly changed, you know, and maybe you have to forget about the original house that’s there. If you want to build something, make it reasonable. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you, Lew. I guess I’d like to make a comment, beginning on the aspects of what some people feel guilty here about having lead you down the garden path or something like that, at this point. I was concerned about that at the last meeting, you might recall my comments were straight out, wham, I thought it was a very large structure for the size of the lot and so forth. So I don’t feel guilty about that. In connection with how many times you’ve all been back here, you’re not going to think this is very funny, but practice makes perfect. You’ve come down two or three, in two or three increments. Well, pretty soon, if we keep going in that direction, we’ll be where we want to be. So, my conclusion is that one for what I think to be an excessive relief needed for the nonconforming structure and the floor area ratio, it’s just still a little too much. So I would not be I favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I’m going to address my comments at a private meeting with this Board. I’ll let it go at that. MR. STONE-Let me, we’ve heard a little bit about being lead down the garden path, and I want to quote from the minutes of the last meeting, just before we got into the tabling motion. I stated, for the record, the feeling of the Board that there was one vote for and five potential votes against. That means we can deny it and you’d really have to make a serious change, or, I gave you the option, you can table it. You can withdraw it and make a different attempt, and then in the tabling motion, you asked for our indulgence, since it was withdrawn once before, that you’d like to table it, and the tabling motion said so the applicant can make a significant reduction in the floor area ratio. As I said earlier, we are concerned with the Town of Queensbury, and we cannot comment on what the Town of Lake George does. It’s the unhappy situation here for Mr. Wall that his property straddles the two communities, or in the two communities, but we have been very zealous, as a Board, in looking at Waterfront property. Mr. Maschewski knows, he came before this Board on a separate issue, but it was Waterfront property. He knows that we ask a lot of questions. We’re very concerned about the long term effect, and quite frankly I’m very proud of the way we look at these things. Someone said that the whittling bothered them, and it bothers me. Significant is not whittling, unless you end up with no wood at all, and when you look at the whole thing, the fact that the whole property is 25% floor area ratio, and certainly in Queensbury it’s 30 or 31, which is well in excess of our floor area ratio. On that basis, I would have to say no. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, I’m just looking at the map now, trying to see what we can do, and in terms of the word “whittling”, I understand that the Board draws a line somewhere, and my job is to find out where that line is. Mr. Wall would have liked to have had the house that he first proposed, but he likes the house as it’s proposed now, but I’m focusing on the issue of the shed roof, and if you’ll recall our detailed discussion last month, the reason why that counts is because there is a retaining wall, because there’s a grade change, and behind the retaining wall there’s a sidewalk, and it’s the sidewalk underneath the overhang that makes that count as a “covered porch”, the reason that that is included. So sitting here right now, not pulling this out of my pocket, because I never thought of this before, I just asked Mr. Wall and his engineer what would happen, in terms of their usability of the property, if we removed the sidewalk along the whole Queensbury front there, and looking at the chart that Kevin prepared, that would be 2.4%, if the shed roof overhang was removed. So I’m now proposing, and this all comes out of Queensbury, for what that’s worth, that if they jackhammer the sidewalk and get rid of that, and that would then be vegetated with grass, that we could reduce it by 2.4%, which is nothing that dawned on any of us before. MR. HAYES-So that would be, what, 30% down to 27, on the Queensbury side? MR. MASCHEWSKI-On the overall it would be 25 down to 2.4 minus, so 22.6. MR. STONE-From the overall. MR. MASCHEWSKI-From the overall. MR. LAPPER-In Queensbury, 31 minus. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. MASCHEWSKI-It would be 28.5. MR. STONE-So, in other words, you’re going to have a large overhang over grass? MR. LAPPER-Well, the reason for the overhang wasn’t. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. LAPPER-Because that’s a pre-existing sidewalk. The reason for the overhang is just as an architectural detail. MR. MASCHEWSKI-It ties in, if I can jump in on the architectural end of it, it ties in, because we brought, this goes back to the last meeting, we reduced the upstairs walls in, which created a roofline above the first. All I did, architecturally, was take the roofline and continue it around the front of the house, as a detail. That’s all it was. That’s all the intent was. There is an existing poured foundation, well, actually poured sidewalk there. That is heaving, and that’s going to get removed, and just put slate and dirt. So no heaving pushes against the existing foundation. MR. LAPPER-But that still counts. MR. MASCHEWSKI-That still counts. Now, we’re just replacing the concrete sidewalk that’s in front of the house with a slate pressed in stone. I guess what Mr. Lapper just indicated was just get rid of the sidewalk. MR. STONE-Do you agree with that, Staff? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Now it’s not a covered porch. MR. BROWN-I don’t know. I don’t want to say we’re playing games here. We’re going to end up with the same size structure. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-And you’re still at 27 something. MR. BROWN-I understand what you’re saying. (lost words), but the building size doesn’t change. MR. ABBATE-Well, let me ask a question here, so we don’t go on for 10 more meetings. What do we consider significant reduction? MR. HAYES-We all determine that individually. That’s not for you to determine for us. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-This is a Board of individual balancing tests. It’s not, just like Norm says. He has to make his own decision as to what he considers relief enough. It’s not a matter of direction that’s been set by the Board for every person. It’s a balancing test. MR. ABBATE-Like standard of fairness balancing, right? MR. HAYES-I think so, yes, I think that’s right. MR. LAPPER-But without beating a dead horse, I understand clearly where most of the Board is on this, but if you look at the lot as one lot with one house, we would now, if you take a look at the whole thing, we would be very close to 22%. MR. STONE-And you’d be 20 feet closer to the lake than we allow, as Mr. Hayes says. MR. LAPPER-But when you say the 20 feet closer to the lake, the house was built to comply with Lake George, and with the Lake George setback. MR. HAYES-Yes, but that’s illogical, to me. When you say that now it’s in compliance with the Queensbury zoning at 76 feet, and you’re going to move it closer to the lake because Lake George allows it, but then when you want to consider the whole lot, you’re saying we should consider the whole lot, including the Lake George piece, for this floor area ratio. I guess what I’m saying is, from a logical perspective, are we considering that as a whole piece under our logic, or are we considering it, you know, just under the floor area ratio as one big lot? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. LAPPER-Well, certainly I understand what you’re saying, but the floor area ratio, I think you have to look at the type of restriction, and the floor area ratio is talking about the percentage of green space versus the percentage house, and that’s why we’re looking at the whole thing, but if you didn’t, if the expansion wasn’t done in the front, for example, and it was done in the back, to make it more closely comply with the Queensbury 75 foot setback, then the floor area ratio in Queensbury would be, you know, 40% or something, because you’d be ignoring the whole side of the lot. MR. STONE-It’s a dilemma, there’s no question about that, but I think the Board, unless something you’ve just said has made anybody change their mind, I think we have a consensus, and I’m going to call for a motion to deny this application. MR. HAYES-Do you want us to go to the motion stage? MR. STONE-I think we gave them that opportunity the last time, significant reduction, and most of us don’t feel it was significant enough. MR. LAPPER-If you could just give us a minute. MR. STONE-Okay, take a minute. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t see the lake setback as uniquely a Lake George issue. It is all in the Town, that entire question. MR. HAYES-As is the floor area ratio, then, in Queensbury. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-I mean, the issue of the lake setback is an issue that affects only the portion within the Town of Lake George, but the issue of the floor area ratio refers to the entire legal parcel, which is in both Towns. MR. STONE-No, only the Queensbury portion of the lake. MR. MC NALLY-And the intent of that floor area ratio is to prevent overbuilding. How are we, how is it going to be overdeveloped when you’re at 22.6%, over the entire lot? It meets what the intent is. MR. STONE-Because we have a criteria of 22%, and we have to decide. MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. STONE-Don’t take too long, we have other people that are waiting. MR. LAPPER-We apologize. I guess we didn’t sway anybody, is what the Chairman is saying. MR. ABBATE-I didn’t hear you. MR. LAPPER-I guess we didn’t sway anybody with the suggestion to remove the sidewalk, to remove the 2.4? MR. STONE-Well, we’ll find out. I mean, did it sway anybody? Everybody sticks? MR. LAPPER-Okay. Well, sadly what Mr. Wall is looking at, since, he owns the house and needs to improve it, what he, what surprises myself and Kevin, but what he is willing to do is to remove the second story, because it doesn’t seem like the Board’s going to accept anything else. MR. STONE-And does that require a variance? MR. LAPPER-I don’t know. MR. HAYES-Well, it would require the nonconforming variance, but obviously, that’s. MR. LAPPER-The setback. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. STONE-The setback. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. MASCHEWSKI-Actually, the only thing that would require a variance is the part of that first floor addition that’s within the Queensbury Town. It’s a little strip on the site plan that goes through. MR. HAYES-You’re still going to need relief on the nonconforming. MR. MASCHEWSKI-If you’re going to still do that front entrance addition, then yes. That’s adding square footage. MR. HAYES-I hate to spend the applicant’s money, because I’m an applicant myself sometimes, but I’m not saying my position is that the whole second floor has to go, for the balancing test to be in favor of the applicant. I guess, I mean. MR. LAPPER-You think we’ve gone farther than what you would have required, is what you’re saying? MR. HAYES-I’m saying that, yes. I mean, as far as that, I mean, that’s 1,000 square feet of house you’re talking about removing. MR. STONE-If you took off the second floor, what floor area are you talking about? MR. HAYES-He wouldn’t need any relief from the floor area ratio. MR. STONE-That’s right. MR. HAYES-If he took off that 1,000. MR. MASCHEWSKI-It would get Mr. Wall building and under construction soon. I mean, it surprised me. It’s a ditch effort. So, it just, it shouldn’t have to go that way. I truly believe that, but we’ll let him make that decision. MR. HAYES-Well, we’re not asking for that kind of Draconian effort. I mean, I guess you could. MR. WALL-No, I understand that, but I guess I’m at a point now, as the Board knows, we’ve spent a lot of time, a lot of effort, and a lot of money to do this, and I guess, unfortunately on my part, I should have probably researched the property a little bit more thoroughly, and not taken the word of the realtor that I actually purchased the property from, okay, and to look at, I had a 22% floor area ratio, and I had a 75 foot setback from the lake, because it was in Lake George. My whole intention was to build, you know, remodel this house and add on to it. So when we first came in, at our first meeting, it was a surprise to me that, well, Queensbury is a certain percent, and all. I had no knowledge of that whatsoever, other than a line went through, and as the Board knows, I’ve made, whether we want to call it whittling or not, we have brought that second story in to where I wind up with 10 by 10 bedrooms at this point. So me making that drastic change right now, I know I can’t reduce the second floor anymore. It’s literally impossible to reduce that, because the bedrooms are going to be tiny, tinier than what I have at the existing house now. We’ve been in front of the Board four or five months now, so I want to get this project going, and maybe it’s a drastic measure, but I think if we stay with the footprint that we have now, and remove that, maybe do a higher pitch on the roof or something so aesthetically it’s a little bit pleasing, because that was one of my concerns, the property drops off tremendously, as it goes down, and now it’s a little one story ranch with a little 5/12 pitch on it and stuff. So coming up two stories, aesthetically the house was going to be very, very pleasing. MR. STONE-All right. The only thing you can do, then, since we cannot sit here and look at plans you don’t have, is withdraw the application. MR. LAPPER-I’m not sure, only because if all we’re asking for, if we don’t need the floor area ratio, and all we’re asking for is the side setback, that seems pretty straightforward, to continue the line, and certainly something. MR. STONE-Well, I, for one, with all the discussion that we’ve had, would not like to approve something that I can’t see. I mean, you can say you’re going to take, I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, but I think we’ve got to see it, and if you don’t need a variance, or if you need just a simple variance for the side setback, then you come back and we can do that very simply. We have not had a problem with that. I for one, and I can’t speak for the Board, as we have been saying all night, I can only say that I would like to see what you’re trying to do, because we’ve been dealing with numbers of 35, 31, 30, 25, 23, all those numbers, and I’d like to know whatever you want to do, what the numbers are for that. