Loading...
2001-05-16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 16, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ALLAN BRYANT PAUL HAYES CHARLES ABBATE ROBERT MC NALLY NORMAN HIMES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2001 RICK AND DARLENE LA LONDE AGENT: N/A OWNER OF PROPERTY: RICK AND DARLENE LA LONDE LOCATION: 20 LYNN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 816 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. AV 15-1998 ZONE: UR-10 OLD TAX MAP NO. 111-2-6 NEW TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-66 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION 179-17, 179-79 RICK & DARLENE LA LONDE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2001, Rick and Darlene LaLonde, Meeting Date: May 16, 2001 “Project Location: 20 Lynn Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 816 sf one story addition to the existing 624 sf home. Relief Required: Applicant requests 16 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the UR- 10 zone, § 179-17. Additionally, relief for the expansion, in excess of 50%, of a non-conforming structure is requested per § 179-79, A. 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 home as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include an addition in compliance with the regulations. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 16 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial while a 130% expansion may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there appears to be sufficient area for compliant construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Area Variance 15-1998 res. 5/27/98 identical request to this one. Approved Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The current structure, at 624 sf is below the 800 sf minimum required for new construction. The total 1480 sf home appears to be a modest request, not uncharacteristic with the neighborhood. The applicant is before the Board as they did not act on the previous approval within one year. Per § 179-92, a Board decision shall expire after one year if not acted on or extended. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. and Mrs. LaLonde, come forward. MRS. LA LONDE-Thank you for pronouncing the name right. MR. STONE-That was easy, I thought. So, what do you want to tell us? Three years ago, what happened? The minutes said something about chasing around the house. I’ve looked at the minutes, but I don’t know what’s going on. MRS. LA LONDE-No. He worked for Grand Union, and we did apply, we didn’t realize it would expire. It’s stupidity for us, but we didn’t want to take a loan out, not knowing the stability of Grand Union. So, when he did, they picked up the job, and he does have a good job. We applied for the loan, got approved, and didn’t realize the variance had run out. MR. STONE-So you’re back again. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MRS. LA LONDE-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So basically it’s the same thing you wanted to do three years ago. MRS. LA LONDE-Yes. MR. STONE-I’ve got a couple of questions. The Board may be, it is a busy lot. It was just as busy three years ago as it is today. How about the trailer? MRS. LA LONDE-That’s not ours. That’s the man that owns the property in between, the yellow house. MR. LA LONDE-From that fence line over, that’s Ron DuFour’s land. MRS. LA LONDE-Yes, and I think at the last minute somebody had mentioned something about trying to get him to clean that lot up. MR. STONE-Well, it was there three years ago, as I remember, going, and the fence is the property line? MR. LA LONDE-Right. MRS. LA LONDE-Yes. We just kind of didn’t want people to think that was our land, that looked that bad. MR. STONE-I assume, Craig, that the septic is up to Code, since we’re looking at this thing. MR. BROWN-Yes. Typically the septic system’s addressed during the building permit process. So we’ll take a look at it there. It’s not as critical. It’s not the waterfront zoning. MR. STONE-It’s not waterfront. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I just had one for Craig. Does this have to go back to the Planning Board again? MR. BROWN-No, it does not. MR. HIMES-Okay. So everything went through okay, as far as that was concerned, last time. It’s just, okay, thank you. MR. STONE-Just for the record, it should be noted, looking at the record, that three of us who currently sit on the Board did vote for this application, did vote on this application last time. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, for the record, if I might. Yesterday, the applicant’s architect furnished us with some elevation drawings of the proposed house, for the file, and when I reviewed them, the deck that’s shown on the, we’ll call it the west side of the house, isn’t shown on this plan here. So if we could clarify how big that deck’s going to be. MRS. LA LONDE-We’re sorry about that. That’s not going to be built now. MR. BROWN-Okay. MRS. LA LONDE-That was for the future. MR. BROWN-I just wanted to clarify. If that’s going to be part of the official record, I want to make sure. MRS. LA LONDE-Okay. It’s 12 by 12, I believe. MR. STONE-So this deck here on the left, as we look at it, is not part of that? MRS. LA LONDE-Not right now, no. It just took us forever to get the plans done. So we figured we have him do it while we had him. MR. LA LONDE-That way they’ll have everything all set. MR. STONE-But that would not effect any relief we would grant. Would it? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. HAYES-It could if it goes too close. MR. BROWN-It could if goes too close. MR. STONE-Too close to the west line? MR. BROWN-Correct. Yes, if it’s actually a 12 foot deck, they need to maintain a 10 foot side line setback. So they’d be a foot over, but if it’s, if they don’t want to consider it as part of this application, we’ll just clarify that right now. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-Do you understand what he’s? MRS. LA LONDE-No. MR. HAYES-Well, I guess if you put that deck on, you would need a variance for that as it’s depicted here. MRS. LA LONDE-Okay. So where our fence is, you’re saying we need. MR. HAYES-It’s the property line. I’m not sure where the fence is, but it’s the property line. MRS. LA LONDE-Okay. So that, it needs to clear so many feet. MR. HAYES-Ten feet. MR. STONE-Ten feet. MR. LA LONDE-I’ve got well over 10 feet from my fence to the 12 foot deck. MR. BROWN-The plan shows 21 feet to the proposed house, and if you’re going to add a 12 foot deck on, it’s going to leave you with nine feet, and you need to be 10. MR. HAYES-Just keep it in mind. MRS. LA LONDE-Okay. MR. BROWN-If you want to include it as part of this application, it saves you coming back next time, if the Board’s comfortable acting on it, or if you don’t want to do it. MR. STONE-Was it advertised? MR. BROWN-It was advertised for setback relief, yes. MR. STONE-And that’s enough? We don’t get more specific than that? MR. BROWN-No, we don’t issue the plans, no. It’s up to you. If you’re comfortable looking at it, it wasn’t part of the package, the original application, but you have it in front of you now. MR. STONE-And your scaling says that’s going to be nine feet from the property line? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-So that’s one foot of relief, then, essentially. MR. BROWN-So that would be one foot of side setback relief, right. MR. MC NALLY-Is that going to be on the side of the Bilco door? MR. LA LONDE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-It’s that same side? MR. LA LONDE-Yes. MR. STONE-It would be to the left of the house as you face it from. MR. MC NALLY-Lynn Avenue there? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. STONE-From Lynn. MRS. LA LONDE-Yes, on the side. MR. STONE-So we’re talking 16 from the front and one foot if we, is everybody comfortable with that idea? Anybody uncomfortable with it? MR. HIMES-With what, the deck? MR. MC NULTY-With considering it. MR. STONE-Yes, with considering it. MR. BROWN-Did you say it was 12 by 12? MRS. LA LONDE-Yes. MR. HIMES-Why can’t you bring it down one foot and make it? MR. STONE-Well, that’s another issue. Do we want to consider the possibility of a deck? They’re requesting a deck that would require one foot of relief. We don’t have to grant the one foot of relief, but we can consider it. That’s all I’m talking about. MR. HIMES-Okay, yes. That’s all right. MR. STONE-Okay. So everybody’s comfortable considering it. So he’s now seeking 16 foot of relief from the front setback and one from the side setback, to the west. Okay, and the, obviously the nonconforming structure. Okay. Any other questions? MR. HIMES-Just one. What would be the difficulty in just cutting down that deck to bring it, so that you’d have your 10 feet? MR. LA LONDE-There wouldn’t be any difficulty. We could do that. I didn’t realize it was nine feet. I thought we had plenty of room over there, from the deck to our property line. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-So you would be willing to not seek a variance and build. MR. LA LONDE-Eleven foot. MR. STONE-Or 10 foot, 11 foot deck. Okay. So then we’ll take it off the table. So, you’re not requesting relief. MR. BROWN-It’s up to the applicant. MR. STONE-That’s what they’re saying. MR. LA LONDE-That’s fine. MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. LA LONDE-We’re not hard to get along with, at least we try not to be. MR. MC NALLY-And if you change your mind, you can always come back and ask for relief. It’s a small amount, but his point is right. If it makes no difference to you, 11 or 12 feet wide. MR. STONE-And if we don’t have to grant a variance, we’d prefer not to. I mean, obviously, we sit here to do that. We also sit here not to grant relief. MRS. LA LONDE-We’re just thrilled to get the addition on, believe me. MR. STONE-Good. Well, you haven’t got that yet. MRS. LA LONDE-I know, but I’m just saying we would be thrilled for that. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions of the LaLonde’s? Okay. Then I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-No County action? MR. MC NULTY-No County action. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? Well, let’s talk about it. Norm, let’s start with you. MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am in agreement with the original approval of this application, when it was first made, and looking at the property and the rest, and the plans that you have, I think kind of, certainly, it’s no surprise that you need some space. Living in a small house myself, I can appreciate that. So, with that said, I think that the variances requested are reasonable, and I would approve the application again. That’s all for me. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I voted for it last time around and I’ll vote for it again. I’m not sure why Mr. Porter’s motion was passed, though. I tried to read it and didn’t understand what the heck the reasoning was, but in this case, you have a 600 and some odd square foot home, which is loaded, minimum 800 square foot housing requirement, which (lost words) and the proposal that is made is modest, and it is in the only logical place you would build an addition, on a corner lot, which is to the rear on both sides, and I think that the fact that you’re asking for setback relief is mitigated by the fact that your home is further back from the paved surface of the road, on both Lynn Avenue and Park Avenue than it is from your property lines. So effectively you have a fair amount of space between the two of them, even though it’s not literally what the Ordinance would require, and there’s no effect on the neighborhood whatsoever, as far as I can tell. I think it’s, you know, your proposal is in keeping with the neighborhood. So, it would be perfectly fine in my mind. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree with what’s been said so far. When you look at the property and consider the need, I don’t think it’s going to have any real effect on the neighborhood, unless it’s a positive effect. Certainly there’s a need to expand the home. So I think the balance falls in favor of the applicants. I don’t see any real detrimental effect at all from it. So I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree. Like Bob said, I was in favor of this before, and I’m in favor of it now. I think it’ll be consistent with the neighborhood, and certainly the house sits below the legal building limit now. To upgrade it to a reasonable sized home seems like a good idea to me, if you can afford it, and so I’m in favor of it. I don’t see any real negative impact on your neighborhood, and maybe even an improvement. So, I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Yes. I agree with the other Board members. I wasn’t here at the original hearing, but I read the minutes. I didn’t understand them either, but I would go along with the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. The application is straight forward. It was approved previously, and the two questions that I had were answered, in terms of why you allowed it to expire. I understand now, and also I was concerned about the septic thing, which was explained by Craig. I certainly agree with the other Board members. I think this is a reasonable request. It’s certainly not uncharacteristic of the area, and as far as I’m concerned, I’ll support the application. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly concur with the rest of my fellow Board members. I saw no reason to object three years ago. I’m pleased that you’re going to have the opportunity to finally do it. Sometimes we sit here and we grant variances, and we don’t always know what happens, and it’s, I 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) don’t drive down that street on a regular basis very often, and so you assume something is going to be done. So I’m glad you’re finally going to get the opportunity. Having said that, I need a motion to approve the variance. I also need it to include an as built survey. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2001 RICK AND DARLENE LALONDE, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 20 Lynne Avenue. The applicant proposes the construction of an 816 square foot one story addition to their existing 624 square foot home. Specifically, the applicant requests 16 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirements of the UR-10 zone, that is Section 179-17 of the Town Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, relief for expansion in excess of 50% of a nonconforming structure is requested, pursuant to Section 179-79. I move the approval for the following reasons. First, the applicants would be permitted to enlarge their home to give them some of the elbow room that is needed and to conform with the minimal square foot requirements of the Town of Queensbury. Second, while alternatives would include an addition and compliance with the regulations, given the configuration of this lot on the corner, and the difficulty of adding an addition to an existing structure, in these circumstances, while it might be an alternative, it’s simply not feasible. Any alternative is going to require some kind of relief. The relief, in my opinion, is not substantial relative to the Ordinance. Sixteen feet of relief from the thirty foot requirement could be interpreted as more significant. However, in this case there’s also a green space between the property line and the paved surface of the road, making it seem as if the distance from the road to the house is in fact larger than it really is. Also, while a 130% expansion can be interpreted as substantial, in this case, the house is so small to begin with that bringing it up to Code and a little beyond that is not, in my opinion, a significant impact. The effect on the neighborhood or community is going to be nominal. Nothing is going to happen except to improve the area and to improve the neighborhood. The difficulty is not self created. It depends upon the sufficiency of the area for compliant construction and the configuration of the lot, and for all these reasons, I would move the approval, subject to the contingency that the applicants, following construction, submit an as built survey showing where the structure is built. Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. MC NALLY-Is that okay? MR. STONE-Do you understand that last part, I mean, that’s by a surveyor? MRS. LA LONDE-Not totally, but, no, I don’t. MR. STONE-Okay. We have to have a survey, done by a licensed surveyor. It’s a cost, but because, after it’s finished, when it’s done. MRS. LA LONDE-Okay. MR. STONE-To show that it’s exactly where you say it’s going to be, where we’ve allowed you to put it. So you have to get a survey. MRS. LA LONDE-And that’s after it’s all completed? MR. STONE-After it’s all done. MRS. LA LONDE-I can afford that. MR. STONE-Good. MR. MC NALLY-That’ll be part of the Town record, so we know exactly where it is, what the status of the building is, at the end of your construction. MRS. LA LONDE-Okay. May I ask a question? Is there a difference, if you build a house, is there a difference between having a variance for an attached garage or an unattached garage? Is there such a thing? MR. STONE-It depends upon the circumstances. I mean, you are allowed a 900 square foot garage, whether it’s attached or unattached. MRS. LA LONDE-Okay, and you wouldn’t necessarily have to have a variance, I mean, as long as it conforms to what the setback is? MR. STONE-You might need setback requirements. It’s hard to say. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MRS. LA LONDE-I was just asking. MR. STONE-If you had a very small lot, like the next one we’re going to talk about, Mr. Clute may want to talk about, I don’t think he does, but it could be, when you build on a lot that is minimal for the area, you might want to, you might find yourself needing one. MRS. LA LONDE-No. My garage is bigger than my house, and it’s already there. I was just asking. MR. STONE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Now, do it. MRS. LA LONDE-The money’s already there. MR. LA LONDE-Thanks. MRS. LA LONDE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2001 TYPE II LARRY CLUTE AGENT: N/A OWNER: LARRY CLUTE LOCATION: 3 FELD AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE BUFFER ZONE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE CROSS REF. TOWN BOARD ACTION: MONDAY, MAY 7, 2001 ZONE: UR-10 OLD TAX MAP NO. 117-9-10 AND 11 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.07-1-25 AND 309.07-1-24 LOT SIZE: 0.10 ACRES AND 0.11 ACRES SECTION 179-17 FOR UR-10 ZONE; 179-72 FOR BUFFER ZONE LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2001, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: May 16, 2001 “Project Location: 3 Feld Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling and seeks relief from the buffer zone requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 21 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum buffer zone requirement of the UR-10 zone, § 179-17 as well as the requirements of § 179-72, Buffer Zones. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation or reorientation of the home. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 21 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Petition for zone change from LI-1A to UR-10 resolved by Town Board on 5/7/01 – approved. Staff comments: Minimal adverse impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposal is for a modest single family home at the end of a dead end street. The proposal appears to be consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. The proposed construction may prove to mitigate both the visual and audible impacts from the adjoining Light Industrial use on the residential neighborhood. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Any County? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Mr. Clute, tell us what you’re trying to do, because I looked at it and I wasn’t quite sure. MR. CLUTE-I’d like, the two lots individual can’t really be used. They’re consistent with the neighborhood. The whole neighborhood is made up of a bunch of small lots that have been, over time, put together and made use of, homes put on them. This one here, it was two lots tied together, but one was Light Industrial. So I had to go for the variance for that. Now that it’s residential, I have fairly, a conforming lot to the neighborhood. So I just want to put a small home on that lot. MR. STONE-Okay. So, the 117-9-11 is now in UR-10? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. CLUTE-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay, but where you want to put the house on this property, or anywhere on this thing, it’s going to impact on? MR. CLUTE-On that buffer zone. MR. STONE-On the buffer zone. Do we have a location of this house? Do we have a map of the, I have a map of the. MR. CLUTE-It was submitted. I think that’s right there in your hand there. Is that a plot plan? MR. STONE-I guess it is, yes. I’m sorry. Now that I see the colors on it. So, to the left of this thing is where the buffer zone is? MR. CLUTE-Right. The blue dotted line is actually buffer zone, yes. MR. MC NALLY-The fence next to the old Curtis Lumber, that’s that red line that’s shown on this map? MR. CLUTE-No, actually, the fence is beyond that further. They hold their fence back off their property, off the property line quite a ways, actually. MR. MC NALLY-I was wondering how you’d get a house on any one of those two lots. So you’re combining both of them. You’re putting the house right smack dab in the middle, just about? MR. CLUTE-That is correct. MR. STONE-So when you say you’ve combined them, you’ve combined the two on either side of the yellow line on here? MR. CLUTE-Right. The yellow line was the divide between the two lots. MR. STONE-The two lots. MR. CLUTE-Right. MR. STONE-And now it’s going to be .18 acres. So they were each about point, less than a tenth of an acre. MR. CLUTE-They were small, yes. MR. STONE-That’s 4,000 square feet. MR. CLUTE-Yes. I’m looking at the tax map, I’ve got a copy of that, and actually the entire neighborhood is made up of 45 foot road frontage, 45 by roughly 110, the whole neighborhood, that whole area. There was a bunch of individual 45 foot lots. These really not being much different. MR. STONE-Is the hill on the lot in the back? MR. CLUTE-The hill is the back side of it. MR. STONE-And you’re not going to? MR. CLUTE-I won’t encroach on that at all. MR. STONE-How about the hydrant? MR. CLUTE-The hydrant is actually on Town property, Town of Queensbury property. MR. STONE-But it’s right in the middle of the. MR. CLUTE-Yes, it’s right in the middle of the lot. MR. STONE-It’s right where the lot lines, where they were divided. MR. CLUTE-Exactly, right in the middle of them, yes. So they’re going to have a hydrant, essentially, in their front yard. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. MC NALLY-Is this going to be a stick construction? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Are you going to put a double wide on a foundation? What are you going to do? MR. CLUTE-Stick built. MR. HAYES-You said it’s 764 square feet, roughly speaking? MR. CLUTE-Twenty-four by thirty-six. MR. HAYES-Is that below the minimum, I mean, according to that last one? MR. STONE-No. That’s bigger, 596. MR. MC NULTY-Eight hundred sixty-four square feet. MR. HAYES-Is that what it is? MR. CLUTE-Yes, 24 by 36. MR. ABBATE-Now, this new proposed is a little over an acre. Am I correct on that? MR. STONE-No, it’s .18 acres. MR. ABBATE-.18. MR. STONE-The new zoning is a 10,000 square foot lot. It’s under that. MR. CLUTE-Yes. It’s under 10,000 square feet. Yes. MR. HIMES-Yes. Somewhere in here, I can’t find it now, in the data, it refers to a 73 foot back line, but on the survey it comes to 63 feet. MR. STONE-Question, Craig. If this isn’t 10,000, who decides if you can build on it? MR. BROWN-What you’ve got is two pre-existing, nonconforming lots that we’re consolidating into one. So it’s not creation of new lots. It’s a consolidation. You’re actually eliminating a lot. So it’s, it’s a pre-existing condition. MR. STONE-Yes, but one lot was not in UR-10. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-It was in Light Industrial. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. HAYES-But you had one pre-existing lot which is going to give him the right to try and build one. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-Well, that’s the question I’m asking. If we don’t need one, fine. MR. BROWN-A variance for a lot less than 10,000 square feet, no, you don’t need that. MR. STONE-Okay. We’ve never had one like that. MR. ABBATE-And is that based upon the fact that these are two pre-existing, nonconforming lots? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you. I understand. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. CLUTE-Most of the neighborhood is made up of less, even though it’s UR-10, the majority of this neighborhood does not even meet that 10,000 square foot. Most of them are flown between 9,000 and 10,000, but. MR. STONE-Yes, except you want to build a new house. MR. CLUTE-Right. MR. MC NALLY-Have these lots been combined already on a single deed? MR. CLUTE-These ones, they will be when I’m done, but they weren’t. To be honest with you, I just got the Light Industrial changed. So now they’ll be combined. MR. STONE-Yes, it was last Monday. MR. MC NALLY-Is this a spec house? Because I see the map’s made to. MR. CLUTE-No. It’s been sold. I’m on my third contract right now. The reason it didn’t sell the first two times is because I’m here. The first time the financing fell through. The second time was I didn’t realize I had a Light Industrial lot until I submitted for a building permit, and then I lost that one because of the timeframes to get the variance, and I’m in contract now contingent on this meeting right here. MR. STONE-All right. Any other questions of Mr. Clute? MR. HIMES-Just to clarify a few things that are in the file, whether it be for Craig or Mr. Clute, on the drawing submitted, you have 73 feet for the back line, and this is of no great consequence, but on the survey map, it appears to come to 63 feet. You’ve got 23.05 plus 40, plus there’s a little, looks like a little jog in the line there, where it actually may be a little less than 63 feet. So, if the application filed differs a little bit from what appears, than this may need to be reconciled, although I don’t think that it makes it big difference in our consideration, in terms of a variance. MR. STONE-I think Mr. Clute didn’t add it. MR. CLUTE-No. I got my dimensions off the tax maps, to be honest with you, not off the survey map. I don’t even have that survey map in front of me. MR. HIMES-Okay. I just want to point out that we have that difference, and I would imagine that the survey map here is probably the more accurate one. MR. CLUTE-Yes, I would assume that the survey is more accurate. The tax map indicates, well, essentially what I have here on this. The tax map shows a 33 feet rear on one lot and a 40 foot rear on the other lot. MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. STONE-Thirty-three. In here it’s 23, on the survey. MR. CLUTE-On the survey, yes. I got my information off the tax map. MR. HIMES-Another little technicality probably for Craig or Staff, it refers, in the relief requested, to the buffer zone requirement of the UR-10 zone, and then of the 179-72 Buffer Zone, and I don’t know, again, whether this is important for our standpoint, but I looked, I don’t find any reference to the buffer zone in the UR-10 zone. It’s just a matter, again, of maybe setting our record straight. MR. STONE-Well, it’s the Light Industrial zone that requires 50 feet on either side. MR. HIMES-UR-10. MR. HAYES-It’s just a difference in zone, right? MR. BROWN-Both zones do, and if you look in the, if you have the Ordinance, if you look under 179-17C, down there. MR. HAYES-It just has to do with different zones. MR. BROWN-It just has to do with different zones, when two zones adjoin, there’s a 50 foot buffer required on either side of the zone line. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. MC NALLY-And B also provides for a 50 foot buffer zone at a lot line with light industry. Doesn’t it? MR. BROWN-Well, if you look at the footnotes under the dimensional table there, it says a 50 foot buffer shall be required. MR. HIMES-Well, 72 I’m saying is all right. That’s in the paragraph. See, 72. I’m just wondering whether we should have that reference in there, or whether it makes any difference, that’s referring to the UR-10 zone. Where I see nothing about a buffer zone requirement in there. MR. STONE-It’s in the footnote, to Paragraph C. MR. HIMES-Okay. Good going. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MR. HIMES-One last one. The variance requested in connection with the buffer zone, the driveway, as shown again on the applicant’s drawing here, we’re talking about, am I right, what we’re speaking of is from the house over, when actually the driveway is, I think, it looks like another 11 feet. So really, I mean, should we be talking about 30 something feet, rather than 21? Am I right on that? MR. STONE-Driveways don’t need, the driveway can be there without. MR. BROWN-That’s true. That’s something that I may have overlooked. MR. STONE-What? MR. BROWN-That the buffer zone is supposed to be an undisturbed, natural area, and driveways and vehicles aren’t supposed to. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HIMES-So you’ve got the septic and so on, and then the driveway, whether it’s paved or not, I mean, it says paved driveway, but then later on it says no vehicle storage or parking. So maybe, again, the variance now of 31 or 32. MR. BROWN-Unless they’re able to be relocated on the site. MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. STONE-Do you understand what he’s saying? MR. CLUTE-Yes, I do. MR. STONE-The driveway is further encroaching. MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. MR. STONE-It would require, you scaled it off there, using his, you show 29 feet to the house, which is 21 feet, and obviously, how wide is the driveway going to be? MR. CLUTE-A typical driveway, 12 to 16 foot, 12 to 16 foot probably. So, if it were 12, it would be another 10, 39, so 41 foot. You’d be 41 foot, coming back. MR. STONE-So you’d need 41 feet of relief. MR. CLUTE-Right, if you put the driveway there. MR. HAYES-Well, we may want to tier that. Because you don’t want the house to be able to be that close. MR. BROWN-Actually, the driveway would have to come off Feld some place. It would have to come off that 43.56 frontage. Do you have the survey map in front of you? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-The driveway would actually have to come off Feld. This is. MR. STONE-Well, this is coming off Feld. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. BROWN-I would defer to this drawing over this one. This is a survey map. MR. MC NALLY-Right. MR. BROWN-And you can see where Feld comes down and stops here, where the shallow line is. The drive would have to come off here some place. MR. STONE-Feld ends at there. Okay. I don’t know, it went right to the fence. MR. HIMES-This is Feld right here. MR. BROWN-I was informing Mr. Clute that on the survey map I’ve scaled a 24 by 36 house, at the 30 foot setback from the road, 14 feet from the side property line as shown in his sketch, and it resulted in a 20 foot setback to the property line between he and Curtis Lumber, or the old Curtis Lumber. So that’s a clarification, and we also discussed the driveway that needs to come off Feld, and Mr. Clute indicated it’s going to be relocated. MR. STONE-But the red line is the fence? The red line here, the new zone is the fence for Curtis Lumber, the old Curtis Lumber? MR. CLUTE-No. To be honest with you, the fence is beyond that red line. MR. STONE-But it’s on, all right, but the road certainly, I don’t know whether it’s technically right of way, but there’s certainly, you can go almost to that fence, (lost words) drove in there. MR. BROWN-Did you say the fence is beyond the line or the fence is on the line? MR. CLUTE-Yes. It’s not on his property line. They have it brought further into their own property. For one reason or another, they left a substantial amount of property beyond their fence. MR. MC NALLY-Craig, it is your point that Feld is dedicated to that point, and not further? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-And therefore he’s got to have a driveway on a dedicated Town road? MR. BROWN-Correct, and it’s further clarified if you look at his GIS map. You can see where Feld stops and the Curtis Lumber, old Curtis Lumber property starts. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-So, effectively, the driveway would have to be on the right side of the property some place. MR. STONE-So you’re saying that we can’t even consider it, it can’t be on that side. It has to be on the north side? MR. BROWN-Yes. I think he stipulated he’s going to relocate it. MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. MR. MC NALLY-The dimensional relief. MR. STONE-Is still 21. MR. MC NALLY-Is still 21 feet. That house is going to be built in compliance with the setback requirements otherwise. MR. CLUTE-To be honest with you, I would trust Craig’s drawing more than mine. Craig came up with 20 feet from the side. So that would actually be 30 feet of relief. MR. BROWN-Right. What I did is what I tried to indicate before. I scaled a 24 by 36, and we can pass it around the Board, if you want to do that. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re number that, where you say 21, it should read 31? MR. HAYES-He said 21. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. STONE-But you wrote in your Staff notes 21. MR. BROWN-That’s correct, and then this survey came to light. MR. HAYES-So they scaled and determined it’s 30 on that. MR. STONE-I have no problem. That’s not a problem. MR. ABBATE-Is it now 20? MR. STONE-It’s now 30. MR. ABBATE-It’s now 30. MR. STONE-Thirty feet of relief. It’s 20 feet from the line. MR. HAYES-They thought it was 29 and it’s only 20. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. So we need 30 feet of relief. MR. BROWN-Correct. You’ll see the survey map. MR. STONE-And there’s no relief for the driveway because we can’t grant, unless he comes with a specific application. MR. BROWN-He’s going to move it to the right side of the property. MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. Do you guys understand that the driveway cannot be where he showed it. So that’s not on the table. It’ll have to come off of Feld, which is on the northern portion of the, the northern most lot that’s now going to be combined into one. MR. BROWN-Correct, and that drawing that you have before you now is one where I’ve scaled and drafted a 24 by 36 house on there, and it should depict a 20 foot setback to that line, rather than the 29 that’s in your application. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-And it’s properly angled, too, for the perpendicular. MR. BROWN-The shortest line. We try to be accurate. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? Then I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody speaking opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Any County? We said that, there wasn’t any. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Anybody else have any further questions? Then let’s talk about it. We’ll start with Bob. MR. MC NALLY-I’m in favor of the application. These are two undersized, God awful lots, in the middle of nowhere, that no one can build on, if they were by themselves, and I’m impressed that Mr. Clute put them together and actually put a new structure in this area in that location and find a buyer for them, and I think that’s a great improvement to the community that you do so. I don’t see any other feasible alternatives. The only other alternative is to never build on these lots, and that’s something, of course, we can’t allow. The relief I don’t find substantial, relative to the Ordinance. Normally there would be a buffer to protect the residential area, but there’s no buffer there now to speak of. These are residential lots right adjacent to one another, and it’s only the happenstance that Curtis Lumber decided to put in a lumber place next to this lot that there came a requirement for a 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) buffer zone. There are no effects on this neighborhood whatsoever. A few of those houses probably could be burned down, it would be an improvement on the neighborhood. Having a new home there certainly would be very nice. So I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-I think I’m in favor, too. Normally, I would not like to see a buffer zone intruded into, but as Bob indicated, in effect, there’s really no buffer zone there now, except as drawn on the map. Because there’s not a forest or a bunch of woods or anything else that provides any kind of shielding. So as Staff indicated in their notes, actually putting a house there may improve the situation by providing some shielding for the rest of the neighborhood, and, absent a variance, these are basically two unbuildable lots, at this point. So, given that we’re not really reducing a buffer zone, I think the benefit falls to the applicant, in allowing them to make use of the lots, and I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Hayes? MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. In this case, we’re dealing with sometimes the difficult circumstance of pre-existing, nonconforming lots, but as Bob pointed out, something has to be done with them, and I see it as an improvement. First of all, we’re taking two nonconforming lots and reducing it to one, and that, to me, is a big step, to begin with, but, overall I think it’s a beneficial recycling of these properties, and that neighborhood is being turned over now. There’s some nice single family houses that are going into there, and I think we should encourage that, and even aid it, if at all possible, in this particular circumstance. There obviously aren’t a great deal of feasible alternatives here because the 50 foot buffer zone is a lot on a lot this size, and it cuts right through the lots in a way that effectively makes it impossible to do anything progressive outside of this type of relief. So, I’m in favor of that relief, and I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-I’m going to have to agree with what Mr. Hayes said. I think building a house on that lot would actually, in itself, be a buffer from the other lot, the Curtis Lumber lot. So I’d be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I like what Bob had to say over there. I think that Mr. Clute should be commended. He’s taken two pre-existing, nonconforming lots, and putting these lots together, and in my opinion there will be some positive aspects, as a result of this construction, and, having said that I agree with the rest of the positive comments on the Board, and I would support it. MR. STONE-Mr. Himes? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes. Without repeating all that’s said, I agree with everyone. I might only add that, from eyeballing the thing when I was there, the Curtis Lumber building appears also to be very close to the line. So they share a little bit in the squeeze there, a little vegetation which should help, but in short, I agree with the, I would approve the application. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly concur with the rest of the Board. The only hope that I have, and this is out of your control, but I hope that someone who is willing to buy a new house in this neighborhood is going to be willing to keep it up, because it certainly will be a buffer to the rest of the neighborhood. It’ll be better than what’s there now, and you don’t want to think, necessarily, of a home as a buffer, but that’s exactly what it’s going to be, and I hope that the people who buy this house, as I say, we have no control over it, but I certainly hope that they will maintain the property to the best of their ability so that, if I go down there in five years, the good Lord willing, or 10, that I’m going to see what still is a relatively new property taken care of. Having said that, I need a motion to approve this variance. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2001 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 3 Feld Avenue. The applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling and seeks setback relief from the buffer zone requirements. Specifically, the applicant requests 30 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum buffer zone requirement of the UR-10 zone, Section 179-17, as well as the requirements of Section 179-72, buffer zones. The benefit to the applicant would be he would be permitted to build a home on these two pre-existing nonconforming lots, which the applicant has agreed to make one. Feasible alternatives. I believe feasible alternatives are extremely limited based on the 50 foot setback running through the middle of the lot, which would require relief in any circumstance to build a home on this lot. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Thirty feet of relief from the fifty foot requirement I believe is moderate in this particular case. There is 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) some buffer left there. The applicant has agreed to place the driveway to the right, and not encroach on the buffer zone, and as other Board members have pointed out, this house, in itself, may in fact represent somewhat of a buffer to the rest of the neighborhood from the existing industrial property immediately adjacent. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that the construction of a new home on this lot will be a positive impact on the neighborhood, a beneficial recycling of the property in that neighborhood. Is the difficulty self-created? I don’t believe that it is. I think these are pre-existing, nonconforming lots, and the fact that the buffer zone runs through them makes any development of the property necessitate a variance. So, on balance, I think the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I move for its approval. Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Go and build. AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2001 TYPE II JEAN M. HOFFMAN AGENT: N/A OWNER OF PROPERTY: JEAN M. HOFFMAN LOCATION: 93 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSRTRUCTION OF A 624 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENS AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. CROSS REF. SPR 15-2001 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/9/01 ZONE: WR-1A, CEA OLD TAX MAP NO. 12-3-27.1 NEW TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-9.1 LOT SIZE: 7.27 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79, 179-60 JEAN & THERESA HOFFMAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-2001, Jean M. Hoffman, Meeting Date: May 16, 2001 “Project Location: 93 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 624 sf second story residential addition. Relief Required: Applicant simultaneously requests 20 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirements of both the WR-1A zone, § 179-16 and the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. Further, since the existing structure does not meet the required shoreline setback, relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure is requested 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 desired structure in the preferred configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: feasible alternatives may include an addition to the easterly side of the home, away from Lake George. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 20 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, as there appears to be area for compliant construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Area Variance 60-1999 res. 7/21/99 relief from lot width requirement Adjacent lot Subdivision 14-1999 res. 7/17/99 2 lot subdivision Site Plan Review 15-2001 exp. of a nonconforming structure in a CEA Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The requested relief is for a second story addition. While the proposed addition does not appear to increase the current shoreline setback violation, the elevation of the house, relative to the lake level, may present a visual impact when viewed from the lake. The Floor Area Ratio is well within the allowable percentage. The proposal calls for the installation of a new septic disposal system. Will any trees be removed for construction? Additional review may be necessary. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 9, 2001 Project Name: Hoffman, Jean M. Owner: Jean M. Hoffman ID Number: QBY-AV-30-2001 County Project#: May01-29 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 624 sq. ft. residential addition. Relief is sought from shoreline setback requirements as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area. Site Location: 93 Cleverdale Rd. Rt. 9L, West on Cleverdale Road, proceed 7/10 mile and take a left onto first Sunnyfields roadway. Tax Map Number(s): 12-3-27.1 Staff Notes: This proposed action has also been referred by the Town for County review of the site plan (Agenda item May01-28). The existing house appears from the photographs to have been constructed as a small, one story cottage in the 1950’s. A 1 ½ story addition containing a family room, porch, bedroom, bathroom and study was constructed perhaps circa the 1980’s (making it a 3 bedroom, 3 bathroom dwelling). The applicants propose to add a second story to the original 1950’s 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) structure, removing one bathroom, replacing it in a different location, and adding two bedrooms. As now proposed, the structure would have 5 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms and a study. This is a 7+ acre lot – the applicant has ample room to expand, but the existing building does not meet the setback requirements. The applicant proposes adding a 750 gallon septic tank to the existing 1,000 gallon tank and apparently installing a new leachfield. The applicant has provided a large wastewater treatment system drawing that is on file at the Warren County Planning Department and will be available for review at the meeting. The site plan does not indicate the distance between the leachfield and the lake, but it must be approximately 180’. Due to the potential impacts to Lake George, Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 5/14/01. MR. STONE-Thank you. Before I ask you to go, let me just get clarification. Craig, when you’re talking about 179-60, you’re talking specifically B15C? MR. BROWN-Testing me. MR. STONE-Well, I’m testing me because I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before. I mean, when we we’ve given relief and we’ve talked about relief from the shoreline, and that’s shoreline setbacks, which appears to be a redundancy. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. B15C. MR. STONE-Okay, and that’s like a redundancy. Okay. Mrs. Hoffman, introduce yourself, and anything else you want to add. MRS. HOFFMAN-No, sir. Jean Hoffman and my daughter Theresa Hoffman. MR. STONE-Okay. You have nothing to add? MRS. HOFFMAN-He said it all. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we hope so. Any questions that you want to ask of the applicant? Well, you mentioned, when I saw you the other day, are those numbers right from the County, in terms of bedrooms? MRS. HOFFMAN-Basically, Mrs. Beeman had two bedrooms upstairs, and a bath, and we’re taking one bedroom and a bath and moving it over, and adding one bedroom. We’re just adding one bedroom. When you read the first part, it said we’re adding one bedroom. When you read the County part it said we’re adding two bedrooms. MR. STONE-The County said. That’s why I’m asking you about it. MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay. We’re really adding one bedroom. We’re just moving a bedroom, and moving a bathroom, and adding one bedroom. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, would you help me please, just to make sure I understand this. In the final analysis, is it correct that this will end up being a five bedroom, three bath, one study? MRS. HOFFMAN-Five bedroom, three bath, one study. MR. ABBATE-And one study. MRS. HOFFMAN-We’re going to take all the computer stuff and stick it in that one little room. MR. ABBATE-That’s fine, but I mean, it is correct, five bedrooms, three bath, and one study, in this final analysis? MRS. HOFFMAN-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Also, I have a question. There is a possibility, and I say a possibility, that there may be some visual impact. I took a look at it, and everything is in the eye of the beholder. MRS. HOFFMAN-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Have you gotten any feedback from any of your neighbors? Have you requested their input? MRS. HOFFMAN-I talked to, Mrs. Beeman. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MS. T. HOFFMAN-Sent this Board a letter. MRS. HOFFMAN-Did Mrs. Beeman send a letter. I talked to Mrs. Beeman. Mrs. Dawson, who is my next door neighbor, I just met. MR. ABBATE-It was just a question. I’m not saying that’s going to be the deciding factor. It was just a question I just wanted to clear up in my own mind, and you indicated something about your willingness to increase the septic field by, what, 750? MRS. HOFFMAN-The tank, we’re going to leave the 1,000 gallon tank and put a 750 in it, and then there’s going to be a little pump station, so they can pump it, I don’t know, 600 feet or something down the, and then the big tank, the big leachfield goes in. MR. ABBATE-And, Craig, has this been evaluated yet? MR. BROWN-I believe it has. MR. ABBATE-Is this part of our consideration? MR. BROWN-No, it is not. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. If it’s not, then it’s none of my business. MR. STONE-No relief was sought from the Board of Health because this is way back from the lake. MR. ABBATE-But it’s nonconforming at that. It’s also nonconforming. MR. BROWN-What’s also nonconforming? MR. ABBATE-This structure, is it not? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-But the thing that you’ve got to keep in mind, because it’s an expansion of a nonconforming, the septic must be up to current Code. MR. ABBATE-Right. I understand. MR. STONE-And we have to assume that. MR. HAYES-They’re not going to get a building permit without it. MR. STONE-Right. MRS. HOFFMAN-That’s correct. MR. BROWN-Just for clarification. It’s not necessarily because it’s a nonconforming expansion. Any time, in the waterfront district, where you increase floor space, that requires the septic to be upgraded. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. I misspoke. The Town is to be commended, quite frankly, for that particular requirement. It is one that is important. MR. MC NALLY-Mrs. Hoffman, Mrs. Dawson’s property is that parcel that’s split off from (lost word)? Is that the narrow one? MR. STONE-No, that’s Mrs. Beeman’s property. MRS. HOFFMAN-That’s Mrs. Beeman’s. MR. MC NALLY-That is Mrs. Beeman’s. Mrs. Dawson’s is where then? MRS. HOFFMAN-She’s. MR. MC NALLY-The next one on the other side? MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes, down towards Judge Moynihan. MR. STONE-But it’s off of Hillman? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MRS. HOFFMAN-That is correct. MS. T. HOFFMAN-Our neighbor’s name is Dautner. MR. STONE-Dautner. MRS. HOFFMAN-I’m sorry. MR. STONE-I thought the Judge was at the end of the road. I didn’t even realize there was anybody in there. MRS. HOFFMAN-There’s one small house past the Judge. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Some of the Staff had comments to the fact that there’s a lot of land on which you could build a more compliant addition that would meet your needs. Did you ever give any consideration to that? MRS. HOFFMAN-Well, I just heard somebody say to the east. Which way is that? MR. HAYES-Away from the lake. MR. STONE-Away from the lake. Back up toward Cleverdale Road. MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay, but that’s where my bedroom and my two bathrooms are. So if I put something back in there, then I’m going to have two bathrooms with no light or ventilation. I mean, it can be done, but then, that’s where the 1,000 gallon tank is. Now, we’ve got to pull the 1,000 gallon tank out. MR. MC NALLY-Well, that may have to be done if you want an expansion. That’s just one of those costs. If you look at your home from the road, with your back to the road and the lake in front of you, are you building the addition on the left hand side up? MRS. HOFFMAN-The left hand side up. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and when you say that there are two bathrooms there, it’s on that left hand side on the first floor? MRS. HOFFMAN-That is correct. MR. MC NALLY-On the road side. MRS. HOFFMAN-On the road side. MR. MC NALLY-And on the right, is that just a great area? MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-A living room/great area kind of thing? MRS. HOFFMAN-That’s all it is. It’s one big room. MR. STONE-I think what Mr. McNally meant, that there is an opportunity to build to the east, not suggesting anything in particular. I mean, you could expand the home so that the new addition is outside the 50 foot, I mean, that’s all he’s saying. I mean, he’s not being an architect or anything like that, I don’t believe. He’s not saying you’re going to do the same thing, but you could go there, but you make a very good point that there is a septic tank in there at some point. MR. MC NALLY-My point, though, was just, had you given any thought, had you spoken to an architect about the possibility of trying to build a compliant structure, or was it just something, this is what you went with with the second floor on the lake? MRS. HOFFMAN-It’s the easiest, and there’s a little girl, Laura. I talked to her and now all of a sudden I’m expanding the footprint, and it just seemed easier to put it right there, instead of messing up the footprint. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. MC NALLY-From our perspective, at least from my perspective, I can’t speak for anyone else, it’s a Critical Environmental Area. It’s a pre-existing home that was built too close to the lake, ten to fifteen feet above the lake surface already because it’s on a bluff. So you add a second floor, I mean, it’s going to have an impact on the lake, great than what’s there currently. So to the extent you could avoid that, by doing something different, and I’m not, again, as Mr. Stone said, I’m not telling you what to do, but I mean, there’s seven acres there of buildable land, and most of it is a lot further from the lake than the current house. I’m just exploring that. That’s all. MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay. MR. STONE-Yes. Keep in mind that this Board has been fairly tough on lake properties. Usually, I can’t say our hands are tied, but usually we have a piece of property, particularly in the area in which you live, where we have very small lots, and they’re either very close to the road or they’re very close to the lake, or both, and they’re very close to the side lines, and when people come in they want to do something. In this particular case, I think it’s easier for us to see an alternate. I mean, that’s my point, too. I had written down on my notes, very close, very high, very visible, and we’ve got some talking to do, but there is, you’re very fortunate that you have seven acres, and can expand this home, having minimal impact on the lake, and I think that’s what Bob is asking about. MR. BRYANT-I want to continue on Mr. McNally’s thread, if I might. The 1,000 gallon tank is in front of the existing master bedroom, is that where it is? MRS. HOFFMAN-The master bedroom is on the end, basically, with a bathroom, and then right next door to it is another bathroom. MR. BRYANT-Right. MRS. HOFFMAN-That’s like the main bathroom. So you have two bathrooms right there. The tank is right out from those two bathrooms. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I think what Mr. McNally was saying, as you look at the house itself, you’re going to add an addition on to the left side of the master bedroom. MRS. HOFFMAN-The master bedroom. MR. BRYANT-And that’s 26 feet wide, and when you look at your existing family room, on the right side, which does really affect the 1,000 gallon tank, and if you would come out from the family room toward the road, that would give you 24 feet in width. Is that your thinking? MR. MC NALLY-I’m not an architect, as someone noted earlier. I don’t know what is feasible or not. I do understand that if there’s a bathroom there, and you have to take out a bathroom, there’s a cost involved, but that’s one of those things of owning lakefront property, or, as you suggest maybe with the great room or the master bedroom, there’s lots of different things that are possible, and I’m just trying to get some information. That’s all I was doing. I wasn’t trying to suggest anyone, other than building some more compliant location. MR. ABBATE-And I think, at least in my opinion, I’m not going to say I think this is what Bob thinks, I’m going to say, in my opinion, there is 7.27 acres, a little over 316,000 square feet, and I guess the question is quite simple. Would it be feasible, perhaps, to do this in a more appropriate area, period. That’s all. Granted there might be additional costs, and no one is saying this is what you have to do, nor am I saying, either you do this or we’re not going to approve it. I’m just saying this is a good size area for shorefront property, 7.27, I think, acres, something like that. MR. MC NALLY-Mrs. Hoffman, this was Mrs. Beeman’s house? MRS. HOFFMAN-That’s correct. Colgate Phillips before that. MR. MC NALLY-Did you recently purchase it? MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes, in October. MR. MC NALLY-Of 2000? MRS. HOFFMAN-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-And we authorized splitting the two lots. MR. MC NALLY-I remember that. I just didn’t know when the purchase actually occurred. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MRS. HOFFMAN-October 20, my dad’s 99 birthday. thth MR. STONE-Any other comments before I open the public hearing? All right. Let me open the public hearing and see what may be out there. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Correspondence? I’m told there is some. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-I found one piece of correspondence from G. Thomas Moynihan, Jr. “This letter is written for the purpose of indicating to the Zoning Board of Appeals that we as adjoining property owners have no objection to the granting of the variance sought by Mrs. Hoffman. Very truly yours, G. Thomas Moynihan, Jr.” MR. STONE-Is that the letter to which you referred? MRS. HOFFMAN-Mrs. Beeman cc’d us the letter to this Board. So, I received that some time this week. It’s basically word for word, but, you should have it from her directly. MR. BROWN-Do you have a copy that we could add to the file? MR. STONE-But you said there was a letter to the Board that you don’t have, Craig, in the file. Certainly, if they have a copy, we could add it to the file. MR. STONE-Yes. MRS. HOFFMAN-If it’s not, it’s in the office, I can bring it up tomorrow. Can we fax it to you, or do you want me to bring up the original? MR. STONE-Well, let’s talk about it when we get through the public hearing here. I mean, I can keep the public hearing open and we can talk, if it appears that the application is in jeopardy. I mean, we haven’t heard from everybody yet, but you don’t seem to have it. MS. T. HOFFMAN-No, sir. MR. STONE-Because if you had it, we could just enter it right now. When did you get it, out of curiosity? MRS. HOFFMAN-I’ve been in Seattle. So I don’t know. MS. T. HOFFMAN-I’m trying to remember which day she flew home, because I was reading her mail. I think Tuesday. MR. HAYES-From Mrs. Beeman? MS. T. HOFFMAN-From Mrs. Beeman. MR. STONE-Tuesday? She was home Tuesday. MS. T. HOFFMAN-Yes, but I still read her mail. MRS. HOFFMAN-Tuesday I was working on the lot. MR. STONE-I know. I was there. That’s what I meant. Okay. Let’s leave the public hearing open just for the second and see where we’re going. Anyone with any other comments? If not, I’d like to talk about it. Because I’m hearing a few thoughts. Let me start with Chuck. What do you think about this? MR. MC NULTY-I have doubts about the project. I am concerned about the height, and the effect it will have on the lake, and I think as some Board members have indicated, the fact that there is all kinds of possibilities for expansion on the east side of the dwelling, coming away from the lake, it would still probably need a variance for expansion of a nonconforming structure, because the structure is still there. It’s still too close to the lake for current rules, but I would find it a lot easier I think in this case to consider an addition that was on the main floor, but coming off the back side of the house, away from the lake. I guess until I see something more that indicates that that’s not practical for some reason, I know it’s considerably more difficult, but unless I see something that says that that’s not practical for some other reason, I think I’m going to be opposed to this proposal. MR. STONE-Okay. Jamie? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. HAYES-Well, it’s certainly, you know, it bears consideration, feasible alternatives, and we’re charged with always considering that, but in this particular circumstance, in my mind, 624 square feet is still a very moderate addition, particularly when compared with some of the other ones that we’ve been faced with recently, these massive 1800 square foot additions and additions that are pushing near the height requirement, and I don’t know for sure, and we don’t have any evaluations here, but it doesn’t seem to me like you’re pushing the height requirement. MRS. HOFFMAN-It’s only like two and a half feet above the roof level now. So I’d still have like four feet of height after that. MR. HAYES-Right. So, you know, essentially, I guess in my mind, if this was an addition that went the whole length of the house or was bigger, I would probably be falling on the side of being against it, by the fact that feasible alternatives should certainly then be explored, but in this particular case, I think 624 square feet is very moderate, and it’s moderate in my mind also mitigated by the fact that, even though you are going up, you’re not going closer to the lake. Obviously, if this was a foot closer to the lake, I would think it was a terrible idea, or an improvement, you know, an increase in the footprint size, and I think sometimes when we consider feasible alternatives, I’m not sure if we ended up with this creeping footprint that grew larger, how attractive that would be. I don’t know. It’s hard to visualize that whole idea, but I think, all things considered, even though obviously there’s some plusses and minuses here, as far as effects on the neighborhood or community, I think they’re pretty minor in this case. The property is set off. There’s a generous amount of property surrounding this particular parcel, and I think it’s a modest proposal, and I think, basically the balance would fall slightly in your favor. So I would be in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m actually on the fence. It is a moderate expansion. I do think that you have an alternative, and that is to build away from the lake, away from your 1,000 gallon tank, and I think that’s a possibility. Not having any kind of drawings or details or anything in that regard leaves me on the fence. I really don’t know how I’m going to vote until I hear the rest of the Board members. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I don’t know whether I’m on the fence or not, but I’m certainly undecided. I’d like to shift the burden to the applicant to show cause why the project couldn’t be in a more compliant construction area. I think if you could do that, satisfy me on that portion, I would probably go along with it, but I’m going to shift the burden and say, okay, it’s up to you to say why you can’t do this, and in the absence of showing why you can’t do this, I would not be able to support the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I agree with what Jamie has said, basically. I think the matter of, I went around the front of the house and looked in from the lakeside, I kind of think the aspect of going up just a little higher than the existing roof isn’t going to be too great an impact from the lake, even though there’s a vast expanse of water out there to be looking from. It isn’t in a little cove or something where it’s hidden away from the world, and recognizing that, I think that the impact of this addition, after a short period of time, even people who have seen the house the as it is many, many times, would kind of forget and as far as the septic and everything, it’s being taken considerably away from the lake. So the impact from any prospect of additions in regard to the septic, I don’t think is a factor in my mind at least, and I think I do agree with some of the others that perhaps something could be added off the family room, and maybe juggling the whole house around to get the bedrooms where they might more naturally be from a household usage, where you want your bedrooms and your bathrooms to be. I think that, and again, technically I’m not competent in this regard, but it would be a bit of an undertaking to put the addition on the ground level, and the impact on looking out windows and so forth from the rooms that it would impact, I think is a factor. So I think, all in all, the going up a little bit, taking advantage of the layout that’s already on the first floor, is a practical idea. So I would tend to be, I think, in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-It’s a tough application, to be honest with you, and I don’t like to look at just one factor. We’ve got five factors we have to look at, and we do tend to be a little bit more strict when it comes to lakefront property, because the nature of the beast, even though I don’t believe in the domino theory, is that we try to expand the use along the shore. We go higher. We go closer. We have decks. We have more rooms, more usage, more trees down, more this, that and the other thing, but if I look at the five factors. The benefit to the applicant is certainly something that would favor the application. The gain that you’re asking for is one additional