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. WALL-Well, I think we can give you that calculation right now, but what I’m saying is stay with the identical footprint that we submitted, and take the second story off the house. That is it. There will be no other change whatsoever, other than taking that whole second story off. You will eliminate the overhangs that we had so much discussion about. That would totally be eliminated, and we’d just wind up with a roof on it. That’s it. MR. STONE-How much are we taking off? What’s the floor area ratio. I mean, can you give me that number? MR. LAPPER-It’s on the plan. MR. MC NALLY-If they don’t ask for the relief, then it has to comply with the existing Code. So we don’t have to offer any relief from the floor area ratio. MR. STONE-No, we don’t have to offer any relief. I’d just like to know where it is. MR. LAPPER-1326, is what the plan says. MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s taking 1326 square foot off, and unfortunately I don’t have (lost words). MR. STONE-So it’s got to be below 22. MR. HAYES-That’s right. MR. MASCHEWSKI-190 square foot is one percent. MR. BROWN-It comes out to about 20%, floor area ratio, in the Town of Queensbury. MR. STONE-We have to grant the relief from the nonconforming. Are we 50% more than the other house? MR. MC NULTY-But you’ve still got an addition that’s going on the lakeside. MR. STONE-That’s approved. That’s not (lost words). MR. MC NULTY-Part of it’s still in Queensbury. MR. STONE-What’s in Queensbury? The part that’s in Queensbury is how much? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Of the first floor addition? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MASCHEWSKI-58 feet times 5 feet. MR. STONE-250 feet. So that’s not 50%. MR. LAPPER-And we’re adding a little bit in the back, also. MR. STONE-So the only relief you want is the garage, and you can leave the garage alone. MR. HIMES-Lew, there’s a garage that’s going up, too, right, 700 square feet, or something like that? MR. STONE-Well, the garage is there. They were going to reduce the garage. MR. ABBATE-24 by 26. MR. WALL-Proposed. MR. HIMES-Again, we’re back to the 50% rule. I don’t want to bring this up, after they go through another step, but if they’ve got whatever, we need to know what’s in Queensbury, under the proposal, and then you add that garage in, I think it’s 1400 square feet footprint now. That doesn’t include the garage, I don’t think. MR. MASCHEWSKI-But are you talking about, we’re not increasing the structure. The garage is a detached garage. MR. HIMES-It’s still included. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. MASCHEWSKI-It counts. Okay. MR. MC NALLY-So you’re just looking for relief from the side setback of 9.66 feet? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Otherwise, and that’s in accordance with the footprint shown on your drawing. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And otherwise you’re not looking for any other relief? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-What it boils down to is they’re withdrawing all their application except for the side setback relief on the south side of the building, as shown in this drawing. They’re asking for relief of 9.66 feet. MR. STONE-Yes, and what they’re saying, further, is that what they are going to, the building permit that they’re going to seek will be in conformance, will not require a variance. MR. HAYES-You don’t have to say that, because no building permit will be issued without it. MR. STONE-Well, of course. MR. HAYES-You’ve just got to grant specific relief, and the applicant’s charged with staying within that. MR. HIMES-What is the ratio between what’s in Queensbury that’s going to be expanded and say the garage? The garage is almost 50% of the existing square feet of this. MR. BROWN-No, that doesn’t apply. It’s a separate building. It doesn’t apply. The 50% rule doesn’t apply to the garage. MR. HIMES-Yes, it does. MR. HAYES-What he’s saying is, what part of the house is in Queensbury, what’s the total square footage of that? MR. BROWN-It’s about 350 square feet. MR. HAYES-So if the garage is 700, is that over 50%? MR. MC NULTY-It doesn’t apply. MR. ABBATE-It has no application to it. MR. BROWN-It’s a separate structure. It doesn’t apply. MR. HIMES-But in the definitions it says building square footage, total, it goes by floor area of the primary structure, another paragraph, and detached garages. MR. STONE-That’s correct, the floor area ratio. MR. BROWN-That’s when you’re calculating floor area ratio, and in Section 179, the Nonconforming section, that deals with expansion of a nonconforming structure. MR. HIMES-Fifty percent of the gross floor area, is what it says in there. MR. BROWN-Of the structure. MR. STONE-Yes, but it says a single family dwelling or mobile home may be enlarged. MR. HIMES-Okay. MR. BROWN-It’s just the structure. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying your application now is only for the side setback. MR. LAPPER-The side setback. MR. STONE-Let me just quickly go around, so we know where we are. Let me just start with Jim. Are you happy with that? MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s fine with me. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Okay. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Absolutely no problem. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-No problem. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-It’s a big concession. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. STONE-And me. All right. I need a motion to approve the variance for the side setback. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 101-2000 ROBERT WALL, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 15 Antigua Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,178 square foot first floor addition, as well as a 624 square foot freestanding garage. Specifically, the applicant requests 9.66 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of Section 179-16 of the WR-1A zone. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to expand the home as has been limited and agreed to by this Board. Feasible alternatives, I believe that the applicant, through his concession, has thoroughly investigated feasible alternatives, to the point where this certainly is a fair addition or a reasonable addition. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I think it’s moderate. I think 9.6 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement, in this particular circumstance, is moderate, being that there is already a building at that exact location, and this does not represent a further encroachment, as far as Area Variance in that way. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that, as now proposed, the addition will be a compliment to the neighborhood, and will be a fine home, in this particular circumstance. Is the difficulty self-created? I believe that the difficulty is self-created only in that the applicant wants to have an addition and expand this home that he’s purchased. Therefore, I move for its approval. I’d like to amend my motion to include a requirement that an updated plan and depiction is included in the file, for future reference and verification. Further, I’d like to place the general requirement that an as built survey is provided to assure that the setbacks are as depicted, as represented. Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I would just have one question. Just for consistency and accuracy in the file, we may want an updated set of drawings for the variance file. I realize there are going to be new drawings for the building permit, but when we look back on this file, we’re going to find this stuff, and we need just some updated drawings. MR. HAYES-I’d like to amend my motion to include a requirement that an updated plan and depiction is included in the file, for future reference and verification. MR. STONE-And this will not, the existing building will stay, or will this be new construction? Do we need an as built survey for this? MR. LAPPER-The Town will need an as built for the Building Department. MR. BROWN-Typically they don’t for residential additions, and I think the Board decided last year. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. STONE-Yes, we’ve been asking for that. So, we ought to put that motion in that we’ve been talking about. MR. HAYES-Further, I’d like to place the general requirement that an as built survey is provided to assure that the setbacks are as depicted, as represented. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Some nights are easier than others. MR. STONE-Yes, they are. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2001 TYPE II BRADFORD J. NERON AGENT: N/A OWNER: BRADFORD J. NERON 11 EAST DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE MOBILE HOME ON EAST DRIVE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE LI-1A ZONE. TOWN BOARD APPROVAL IS NEEDED FOR REPLACEMENT OF MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF A MOBILE HOME PARK. OLD TAX MAP NO. 93-3-8 NEW TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-19 ZONE: LI- 1A LOT SIZE: 0.15 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 BRADFORD NERON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 2-2001, Bradford J. Neron, Meeting Date: January 17, 2001 “Project Location: 11 East Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace a mobile home and seeks setback relief from the Light Industrial zone requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 11 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum rear and side setback requirements and 25 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement of the LI-1A zone, § 179-26. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to upgrade the property with a new home. 2. Feasible Alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited as any development on the parcel would require some form of relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The cumulative requests for relief from the Ordinance may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 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 attributed to the residential nature of these industrial zoned properties. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Town Board res. 4.2001 revocable permit for mobile home placement. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the cumulative requests for relief might appear to be substantial (all four sides of the parcel), the proposed replacement home appears to lessen the current setback impingement’s. The proposed replacement home appears to be consistent with the existing residential character of the neighborhood. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Anything on the County? MR. MC NULTY-Nothing from County. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Neron, I assume? MR. NERON-Yes, I’m Brad Neron. MR. STONE-Anything else you want to tell us? MR. NERON-No, actually, if I could, I’ve got some pictures of the old place, and some pictures of the new home, and I also have a letter from the neighbor that lives next door. MR. STONE-We’ll read that in. MR. NERON-Okay. MR. STONE-We’ll be glad to look at the pictures 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. NERON-Okay. MR. STONE-I mean, normally we all have gone out to see what you have. MR. NERON-Okay. MR. STONE-I assume, but we’d like to see what you’re going to do. MR. NERON-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Good idea. MR. HAYES-Are you right around the corner now? I thought it said “Neron” on a mailbox there. Is that yours? MR. NERON-No. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. STONE-Is this a new one, brand new? MR. NERON-It’s a 2000. MR. MC NALLY-And you’re buying the property? MR. NERON-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-From whom are you buying it? MR. NERON-Household Finance. MR. HAYES-That property’s abandon now. MR. NERON-Yes. It’s been abandoned for a while I guess now. MR. MC NALLY-Have you already purchased it? MR. NERON-No. MR. MC NALLY-Or is it contingent upon this approval? MR. NERON-It’s contingent upon approval. MR. STONE-And the Town Board gave permission to put a mobile home in this area? MR. NERON-Correct. MR. HAYES-Revocable. MR. ABBATE-It’s a revocable permit, correct. MR. MC NALLY-Craig, what does the new zoning code, as it currently exists, propose for this area? Are they going to continue the Light Industrial? MR. BROWN-I don’t think we proposed any changes to the industrial property there, but it’s, it was discussed. I don’t remember where we ended up with it. MR. MC NALLY-What’s the timeframe for something like that? Do you know when it might be enacted? MR. BROWN-The new Zoning Ordinance? MR. MC NALLY-No one knows? MR. STONE-No. MR. BROWN-We hope to have it finalized by the summer. MR. MC NALLY-Your new home is a 2000? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. NERON-Right, correct. MR. MC NALLY-And you’re transporting it from another site? MR. NERON-Right. I have that on, we’re renting a private piece of property from Today’s Modern. MR. MC NALLY-So you occupy it already? MR. NERON-Right. Correct. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and where is it? MR. NERON-It’s on 18 Howard Street. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-It’s truly mobile. It can be moved at least once. Any other questions of Mr. and Mrs. Neron? MR. ABBATE-I may have missed it here, Mr. and Mrs. Neron, but what is the size of this mobile home, the 2000? MR. NERON-It’s a 14 by 66. MR. ABBATE-14 by 66? MR. NERON-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-But it does, because you’re not putting, at this point in time, the big decks on it that the current has, it requires less relief than the building that’s on there right now? MR. NERON-Right, because like the sides of the buildings that are on there now are 10 by 30, and the other side of the building is 16 by 7 and a half. So I’ve only got four foot decks on each side. So it would be smaller on the side, and it would just be 10 feet longer in the back. MR. STONE-Yes, okay, and as Staff noted, it requires actually less encroachment on the overall property. MR. NERON-Right. MR. STONE-Let me open the public, is everybody happy so far? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes, we have one piece of correspondence. It’s from Melissa and Jason Clapper, at 13 East Drive, and it’s addressed to the Queensbury Town Board, “We feel it would be an asset to have a new home put in place of the abandoned home next door to us, that is in desperate disrepair. The property as of now, is an eyesore, unsafe, and a home for stray cats. We have also had to keep up the lawn during the summer, that is along the side of our property. As well as having to call the Warren County Sheriff’s Department twice, once for children playing over there, and once for what appeared to be teenagers looking for a place to party. We feel it could only be a positive thing for these people to put a new home next door to us. It would definitely help better the appearance of our street. Melissa & Jason Clapper 13 East Drive” MR. STONE-And they’re the people to the north? MR. NERON-Right. MR. STONE-Who are right on the line. MR. NERON-Yes, they’re right next door. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions of the Nerons? All right. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Jaime. MR. HAYES-Well, in this particular case, we’ve got a pre-existing, nonconforming lot, and the question in my mind is what use of this would be of benefit to the neighborhood, because it is a lot, and I think in this particular case, your proposal would be a large improvement. I think that’s self- evident. I really do. I think that that abandoned home represents an attractive nuisance, at this time for sure, at the very least, and some of our Ordinances deal with the average setback in a neighborhood to obtain consistency, and this doesn’t in this circumstance, but I think as far as considering the impact on the neighborhood, that’s not a bad way to approach this. Everything there is fairly close to the road. The other homes are fairly close to the road. Your proposed placement would just be an extension of that, not a reduction of the setback. So I think it’s consistent. I think it clearly was going to be an improvement in the neighborhood, and it’s consistent with the neighborhood. So, you have neighborhood support from the most immediately impacted neighbor, and that’s also a benefit. I mean, they’re happy about it, and I don’t know why they wouldn’t be. So, to me, this is very easy. The very fact that the relief is a little bit substantial has more to do with the fact that it’s in a Light Industrial classification which has, you know, more generous setbacks. So, I think in this particular case, on a balance, I would be strongly in favor of this application. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree with Mr. Hayes. It’s going to be an improvement to the area. A good portion of the required relief is because it’s in a Light Industrial zone, and yet the character of that particular area is residential. It’s going to fit with what’s there now, definitely be an improvement. I have no problem with it at all. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with it. I think it’s going to definitely improve the neighborhood, as everyone else has mentioned, and I think that, you know, it’s actually going to be set back further from where the current one is. So, I’m all for it. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you, Lew. I agree with Jaime’s comments, and I support the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-This, in my opinion, is a straightforward application, and I congratulate the both of you, because I think your actions will, indeed, improve the area, and the Staff comments indicate that this is consistent with the existing residential character of the neighborhood. So, I’m all for it. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I think the Light Industrial zoning in this area is bizarre, due to the fact that it’s basically residential and all small lots, but I’m in favor of it for the reasons stated by the other Board members. MR. STONE-I, too, agree. I would go along with Mr. Abbate, when he congratulates you on certainly taking, I won’t say a chance, but trying to improve the neighborhood and put a nice mobile home in there, and I think everything that we have seen, since I’ve been on the Board, has been trying to upgrade that neighborhood. Yes, they’re small lots, and requires a great deal of variance, but I think you’re to be congratulated for your efforts, and I certainly, on balance, have absolutely no problem with this one. Have said that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2001 BRADFORD J. NERON, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 11 East Drive. The applicant’s proposing to replace a mobile home and seeks setback relief from the Light Industrial zone requirements. Specifically, the applicant’s requesting 11 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum rear and side setback requirements, and 25 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement of the LI-1A zone, Section 179-26. Considering the criteria for considering the Area Variance, according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: Benefit to the applicant is that the applicant would be permitted to upgrade the property and site the new home that he desires on the property. Feasible alternatives are rather limited, as any development on this parcel will require some form of relief. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The cumulative 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) request for relief from the Ordinance may be seen as moderate to substantial, but considering the situation and the character of the neighborhood, I think the overall effect is probably moderate at the most. The effects on the neighborhood or community. There’s going to be moderate effects on the neighborhood, and they’re going to be positive effects, as a result of this action. It’s going to be a clear improvement on the neighborhood, and is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the residential nature of these industrially zoned properties. I think in sum, the request is reasonable, and I move approval. Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Go. MR. NERON-Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-Good luck to you. MR. STONE-Good luck. AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2001 TYPE II KENNETH & HOLLY WHEELER AGENT: N/A OWNER: KENNETH & HOLLY WHEELER LOCATION: 16 RICHARDSON STREET APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING RETAIL SIGN BUSINESS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 1/10/2001 CROSS REF. SPR 13-89 OLD TAX MAP NO. 130-2-10 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.10-2-47 ZONE: CR-15 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES SECTION: 179-24 KENNETH & HOLLY WHEELER, PRESENT MR. STONE-We’ve got a letter, too. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, and I guess the simplest is to read the letter. The form refers to a letter, and the letter states “My wife and I have operated a home based sign crafting business, K.D. Wheeler Custom Signs, from our primary residence at 16 Richardson St. since 1987. In 1987, we were told by the town that our use as a home based business was permitted. In 1989, , we requested a building permit for a small addition to our shop building. We were told at that time that a site plan review was required for any development in a commercial zone. We applied for and were approved, see site plan review #13-89, dated March 21, 1989. On or about this time our area was rezoned to CR-15. We were under the impression that we were operating legitimately as a commercial business. The town was also considering us commercial use, as they issued us a sign permit without question, as well as increased our assessment for tax based on commercial use. All has been well until I applied to add on to our shop building. At this time, both the town planner and myself realized that there was some question as to what was actually approved back in 1989. My wife and I have been investing in both our home as well as our business at this location for the past 13 years, only to find out that we now need a use variance. Based on this history, please consider the following answers to the five questions for criteria as requested in the application.” Okay. The first question is How would you benefit from the granting of this Area Variance. “1. It is imperative that we maintain a home based cottage industry image to our business as this is the hallmark of our reputation. In order for us to be competitive in the marketplace we must keep up to speed with technology. We recently invested in computer equipment that requires us to add space to accommodate it. Granting of this variance would benefit us by allowing us to (a) maintain our established location and home based image and (b) allow us additional space for newly acquired technology.” Question Two is what effect would this variance have on the character of neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. “2. Granting of this variance would have no negative impact on the current character of the neighborhood because (a) the character of the neighborhood is rapidly becoming commercial, (b) we intend to maintain the residential flavor of our property as this is our established home and (c) any addition to the existing structure will not encroach the surrounding properties more than what would be allowed at its present use.” Question Three, are there feasible alternatives to this variance? “3. We believe there are no feasible alternatives to this variance as any would require the moving from our established business location, which in itself would be detrimental as well as cost prohibitive. We simply cannot afford to buy alternative commercial space at this time. Renting is also not an option, as our business slows in the winter season which prevents us from entering into a rental/lease agreement with anyone but ourselves. Selling our property is also not an option, as the residential values are declining in our area due to the increased commercial/industrial development.” 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) Question Four, is the amount of relief substantial relief relative to the Ordinance? “4. The commercial square footage we would realize with this variance is 1,494 or (.08%) of our existing property’s area. The allowable commercial square footage for the 1 acre requirement is 12,000 sq. ft. or (.28%). Therefore this variance would keep relief relative to the ordinance.” Question Five, will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? “5. This variance will have no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood as we intend to maintain this address as our primary residence and home. This use will not increase the density any greater than is allowable if the property were to remain a residence only. The non-permeable area will only account for 23% of the overall land area. The nature of our business does not require excessive traffic flow as our clients usually call on an appointment basis or we call on them. All of our related supplies are either purchased locally by us or are shipped via small carriers, such as United Parcel Service, with occurrences of less than daily. Additional traffic flow will be nonexistent compared to the volume increase expected with the soon to be developed light industrial park to be located within 1,000 ft. of us. In addition, we are seeking relief from the required six parking spaces. We currently have four available, this number of spaces has been more than adequate for the last 5 years and we feel that increasing the paved area would detract from the residential flavor of our home. The history of our situation clearly shows that this was not self-created and we believe that although this variance is required today, given the changes proposed in the master plan for zoning in our area, it may not be required in the near future. We feel that with the continued commercial growth in this section of ward 4, the granting of variances of this kind will help to maintain a small town atmosphere. Small cottage industries and cultural professional type businesses, if allowed to establish, will help to discourage the “big box” development. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Please contact me with any questions you may have, or visit us, we would be happy to show you what we do. Sincerely, Ken Wheeler K.D. Wheeler Custom Signs” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-2001, Kenneth & Holly Wheeler, Meeting Date: January 17, 2001 “Project Location: 16 Richardson Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes an expansion of an existing retail sign business and seeks relief from the density requirements of the Commercial Residential requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 39,312 square feet of relief from the 58,560 square foot minimum requirement of the CR-15 zone, § 179-24. The Commercial Residential zone allows for 1 dwelling or office in a residence for every 15,000 square feet of land plus one acre of land to establish any other allowable commercial use in the zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to enlarge their existing business. Feasible Alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to the acquisition of additional lands. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 39,312 square feet of relief from the 58,560 square foot requirement 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.): Site Plan 13- 89 res. 3/21/89 22 x 24 shop addition BP 90-163 c/o issued 6/22/94 440 sf addition BP 95-566 c/o issued 11/13/97 280 sf interior alteration BP 95-1784 issued 5/31/95 20 sf sign Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Apparently, in 1989 the applicant sought to expand their home based business (then classified as a home occupation) and were informed that the expansion of the business would require further discretionary approvals, as the nature of the business appeared to be that of a retail business. The applicant apparently chose to continue operation as a Home Occupation. The Planning Board agreed and issued an approval “….based upon full compliance of the Rules and Regulations of the Town…” Please see attached Planning Board minutes. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-I think we ought to read the minutes in, too, just because this is a confusing situation. MR. MC NULTY-I’ll do the minutes next, since the Staff referred to it, and then we’ll do the County. MR. STONE-Yes, right. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is the minutes from the Planning Board meeting that were referred to, Site Plan No. 13-89, Kenneth and Holly Wheeler “The application is for the addition on to the existing 22 ft. x 24 ft. building and upgrade the business from a home occupation, CR-15. A commercial sign will be installed. Retail sales. Location: West side of Richardson Street between Corinth Road and Luzerne Road. Lot size: 0.442+/- acres. (Tax Map No. 130-2-10) Mr. Goralski noted that originally Mr. Wheeler’s request was to upgrade his current use to a retail business; therefore allowing him to put a sign outside his home. However, in order to put a retail business in a commercial/residential zone one acre would be required. Mr. Wheeler does not have one acre; therefore, the business would be maintained as a home occupation and a sign would not be placed in 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) front of his property. Public Hearing: no comment Warren County Beautification approved the application. Mr. DeSantis reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part II, with the Planning Board; there were no negative impacts. Mr. DeSantis moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 13-89, Kenneth D. and Holly W. Wheeler, based upon full compliance of the Rules and Regulations of the Town of Queensbury and having met all provisions of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. Resolution 13-89 is affixed to the Addendum. Seconded by Mrs. Macri Passed Unanimously” And then we have, “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 10, 2001 Project Name: Wheeler, Kenneth & Holly Owner: Kenneth and Holly Wheeler ID Number: QBY-AV-6-2001 County Project#: Jan01-18 Current Zoning: CR-15 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicants propose the expansion of their home based sign crafting business and seek density relief from the zoning ordinance. Site Location: 16 Richardson Street Tax Map Number(s): 130-2-10 Staff Notes: The applicants wish to expand their sign shop by 714 square feet, which would apparently push them over the zoning ordinance’s threshold for a home occupation use permitted in the district. Within the zone, commercial uses are permitted, but with a 1 acre minimum lot size. The parcel in question is just under half an acre, and the applicants are requesting relief from the minimum lot size requirement. This expansion is necessary to accommodate computer equipment recently purchased by the applicant, and is not anticipated to increase traffic volumes to the site. According to the applicant, clients usually call on an appointment basis, and supplies are either purchased locally in small quantities and transported by the business owners or delivered by small carriers. Staff does not anticipate any impacts to State or County resources as a result of the proposed action. Location actions to date (if any): Public hearing set for January 24, 2001 County Planning Board recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Thomas E. Haley Warren County Planning Board 1/16/01 MR. STONE-Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler, thank you for your very detailed answer to the five questions that are posed. Let me just check one thing. We’ve been told we’re considering an Area Variance. You used the word “Use” Variance. It is an Area Variance, just to make sure that the record is straight there. MR. WHEELER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else you want to add? MR. WHEELER-No. MR. STONE-I have a question. Besides the two of you, I assume you both work in the business? MR. WHEELER-Yes. MR. STONE-Are there any other employees? MR. WHEELER-We have one gentleman who’s retired who comes in and helps us out, four hours a day. MR. STONE-Okay, and that meets the definition of a home occupation anyway, one outside person. MR. WHEELER-Right. MR. BROWN-That portion of it does. MR. STONE-That portion of it, yes. That’s what a home occupation, there’s a lot more to it. MR. HAYES-I have one question for Staff. What is the one acre, what is the rationale behind that? MR. BROWN-If you look in the beginning of the commercial residential zoning, the density paragraph. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. BROWN-You read it and now you’re completely confused. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. BROWN-What the zone requires, what the Ordinance requires, when you want to develop a piece of property in a CR zone is you’re allowed to have a business in a residence, if the lot is a minimum of 15,000 square feet. Aside from that, you could have another commercial use on the property, but you need the density for both. You need the density for the house and the office, and then you need the one acre density for the allowable commercial use, which in this case is a retail use. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. STONE-That’s why you need the 59,000. MR. BROWN-You need the 15 and then you need the addition 43 by 60, and that’s where we come up with the 58 number, I think. Does that answer your question? MR. HAYES-Yes, I think so. MR. BROWN-So you need both area requirements because you’ve got two separate uses. You’ve got the residential use and you’ve got the retail use. MRS. WHEELER-I have one comment. I don’t consider the business retail. To me, a retail use is like a store. MR. STONE-Well, the problem is compounded because you have a sign there. MR. WHEELER-That makes it a retail? MR. STONE-Well, it makes it not a home occupation. Because you can’t have a sign with a home occupation. Am I speaking correctly? MR. BROWN-Well, it’s not that simple, but that’s a part of it, yes. MR. STONE-Yes, I mean, I’m trying to be simple, because. MR. MC NALLY-It’s tough to be a sign maker without a sign. MRS. WHEELER-Yes. It makes it real weird when you tell people you don’t have one. MR. STONE-Probably that’s why you got permission in the first place. Now you apparently did not get permission for a sign in ’89, but in ’95 you did? MR. WHEELER-Yes. When we went through the Site Plan review in ’89, it was approved. At that point, I had never been through anything like that before. So I left slightly confused as to what was approved and what wasn’t approved, and when we received the copy of the approval, it occurred to me that we were approved for commercial use. So, a couple of years later we went and applied for a sign permit and they granted us one. So I was under the impression that everything was okay. They also increased our assessment based on commercial use, and we’ve been paying taxes based on that premise for about 10 years. So, up until I went to speak with the Building and Codes Department about adding on, it came to our attention at that time that maybe things really weren’t the way they should be, and that’s why we’re here today. MR. STONE-Okay. So you put a sign in in ’91, approximately? MR. WHEELER-Yes, approximately. MR. STONE-Then you put another one in in ’95? MR. BROWN-No, I think ’95 was the sign permit. MRS. WHEELER-Okay. ’95 was the sign permit. MR. WHEELER-That’s when we put the sign up is in ’95. We didn’t put a sign up until ’95. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. WHEELER-No. The site plan was approved in ’89. We didn’t put the sign up until the sign permit was applied for, in ’95. I don’t have that date. MR. STONE-Okay. Yes. MRS. WHEELER-My copy of the site plan has absolutely no information on a sign, one way or the other. MR. WHEELER-No, there’s nothing in what we have that says anything about a sign. MR. STONE-Apparently, there was a sign permit. Do we have those minutes? We don’t need minutes. MRS. WHEELER-It was just a sign permit. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. STONE-It didn’t require a variance? MRS. WHEELER-No. MR. WHEELER-No. MR. BROWN-Apparently not. MRS. WHEELER-I filled out the form. They issued me the permit. They gave me the sticker. I put it up, put the sticker on it. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, but I don’t understand. Mr. DeSantis moved the approval of the site plan, yet at the same time he required full compliance, and kept in the home occupation. What was it he approved, then, if it wasn’t? MR. BROWN-Right, and that’s a conversation that we had at one point. MR. WHEELER-That’s kind of the confusion that we had with the, when I first went in to the Building and Codes Department about my addition proposal, to find out what would be required to go through, to get approval for the addition, they said, well, you’ll need a site plan review because you’re a commercial operation. So I filled out the application for site plan review and submitted it, went through the pre-application meeting, paid the fee and submitted the application. It was after that that it came to our attention, both myself and Staff, that there was some discrepancy as to what was actually approved back in ’89. At that point, they advised me that I had, really the best choice for me at that point was to come before this Board and apply for an Area Variance, because of the confusion. There seemed to be as much confusion on my part as there was on the Staff’s part. MR. STONE-But what you’re telling us, Craig, is that they want to expand the existing business, okay. So all we’re talking about is a variance to, in a sense, ignore the area requirements? MR. BROWN-Well, I don’t like the word “ignore”. I think give relief from the area requirements. MR. STONE-Right. I’m sorry. To give relief from. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-I mean, we’re not talking about the size of the building. We’re not talking the fact that it’s a commercial operation being expanded. Only that, because it’s come to our attention, because they want to expand, there is a requirement for 59,000 square feet. MR. BROWN-Right, and that was, if you read the second paragraph of the old notes, that was a point of contention in 1989, and not having the luxury of being at that meeting, or having the verbatim minutes, you kind of piece it together and say, well, they talked about the variance. They didn’t grant a variance. So they must have approved the plan to stay as a home occupation. I think that’s the logic we took when we decided what we think was approved when they said we approve with full compliance. You don’t need a site plan or a variance because you’re not doing anything that requires relief. MR. STONE-Right, and there was no sign. MR. MC NALLY-Well, what got me is they nonetheless approved it, even though they didn’t need a site plan approval. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. WHEELER-As a matter of fact, I was so confused at that meeting, when I got to that meeting I was approached by the Town Planner and was told, before the meeting he came out and told me, gee, Ken, you don’t really need to be here because you don’t need approval for this, but he said, you went through the process already. So let’s put it before them and see what they do with it, and so I said, again I was young. I didn’t know what was going on, so I said, okay, we’ll do that, and this was the result. I was left a little confused. MR. STONE-Okay. So right now you have a business in a CR-15 zone, that if you didn’t do anything, you could stay there because you’ve sort of slipped through the cracks. MR. WHEELER-I suppose, yes. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. STONE-In one sense, but the fact that you want to expand brings it to our attention, and you need some relief. MR. WHEELER-Right, yes. MRS. WHEELER-We’re not really expanding the business as a business. We want to add on to the building a little bit, mainly to move the computer equipment out of the upstairs, because it’s so hot up there in the summer that the, you know how computers are when it gets hot. MR. WHEELER-We don’t even expect that this expansion will expand, will increase our business, that we’re not looking to increase our business. MR. STONE-They can only handle so much. MR. WHEELER-We intend to maintain it as a home based business. That has been our intention all along, for the last 15 years. That we are not looking to change that in any way. We just need to expand the building slightly, which I’ve been told by the Building Department that the proposal that we have on the table to expand the building is well within maintaining all the Codes, as far as setback requirements, should I want to expand as a residence. MR. STONE-Okay. Talk to, the parking thing, that’s Planning Board, isn’t it? MR. BROWN-Well, I think if there was a problem where they couldn’t get a compliant number of sites on the property, then it would be a Zoning Board issue, but if they can demonstrate the number of sites, the Planning Board could give them relief to not create them, I guess. MR. STONE-Okay, but there is room for the six? MR. WHEELER-There is room for the six, but we’d really rather not pave more of our property. MR. STONE-No, I understand. So it isn’t an issue before us. MR. BROWN-Not before us, no. MR. STONE-We can dispense with that. Any other questions of the Wheelers? Does everybody understand what they’re looking for, what kind of relief we’re talking about? No other questions? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Well, there’s a note here, from Double A Provisions, scribbled on the bottom of their public hearing notice, “We have no objection to this project. Their property is in an area that will someday soon be all commercial. Ben Aronson Double “A” Provisions” That’s all. MR. STONE-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. ABBATE-Yes, one question. Mr. Wheeler, did I hear you right when you said you’re not going to enlarge your existing business? MR. WHEELER-We don’t intend to increase our existing business. MRS. WHEELER-Right. MR. WHEELER-Our business has been stable, as far as sales figures go, for the last, up and down slightly, but pretty much the same for the last 10 years. We don’t see that as being practical to increase it. If we did, we wouldn’t be able to operate any longer at that location, no matter how big we made it. We just don’t feel that that’s something we want to do. We’ve taken the approach of a small home based cottage style industry. We feel that works good for us. We like that lifestyle. MR. ABBATE-Okay, a follow up to Staff, then. The benefit to the applicant, Staff, you said applicant will be permitted to enlarge their existing business. Does that coincide with the statement that Mr. Wheeler just made? MR. BROWN-A physical enlargement, of the building. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. ABBATE-Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Fine. That’s the only question I have. MR. STONE-Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Chuck. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I think it’s a reasonable request. It will make the lot look a little more crowded, but I think it’s still in fitting with what seems to be there now in the neighborhood, and especially considering that they don’t anticipate increasing the traffic to the area. It’s just simply expanding the building to provide room for needed equipment. I have no problem with it. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would have to agree. I think that this is a long standing business in Town. They do an awful lot to help out the character of our community, to a degree, by adding things that are useful and pleasing to the eye, and at the same time I think that, you know, if you look at this zone here, it’s a transitional zone. The new standards on Main Street I think are such that, you know, this is something that fits in well with that mix that we want to see there, and I think that their proposal is very reasonable, and it would be nice to see them continue where they are. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I agree with most of what’s been said, too. I think what’s going on really doesn’t violate the spirit of 179-24, especially in the purpose part of it, as defined in our manual, and I think they have a nice looking little place there, and the building out back looks like it might have been something that was there long ago, and, you know, it’s fitting for that area of the Town, and we have a lot of residences around that have, a farm building, for example, that are part of the property, and they’re attractive. It’s not (lost words) used for commercial purposes, but in this case, it is, and there’s just a minor variation that you’re going to be doing to the size of the building. So I tend to be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-I don’t have any objection to the application. It’s my opinion that you folks are providing a service to the community, at the same time, coupled with the fact that you’re attempting to earn a living, and based upon your motivation, I have no problems with that at all. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem. There aren’t any feasible alternatives, and while the relief is substantial, the fact of the matter is it’s basically a home occupation. They’re not putting a Dunkin Donuts or a Double A Provisions on the lot. Therefore, the fact that you’re asking for a lot of relief for your kind of business is not going to have an effect on the community. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with what my other Board members have said. I think the CR-15 zone is meant to be a transition zone between, you know, commercialism and residences, and that’s exactly what I think this is. It’s got a little bit of both, and it’s a compromise, you know, it’s a compromise between those two things, and I think this accomplishes it. It’s a very nice piece of property, and the applicant’s do a good job to maintain it, and certainly, when we consider what’s happening on Broad Street, you know, the transition is needed. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-I certainly agree with everybody else. I mean, if we look at the criteria that we’re supposed to use for an Area Variance, that the balancing test between the benefit to the applicant and the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, it certainly meets that test without a question. It’s going to help you and it’s really not going to hurt the community at all, and there’s no other way to do it. You’ve got a nice piece of property there. You’re doing a nice business. There’s no way you can do anything, now that you’ve been found out, getting a very, very large lot, and yes it’s a big number. It’s probably the biggest number we’ve ever granted, in terms of square footage, but it really is insignificant when you think about the neighborhood and the property and everything else, and I certainly would grant this variance with a great deal of enthusiasm. Having said that, I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2001 KENNETH & HOLLY WHEELER, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 16 Richardson Street. The applicant proposes an expansion of an existing retail sign business and seeks relief from the density requirements of the commercial residential requirements. Applicant 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) requests 39,312 square feet of relief from the 58,560 square foot minimum requirement of the CR-15 zone, 179-24. The commercial residential zone allows for one dwelling or office in a residence for every 15,000 square feet of land, plus one acre of land to establish any other allowable commercial use in the zone. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to enlarge their existing business, specifically the physical property associated with their business is their objective, not necessarily to increase very much their overall revenues and activity in and out of the property. Feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives appear to be limited to the acquisition of additional lands, which is impractical in connection with the fact that the volume of business isn’t intended to increase by very much to be able to satisfy that kind of a direction. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Well, 39,312 square feet of relief from the 58,560 square foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. It certainly does look that way. However, what is being done, the amount of change that’s going to be going on here to satisfy this application, it’s not imperceptible, but it’s very, very slight, and I think the purpose of our Code here is to accommodate something very unlike what’s being applied for in connection with business activity or commercial activity. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Well, minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. The matter of the present site is such that it’s a very tidy, very neat, very nice looking attractive thing in this neighborhood, and the activity in and out is minimal because of the nature of their business and their customers. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created because they did pick this place to do their business, but beyond that, they’re kind of constrained by the realities of the situation here. So, in view of that, I move that we approve this application as submitted. I think we feel we’re approving this on the basis that your business activity, in terms of the volume of business and the activity that goes on there, and the likelihood of any future expansion, that’s what they’re objective is. They don’t have any present plans to expand any further. Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Would you consider reiterating the applicant’s statement that their business will not enlarge, there will not be an accepted, they’re going to stay pretty much what they’re doing now. MR. HIMES-Yes, I think I did make some comment along that line, in what I was saying. However, yes, I think we feel we’re approving this on the basis that your business activity, in terms of the volume of business and the activity that goes on there, and the likelihood of any future expansion, that’s what they’re objective is. They don’t have any present plans to expand any further. MR. STONE-You agree with that? You have no problems with that? MR. WHEELER-Yes, that’s fine. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. WHEELER-Thank you. I have one question. With this approval, where does that leave my site plan review application that is currently pending? Does that automatically get put on agenda somewhere or is that no longer required? MR. BROWN-No, it’s still required. We’ll have to, I don’t know. We’ll have to review it. MR. WHEELER-Because the paperwork has been submitted. An application fee has been paid. MR. BROWN-Right. Confirm it for completeness, and then we’ll put it on the next available agenda. MR. WHEELER-All right. Great. Thank you. MRS. WHEELER-I did have one other question. MR. BROWN-Sure. MRS. WHEELER-You read something about a public hearing on January 24? th MR. MC NULTY-That was the date that they had on the County, and they had the wrong date. MR. BROWN-They had the wrong date, yes. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MRS. WHEELER-Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2001 TYPE II WILLIAM W. WEMPLE AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER: WILLIAM W. WEMPLE LOCATION: PILOT KNOB ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS APPROVED FOR THE LAKEWOOD SUBDIVISION. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 1/10/2001 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY OLD TAX MAP NO. 19-1-63.4 NEW TAX MAP NO. 227.14-1-31 ZONE: CURRENT-WR-1A; OLD-R-1 LOT SIZE: 0.69 ACRES SECTION 179-16 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2001, William W. Wemple, Meeting Date: January 17, 2001 “Project Location: Pilot Knob Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a single-family dwelling and seeks relief from the setback requirements of the R-1 requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 3.82 feet of relief from the 10-foot minimum setback requirement of the “old” R-1 zone, the zoning in effect at the time of the subdivision approval. 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 home as constructed. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include acquisition of additional lands, relocation or modification of the home. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 3.82 feet of relief from the 10 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate (38%). 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 appears to be self-created, as there appears to be ample room for compliant construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance): BP99-361 issued 6/22/99 single family dwelling Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The site plan approved with the above referenced building permit depicts a 10 foot side setback with a notation of an iron pipe on the property line in the immediate area of the proposed construction. At what stage was the construction of the home when the 10/13/00 “house location” was performed? (map revision #1) SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 10, 2001 Project Name: Wemple, William W. Owner: William W. Wemple ID Number: QBY-AV-5- 2001 County Project: Jan01-17 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has constructed a single family dwelling and the location of the house is in violation of Lakewood Subdivision requirements. An area variance is sought. Site Location: Route 9L to Pilot Knob Road. East side of road, Lot #2 in the Lakewood Subdivision. Tax Map Number(s): 19-1-63.4 Staff Notes: The house was placed 6.18’ from the southern property line, though 10’ are required for the side yard setback. However, this action does not appear to be the result of a desire to crowd the lot, nor is the parcel adjacent to the lake shore. Assessing the impact on the neighboring parcels to the south is a local matter. Staff does not identify any significant impacts to County or State resources from the setback deficiency. Local actions to date (if any): Public hearing set for January 24, 2001 County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 1/16/01. MR. STONE-Mr. Steves, long evening. MR. STEVES-Yes. Again, my name is Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves, and I represent Mr. Wemple on this application. He’s down in Florida at this time. Back in October, he asked us to do an as built of a new home that he had constructed on Lot #2 of the Lakewood Subdivision. We then went in, did the location, signed a copy of it for CO for Dave Hatin and depicted the map that is in front of you, and showed the deficiency in the side line setback, and we’re now in front of this Board. As far as the reasoning for it, I didn’t, wasn’t involved in the construction at all. In brief conversations with Mr. Wemple, they did some grading and a little bit of blasting, I believe, on this property, and if you look at the garage, the way they cocked them, I guess they had to swing the garage down toward the driveway a little bit more because of some rock outcropping that they had there, and it got shifted to the south, inadvertently. As far as that comment that that pipe there on the south, that was there when we did the initial survey for him back in 1999, and marked all the corners. When we went back to do the actual house location, that pipe was, in fact, buried by some fill material. So I don’t know how, I don’t know, during construction, what the status of the visibility of that iron pipe. MR. STONE-Who built the house? MR. STEVES-That I do not know. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. HAYES-It looks like a Sunsoval Subdivision. MR. UNDERWOOD-I can give you a little bit of background, because my brother lives up in that same subdivision, up on the hill above, and I recall, when they were doing it, they were blasting for a good two weeks. It’s built on solid rock here. So I’m going to guess that, as Matt said, it probably got moved because they got sick of blowing up rocks. MR. STEVES-And that’s what Mr. Wemple, I had, like I said, I had no information as far as the construction, who constructed it. He hired me to do the survey that’s before you, but he did say that they did substantial blasting, and that the only thing they can think of is that, you know, during the course of the construction, whether it be the excavator or the builder himself, I don’t know, it did get shifted to the south, and there is a substantial amount of rock, and the garage actually got twisted a little bit more, I think, than what was initially planned on. There is a 10 foot setback there. Looking at the lots, Lots 3 and 4, it really doesn’t effect that much. Yes, there is a possibility to talk to the neighboring properties and see if a boundary line agreement could be made. I really don’t know if it has a detrimental effect on the character of the neighborhood, though, as it exists. MR. STONE-Yes. Let me just ask a question of Staff. I know the answer, but when something is subdivided, even if it was 50 years ago, those dimensions hold? MR. BROWN-If it’s a Town of Queensbury Planning Board approved subdivision, the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time the subdivision was approved is what the lots are subject to when they’re developed. MR. HAYES-So it’s like grandfathering, essentially. MR. BROWN-Essentially, yes, as far as the setbacks go. Height doesn’t apply, dimensional size for the house, as if that was a condition, doesn’t apply. It’s only the setbacks. MR. ABBATE-Does it affect boundaries? MR. MC NALLY-The boundaries can change. MR. BROWN-Well, the boundaries are set by the subdivision approval. MR. MC NALLY-Subject to boundary agreements. MR. STONE-So these were 10, right now would be 20, Waterfront zoning one acre. MR. BROWN-Probably, yes. MR. STONE-It’s about 100 foot wide, although it’s not on the water. MR. BROWN-If it was waterfront zoning, it may be 20. If it was rural residential, it might be 30. MR. STONE-You’ve written down WR-1A. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STEVES-I believe that’s the correct zone. MR. MC NALLY-Who owns Lots 3 and 4, do you know? MR. STEVES-That I do not know. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s got to be the subdivision. So I don’t know, whoever the original applicant was. MR. MC NALLY-Sunsoval. MR. STEVES-I’m sure that the Staff might have. MR. BROWN-There’s a notification list in the file. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, there’s a private owner on four, I know, because they’ve had that for sale for a while. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. STONE-Let me ask a question, because there’s two people I don’t recognize. Are you going to speak on this? MR. HAYES-No, she’s a Glens Falls zoning person. MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t know if one of you could answer the question about who owns these lots. KRISTEE IACOBUCCI MS. IACOBUCCI-I am a resident of Lakewood. All the subdivisions are privately owned. MR. STONE-Okay. They are all are owned. MR. MC NALLY-Which lot do you own, can I ask? Okay. So not one of the adjacent lots, then. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-When I look at your drawing, I see a date May 14, 1999. MR. STONE-Survey, this is Matt’s. This is Mr. Steves’. It’s a survey, not a drawing. MR. MC NALLY-It says Drawing No. 99089. MR. STEVES-My original survey to Mr. Wemple, as I just stated, he hired me back in ’99 to mark the corners on the vacant property, and then subsequently he then built a home. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So you prepared a drawing originally then. MR. STEVES-That showed Lot Two as it exists without any driveway or improvements of building or any improvements. MR. STONE-Did you show the buildable area that you have on here? MR. STEVES-Yes. The revisions are shown. The house location and the applicant information as far as the note in the bottom right hand corner that says owner/applicant, those are the only two revisions. The original map showed Lot Two, showed the bounds of the property, showed the asphalt road in the subdivision. It showed exactly what’s on the map, minus the improvements, as far as the house, the driveway, and the well MR. STONE-Okay, but the buildable area was yours? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STONE-The dotted line. MR. STEVES-Yes, no question. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Just so I understand it, then the house was built, and then you made two modifications to it, Number One, to show the house location on October 13? th MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-And then the 26 of December the applicant information changes. th MR. HAYES-For us. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. What happened is when I located the building for, go into the Building Department to try to obtain a CO, then they said, no, it cannot because it doesn’t meet the setback, which is obvious. I did the survey. I knew it didn’t meet it, but then they came back and they said, would you please put the owner/applicant information on the map, which is a requirement, on the bottom right hand corner, just above the S-1, where it says owner/applicant. That’s the applicant information. MR. STONE-That’s all you added under Revision Two? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question for Craig. Wouldn’t it make sense, because the last one we had tonight and this one, when Staff goes out to do inspections, like when the original, you know, like when the footings are poured, wouldn’t it make sense to have actual stakes that were identified, so, you know, you actually had an idea of setbacks? Because, I mean, this one seems like it’s really obviously skewed over to the side, you know, like they could have said, hey, this looks like it’s way out of whack, or, you know. MR. BROWN-Yes and no. It could be staked in the field to no end. Whether you can find where the property line is and depict, or determine whether it’s correctly off the proper setback from the property line, that’s impossible without having them move the property line mark. So, we’ve thrown around the idea of having a foundation location, rather than an as built, locate it before you even build on it and then determine, but that was argued it slows down the process, and if the Zoning Board would like to make a recommendation to the Town Board to do that. MR. STONE-I thought we did, didn’t we, at one time? MR. BROWN-At one time it was thrown around, yes. MR. STEVES-And I understand the position, and I understand Craig’s position. There’s been a lot of talk, as far as my office talking with Planning Staff, and there’s a lot of variables. You have some lots where you stake the corners and you’re right up over a mound, and you swear you’re standing right between the pipes, and you swear you’re right on line, but you’re trying to hold a 90 with your hands, and you’re actually 10 or 12 feet from the property line. On an extreme, I just had an issue where a client called me up and said, my property line’s all staked. All you’ve got to do is come out and locate it, and the stakes that somebody had put in, I don’t know who it was, were about 18 feet from the property line, okay. So, I’m saying, if Mr. Brown or somebody else from that Department goes out and there’s stakes in there, he has no idea who put them there, or how accurate they are. MR. HAYES-Plus they do get buried and moved and everything, I mean, during a kind of construction site. MR. ABBATE-All that’s well and good, but this is the second application where we’ve had a house constructed, and now the individual’s seeking setback requirements, after the house has been constructed. When do we stop? MR. MC NALLY-Didn’t we, with Dr. Vittengl, make him buy some property adjacent to him? MR. HAYES-He attempted to. He didn’t get that. I think he had established that he had actually made a monetary offer. MR. STONE-Vittengl, that’s the one on Glen Lake? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s the one where the guy wanted one million dollars for five feet of land? MR. HAYES-I mean, but he had explored feasible alternatives, and that’s what you’re alluding to, but it’s true. MR. MC NALLY-Well, let’s ask that question, then. As a feasible alternative, has this applicant explored the possibility of purchasing land from his neighbors? MR. STEVES-I do not know. I have not talked to him about that, nor have I advised him to do that. He asked me to come in front of this Board to represent him. I don’t even know if that’s a possibility or not. MR. HAYES-One quick question is, I mean, are all these lots just the minimal square footage? I mean, would that be impossible because you’d be creating a nonconforming lot? MR. STEVES-The lots that, you know, currently, I can give you the exact area of Lot Three and Lot Four. I happen to have a copy of the subdivision, and I don’t believe any modification has been made. As a matter of fact, Lot Two is, which this building sits on, is larger than both Lots Three or Four. MR. HAYES-I guess what I’m saying is if you got some land from Mr. Three or Mr. Four, would that make those lots nonconforming? MR. STEVES-Less nonconforming, because they’re nonconforming by the current Code now. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. STONE-The current Code is one acre. MR. HAYES-So that wouldn’t be permissible to make them more nonconforming? MR. MC NALLY-Well, you would have a boundary agreement, that’s what would happen. MR. HAYES-All right. MR. BROWN-There’s a possibility there, yes. MR. STEVES-Well, what you would do, instead of just jogging it around the house, and taking property from Lot Three or Four, you’d pick up a sliver of Lot Two, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. In this instance, does putting 14 different jogs in the property line to gain three feet, three and a half feet, you know, yes, I agree with that statement. Does it really apply here? I don’t know. That’s your call. MR. STONE-Let me do something. I doubt there’s anything in the file, any letters or anything? MR. MC NULTY-No. MR. STONE-But let me open the public hearing, so that if anybody wishes to speak on the fact that it’s too close to the line, we’ll know it. I don’t expect anybody will speak, but we’ll know it anyway. So let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KRISTEE IACOBUCCI MS. IACOBUCCI-My name is Kristee Iacobucci. My question is, if this is approved, would this be a precedent setting situation for the next time that someone builds on the lot? Because, currently, it’s about half of the lots that are vacant. MR. STONE-No, not necessarily. MR. MC NALLY-Not necessarily. Each of the lots would be required to meet the current setback, and unless everyone starts making mistakes and accidentally putting their houses beyond that, that doesn’t establish a precedent. MR. STONE-And certainly if we were to grant this, it’s possible we could send a letter to the property owners telling them what happened, and be careful in the future, because if we grant this one, we’re not going to do it in the future, if you do it as built. Is that something we can do, Craig? MR. BROWN-I suppose you could. I don’t know why you would want to. MR. ABBATE-I don’t think that would be a wise move, quite frankly. MR. STONE-You don’t think so? MR. ABBATE-No, I do not. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HIMES-It might not work. MR. ABBATE-Well, besides that, I’m not so sure where we stand legally doing something like that. When you do that, you’ve already, you’ve forecasted a determination. MR. STONE-Okay. Good point. Your answer is probably not, it would not create a precedent. MS. IACOBUCCI-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-But your question is well taken. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have a position one way or the other with respect to this application? They want after the fact approval, whoops, we made a mistake, please forgive us. MS. IACOBUCCI-Well, I’m a little concerned, disappointed that this happened. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. MC NALLY-Well, the relief is relatively modest. MR. HAYES-Three and a half feet or three and three quarters feet. MR. MC NALLY-3.82 over where they should have been. MS. IACOBUCCI-It is, but it’s the principle that I think probably knew that this was the situation. MR. STONE-Well, we’ve been wrestling with that. I don’t know if you were here earlier in the evening. Mr. Steves knows, we’ve been wrestling with that all night. MR. MC NALLY-Do you know who owns the two adjacent (lost word)? MS. IACOBUCCI-I have that at home, but I don’t know off the top of my head. MR. MC NALLY-They’re both vacant, aren’t they? MS. IACOBUCCI-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Lot Four, at least three or four years ago, was named by a party named Gallo, and at that point they had it up for sale. MS. IACOBUCCI-It’s still owned by him. It’s for sale now. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry, please help me. Kristee, your point is well made. Your question about, are we setting a precedence is a well founded question. Secondly, you indicated you’re disappointed, and I’m sure that was a mild comment, and I think we, as a Board, have an obligation to address both those issues, because I’m not happy about it either, and thank you for coming forward. MS. IACOBUCCI-Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. HIMES-It’s not a question. It’s just a comment for the record, that when I went up to look at it, I confirmed that I was looking at the right place. I had a little bit of difficulty finding it. I went all the way up to the end, and ran into a Mrs. Ellsworth who has the last house up the road there, and she made me promise, double promise, cross my heart and hope to die, that I would tell anyone listening today that she has no problem with the fact that, now she’s kind of up the hill and across the road. MR. STONE-You mean at the end of this asphalt road? MR. HIMES-Well, actually, it snakes around so she actually looks right down on this. MR. STEVES-I can show you that, if you’d like. MR. STONE-Yes, because I was totally, it was new to me today, when I was up there. MR. HIMES-That doesn’t mean that I don’t have a problem with it. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. HAYES-She was just trying to neutralize you. MR. STEVES-This is Lot Two in question, and I believe she’s on Lot now. MR. STONE-Okay. So it goes back up the mountain, but this is all in Fort Ann over here, where she? 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. STEVES-That’s correct. There is the Town line right there. MR. HIMES-She looks right down, I can’t figure out where we are here. MR. STONE-This is the house in question MR. HIMES-She just looks across this little bit of real estate right down there, and she had me there until I thought I’d freeze to death. She wanted to know a lot of things, but anyway, so that we all know that she wants to. MR. STONE-But she had no problems, you’re saying? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-She’s the one that has the no trespassing sign. MR. STONE-Okay. So Lot Four is a very crazy lot. MR. MC NULTY-An odd shaped lot, yes. That one’s going to be very tough to build on, too. It’s got a lot of rock on it. MR. STEVES-Having first hand knowledge of the property, and I’m not, you know, you’re going to ask me my professional opinion on it, as far as the location of these two homes, this would not affect that whatsoever. MR. MC NULTY-This one, I think we figured, is going to have to be down in here somewhere. MR. STEVES-It’s going to have to be down in a narrower spot, and this one here actually would probably end up being down in that area, because you can see the contours and the slope is getting steep. MR. HAYES-The road is steep. MR. STONE-Yes. As I was saying to Jaime, I didn’t let my wheels get off the asphalt when I tried to turn around in the driveway. I figured I wouldn’t get out of there. MR. MC NULTY-You should have been there a couple of years ago when they had the road up the mountain open. There’s a house way up the mountain, a half mile up, you know, where you bear right into that cul de sac loop, and go straight instead. There’s a set of garages behind a barricade. $500,000 road up to this house. MR. STONE-That’s the drug road, the drug house. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. STONE-Is that why the road goes over there. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, that’s what it is. MR. STONE-The drug house. MR. STEVES-The alias, three alias’ name on the top of the mountain. MR. STONE-That’s now been bought by the Nature Conservancy. It’s, if you look out from Pilot Knob, or look out from Cleverdale or Assembly Point, look over it’s way up on a hill. It’s all by itself. Apparently was a drug dealer, and he want to jail. MR. STEVES-I had the pleasure of working in the field at the time, I was actually in the field doing all this survey work on Lakewood and on that particular property, and to get way off the subject, I was working on that driveway of his, when I was walking down with the instrument over my shoulder, and about six black Suburbans show up with everybody in black suits, I had the feeling it wasn’t good news. MR. STONE-You were there when the raid was going on. MR. STEVES-Yes. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. STONE-It was bought by the Lake George Basin Land Conservancy. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Will this have an impact on Lot Three and Lot Four? In other words, we have owners who have, who own Lot Three, I’m assuming, and who own Lot Four. MR. HAYES-In your professional opinion. MR. STEVES-In my professional opinion, no. I’m not saying that in my professional opinion I condone the moving. I’m saying that I don’t believe that the proximity to the property line would affect either the visibility or the building of the other two lots. MR. STONE-Okay. I think we’ve talked about it. Jim, let’s start with you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that, you know, we’re here again in the same position, but to get all angry or bent out of shape about it, I don’t know to what end that, you know, we can do anything. We’re basically constrained by the fact the house is there. It’s on solid rock, basically, and there’s really, you know, nothing we can do, other than grant relief. I mean, if you don’t grant relief, what does it mean, the house is uninhabitable, basically, and I don’t think that would be, you know, the owner, the onus is on the owner, but at the same time, you know, it’s, I don’t know how you would do it. Whether you paint a line down on the rocks or something or measure off of that, the next time up in that subdivision, because it is solid rock, and obviously whoever’s going to do anything next door is going to blast again. Things are going to get moved around. MR. STONE-Craig, let me ask. I mean, you and I talked about it the other day. What have the courts done? Obviously, if we deny this, the applicant will go to court, I would assume. They’ve got a house. They will take all remedies before they tear off three feet or four feet of the house. Have the courts ever, have they done anything in this area? MR. BROWN-As far as upholding a Zoning Board’s determination to tell somebody to take down a house? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. STONE-They have? MR. BROWN-Whole houses. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-Ultimately, the Ordinance wouldn’t have any teeth if you ultimately couldn’t say no. MR. BROWN-If there was no backbone, yes. MR. MC NULTY-I think the only thing with this one is it would be difficult to jack it up and move it, but I live in a house that had to be moved 19 feet. When the guy built it, he built it 19 feet too close to the road. MR. ABBATE-I think the point here is that we’re going to say, well, you know what, the house has already been built. This is about 17 homes already, and there was an error there, but what are we going to do about it? I say what we do about it is say no. MR. STONE-All right. Well, we started with Jim. Where do you come out, Jim? MR. STEVES-Could I make one quick statement to the court thing that you brought up? I’ve seen this, in my 19 years of doing this, some different scenarios, and what they do come back to is the fact, and you’re absolutely correct in your statement that, you know, you can’t be doing this all the time, but it is what’s called the Zoning Board of Appeals is to give relief from that, and they, the courts will come back to you and say, was there, you know. MR. HAYES-Was it reasonable to do so. MR. STEVES-Right, was there so much adversity to this that you had, you know, you have to weigh it again. Is it a detriment to the, and that’s what the courts, I’m trying to say, have come back and said to the Boards. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) MR. HAYES-They’re going to kick it back to the balancing. MR. STEVES-You got it. MR. UNDERWOOD-And there’s no grand detriment to the community. It’s unfortunate but it’s there. MR. STONE-So you’re saying you would say yes? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll grant relief. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I’m opposed to this thing, to granting it. I don’t know who is responsible, and what kind of bond or coverages or what not that they might be required to have or have had in order to provide some relief to anyone that’s damaged as a result of this. More importantly, although we can’t help but sometimes try to feel for the person that’s impacted. Oftentimes I ring my hands about well, gee, what alternative do we have? Well, really, you know, up to a point, that’s not for us to decide, because we do not know how many alternatives there really are. We look, sometimes, to the Staff comments as to what alternatives there might be, but in terms of hardship and this and that and the other for us to come to the conclusion that, we’re going to have to do this because, my God, just look at (lost word) well, Codes are made for reasons that don’t need to be enumerated here, and it’s normally, again, because of some very understandable and substantive reasons for someone to apply for a variance, and as we go back to the thing again, about what would happen if they had come in before this house was built, and asked for this. We certainly wouldn’t have granted it, and so it goes into all this hazy area of all of a sudden it’s built over here. Okay. The impact on the neighbor may not be that great. I’d like to see him try to see whether they can buy or make some adjustment in the property line so that this thing is within tolerance, you know, it meets the Code, and that’s about the way I feel about it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I couldn’t state it any better myself, and I appreciate that, and I would also like to say that there is concern from the public. We heard one comment this evening that, I think it was something like I’m concerned or I’m upset about this thing, and I think the public has reason to be upset because we have yet to say no. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-The list of feasible alternatives include acquisition of additional lands, relocation, modification of the home. A good chunk of this home is over the line by 3.82 feet. So any relocation or any modification and any acquisitions probably would be a costly little process. So it might be an alternative, but I don’t really see it as feasible. I don’t find that the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance. It’s modest, particularly when you consider the vacant parcels next to it are unoccupied. The effects on the neighborhood or community are also minimal. I’m satisfied, having looked at the land, that anyone who builds on Lots Three and Four are going to build a fair distance away from this house. So while ideally the strict letter of the law was you had to be 10 feet. You can’t get any closer, and we want to stick it to you, this is really a balancing test, and in this particular lot, the effect upon that development, the effect upon the adjacent lots, are nominal. There is no effect, and to require someone to take a chainsaw or cut 3.82 feet off their house, or to have them jack the whole house up and move it, or not to occupy it, or to enter into this, we’ve done it before. We did it on (lost words), but in this case, it doesn’t matter. On a better case maybe where someone admits to a problem, that’s fine. I’d be in favor of the variance. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with Bob and with the applicant or the applicant’s agent. I think the Zoning Board of Appeals, our existence is to consider reasonable and minimal relief from the Zoning Ordinance, when it’s applicable, when it’s reasonable, and I think in this case it is. I think Bob spelled it out very well, that the feasible alternatives are fairly Draconian in this case, and I think we have to consider those, I really do, and the one thing I disagree with Chuck on is we have said no. I mean, we had a mahogany deck up on Lake George which was too close to the lake, and it was too close to the lake for the obvious reason that the applicant was trying to benefit somehow from doing so, and we said no. In the end he had to remove part of that deck, essentially. So we do say no, and we consider every case that’s in front of us on its merits in each case, but in this case, by saying no to this applicant on 3.82 feet of relief, is that the remedy that we, is that a reasonable remedy or a reasonable resolution to this matter? I don’t think it is, and I don’t think that, in this case, based on the size of the lots and where I see the houses being proposed on the other lots, I don’t think that 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) there’s an impact on the neighborhood or the community really here at all, in this particular case. So I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’ll agree. I am disturbed that the house was built where it is. It’s too close to the lot line, especially when the setback’s only 10 feet, but as Bob pointed out, I think we have to balance that requirement with the benefits to the applicant and the detriment to the neighborhood, and in this case, I agree that most any solution, other than getting a variance for the applicant, is going to be significant, and having looked at the lots up there, and knowing that in all probability the homes that would be built on Lots Three and Four are not going to be built near this one. They’re going to have to be built a distance away, so I don’t think this is going to impact the value of the other lots, which should be a consideration, even though they’re vacant, but I don’t think it’s going to impact the value on the other lots. It’s not going to impact somebody that builds a home there later. So, on the balancing act, I think it has to fall to the benefit to the applicant, and I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-I’m forced to disagree with a couple of my fellow Board members who are willing to grant this variance. Bob McNally said there are, he enumerated three alternatives, one of which is a real alternative, buy some land. I think the owner of this property is responsible for the fact that this house is too close to the line, in one way. That’s the only person that we know that’s responsible for it. I think that is certainly an alternative that they can come back to us and say, we can’t buy it. You were citing Vittengl. As I remember that, the man tried to buy five feet of land beside his chimney, and the neighbor wanted a fee that was about $250,000 an acre when we worked it out, which meant, to me, that he didn’t care that the house was too close to the line, but he wanted to make a real profit out of it. So therefore we granted the variance because, obviously, the neighbor didn’t care that he was too close to it, and that was a very different thing. In this particular case, we don’t have houses there. I think it is an alternative. Granted, it might be, using the favorite word of the evening, Draconian, to ask the guy to slice off 3. some feet of the house, but there is an alternative that they can try before we have to grant a variance, and having said that, I would say, no, in this particular case, until at least that one possibility is exhausted, in other words, can we get a lot line adjustment somehow. MR. STEVES-I don’t disagree with that, but I’d let the facts present themselves. Those two lot owners not only didn’t show up against it. They did not write any letters against it either. So therefore, I would say that just like the case of the other one you’re describing, they don’t have a problem with it. MR. STONE-Except that it was stated tonight that one lot apparently has been owned by one man for five or six years, trying to sell it from the get go, it seems to me. I’m not sure he cares. I mean, I would argue that he doesn’t care one way or the other. MR. STEVES-Then I think that that’s what this Board is about is to find out whether or not. MR. STONE-Well, I understand. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. STONE-But having said that, I would say no, but looking on balance at the moment, I would call for a motion to approve the variance. MR. HIMES-Before we do that, could I add to my comments? MR. STONE-Sure. MR HIMES-Just a couple of items to add to what I’ve said before, and it’s in connection with the, there’s not been an abundance of information made available to us as to why this situation is there, and as far as I’m concerned, looking at it, from what little I’ve heard, it’s gross negligence. Maybe there’s no intent to be dishonest or whatnot but certainly, I’m left to assume negligence, gross negligence, in having that house where it is on someone’s part, and that’s reason enough, maybe why we should, all right, wait a minute here, and the other is, in connection with effects on the neighborhood or the community, the community is what suffers here. Okay, the next door neighbor may not care, on whatever side or in back or what not, but, in view of, again, the comments I made earlier, the comment I made just now, there is a detrimental effect on the community at large in connection with what we’re doing by approving this without anyone telling us, giving us any kind of a reason to do so. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-And, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to add to my comments, too, as well. I agree with him, and it would seem to me that if the property owner were here, he could probably answer questions which would eliminate a lot of our concerns, but he’s not here, and we have limited information, and 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) as my colleague says, it does have an impact. I don’t care whether the impact is one percent, it’s still an impact on the community. MR. STONE-And we also have a person here from the public who is concerned. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. MR. STONE-She didn’t say no, but she’s concerned, and therefore, that’s the one piece of input we got on that side. So, but, as I gather the votes, there are four people who are willing to grant this variance. So I would ask one of them, unless someone has changed their vote, to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2001 WILLIAM W. WEMPLE, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Off Pilot Knob Road, on a subdivision road known as Lakewood Road. The applicant has constructed a single family dwelling and seeks relief from the setback requirements of the R-1 zone. Specifically, the applicant requests 3.82 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum setback requirement of the old R-1 zone. That is the zoning in effect at the time the subdivision was approved. The reason for this variance is because they actually built their house within that 10 foot buffer zone by 3.82 feet. The applicant would be permitted to maintain their home as constructed. The alternatives include acquisition of additional lands, relocation or modification. In my opinion, these alternatives are not feasible, given the nature of the alternatives, their cost, and that the relief we’re being asked to grant is modest. The relief is not substantial. 3.82 feet of relief from the 10 foot requirement is modest, particularly where the adjacent properties are vacant. Overall, the effects on the neighborhood or community will be nominal, as the adjacent lots are relatively large, homes to be built upon them will not be built adjacent or at least immediately adjacent to the house that’s under consideration tonight, and in reality, we’re talking about three feet, a little bit more than three feet, a little bit more than a yard stick of space on lots that are quite a bit larger than that, and they offer ample room for alternative construction. I agree that the difficulty appears to be self-created, but on balance, when I consider all these factors, there would seem to be more than enough reason to move that this variance be approved. Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Approved, four to three. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. STONE-We have one set of minutes, gentlemen, to go through. CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 20, 2000: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE DECEMBER 20, 2000 MEETING, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 17 day of January, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-The meeting’s adjourned, gentlemen. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/17/01) Lewis Stone, Chairman 51