bedroom. It’s going from a four 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) bedroom home to a five bedroom home. So that’s what you’re asking us to approve. Are there feasible alternatives is the second factor we’re required to look at, and you have a big piece of property, which means that that factor kind of falls against you, because there is a lot of room to build in more compliant locations in my opinion, and I think Chuck’s point that he made was that he leaves you with the burden of proof as to whether it’s feasible or not, and I don’t know. I don’t know what it costs to knock out a bathroom or put in a hallway or something like that, but it does seem as if that’s a factor that would weigh against you, and then we have to ask, is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? You have a home 30 feet from the lake. The house is 10 to 15 foot above the lake surface, because there’s like a cliff from the water to the ground right in front of your home. I didn’t think it was terribly wooded. You have some brush in the front, but you don’t have too many tall trees or anything. There’s not room for tall trees. There’s not too many people on one side of you, but there’s the house that was split off on the other side, which is pretty close. So you try and figure out, you know, what’s the effect of doing one big house, where there’s another one next to it and there’s nothing on the other side, but I’d have to say that I think the relief is relatively substantial, given the fact that there are other compliant locations. I think that there would be little effect upon the neighborhood or community. There’d be an impact from the lake, but your point that it’s only two feet taller than the existing roof structure is outweighed by the fact that you’re building up. So there’s a more flat surface, even though the roof line’s bigger, and the last factor is whether the difficulty is self-created, in other words, whether you are creating this problem yourselves. I can interpret it that way for a couple of reasons. First, you purchased a home recently with an existing zoning ordinance. So, in that sense, you’re coming to the problem. You have to purchase understanding what the rules are, and expected to comply with them, and the second thing is, I’m still not convinced, at least you haven’t shown me, that there isn’t a feasible alternative. So I see it as your choice, as a lot of homeowners on the lake like, to have up, looking out over the lake, as close to the lake as possible. That’s what I would like. Don’t get me wrong, I would, but I mean, it’s a natural thing that people expect. So, on balance, I’d say that’s a self-created problem. I mean, with all due respect, I don’t like saying I’m not in favor of a project, but I think that in this case I’m going to have to say that. MR. STONE-Like most of the Board members, I am conflicted by this thing, but the thing that leads me to say no, at this particular point in time, and one of the reasons I left the public hearing open, because I think maybe you might want to ask us to hold this for a while, but one of the things that you could do to help, certainly one of the Board members who was sitting on the fence, and certainly to help me, there are techniques available to show what this will look like from the lake, if it were built. We have one applicant, what, a couple of years ago, who was able to give us a picture, a simulated picture from the lake, of what this property was going to look like from the lake. I’m troubled by the same thing Mr. McNally is, that, yes, you’re not going up to 28 feet. Yes, it’s not that much higher than the house, but it is 10 feet above the lake to begin with, the whole property, and it’s not like it slopes. I mean, it’s a flat lot, and it goes out and then straight down 10 feet. So, consequently, your house is going to be 33, 34 feet above the lake. That’s troubling to me. I’d like to see it, if possible. As I say, there are techniques available. We haven’t asked too many people to do it, but I would think in this particular case it might be something that would be helpful to at least a couple of Board members. It might not change their mind or it might change their mind. MRS. HOFFMAN-Is that what you mean? MR. STONE-That’s not what, what I’m talking about is an actual simulated picture, with all of the landscaping in place that’s there, looking at the house from some point off the shore. MRS. HOFFMAN-You mean go out in the lake and take a picture? MS. T. HOFFMAN-No. You’re going to take a picture of the house. You’re going to give it to someone who is going to simulate the addition, existing, they’re going to paint it on the computer. MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay. MR. STONE-Who’s going to simulate what it’s going to look like. MR. HAYES-They’re usually computerized renderings. MR. STONE-It’s a computerized rendering. MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay. MR. STONE-Would that help any of you? I would think. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I think it would be a tremendous help, for me anyway. I’m not sure it’s going to change my feeling. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. STONE-It’s obviously an expense, but right now, the way I count the vote, there are four of us who are definitely against it, as we visualize it, for a variety of reasons. I think Mr. McNally put it very well. On balance, looking at all the things, it’s not easy for me, but I can come down on the side of saying no, and I would include one, I would disagree with him on one. I think it is a detriment to the community, because I think in this case, the community is lake property in the Town of Queensbury. I think it’s a broad, I would interpret it broader, than two or three houses on either side, because I think it is, I think we are responsible, and we have tried to be responsible, in our zoning, for the effect on the lake. MR. ABBATE-Can I interject something here? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. ABBATE-I think simulation is wonderful, but I still am going to be firm in my position that I’m going to shift the burden on the applicant to prove to me beyond any kind of a doubt why this can’t be constructed in a more compliant area. That’s the niche in my craw right now. MR. STONE-Well, then let me ask. I’ve got three people who’ve said no, two people who’ve said, four people who’ve said no, two people who have said yes, and one who is clearly on the fence. I don’t know if you’ve changed. Allan, are you still on the fence? MR. BRYANT-If we took a vote now, I would vote against it. MR. STONE-You would vote against. So right now, I mean, we could take a vote, and, would it help anybody to see it from the lake? I mean, to change their mind? If not, we can just. MR. MC NALLY-It might help, but I think Chuck’s point, again, you know the factors we’re looking at, the concerns that we have. If you can come back with proof that addresses those things or mitigates those concerns, then certainly that would be something I’d keep an open mind for, and rather than deny the application, perhaps we should table it. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-If the applicant wants to. MRS. HOFFMAN-Proof is what? MR. STONE-Proof is in the eyes of the beholder. MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me try it again. I guess what I’m saying, in different terms, is that I am uncertain. Because in my mind, I do believe that there is an opportunity to do this construction in a more compliant area, and so I am not so sure, now I’m talking to myself, I’m not so sure why you can’t do this. That’s what I meant when I said I want to shift the burden to the applicant, to so and so. Why can’t you do this, is what I’m really asking. MR. MC NALLY-And we may still not believe you when you come back and say, I can’t do it because this, this, and this. It depends what you come back with. So don’t think that just because we’re inviting you back that we’re saying. MR. STONE-We’re willing, at least a number of us, are willing to table this and say, come back to us with something that you think would address some of the concerns you heard. I can’t tell you what those are. I mean, I can tell you mine, and Bob can tell you his, and Chuck can tell you his, but I can’t say you’re going to satisfy all of us with whatever you do. I think the biggest problems that I, I, personally, have two big problems. One is the fact that it’s on a bluff, overlooking the lake, and it’s going to be up very high. The second is that, as I said earlier, there is plenty of land to build behind the house, away from the lake. If you’re trying to get a bedroom, and that’s all you’ve said. You didn’t say, I want a bedroom with a gorgeous view. You didn’t say it. MRS. HOFFMAN-And I don’t. MR. STONE-That’s not helping me. MRS. HOFFMAN-Well, it’s got two little dormers. I mean, if I wanted to really look at the lake it would have been windows or sliding glass doors. This has just got two little dormers on it. MR. STONE-I understand, but those are the concerns that I have. Because as I said earlier, it’s not as if you’ve got a small 100, or a 60 by 100 foot lot and there are a lot of those in your area of the lake. So there’s plenty of room. I think we would we be, I, personally, think we would be faulted for 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) granting this variance the way it’s constituted. Because it would lead to other people saying, well, you can build right close to the lake no matter what you want to build, and I’m just concerned by it. MRS. HOFFMAN-If I can ask just one question. The alternative seems to be going off the east side of the house, either towards Moynihans or towards Cleverdale Road or somehow expanding it back towards Cleverdale Road. MR. STONE-Towards Cleverdale Road. MRS. HOFFMAN-Isn’t it really an issue, then, as far as whether you want something compact or sprawl? Because if we build back, it’s whether the building is going to be X number of feet in a small area, on two floors, or whether it’s going to be sprawled out. That’s almost a matter of taste. MR. STONE-Well, sprawl of the house doesn’t concern me, when you take a lot of this size, because you’re going to have no impact on the lot. MR. ABBATE-Right, see, and I would have no problem then either. Right. Exactly. MR. STONE-So, if you would like to table it, we’ll give you up to 62 days to come back, because right now, considering this new no vote, it’s five to two. MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay. If I put it back there, do I have to stay at 624 feet? MR. STONE-No, not at all. MRS. HOFFMAN-I was trying to make it little so everything would go through. MR. ABBATE-Well, actually, this gives you more flexibility, if you decide to go back. MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay. MR. STONE-Well, if you want, do you want us to reject it, and then you can come back? MRS. HOFFMAN-No. MR. ABBATE-You just want us to table it. MR. HAYES-She’s going to have to come back anyway because anything’s an expansion of a nonconforming structure. MR. BROWN-Well, you can expand a nonconforming structure, without a variance, provided that the expansion meets all the setbacks that are required and you don’t go over 50% of the base size of the house. So if she’s got a 1,000 square foot house, she can add up to 500 square feet without coming back to see you, even if it’s on the east side of the house, as long as the addition is 50 feet from the lake. MR. ABBATE-Do you understand that, because that’s quite important. MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay. So now if I build it on the east side of the house, I don’t have to come back. MR. STONE-If it’s under half of what you have, and no portion of it is within 50 feet of the lake. MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay. MR. BROWN-You wouldn’t have to come back to this Board. You’d still have to keep your date with the Planning Board because they look at other issues because it’s in a critical environmental area, but if your proposed addition meets all the setbacks and you’re less than 50% of the original size of the house, you don’t have to come back to this Board. MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay. MR. ABBATE-You’ll never have to see us again. MRS. HOFFMAN-I’m sorry. MR. STONE-Well, should we deny it and then you’ll just start the process again? MRS. HOFFMAN-Well, no, I don’t want to do that. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. BROWN-I think you should have it tabled. MR. STONE-Okay. We’ll table it. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2001 JEAN M. HOFFMAN, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 93 Cleverdale Road. For a period not to exceed 62 days, in which time the applicant will attempt to provide modifications to her application, such that those members opposing it might be more inclined to give a positive view toward the application, and to investigate feasible alternatives. Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2001, by the following vote: th MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay. Now do I have to go back to the County again? MR. HAYES-If it’s a different plan, they will. MR. BROWN-If it’s a different plan, you may have to. We’d have to take a look at it. MR. STONE-But I would go in reverse order this time. MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay. So my next thing is to do another plan and bring it to you? MR. BROWN-I’d be happy to discuss it with you if you have some questions about it, yes. If you’re considering coming to the east off the family room side of the house, probably that would be the best thing to do, sit down and we can look at what you want to do and let you know what the Town’s going to require for a review. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s what I’m saying. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MRS. HOFFMAN-Thank you. MR. STONE-Sorry. AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2001 TYPE II KATHARINE SEELYE AGENT: N/A OWNER OF PROPERTY: KATHARIINE SEELYE LOCATION: 14 CROOKED TREE DRIVE, DUNHAM’S BAY LAKE GEORGE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 276 SQ. FT. DECK AND A 128 SQ. FT. ADDITION. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/9/01 ZONE: WR-3A, CEA OLD TAX MAP NO. 3-1-12 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.36 PER SURVEY MAP SECTION 179-16, 179-79, 179-60 KATHARINE SEELEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2001, Katharine Seelye, Meeting Date: May 16, 2001 “Project Location: 14 Crooked Tree Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 276 sf deck and a 128 sf addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 47 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the WR-3A zone, § 179- 16. NOTE: The 128 sf addition constitutes an expansion of the floor area of the residence. Per 179-16, G. compliance with the requirements of Chapter 136, Sanitary Sewers, is required. No alternative plans or upgrade to the existing septic system has been proposed, therefore, the relief for the 128 sf addition shall not be considered as part of this relief request. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired deck in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include construction of the deck in a more compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 47 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial, relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? A portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the existing location of the structure, however, there appears to be area available for more 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) compliant construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Building Permit 89-780 issued 10/3/89 foundation repair/replacement Building Permit 93-623 issued 10/15/93 dock Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed construction appears to be a modest request, however there appears to be an area available for more compliant construction. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 9, 2001 Project Name: Seelye, Katharine Owner: Katharine Seelye ID Number: QBY-AV-29-2001 County Project#: May01-32 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a 276 sq. ft. deck and a 128 sq. ft. addition. Relief is requested for shoreline setback requirements as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: 14 Crooked Tree Lane, Dunham’s Bay. Tax Map Number(s): 3-1-12 Staff Notes: The applicant also indicates that, since the addition would increase the dwelling’s living space (though it will house infrastructure rather than a bedroom or bathroom), she requires a variance for the septic system as well as for the setback deficiencies and for expanding a non-conforming structure. The applicant provided a lengthy statement to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, which is provided here. Staff does not identify any significant impacts to State or County resources from the proposed deck. The only issue of any particular concern is the septic system. It is not clear that the existing system is indeed adequate for the existing structure or its age or maintenance history. The applicant indicates in the first page of her letter that her property and the house next door which she tore down in 1998 formerly shared a septic system. The septic system could perhaps be quite old and in need of maintenance or replacement. Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Deny without Prejudice due to lack of information about the age, capacity, and maintenance of the septic system. NOTE: The Board had concerns with the septic location identified by the applicant’s representative at the northeastern corner of the existing dwelling.” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 5/14/01. MR. STONE-Do you all realize why we’re not talking, the addition is not on the table tonight because the septic is still in question. So we are not discussing that this evening. MR. MC NALLY-We’re just discussing the deck? MR. STONE-Just the deck. MR. MC NALLY-The applicant would have to upgrade the septic system if this house, or the addition was there? MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-But the addition is off the table so that doesn’t happen. MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-All right. MR. STONE-This (the County’s denial) is not a denial of what we’re discussing tonight. MR. MC NULTY-Right. It doesn’t apply to what we’re discussing tonight, for their thing. MR. BROWN-Well, yes and no. I don’t think they segmented their approval, their recommendation. They have an application that has everything. They denied that application. I think you can qualify their denial by what they said due to the septic. They didn’t really address the deck. They were really denying you on the basis of the septic for the addition, but it’s really all the same application. They can’t break it apart. It still needs the five votes. MR. STONE-In your judgement it needs the five votes? MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me ask a question before we get to you. You didn’t cite 179-60. I don’t understand. Is this something new that you’re doing or not doing? MR. BROWN-I don’t know. MR. STONE-Well, it was new on another one, and it surprised me. MR. BROWN-I probably should have. Is it in the. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. STONE-I mean, it’s not a problem if you did. It didn’t make it to the Staff notes, but it is on the agenda advertised that way. It’s referenced in the agenda, but it didn’t make it in the Staff notes. MR. STONE-So it is. Okay. All right. So you’ve probably been doing it on the agenda every time and we’ve never noticed. Okay. Miss Seelye, it’s nice meeting you after all our conversations. We were discussing septic systems, gentlemen, and that’s all we were discussing. Anything you wish to add? MS. SEELYE-Only that with the addition off the table, it seemed to me the deck was a fairly simple, modest request. MR. STONE-Have we figured out, between either you or Craig, where the house currently is? Well, because it’s already encroaching on the 75. I think I had mentioned to you on the phone it would be nice to know what, how much closer we’re talking, one foot or two foot from. MS. SEELYE-The deck would be flush with the front of the house. My house is on a slight angle, against the lake, and at its farthest point I think it’s about 30 feet, maybe a little bit more, and the deck would be one or two feet closer than that. MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s the point . The house right now is 30 feet from the lake, approximately. MR. BROWN-Well, I think she may have said the farthest point. We’d probably want to know the closest point to the lake, and then we’re going to go, is it going to go closer. MS. SEELYE-Actually, I think the closest point, probably about mid-house is 30 feet. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-Because of the ins and outs of the shoreline. MR. BROWN-The shoreline. MS. SEELYE-Right. MR. STONE-So that’s the only point I wanted to get in, that the relief we’re granting is not, yes, it’s 47 feet, technically, but it’s considerably less, when you consider where the house is now. That’s all. MS. SEELYE-And it’s also closer in than the house that was there, that I tore down. MR. STONE-The house you tore down was even closer to the lake. MS. SEELYE-Was even closer to the lake, and had a deck even closer to the lake. MR. STONE-The only question I have about the deck, I notice right now that where it will be is well shielded from the lake. Will those trees continue to stand there, to the best of your ability? MS. SEELYE-To the best of my ability. There are one or two that are not in the best of health, but certainly the Hemlock, the Oak, I have no plans to remove those. MR. STONE-There will be shielding. Would you accept, and I’m just throwing this out for myself, a condition that the trees, well, you say they’ll stay, or you would replace, obviously, you can’t replace a 60 foot tree, but replace something to maintain about what it would look like if you built the deck right now. MS. SEELYE-Absolutely. MR. STONE-Okay. That helps me. Comments, gentlemen, questions? MR. ABBATE-Miss Seelye, I read your letter to the Board with a great deal of interest, and if you’ll allow me, I’d like to compliment you. You indicate that you improved the character of the lot by tearing down the old building, and I certainly agree with you. You indicated that you value low key, blend with nature approach, and I certainly agree with you, and I was impressed, if you’ll allow me, I was impressed with your letter. Thank you. MS. SEELYE-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-That was my only comment. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. STONE-It should be noted that Ms. Seelye is a by-line reporter for the New York Times. I hope she can write well. MR. HIMES-I have a question, out of curiosity more than anything. On the site development data, setback requirements on the front one, which I guess is on the, towards 9L. It’s got the required 30 feet, existing 40 and proposed 50. How is that going to be? Front one, 30 feet required, existing 40 feet, proposed 50? MR. BROWN-The proposed deck is further from the road than the house. MR. HIMES-Okay. MS. SEELYE-The deck doesn’t go the full length of the house. It’s a side deck and it goes about half. MR. STONE-The deck is going to go in that little easterly corner. MS. SEELYE-Right. MR. HIMES-All right, and it’s referred to as being an open deck. So there’s no cover and no screening. MS. SEELYE-Right. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-Ms. Seelye, you blew an opening in the side of the house and put a new door in? MS. SEELYE-Right. MR. MC NALLY-And that’s at the elevation of the deck that you were thinking to put in? MS. SEELYE-Right. MR. MC NALLY-Is the entire deck elevated? MS. SEELYE-Well, it would all be level. MR. MC NALLY-It’s about three feet high? MS. SEELYE-It’s about three feet off the ground. MR. MC NALLY-And you expressed some concern about a neighbor to the other side. Is that a reason why you needed this? MS. SEELYE-Well, it’s why I would put it there, as opposed to the sunnier side of the house, which would essentially put me in his line of activity. MR. MC NALLY-You have a porch on the other side, a screened porch and a little deck? MS. SEELYE-Yes, sort of a walkway. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. BRYANT-I have a question about the, I know we’re not talking about the little room, but how high is that little room going to be? MS. SEELYE-It would be level with the deck. It would all be. MR. BRYANT-Level with the floor of the deck? MS. SEELYE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Or level with the railing? Level with the floor of the deck? MS. SEELYE-No, level with the floor of the deck. MR. STONE-It would be closer to the garage. It would go down rather than up. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MS. SEELYE-Right, because the ground is sloped. MR. ABBATE-Right. MS. SEELYE-The deck would be here, and the little room would be here. So it would essentially be on the ground. MR. BRYANT-Is there any there any reason why the deck couldn’t be further away from the lake? Back toward the front of the house or the back of the house? MS. SEELYE-That’s where I wanted to build a way to get in to a yet to be constructed basement. MR. BRYANT-Is that that little room? MS. SEELYE-That’s the little room. That’s where the little room would be. MR. BRYANT-I’m still not understanding how you’re going to actually get into that little room. MS. SEELYE-Through the inside of the house. That was the plan, but I have to tell you, after spending several hours this afternoon with various septic people at my house, I’m re-thinking that whole thing, but the initial idea was that I would be able to go in from the bathroom into the small space, turn around, go down some steps, go into the basement, and that way turn the water off and on. MR. STONE-So this would not be, if this is the deck, going back, this room would actually be going down this way? MS. SEELYE-Well, no. There would be, well, there would be stairs going down, but there would be a little bit of landing in the room. MR. STONE-Well, there’d be a landing. I meant height wise. MS. SEELYE-Height wise, well, you mean. MR. BROWN-It would be like a small, one story addition. MR. STONE-That’s what I think the question we’re trying to get at. It would be a one story addition. MS. SEELYE-Right. It would probably be a little smaller than one story, because you wouldn’t need. MR. STONE-Okay, but it would be it would be raised above the deck? MS. SEELYE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Right. MR. STONE-The floor of it would be at the deck level, but it would. MS. SEELYE-Right. MR. BROWN-Just a little bump out to the house. MR. STONE-Yes. Any other questions? MR. MC NALLY-I understood that the house next door was removed in ’98 you said? MS. SEELYE-Right. MR. STONE-All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD SLOTE MR. SLOTE-My name is Richard Slote, and I represent the next door neighbor. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. STONE-Which neighbor? MR. SLOTE-The horribly noisy next door neighbor. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SLOTE-I’d like to see the plan and see how it effects us. MR. BROWN-I’m sorry, which neighbor is this? MR. STONE-King. MR. BROWN-Mr. King? MR. SLOTE-I’m his son-in-law. MR. BROWN-That’s who you’re representing, Mr. King? MR. SLOTE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-We can show you. It’s just a deck on the, have you seen, not seen anything? MR. SLOTE-I have not seen anything. MR. STONE-Well, why don’t you come forward. We can show you what we have. This is the house as it exists now. This is a deck on the opposite side from Mr. King’s property, and it’s just a plain deck, at above three feet above the ground, extending back, going straight out along, parallel with the front of the house and then going back, and the room which is not on the table right now, is way back over here, and this deck would just be a, no screening, no roof, no nothing. MR. SLOTE-Now, what about the, what did I hear about building underneath it? MR. STONE-She’s talking this room would go down, as was explained to me in a private conversation, she has great difficulty in shutting the water off and turning it on because of the way it’s located, and this would provide an opportunity, and I’m putting words in your mouth, but provide an opportunity to find one place where one valve would turn the water off and turn it on when she comes up in the winter. MR. SLOTE-I really don’t want to start a neighborly feud, but I don’t think we’re noisy, and that house is rented out all summer long, with up to 16 people living in it as it is, and the noise that emanates from that house bothers us. I’d really rather not have that deck, that’s right in front of the cottage that I stay in. MR. ABBATE-You’re referring to the house Ms. Seelye has right now is being rented out? MR. SLOTE-All summer long. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I just wanted to make sure in my own mind what you were saying. MR. SLOTE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-And your cottage is where in relationship to the deck? MR. SLOTE-Right behind here cottage. MR. STONE-Yours is the one on the other side of the driveway, the circular driveway? MR. SLOTE-Yes. MR. HAYES-Up on the hill a little bit. MR. SLOTE-Yes. It all belongs to Ed King, but I’ve lived in that cottage for 30 years, summers, and if Ms. Seelye lived there, it would be wonderful, but she’s not there and doesn’t know what’s going on, and at some points during summer, there are up to 16 people living there, with eight cars, and a deck would make our summers horrible. It’ll just be a party place. MR. STONE-Okay. We appreciate your comments. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. SLOTE-Okay. MR. STONE-Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Would you like to comment on these comments? MS. SEELYE-I think, if you saw the plan, the deck is not visible from your cottage. MR. SLOTE-Is it all right for us to communicate? MR. STONE-No. Since you asked, but go ahead, you may communicate. MS. SEELYE-Well, can we look at the drawing together? MR. STONE-Yes. Let’s look at the drawing together. See, your cottage is up here, I believe. It’s on there. MS. SEELYE-Yes, and the deck is over here. MR. SLOTE-This is us. MS. SEELYE-And there are lots of trees and bushes right here. So I don’t think you could see the deck. MR. SLOTE-Where did this come from? Is this new? MS. SEELYE-No. That’s just the survey map I had made when I bought the house next door. MR. SLOTE-Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I think, in my mind, and I’ve been there 30 years, as you know, the cottage we stay in is here, and your cottage is, your house is here. I’ve looked down the side of your house, I think. MS. SEELYE-I don’t think you can see this part of the house. MR. STONE-Is that a signed survey? MR. SLOTE-If that’s the case, I’m glad. Don’t get me wrong. If that’s the case, I’m glad. MS. SEELYE-Anyway, I have several other comments, whether you can see it or not. I’m actually spending all of July at the lake this summer. I periodically rent out the house over the summer because I’m not able to be there all the time. MR. STONE-Do you, when you rent it, do you put any restrictions on the number of people? MS. SEELYE-Yes, and occasionally, I gather people have other people come and visit, but there’s no way you could have 16 people there, and even if there were 16 people on an occasion or two, if there were, I think that’s pretty minimal compared with the number you have quite regularly there. MR. STONE-Let’s not get into that. Let’s not get into that. MR. BRYANT-Is this the picture? MR. STONE-This is from the lake. This is from the old lot, right, the old house, approximately? MR. BROWN-Those are photos that I’ve taken. I don’t think Ms. Seelye’s seen them. MR. STONE-You haven’t seen them? Well, no, I was just, I thought maybe she could see. MR. BROWN-I think in the woods in the background there you can see the cottage. MR. STONE-The deck is going to be in here. The cottage is up here. It’s going to be right in here. It’s going to be tucked in. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MS. SEELYE-Yes. I mean, there’s no way you could see it. MR. STONE-It extends a couple of feet beyond this addition. MR. BROWN-I think in the woods you can see the cottage in question. MR. SLOTE-Yes. After seeing it like this, I have no objection to that. MR. STONE-Okay. Good. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, obviously the lake applications are a little more complicated, in general, than other ones because there’s a lot of important issues, but in this particular case, as I examine the property, I know that the applicant already had a screened-in porch, which was on the lakeside, and I’m always concerned with the benefit to the applicants are, what are the needs of the applicant in this particular circumstance of the applicant in this particular circumstance, and I noticed that you already had a screened-in porch. As far as feasible alternatives, as I look at your plot plan, it appears to me that there really is an abundance of more compliant locations to place that deck than is depicted here. Outside of the jetting out of the lake, this deck is being constructed really entirely closer to the lake, in a CEA area. As far as relative, you know, is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, I don’t think there’s any doubt that it’s very substantial. It’s a 62% relief compared to the Ordinance, which in my mind is a large number, particularly as far as lake setbacks. The house itself is already extremely close to the lake, and I realize you had nothing to do with that. That was a pre- built condition, and we deal with those all the time, but in this particular case you have, in my mind, already have a very generous access to the lake, based on the fact that the house is only 25 feet from the lake, and there’s a screened-in porch right on the lake, which in my mind mitigates the need for further lake exposure for this deck. I think you already have an extremely generous situation. A situation that I wouldn’t, personally, approve, if it was a new build. I realize it’s not a new build, but I would never be in favor of a house that was 25 feet from the lake, in this particular case. The footprint of this deck, in this particular case, is expanding nearer to the lake. We just had a case where we denied somebody whose footprint wasn’t even going closer to the lake, and this one is actually going closer to the lake. In my history of the Board, I can’t remember granting 47 feet of relief for new construction in the critical environmental area. To me, that’s a triple, that’s the perfect storm. In a sense, all three things are negative, in that particular case. It’s new construction. It’s closer to the lake, and it’s a lot closer, and it’s going to be a major variance that’s been requested in this particular case. As far as effects on the neighborhood or community, the neighbor, I guess you’ve removed your objection, officially, and that’s, so we can set that aside, but I would be very concerned about a precedent here of granting 47 feet of relief for new construction. I don’t know how I would justify that to a new applicant that came in and asked for the same thing. Because I think it’s an area that we’ve protected very heavily in the past, and this is not a five foot or a ten foot encroachment. It’s a 47 foot, feet of relief, and finally, is the difficulty self-created? I don’t know how it can not be interpreted as self-created. It’s a new deck. You want it. I understand why you want it. It makes, you know, it’s certainly easy to understand, but you’re putting this deck where you’re putting it for your own reasons, and I, when I look at this map, I see a lot of land area there where a deck could go if your sole need was just for a deck. I think the deck is going in the critical environmental area because that’s where you want it, and that’s understandable, but I think, in this case, that all five parts of the test, or certainly four of them, would weigh against the applicant, and I would have to be against this application, as it’s so depicted. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I would have to agree. I would not approve construction that close to the lake. I don’t want to get into the five points, but I also believe that there are other areas that you could locate the deck away from the lake, and you do have the porch. In my view, I couldn’t vote for this application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-In the interest of fairness and consistency, certainly on my part, on the previous application, I suggested that the applicant would have to prove to me why the construction could not be in a more compliant area, and I stated that the burden should be placed on the applicant to show why it could not be constructed in a more compliant area. So in the interest of fairness and standards, I suggest, too, to this applicant, that unless the applicant can show me why it could not be constructed in a more compliant area, I would not be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Norm? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes, I agree with what’s been said already, and especially with what Mr. Abbate has just said. When we speak, though, I’d like to make sure we’re clear to the applicant what we mean about the construction in a compliant area. I mean, the porch would have to be located in an interesting place to be compliant, and still be part of the camp. So are we saying that if it were built so that it were, as the angle of the camp is to the shoreline, so that no part of the deck was closer than the closest part of the camp or house is now? I don’t know whether anyone here might feel a little differently. If that was the case, I might feel a little more sympathetic to the request. If you just made the deck, it’s quite long, a little shorter, get it back, around the. MS. SEELYE-I could do that, just angle that, angle the front of it, rather than have it be flush with the front of the house. MR. HIMES-I think that, in addition, of course, in the absence of not doing that, I would support what the previous members have said. I think that I might feel a little differently if it were pushed back further. However, I am on the fence, at this point, because it is new construction, and it still is, no matter where, almost along the side of that camp, is going to be quite close to the lake, in terms of the zoning code. So I’m a bit on the fence, but I agree with what’s been said. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Just give me a chance to ask Ms. Seelye another question. You purchased the lot next to you, and you tore down the house, and that’s a separate lot still? MS. SEELYE-No, that’s now a combined lot. MR. MC NALLY-You combined it with your existing deed? MS. SEELYE-Right. MR. MC NALLY-And until you did that, I presume a house could have been built, or some other structure built on that lot? MS. SEELYE-Yes. MR. STONE-Well, there was a house on it. MS. SEELYE-Yes, there was a house. MR. STONE-When she bought it. MR. MC NALLY-Right. I can see a person would like to come to Lake George for an Adirondack experience, and I don’t know whether on the King side of the house someone makes noise, doesn’t make noise, has jet skis, doesn’t have jet skis, but it is a more developed side of the house. You can see that the home has been there for a while and there’s more landscaped lawns and walls and I can see that it doesn’t quite have that rustic appearance that the other side of the house does. The other side of the house looks like more of the Adirondack. It’s got trees all around. If you’re in that corner, you don’t know where the heck anyone else is in large part. It’s quiet. So I think that the benefit to the applicant is kind of clear, that they’d get the kind of experience that they want, the privacy that they want, and perhaps they wouldn’t otherwise have on this lot. There are feasible alternatives. This is a 75 foot setback? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-This is WR-1A? MR. STONE-3A. That’s why that whole area from Dunham’s Bay to the Town line is 3A. MR. MC NALLY-I mean, if you’ve got a three acre lot, I can understand why you’d be 75 feet back, but this is no three acre lot, and it is a pre-existing, nonconforming use. I understand the other Board members, you want to push it back a bit. I think that would be something to get it in a more compliant location, but there isn’t any way you’re going to get a deck anywhere on this property, except in the driveway, and that’s not something that you want, and certainly I don’t think you’d want to get that Adirondack experience while everyone’s watching. This is different from the last guy’s, because here we had 10 or 15 feet up, 20 some odd feet above that. See, we’ve got a pretty tall structure. In this case we’ve got a deck that’s near ground level. So I’d be favorable for some kind of concession here. I think that it doesn’t have the impact on the neighborhood, particularly if this applicant was going to concede that there would be no significant cutting of trees and it would be kept shaded and screened from the neighbors. The Staff notes say that the proposed construction is a modest request, and I have to say that I think that it is, if only because there’s no effect on the 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) neighborhood if it’s built, and what if this applicant says is true, that she’s going to keep it there and she’s going to keep it quiet. What concerns me, though, is 16 people playing on the deck. I know what the lake can be like in the summertime, and I’ve seen rental properties where there’s a small parking lot out front. I don’t know where the hell they’d park eight cars, to be honest with you, in that area. I can see that I can approve this with minor modifications. That’s what I think. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can agree with Bob. I can understand the concern about approving new construction that is as close as this is to the lake, but we’re talking about a fairly low, open deck, and I would want qualification that it would never be screened in, never be roofed. MR. MC NALLY-Absolutely. MR. MC NULTY-And it looks to me as though it would be well screened by trees from the lake as well as from the road. I like the idea, perhaps, of requiring that the lakeside edge of it be no closer to the lake than the camp is now. So it might require a little bit of angling, but it struck me when I first looked at it. I said, gee, she could put a door in there, a set of steps, and use that piece of land as it is now, for the same purpose, and all that’s being requested is to raise that activity up a little bit to make it a little more comfortable to use. I don’t think it’s going to have a visual impact on the lake. I suspect that Ms. Seelye will go back and see what she can do about limiting 16 people at that house at one time anyway. I know from being in real estate and renting camps on the lake, even people with five and six bedroom houses like to limit the number of people in the house, simply because of the load on the septic system. They don’t want 16 people there. So I suspect that’ll be taken care of, not that that’s before this Board anyway, but with stipulations that the major trees that are there now would not be cut, and that the lakeside edge of the deck would be no closer to the lake than the camp is, I’d be willing to approve. MR. ABBATE-And I think you mentioned also not to be enclosed, covered. MR. MC NULTY-Right, not enclosed, not covered. MR. STONE-Interesting, as someone who’s been called by some of my Board members the czar of the lake, I can approve this. I certainly agree more with the last two speakers, Mr. McNally and Mr. McNulty, because I think they have enunciated the points that I would be willing to make. I think I would certainly require all the same concessions and conditions, in some kind of way making that this deck no closer to the lake than the house is now, in other words, coming off in an angle or maybe starting back a couple of feet so that it comes out the same way, and obviously not conditioning it. I don’t think I see an inconsistency in the position we had on the previous one. Because I know we have granted decks out into the setback zone. The three acre zoning here is the zoning. There’s no question about it. That’s what we zone it, but this is not a three acre lot. There’s no way it can be a three acre lot, and I think the 75 feet is a large number for this particular piece of property. I would like the house to be back further, obviously, but it’s not, but having said that, I believe, when you look at all these things and you think about the fact that this is going to be a deck, and it’s not going to have very much visual impact. You’ve already indicated a willingness to keep the current foliage coverage in front of the, along the shoreline so that this will not be necessarily seen from the lake, to any large degree, and, yes, the amount of relief, relative to the Ordinance, is large, but when you consider relative to the house that’s already there, and the fact that this is going to be a deck, rather than a raised thing, I don’t really have a problem. However, as I counted votes, there are only three of us who are in favor. We need five to be in favor, because the County did deny it. So I will ask for a motion to deny this application, unless any Board members feel that, with a slightly revised plan of putting it, cutting it back a little bit so that it doesn’t further encroach on the lake, if that would change their mind. MR. HIMES-Well, that’s what my statement was, was that if it could be moved back so that it didn’t encroach anymore than the camp does already, I’d go for it. MR. STONE-Okay. That now makes it four, for, and three against, and we still need five in this particular case. So, I will call for a motion to deny this application. MR. MC NALLY-If we make a motion to approve. MR. STONE-Make a motion to approve and it will not be passed. MR. MC NALLY-And if it’s not passed, fine. If it’s passed, then she gets it. MR. STONE-Right. MR. MC NALLY-So why don’t we do it that way. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. STONE-Okay. I agree. All right. I need a motion to approve with all of the conditions that Ms. Seelye has agreed to that have been mentioned around the table, if someone can remember all of them. MR. MC NALLY-Do you want me to try it? MR. STONE-Go ahead, Bob, please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2001 KATHARINE SEELYE, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 14 Crooked Tree Drive. The applicant proposes construction of a 276 square foot deck and a 128 square foot addition. With respect to this application, the addition is off the table, and the applicant has asked us not to consider it. So the only remaining issue is whether or not she can construct the 276 square foot deck according to her plans. The applicant specifically requests 40 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement in the WR-3A zone. I move that this application be approved for the following reasons. First, the benefit to the applicant is that she would be allowed to have privacy, a kind of rustic, Adirondack type experience that the privacy of the lot next to her existing home from which the house that was there was removed, would allow. That lot is treed and in large part undeveloped. It is also further away from other properties and adjacent to property owners. So it would give, or afford to her, the kind of experience and privacy that a homeowner would prefer, and in some sense it will also take away any rental guests from that side of the house next to the neighbors and put them away from those neighbors, perhaps providing them with a little more privacy. The feasible alternatives do include construction of the deck in a more compliant location, and for this reason, my application is to approve a deck in the location indicated in this application, no closer to the lake than the furthest point of the house on that side. In other words, there’s a house that angles, and at its furthest point from the lake, the deck should be no closer than that. I will modify my motion to the extent that what I’m asking the Board to approve is setback relief of 40 feet of relief for a 35 foot setback, as proposed on the existing plan, so that the front of the deck, adjacent to the lake, would be parallel and in line with the front of the house, flush with the house. The reason I also move this is because there will be no effects upon the neighborhood or community, and I say that because this is not an instance where we have a several story structure extending above the tree line or extending at a height that would be inappropriate on the lake. The deck is at or near ground level, given the sloping nature of the ground itself, but also it is relatively in a private location on a lot where the house had previously been torn down, and away from most of the other structures in the area and out of their view, in my opinion. It’s also screened from the lake with the existing trees and screened from the neighbors uphill, in large part because of trees and shrubs and the like. The difficulty is, in some sense, self created, but some of it can be attributed to the existing location of the structure, and therefore I don’t count this aspect of the five point test in great degree. I also note that this is a .36 acre lot in a three acre zoning, in that the 75 foot setback, I think, was intended to apply to much larger lots, and since this was a pre-existing nonconforming structure, the addition of this nominal area as a deck is not going to have any effect on the neighborhood. Now, the conditions are going to be, first, that the trees and shrubs will be maintained so as to afford privacy, both on the lakeside and with the neighbors to the rear. This motion is also contingent on this deck never being screened in or roofed over, to remain an outdoor living, recreational, privacy type area. Duly adopted this 15 day of May, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. BROWN-Just for accuracy, if I could interject something here. With the benefit of this to scale survey drawing, in favor of the drawings that were submitted with the application, I scale a dimension from the shore to the closest point of the deck to be 35 feet, which would require 40 feet of relief, rather than 47. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So I’d modify my motion to that extent, and the amount of relief requested is 40 feet from the 75 foot setback requirement. The feasible alternatives do include construction of the deck in a more compliant location, and for this reason, my application is to approve a deck in the location indicated in this application, no closer to the lake than the furthest point of the house on that side. MS. SEELYE-Than the closest point. MR. STONE-Than the closest point of the house to the lake, is the best way to say it. MR. MC NALLY-Well, let me ask you this. Is that what you want to say? I think what I meant to say is that there’s a house that angles, and at its furthest point from the lake, the deck should be no closer than that. That’s what I meant to say, but if you guys don’t want to do that, tell me. What is your sense? 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. ABBATE-I like that idea. MR. MC NALLY-Does that make sense? MR. HAYES-That’s good. MR. STONE-Okay. So you want, you’re saying the west corner is the corner we’re taking, or whatever, if that’s the closest, that’s the furthest from the lake. Okay. MS. SEELYE-Can I interrupt? MR. STONE-Yes, go ahead. MS. SEELYE-What you’re saying is it could angle off the front of the house at the same angle, if the house is like this, the deck could be like this? Is that what you’re saying? MR. MC NALLY-I’ll tell you what. Have you scaled that off? How far are we talking from that corner? MR. BROWN-Do you want to look at the drawing? I just want to be clear that you get the answer you’re looking for. MR. STONE-Yes. I heard two things. MR. BROWN-This is a 12 foot deck. What’s proposed is 16, but that doesn’t really affect the shore because the shore goes away here. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So the closest point is 35 feet? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So the deck can’t be any more than 35 feet from the lake. MR. BROWN-Correct, or any closer than 35 feet to the lake. MR. MC NALLY-But that would have to be even further than here, then. Because that’s 35 feet there, if you take away two feet. MR. BROWN-Well, that’s not what’s proposed in the application, though. Extend in line with the house, that’s what’s proposed in the application. So if you approve it as proposed, it doesn’t do that. MR. MC NALLY-I’ll do it as proposed then. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-What happens is the shoreline goes out further. MR. STONE-Okay. So this point is actually further away from the lake. MR. MC NULTY-If you go out like this, the shoreline goes out enough, so the closest point of the deck is basically the same corner of the house. MR. STONE-The same as the corner of the house, okay. MR. MC NULTY-And from there it increases again. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Because we need a super majority, because of the County, it’s denied. MS. SEELYE-Is there anything that I can do to, any way to modify the plan? I mean, I’m a little bit baffled when you say there might be a more compliant location. What would be more compliant? MR. HAYES-An obvious solution in my mind, and I’m not speaking for the rest of the Board members, is if you’ve eliminated the room and you went back to Warren County, that could dramatically alter their feelings about the overall project, and thus eliminate the need for a super 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) majority. In other words, you needed five votes, you got four, which is still a majority. If you’ve got an approval from Warren County, you would pass under the same vote. MS. SEELYE-All right, but that sounds like a procedural thing, as opposed to something I can actually do in the plan, with the plans to make you. MR. STONE-Well, that’s certainly one thing you can do. MS. SEELYE-Right. MR. STONE-I mean, normally, our rules require us to have a majority of the Board as constituted. In other words, we have to have four, even if we only had five people, we have to have four. With a County denial, we need five. I think Mr. Hayes is saying that, I don’t know what you found out today about the septic, but if that could be taken off the table, so that the County is not going to consider that at the moment, you could go back with just a proposal for the deck, then I would imagine on what I read that, that they would probably approve it, and then you’d only need the four votes you got, but we’d have to do it again. MS. SEELYE-I understand. I guess my question is not so much how to get around that Code, but what could I do to make a deck more appealing to those of you who voted against it? I mean, how could I alter the plan beyond going along with the suggestions that you made, like never covering it, maintaining the trees, have it flush with the house. What else could I do that would make it acceptable to you? You’ve mentioned that there were a more compliant place where I could put it, and I really don’t see that. If you’ve seen the property, there’s no place else, in my mind, where a deck could go. MR. STONE-You don’t have to be put on the spot. MR. ABBATE-No, Mr. Chairman, the vote has already been taken. If she wishes to re-apply, that’s certainly within her right. MR. STONE-Well, no, if you can help her with, she has to be re-applied. It has been denied. Okay, now we’re only talking, is there anything that she can do to help the three of you, and you don’t have to be on the spot. You can say no, period. If there’s anything that you can think of, to be helpful, if not, we just go on. MR. MC NALLY-I think that Mr. Hayes was saying that he doesn’t like the idea of a deck anywhere within that area, but if you get around the County problem, you’ve already got four votes. So whether or not there may be a more compliant location or not is kind of irrelevant, in his opinion, because then you’ll have your four votes and it doesn’t matter if we vote against you. That’s my sense, Jamie. MR. HAYES-Yes, and not getting too far into their explanation, I don’t think that’s a good idea in general, but I guess my idea was that the lack of necessity, coupled with the fact that it’s built entirely, in my mind the critical environmental area is a dangerous combination from a precedent perspective, and that was what concerned me. It would be different if you didn’t have any outdoor seating or anything like that. I think you do now, and to add additional outdoor seating, all in the critical environmental area, I guess in my mind we’re asking the CEA to pay the price for your want for more seating, which is understandable, but that’s how I viewed it. MR. ABBATE-And let me echo Jamie’s position. MR. STONE-Sure, okay. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I just had a procedural question that I really should know the answer to, but I’m going to ask it anyway, because I don’t know the answer. Does a motion to approve that’s not carried automatically constitute a denial, or is that a no action because it wasn’t approved? MR. MC NALLY-Why don’t we say it’s a no action. MR. BROWN-It’s a no action. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-So it’s not a denial. It’s the motion to approve wasn’t carried, wasn’t passed. So I don’t think that automatically constitutes a denial of the application. MR. ABBATE-Right. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. BROWN-It’s a no action. MR. ABBATE-Right. It’s not a denial. MR. STONE-Okay, but it still means. MR. BROWN-So what that means is the applicant could offer a modification. You could do another motion. MR. MC NALLY-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I don’t see any problem with that. You’re absolutely correct. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-But that’s basically what she was asking. What modification could she make that would gain her the vote that she needs. MR. ABBATE-Well, but that would be up to her to submit. I don’t think it’s our position to tell an applicant. MR. STONE-But if it’s a no action, we could do it right now. I would think. MR. BROWN-That’s my understanding. JIM UNDERWOOD MR. UNDERWOOD-Just as a point of information, when you were reading the County’s recommendation, wasn’t there something to the effect that the deck had no? There was something that clearly stated that, to the effect that the deck was fine. MR. HAYES-Well, I think that was my point is that if she gets an amplification from Warren County, the whole thing could be a moot point. She could get the deck at full size, part of it you actually might benefit, ironically, from getting that amplified and clarified. MR. STONE-I agree with you, Jim. I thought that’s what it said. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I think that you guys are considering this in light of the totality of what the County was saying. MR. STONE-Because that was the interpretation that Staff gave us. MR. HAYES-The procedure is to take a denial from the County, though, and segment it as we please. MR. ABBATE-And I agree with Jamie. That would be setting a bad precedence. MR. STONE-What is the statement? MR. MC NULTY-The statement is in the Staff notes. It says Staff does not identify any significant impacts to the State or County resources from the proposed deck. The only issue of any particular concern is the septic system, and it goes on to talk about they don’t have enough information on the septic system, but the County Board recommendation is deny without prejudice, due to the lack of information about the age, capacity and maintenance history of the septic system. “Note: the Board had concerns with the septic location identified by the applicant’s representative at the northeast corner of the existing dwelling.” So the actual recommendation says nothing about the deck. MR. STONE-I could interpret this, but I guess I better not, as they denied one and didn’t deny the other, but I think you ought to get clarification from the Board. I don’t believe, I mean, if we accept this as no action, that means you can’t do anything. I mean, you don’t have the variance, so you can’t build the deck. I would go back to the County and say, can you separate these two issues, or say, I’ve modified my plan at the moment, or you can still separate them and say I have, I want to build a deck. I want to put a room on. MR. BROWN-Right. In the interest of time, and not to be an advocate for the applicant, but to save your time and her time, modification of the deck to bring it back to where the sliding glass door is. Is that something that, and I don’t want to put anybody on the spot, but is that a kind of a modification that? 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. HAYES-How far back is that? MR. BROWN-There’s a photo that may help, that shows where that slider is in relationship to the front of the house. MR. STONE-Well, the slider is approximately. MR. BROWN-Five or six, eight feet back from the corner? MR. STONE-Five or six, well, yes. MR. BROWN-I mean, that would be like the minimum, probably, that would be, and I don’t know if that’s even acceptable to the applicant. I’m just trying to find an alternative. You’re at the table. You’re at the table. Let’s just. MR. STONE-Well, the door is here and the deck is going to be here. You’re saying bring it back to here. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. That’s what he’s saying, start the deck there instead of there. MR. STONE-I think you’re better off going to the County, myself. MR. HAYES-It’s up to you. Somebody can make a motion, as far as moving the deck back, if somebody changes their vote. MR. MC NULTY-It might be worth a trip to the County, because they might be able to just clarify their decision. MR. BROWN-If you go to the County and they clarify, you can get it full size. If you want to offer a modification tonight, you may get something less than what you really want. MR. MC NULTY-And since it’s no action, you’ve always got the opportunity to come back. MR. STONE-I have not heard anybody, I mean, if I listened to the three gentlemen, I’ll interpret for them, because I don’t want to put them on the spot, I heard one person say any incursion into 75 feet, and the other two seemed to concur with that. I mean, that’s what I heard. So I think your best chance is go back to the County, and we will take no action on it because we did not get a majority vote on it. MR. BROWN-Right, a carrying vote. So you could table it awaiting a clarification of the County referral. MR. HAYES-Without prejudice. MR. STONE-Without prejudice. MR. BROWN-Without prejudice to rehear it. MS. SEELYE-What would be the timetable on that? Do I have to wait for the Planning Board’s next meeting. MR. BROWN-The Zoning Board’s next meeting. MR. STONE-June. MR. HAYES-Zoning Board and then Planning Board. MR. STONE-Well, their Planning Board, and then you’d have to wait for us again, and the Planning Board, but they could be on the Planning Board for the meeting following. MR. BROWN-Correct, but you’re looking at the June meetings now. June 20, I think, is the first th Zoning Board meeting. The earliest this Board meets again, that you could be in front of, is June 20, because it would have to go back to the County, which is the second Wednesday. th MR. MC NULTY-Is it possible that the County Staff might be able to clarify that? MR. BROWN-Well, the Staff doesn’t make the recommendation. The County Planning Board makes the recommendation. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MR. MC NULTY-So you’re probably going to have to wait for the Planning Board. MR. STONE-I would just go back to the County. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2001 KATHARINE SEELYE, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 14 Crooked Tree Drive. Due to a no action vote regarding the deck. The applicant will go back to the County to determine how they would vote on the deck only, so that we would need how many votes we need for approval. Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. BRYANT-Question, Mr. Chairman. How can you table something you already voted on? MR. STONE-It was a no action. MR. HAYES-It was a no action. MR. STONE-I ruled it as a no action. MR. HAYES-It wasn’t a motion to deny it. MR. STONE-It was a motion to approve. MR. HAYES-But it didn’t carry, based on the super majority status. So what it amounts to is a moot vote. MR. STONE-It’s sort of a moot point. In other words, she did not get her variance. The applicant did not get her variance, or we did not deny the variance. We just didn’t approve it. MR. HAYES-It does happen when you get the super majority. It’s a rare thing, but it has happened before. MR. STONE-I mean, we could have done a vote to deny it. It still wouldn’t have passed. It would have been three four, instead of four three. So it’s no action. So I’ve got a motion to table on the no action, and the applicant has the right to come back to us within 62 days. MR. HAYES-Without prejudice. MR. STONE-Without prejudice. MR. ABBATE-Without prejudice, right. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Sorry. So we’ll look forward to you coming back. We’ve got a couple of sets of minutes, gentlemen, if you want to. We’ve got two sets of minutes. CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 25, 2001: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 25, 2001, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNulty April 26, 2001: NONE 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/16/01) MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 26, 2001, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty MS. GAGLIARDI-I still have March 28 and April 18 that you haven’t done. thth MR. STONE-You do? Okay. Here we go. March 28, 2001: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 28, 2001 MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant April 18, 2001: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2001, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-I move we adjourn. MR. ABBATE-Second. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 41