The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-08-21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY PAUL HAYES CHARLES ABBATE NORMAN HIMES ROY URRICO JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI – ECONO LODGE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC LOCATION: 543 AVIATION ROAD ZONE: HC-INT. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO TABLE THE APPLICATION FOR AN UNDEFINED TIME FRAME PER LETTER SUBMITTED ON JULY 29, 2002. PROJECT PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO EXISTING MOTEL AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MOTEL ONTO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 302.05-1-51; 302.05-1-52.13 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRES; 0.39 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-90; 179-4-30; 179-4-40 MR. STONE-Do you have that letter? MR. MC NULTY-I do have that. MR. STONE-Would you read that into the record, please, and the tabling motion from the last time. Read that first. MR. MC NULTY-“MOTION THAT AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2002, AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI BE REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR COMMENT ABOUT THE DESIGN THAT MIGHT EVENTUALLY BE APPROVED BY THEM SO THAT WE WILL BE BETTER EQUIPPED TO DETERMINE THE EXACT VARIANCES REQUIRED, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 543 Aviation Road. As part of this motion, we would like to get some clarification as to the status of the easterly right of way re: NiMo. Duly adopted this 26 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes” MR. STONE-Now read the letter. MR. MC NULTY-And the letter is addressed to Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator, signed by H. Thomas Jarrett, PE, Principal, Jarrett-Martin Engineers, and it says, “Dear Craig: My client would like to temporarily table the Variance Application, so that he may evaluate the current design as well as other options for the use of the site. Once our client gets back to us with his intentions, we will notify the Town. Sincerely, Jarrett- Martin Engineers, PLLC H. Thomas Jarrett, PE Principal” MR. STONE-Is there anybody here representing the applicant, representing the Area Variance? Following a request from the Zoning Administrator, I am going to ask for a motion to deny this application, so that we don’t end up with an indefinite tabling. We normally table for no more than 62 days, and therefore, in this particular case, since we have no idea what the intent of the applicant is, I would like a motion to deny this, so that we get it off our calendar at this point. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll take the motion, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Yes, short and sweet. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2002 AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI – ECONO LODGE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 543 Aviation Road. Mr. Bhatti has requested, if I’m not mistaken, that his application be held over for an undefined time. I would refer to the letter of 7 August 02 from the Zoning Administrator, who has the position that we should not, as you indicated, extend tabling applications only to a one time maximum 62 days. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we disapprove this application, in view of the fact that we have a position from the Zoning Administrator and as far as I’m concerned, in my personal point of view, it serves no purpose to this Board or to the Town or to the public to maintain an application for a variance for an undefined period of time, and so I move, Mr. Chairman, that Area Variance No. 55-2002 be denied. Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-For the purpose of the record, Mr. Hayes abstained because at the previous discussion, he recused himself because of personal, prior interests with the applicant. So, rather than sit down right now, he abstained. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 60-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED HARRISENA CHURCH PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: ROY URRICO ZONE: RR-5A LOCATION: 1616 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 17.5 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 18-92, SP 5-93 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/14/02 TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-59 LOT SIZE: 4.43 ACRES SECTION: CHAPTER 140-6 B1 MR. STONE- Next on the agenda that you have in front of you, under New Business, is Sign Variance No. 60-2002, the applicant is the Harrisena Church. This application has been modified to the extent that a variance is not needed. Therefore, this is off the agenda. AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2002 TYPE II JOEL CLUGSTONE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LC-42A LOCATION: 2257 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 192 SQ. FT. THREE-SEASON PORCH WITH A 320 SQ. FT. ATTACHED DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 240.00-1-3 LOT SIZE: 2.32 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030; 179-13-010 JOEL CLUGSTONE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2002, Joel Clugstone, Meeting Date: August 21, 2002 “Project Location: 2257 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 192 sq. ft. three-season porch with a 320 sq. ft. attached deck. Relief Required: Applicant requests 14 feet of relief from the 100-foot minimum side setback requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the LC-42A Zone, § 179-4-030, as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure § 179-13-010. 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 structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited due to the placement of the house on the parcel. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 14 feet of relief from the 100-foot minimum side setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the ordinance (14%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the placement of the dwelling on the parcel. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) None. Staff comments: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed construction will not be visible to any of the neighboring properties due to the dense forest of the parcel and neighboring parcels. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Clugstone, I assume? MR. CLUGSTONE-Yes. MR. STONE-Would you state your name for the record. MR. CLUGSTONE-I’m Joel Clugstone. I am the applicant, owner and resident of the property in question located at 2257 Ridge Road, Queensbury, New York. MR. STONE-One question. Was there any County? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything you want to add to your application, tell us about it? MR. CLUGSTONE-Not really. At the present time, there is an 8 by 24 deck at the same end of the building I’m proposing this work on. Obviously, that would be removed. The porch would match that size, 8 by 24, and additional deck. I would like to, I’ve drawn it with a hip roof to reduce any visual impact that might be involved. It’s a fairly steep, steeply pitched house as it is, and I just thought the hip roof design might reduce some of the visual impact. MR. STONE-Where is the closest neighbor to the west of this? MR. CLUGSTONE-To the west? MR. STONE-Well, that’s where the construction is going to be, right? MR. CLUGSTONE-Yes. A mile away. MR. STONE-I think you’re reducing it. I think it’s much further. MR. CLUGSTONE-Well, as the crow flies anyway. MR. STONE-Any questions of Mr. Clugstone? MR. HIMES-Just to get a little clarification on the building plans that you have. Looking through the application material here, I saw a reference to a cellar space. Are you going to be excavating and making a cellar? MR. CLUGSTONE-No. The house sits entirely on ledge rock, and there would be an exposed cellar space. The area directly under the porch would be enclosed, but not under the deck area. MR. HIMES-So you’re taking the deck that’s there now away, building a porch, a three season porch, and then for all intents and purposes the deck is going back on on the side of the porch? MR. CLUGSTONE-That’s correct. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-A question for Bruce. Why is it LC-42 out there if it’s only a two acre lot? MR. FRANK-I’m not sure if that was changed in the recent Zoning Ordinance, but it’s pre-existing, nonconforming from long before. If you look at the GIS map, there are some large parcels. Most of them belong to the State. MR. STONE-I think when the rezoning was done there was no enthusiasm for making this anything other than LC-42 because of the nature of the wetlands behind. You’re getting into the Dunham’s Bay wetland which extends way in, all those wetlands. MR. ABBATE-I have one question. Mr. Clugstone, you indicated something interesting. Would you object to a stipulation, in the event there was approval, not to say that there will be, of removal of the eight by twenty-four deck? You intend to remove that anyway, do you not? MR. CLUGSTONE-The existing, yes. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. ABBATE-So would you object to a stipulation in any approval that it would be approved with your agreeing to remove the eight by twenty-four deck? MR. STONE-It has to be. That’s his application. To remove it. MR. UNDERWOOD-He has to take it off to put it on. MR. ABBATE-So then we wouldn’t really require a stipulation on that. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Okay. If there’s no further questions, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I find no correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions on the part of the Board? Hearing none, let me start with Norm. Let’s talk about it. MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just considering that we’ve got this (lost words) it says 100 feet (lost words) we try to look at (lost words) you were asked at the beginning to comment on what is the need, for us to look at that from a standpoint of what about the Code (lost words) the convenience, the necessity. So it brings in a complication (lost words) because you are a good distance on one side, and then the other you’ve got the garage and all (lost words). So, again, having been out there (lost words) it’s a rather modest request, in my opinion, and I would tend to favor the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm, I’ll just ask you. I think you, particular, have to bring that mic right up to your face. MR. HIMES-Even more than Chuck? MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Clugstone, it’s quite obvious to me that you’re going to have to remove that deck anyway. So it’s not a problem, right? MR. CLUGSTONE-No. MR. ABBATE-But anyway. I agree with Norm. I like to place myself, if I can, in the same position as the applicant submitting an application. The construction of this project that you’re requesting clearly doesn’t harm anyone. It’s certainly a convenience for you, and as you indicated, or Staff comments, that, number one, it’s not going to be visible by the neighbors anyway because of the dense forest and what have you, and I see nothing that would be of a negative effect if we went ahead and approved your application. So, based upon what my fellow Board member said and what I basically said here, I would support the application. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would agree, too. I think it’s a modest home. It’s a nice view you have up there, and, you know, the three season porch is certainly going to let you utilize your home a lot more properly in the seasons when you can be outside. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I can’t see any reason to think about denying this application. I think everything fits. I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with the rest of the Board members. Certainly 84 feet on a day to day basis would be maybe a dream setback in another scenario. So I don’t see any other reason to override that in this case. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. MC NULTY-I feel basically the same way. The only reason I could see to question something like this is if we had several properties that we anticipated this kind of a request from, because then we’d be kind of changing the zoning, but I don’t think we’re going to get a rash of requests in this area for this and it’s certainly a modest proposal. It’s not going to affect the surrounding properties. So I have no problem with it. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly agree. I just thought of one question. When did you build this house, how many years ago? MR. CLUGSTONE-My father built it in the early 70’s. MR. STONE-Okay. So it goes back quite a ways. I agree with the rest of the Board. I think the, if this were a normal piece of property, and when I say that, LC-42 is not normal in the Town of Queensbury, maybe it would be wonderful to have the whole Town LC-42, but then none of us could live here, but with that only caveat, it certainly looks like a very good proposal. So I certainly would be in favor, and I think there is basically no detriment to the community. It’s all a benefit to you. Having said that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2002 JOEL CLUGSTONE, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 2257 Ridge Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 192 sq. ft. three season porch with a 320 sq. ft. attached deck. The relief required is the applicant requests 14 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum side setback requirement of the schedule of area and bulk requirements for the LC-42A zone, Section 179-4-030, as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The benefit to the applicant of course would be getting the permission of the variance to go ahead and start the construction as desired. The feasible alternatives for this kind of an application putting a porch onto something really there’s not much an application, you either make no porch, really, in my opinion. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 14 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum side setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal, and again, recognizing that of the two proposals for construction, one of them is pretty much already there now. You’re just taking it off and putting it back together, so to speak, and certainly the effects on the neighborhood or community, there would be no negative impact on the neighborhood or the community with this action from my opinion, since it’s difficult to observe, even from your own boundary lines from some neighbor. As far as the difficulty being self-created is concerned, I don’t think that that’s a factor that needs to be considered here, and overall the request is modest and reasonable and submit we approve the application as is. Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go, sir. MR. CLUGSTONE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Go in and pick up your building permit. MR. ABBATE-Be sure to remove that 8 by 24, will you? MR. CLUGSTONE-Yes. I’ll take care of that tonight. AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2002 TYPE II GREGORY & MARIESA KREIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: PUD LOCATION: 6 MASTERS COMMON NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18 FT. BY 41 FT. INGROUND SWIMMING POOL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. TAX MAP NO. 290.17-1-35 LOT SIZE: 0.73 ACRES SECTION: 179-5-020C GREGORY KREIS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 62-2002 Gregory & Mariesa Kreis, Meeting Date: August 21, 2002 “Project Location: 6 Masters Common North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 18-foot by 41-foot in-ground swimming pool. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory Structures regulations; § 179-5-020 C. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to install the desired pool in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited due to the placement of the house on the parcel. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the ordinance (50%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the placement of the house on the parcel. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 90-276: single-family dwelling. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The pool would not be out of character with the neighborhood being other pools exist in Masters Common North. Additionally, a buffer made up of mature trees and a dense lower story exists opposite the applicant’s rear yard. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. Kreis, anything more you want to add? MR. KREIS-Maybe just to reiterate what you had already said. The house is set off the street, Masters Common North. The house has a rather large deck in the back of it. Leaving little space between the required setback and the deck. There is a very large established tree line behind the house. I assumed when we bought the property in March that was our property line, only because (lost words) taken care of (lost words) fence which rests right up against the trees, but Mr. Sprague, who’s present tonight, when he come over and measured the property and looked at the map, we discovered 43 foot out from the trees to our backyard, which is quite a bit of our backyard, we can’t, I wouldn’t possibly be able to put in a pool without some sort of relief. We looked at the side next to the driveway, which we didn’t think was a feasible place to put it, only because the house was built neighboring our house, most of the kids on that side (lost words), it would be easily seen from both streets. It’s not a very private place for a pool, and the concern about in- ground pools, the proper fencing and supervision. There are no neighbors presently. I don’t have one on either side or behind me. At the time, our side of the street is the only side of the street that can actually have a pool. So on the other side you can’t have a pool due to the golf course. MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff, first of all. You made the comment, Bruce, a buffer made up of mature trees and a dense lower story exists opposite. What does that mean? MR. FRANK-The picture will explain it better than I can describe it. The lower story, the (lost words) there’s a lot of foliage. It’s a good screening, a good buffer. MR. STONE-You’re saying the trees represent a good. MR. HAYES-The lower trees. MR. STONE-The lower trees. MR. FRANK-Not only the upper canopy but the lower canopy. MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t know if that’s what. The other thing is, Mr. Kreis, if you can explain to me, this 43 feet is not your property. It’s on the property which is currently unsold? MR. KREIS-Right. Sadly enough we thought it was ours when we bought it. In fact, I think the previous owners thought it was theirs, too because they put sprinklers on the property behind ours which they were then asked to move one day. They took care of (lost word). You probably can’t see the wooden stake there, but we measured it. MR. STONE-Is there any possibility of buying that to protect yourself, not just the pool? MR. KREIS-I’ve heard that that’s already been sold. The two properties behind us, actually one being constructed right now. In fact, my wife was saying they’re doing something, but I think they’re just bulldozing the dirt over on the other lot. MR. STONE-You mean the lot on Haviland and, the one that sides on Haviland, and the one to the north? MR. KREIS-Yes. There’s only 140 feet of really land that you can (lost words). MR. STONE-Yes. I saw them working on it. Yes. MR. ABBATE-I’d just ask one question, if I may. It is a sad thing to think a certain property is yours and it’s not, but did you have it surveyed before you purchased the property? MR. KREIS-We didn’t. We didn’t survey it. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. ABBATE-The bank didn’t require a survey? MR. KREIS-No, they didn’t require the previous owner who built the property to survey it. Of course he was the Vice President of Evergreen Bank. MR. ABBATE-And you didn’t request a survey either? MR. KREIS-No, we didn’t, and we’re not unhappy with it. Obviously, it’s a beautiful property. It’s a beautiful lot. It’s just that when we went out to build a pool we were kind of startled by our lack of backyard. MR. ABBATE-I’ll bet you dollars to donuts the next time you buy a home you’re going to have it surveyed first. MR. KREIS-I think we’re going to go for it. MR. STONE-I think the concern that I have, and I expressed some concern, that you have no control over that lot, and somebody could come in, tear down all those trees, and we may have let you put a pool ten feet from the line, and there is no association buffer or anything like that, I gather? MR. KREIS-I don’t believe so. MR. STONE-The lot behind you is the lot behind you all the way. Do you have any other questions, gentlemen? Well, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Are there any other questions of Mr. Kreis? Well, having said that, let’s talk about it, then. Chuck Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would, I really and truly, Mr. Kreis, don’t object, because as I said earlier, I like to place myself in the same position as the applicant. The only troubling area that I have here, and that’s why I asked you, if you had the land surveyed, and it was brought up by the Chairman, if we approve your application, and an individual comes in and decides to, he purchases the property behind you and decides to take down all that, the tree line that we see there and what have you, then we have a pool facing the individual’s home. Now, should I make a case for a theoretical or hypothetical person coming in and saying my goodness I’m going to build a house and this pool is going to be there? Probably not, probably not, but it’s just a gnawing thing at me. Other than that, I basically don’t have any problems. The only negative effect I see here would be that your neighbors on the opposite side of the road are not allowed to have pools, but, other than that, Mr. Chairman, that’s it. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. This is one where I think that the association or the planned unit development could have troubleshot this a little better by not setting the house 91 feet back from the road. It has that palatial front lawn on it and kind of took away all your privacy in the back there, but given the fact that you intend to put a pool, and you’re entitled to one by your association rules there, I mean, you could move it 10 feet closer to your deck. I don’t know if you’re going to end up having to pave between the deck and the pool anyway or put some kind of patio in down there or something. MR. KREIS-No, it would probably just be the cement. MR. STONE-You can’t put it in there. You can’t put a deck close to the house. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. I know. MR. STONE-Right, Bruce? MR. FRANK-As of April, we have no setback in between the primary structure and accessory structures. That was part of the old Zoning Ordinance. MR. STONE-Okay. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. FRANK-That no longer exists. MR. ABBATE-Bruce, so, theoretically, then, because that caught me by surprise as well, theoretically he could put, legally put, in cement? MR. FRANK-He could, and he could put it right close to his deck, too, but I discussed this with Mr. Kreis, and he thought it was wise not to. He has two teenage children, and he said he hated the thought of somebody having to try to jump off that deck into the pool. MR. STONE-You think they might do that if they were a couple of children? MR. FRANK-I think he’s trying to be proactive, and that’s the reason why he did not want to do that. MR. ABBATE-This is just for information for the future, because like Lew, I thought that it was prohibited, you were not allowed to do that, but that was under the old ordinances. MR. FRANK-They excluded the 10 foot setback from a primary structure for accessory structures. MR. ABBATE-But as of right now they’re allowed to do it if they wish. All right. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I really don’t have a problem with it. MR. URRICO-I have a question. You mentioned two other houses having pools. Now do they have lots adjacent to them to the rear as well? MR. KREIS-That’s a good question. No, there’s only two. There’s actually only three properties that border this tree line. The rest are kind of around the circle. I don’t believe, maybe the third one down does, but I don’t believe so. There was a pool just recently put in there. I saw that orange fence is up around. MR. HAYES-There’s an ongoing pool battle going on. MR. URRICO-I guess my question, has it impacted that tree line at all that you’ve noticed, nobody’s taken out any trees? MR. KREIS-No. I know there’s no guarantees, but boy I’d hate to see somebody do that, but you never know. MR. URRICO-I don’t know what I’d be bothered more by, you having a pool 10 feet to the property line or somebody actually thinking about taking down trees. I think, all things being equal, I would be in favor of this. I think you’ve made every accommodation you can. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. I think in this case it’s a reasonable proposal. There is screening there, as Bruce has pointed out, and while it’s not on your property and it could be removed, if the other property owner chose to do that, that would be a little bit of his decision, and I think he’d have to have that be part of his decision and part of the impact on his own property he’s controlling. So I think on balance I don’t think there’s any detrimental effect on the neighborhood or community in this case, and I don’t really think the relief is that substantial otherwise in this particular case either. You’ve got a 10 foot splash zone. I guess that’s enough. So I’m for it. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to be the odd man out on this. I don’t think it’s fair to the future owner of that other lot to expect that he’s going to maintain a buffer because of what his neighbor behind him has done, and I also look at this and I guess, you know, there’s no reason why all the other lots in this area might not request a pool 10 feet from their back line so they could have more backyard. It doesn’t strike me that it’s a unique circumstance, and as I said before, at times when questions like this come up, some lots may just not be intended to have a pool. Maybe this is one, or maybe the pool could be set closer. Having said that, and knowing I’m in the minority anyway, but I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I agree with Chuck McNulty. His statements pretty well reflect the way I feel about it, too. Just to protect the interests of the owner to be. Someday there is going to be one there. Whether there was any planning that went into these lots and where the houses were placed, well (lost words) it seems like that there is some option that you have there of moving the pool closer to the house, recognizing, of course, that your preference not to do. However, it appears from what I’m hearing that the 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) option is there, and in that case you might either not need as much variance or perhaps no variance at all. So, for those reasons, I would be opposed to the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. I’m very conflicted, and I wrote down, when I first looked at the property, no problem, which is my shorthand for saying it’s certainly a benefit to the applicant and not much detriment to the community. I can also argue that he who gets there first can do what they want, in the sense you’re getting there before the backyard neighbor, in a sense. You’re putting a pool, if we allow you, and that person has the right to say it’s there. Do I want to keep it screened with my trees or do I want a full use of my property and take down the trees to which he’s entitled, because obviously you have not indicated any covenants that says you can’t. There’s no association that says you must have a buffer between the two pieces of property. Certainly if this were a situation where, and you’ve seen many of these, where there is an association buffer, we had one last month or the month before where the man wanted to put the pool very close to the property line, but there was a 50 foot buffer that was in deeds on both sides, and it was a perfectly acceptable thing to do. I guess one of the things I would like to hear, and I recognize your concern about your children’s habits, and I’ve been around long enough to recognize that, if there’s a mountain, somebody’s going to climb it, and somebody’s going to try to go from the deck into the pool, if it’s close enough to be even somewhat remotely feasible, but even having said that I guess I’d like to see, if the Code allows it, the pool to be a little closer to the house so that we’re minimizing the distance to the pool from the property line. I’m going to, as I look at my notes, I’m going to ask for a motion to approve, and we’ll see how the vote goes, because I really feel that, while I thought there was no problem to begin with, of course I assumed, and we all know what assumed means, that this tree line was somewhat under your control, and now I find out there’s no control on your part or anybody else’s part except the person who buys the property. I think Mr. Hayes made the comment that, why would anybody take down trees if they’re going to expose your pool, and as I say, you’re there first, but anyway, having said that, let me call for a motion to approve and we’ll see where it goes. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2002 GREGORY & MARIESA KREIS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 6 Masters Common North. The applicant proposes construction of an 18 by 41 foot in-ground swimming pool, and specifically they’re requesting 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the accessory structure’s regulations Section 179-5-020, Section C. The benefit to the applicant, they would be allowed to construct the pool in the desired location. As he specifically said, he doesn’t want it located too close to the deck for kids to be able to jump in and the 10 feet that’s between there is enough to put a little patio in and probably it’s enough to put some tables and chairs. So I would have to agree it makes more sense to put it where you want it. Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. I guess you could move it closer to the deck, but as we mentioned, that’s not what they want. As far as the vegetative parcel in the back, even though we thought that that was part of theirs, it’s not. So at some point in time, you know, the neighbors who buy that lot, if they do take it down, you may want to consider putting some vegetation up at some point, but that’s hearsay. Who knows what’s going to happen. I don’t think there’ll be any real effects on the neighborhood, unless that hedgerow does come down, and I think you’ll still have your privacy in your backyard there. As far as the whole neighborhood goes, as you said before, pools are allowable on that side of the street. So I’d be in favor of the application. That an as-built survey be submitted to the Town, so that we know exactly where this thing ends up. Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go, sir. AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2002 TYPE II JAMES FINNECY PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: PAUL E. CUSHING, ARCHITECT, P.C. ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 82 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 42 SQ. FT. SUNROOM ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 37-2002, SP 78-89, AV 87-1993, BP 96-045 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/14/02 TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-31, 33 AND 35 (WILL BE CONSOLIDATED) LOT SIZE: 0.02; 0.11; 0.19 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030; 179-13-010 A, E PAUL CUSHING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JAMES FINNECY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-2002, James Finnecy, Meeting Date: August 21, 2002 “Project Location: 82 Mason Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 42 sq. ft. addition to a sunroom. Relief Required: Applicant requests 11.83 feet of relief from the 30-foot front setback requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-1A Zone, § 179-4-030, as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure § 179-13-010. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition to the existing sunroom. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 11.83 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance (39.4%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing, nonconforming lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 37-2002: 08/27/02; pending this application. BP 96-045: 03/18/96; 488 sq. ft. alteration to residence. BP 93-662: 10/29/93; two-car detached garage. AV 87-93: 10/20/93; setback relief for 24 x 24 garage. BP 89-822: 04/30/90; second-floor addition. SP 78-89: 04/17/90; addition of two bedrooms and a bath. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed addition is relatively small, and will have the same front setback as the existing structure. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form Project Name: Finnecy, James Owner: James Finnecy ID Number: QBY-02-AV-63 County Project#: Aug02-30 Current Zoning: WR-1A, CEA Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 42 sq. ft. sunroom addition. Relief requested from the front yard setback requirements and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. WR-1A zone is 30’, existing 1930’s building has 18.17’ setback. Site Location: 82 Mason Road Tax Map Number(s): 226.12-1-35 Staff Notes: The applicant requests variances to construct a 42 sq. ft. addition that does not meet the front setback. The home is considered to be preexisting nonconforming. The addition will be to the south side of the house and be part of the existing sunroom. The building will be no closer than the existing home 18 +/- ft. from the property line where 30 ft. is required. Staff does not identify an impact on County resources. Staff recommends NCI. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 8/16/02. MR. STONE-Gentlemen, introduce yourselves, add anything you want to add. MR. FINNECY-James Finnecy, the owner and applicant. MR. CUSHING-John Paul Cushing, Mr. Finnecy’s architect. MR. STONE-Mr. Finnecy, how long have you owned this home? MR. FINNECY-Fifteen years. MR. STONE-So all of these approvals, all these variances, site plans, you owned the house at that point? MR. FINNECY-That’s correct. MR. STONE-You got a variance to put an alteration in six years ago. Did you think of this, or was it something? MR. FINNECY-It was all internal. No addition. MR. STONE-Okay. When you did get the variance for the garage. Okay. Any questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-When you say it was all internal, a number of additions here did require a variance that you also put in. MR. FINNECY-I think, as I recall, the question, you referred to the four hundred and some. MR. STONE-Well, that was the alteration. MR. FINNECY-The alteration. MR. STONE-You said that was internal. MR. FINNECY-That was all internal. There was no addition, no footage added to the structure. MR. STONE-But you did get an Area Variance for the garage. MR. FINNECY-That’s correct. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. STONE-Any questions at all? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. I don’t hear any other questions. Let’s start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think this is a pretty minimal request. The addition is only going to be five and a half feet more added on to the sunroom. MR. CUSHING-Three and a half feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Three and a half feet. So, I mean, it’s about the size of a closet added on there. As far as, you know, this is a WR-1 zone. This is located in the middle of the peninsula. It’s not going to have any impact on the lake or anything. As far as the setbacks off the road, I think Mason Road is more of a lane than it is a major thoroughfare back up in there. So I don’t think that, you know, the request is out of character with what else is up there in that neighborhood. So, I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree. I think he satisfies the five areas of the test that we’re looking at. I am a little concerned, it’s still 40%, and there have been a number of alterations to the home, but I think, overall, I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think the previous two Board members have stated it pretty accurately. I think this is a very modest proposal, in this particular case, particularly considering the fact that the property is, as Jim pointed out, in the middle of the peninsula. I certainly am aware of Lew’s concern of creeping, or cumulative variances, and that’s always something that we guard against here, and in my opinion for good reason, but I really think that this boils down to such a little addition that it’s really not something that is, there’s not a lot being asked here. So it doesn’t really trip that up in my mind. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll basically agree. If I was going to be concerned, I’d be concerned about the distance it was coming out from the house toward the house next door, but, gosh, there’s an awful lot of yard there, and that’s not what the variance request is for. The variance request is for the front setback, and I think it’s going to be very insignificant effect on the front setback, increasing it by a couple of feet sideways. So I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. Very briefly, I agree with my fellow Board members. I think principally in my mind it’s the, although it’s a small lot, a third of an acre or thereabouts, it’s wide. So where you’re coming out is really not a negative impact on any of your neighbors (lost words). So I would agree with my fellow Board members and support the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Yes. I think Mr. Finnecy is only requesting a minimal relief and I think that since 1990 Mr. Finnecy has made some positive improvements on his property and I think he’s to be congratulated for that, and I would support the application. MR. STONE-And I also, I wrote down, in my style, not a real problem. The only question I had, what do the neighbors think, and obviously they aren’t here. They obviously don’t really care. I think Mr. Hayes and others made the comment that it is in the center of Cleverdale. It does not impact upon the lake. I think it’s a nice looking piece of property and this is not going to impact negatively on its appearance, and I would call, therefore, for a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2002 JAMES FINNECY, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) 82 Mason Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 42 sq. ft. addition to a sunroom. He’s requesting 11.83 feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk requirements from the WR-1A zone, 179-40-030, as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, 179-13-010. The benefit to the applicant would be that he would be able to construct this project and the desired addition to this existing sunroom. Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. As far as the relief, 11.83 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance, but in reality it really is not. There are minimal effects on the neighborhood as a result of this action, and as far as the difficulty being self-created, that’s attributed to the pre-existing, nonconforming lot. Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-There you go. MR. FINNECY-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2002 TYPE II ROLF AHLERS PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JAMES MILLER, NORTHFIELD DESIGNS ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 105 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING CAMP AND CONSTRUCT A 2,928 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 48-96, SP 58-96, AV 81-1996, AV 60-1996, BP 96-657 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/14/02 TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1- 18 LOT SIZE: 0.50 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ROLF AHLERS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 64-2002, Rolf Ahlers, Meeting Date: August 21, 2002 “Project Location: 105 Knox Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing camp and construction of a 2,928 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 19 feet of shoreline setback relief from the 50-foot minimum requirement, 13.4 and 11.02 feet of side setback relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement for both sides, 3.8 feet of height relief from the 28-foot maximum requirement, and 1% of FAR relief from the 22% maximum requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-1A Zone, § 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited as the applicants propose to rebuild on the existing foundation. However, a feasible alternative for the proposed height may include building the structure to the 28-foot maximum allowed by code. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 19 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance (38%), 13.4 and 11.02 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance (67% and 55.1% respectively) considering relief is being requested for both sides, 3.8 feet of relief from the 28-foot maximum height requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance (13.6%), and 1% of relief from the 22% maximum FAR requirement may be interpreted as minimal relative to the Ordinance (4.5%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 81-96: 09/18/96; relief for greater than 50% expansion for second-floor addition (812 sq. ft.). SP 58-96: 09/24/96; renovations and additions to existing residence. AV 60-96: 07/24/96; side setback relief for proposed garage. SP 48-96: 08/27/96; remove existing garage and construct a two-car garage. BP 96-657: 10/28/96: 10/28/96; garage demolition. BP 96-656: 10/22/96; two-car garage. BP 96-659: 10/22/96; septic alteration (withdrawn). Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Even though the applicants propose to rebuild on the existing foundation, a more compliant structure could be built on a new foundation. Additionally, the proposed height for the structure could be built to the 289-foot maximum allowed by code. Note: The Zoning Administrator has requested information to determine the status of the existing septic system. As of 08/15/02, nothing has been submitted; therefore, staff can not recommend approval for this application. SEQR Status: Type II” 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. MC NULTY-And we a Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 14, 2002 Project Name: Ahlers, Rolf Owner: Rolf Ahlers ID Number: QBY-02-AV-64 County Project#: Aug02-24 Current Zoning: WR-1A, CEA Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to demolish existing camp and construct a 2,928 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Applicant seeks relief from the shoreline and sideline setback requirements, as well as relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements and height restrictions. Site Location: 105 Knox Road. Tax Map Number(s): 7-1-3 Staff Notes: The applicant requests variances for the construction of a two story home that does not meet the zoning requirements. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing camp and to build on the same foundation and maintain the existing basement. The new construction is proposed to have two floors each with 1,464 sq. ft. of living space with a 25% Floor area ratio that exceeds the 22% Floor area ratio. The home will not meet the setback requirements from the shore – the applicant proposes 46.33 ft. where 50 ft. is required; nor will the house meet the side setback requirements – the applicant proposes 6.6 ft. on the south and 8.98 ft. on the north where 20 ft. is required; and the house will not meet the height restriction of 28 ft. where 33 ft. is proposed. The project is located on 0.34 acres. The plans do not indicate stormwater control measures. Staff recommends discussion requesting the applicant provide information on stormwater control County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact The Board recommended no county impact because the applicant provided information that addressed concerns with septic and stormwater.” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 8/16/02. MR. STONE-As we start, I need a comment about the Zoning Administrator’s comment about septic system. So, I’ll just put you on notice. Identify yourselves and let’s talk about it. MR. MILLER-I’m James Miller. I’m the architect representing Rolf and Luise Ahlers. It’s kind of a complex request and a very simple one. The simple part of it is we’re looking to reestablish the permits that were granted back in 1996. The project that we’re proposing is exactly the same footprint in volume as the project that was approved in 1996. Mr. Ahlers has not had the opportunity to construct what was approved back then. He did construct the garage portion of that project in 1996, but the house part was not constructed and we let our permits lapse. So we’re looking to reestablish those permits. On the complex side, a few more additional requirements have gone into effect since that time, the height requirement and the volume requirement for the BAR? MR. STONE-FAR, Floor Area Ratio. MR. MILLER-Okay. You were fairly close on those two items, but we just submitted exactly the same application that we had previously. A little bit of quick history. The building was constructed in 1952, purchased in 1977 by Mr. and Mrs. Ahlers. In late 1989 into 1990, a new foundation was constructed under the existing residence. Previous to that it was on piers. The new construction was 12 inch thick concrete, reinforced concrete foundation. That was all in anticipation of one day building this project. I came on board, working with the Ahlers, in 1995 and 1996, and at that time, we’d requested to build on top of that existing foundation. That’s the case today. So the setbacks really are what’s existing. We’re not looking to make them measurably smaller or any closer to the. MR. STONE-You are aware that once you tear down, we don’t have footprint rule in Queensbury? Once it’s down, it’s down, even if the foundation is considered down. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I also, I didn’t catch your last name, I’m sorry. MR. MILLER-Miller. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Miller, I really would like you to address the issue of why you have not submitted a septic system plan. MR. MILLER-Well, the existing septic system is operational. The amount of bedrooms is exactly the same. MR. ABBATE-Have you submitted that information to the Zoning Administrator? MR. MILLER-That information, what I’ve just expressed. What we are trying to do, and we have in the works, is to have an engineer come out and inspect the system. MR. ABBATE-So you haven’t done it yet? MR. MILLER-We haven’t done that. MR. STONE-How old is the system? MR. AHLERS-That system, my name is Rolf Ahlers and I’m the owner of the property, together with my wife. The septic system was put in four years before we bought the property. We bought the property 25 years ago. So it is now 29 years old. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. STONE-Okay. Bruce, I am correct, or can you tell me, I know before we proceed you have to bring the system up to code. At what point is that done in the process of the applicant saying I’d like to do something? MR. FRANK-In this instance, the Zoning Administrator has requested this information, and in fairness to the applicant, Dennis Dickinson, the engineer, was contacted by the Zoning Administrator, and he said that Mr. Miller had contracted him to do the work. He intends to do the work, and I can’t speak for him why he hasn’t supplied that information. MR. STONE-Yes, but our building people have not said that the septic system is up to current code. Is that correct? MR. FRANK-Well, we don’t know that. We want assurances that it is. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, but our people have not agreed that it’s up to code, and all I’m asking, and I certainly applaud the process, if this were an ordinary situation, if we had a property, somebody bought a property that was 50 years old, let’s say, and they decided they wanted to upgrade this particular piece of property, they wanted to tear down and build a building, at what process does the septic system have to be up to code, or is there a timeframe? I mean, these people have asked for a variance. Can they ask for a variance without the system being up to code? MR. FRANK-No. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-As part of the, when you tear down, you’re starting from scratch. So you’d have to either submit a new plan for a septic system, or prove the existing system is adequate to supply. MR. STONE-But that hasn’t been done either. Therefore this application is not complete, is what I’m getting at. MR. FRANK-It’s not complete. Mr. Miller has contacted me. I’ve contacted him numerous times. He has told me that it could be coming any day. He’s contacted the engineer. The engineer is not here to speak for himself. Why he has not supplied that information, I don’t know. MR. STONE-Okay. What I would like to propose to the Board, I mean, we have heard, and I will let you, if you have more to say, I will let you say it. I propose that we go as far as our questions, as far as we can. I’ll open the public hearing, because I know there are members of the public that are here to speak on this particular subject. I know there may be correspondence. I would like to get that on the record, and then I would leave the public hearing open and we’d table it for 62 days. I mean, unless, I mean, I certainly don’t want to ride rough shod over the Board. MR. URRICO-That sounds reasonable to me. MR. ABBATE-Yes, that sounds okay. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, also, in fairness to the applicant, Mr. Miller did contact me today and said I don’t want to waste the Board’s time. Should I request to table this now and come up with the information, and I spoke about it with the Zoning Administrator he said it’s probably better for him to appear before you, so you can look at the plan and see what the public has to say, possibly get some feedback. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what I’m saying. MR. FRANK-He was not (lost words). MR. STONE-Okay. No, I appreciate that. I never thought that you were. Okay. So is there anything more you want to add to your comments? MR. MILLER-A couple of brief things. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MILLER-One would be, in other townships, in other instances, we’ve been able to get our variance contingent upon an approved septic system at the time of building. MR. ABBATE-That’s what I was going, that stipulation. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. MILLER-The other thing that is a little bit odd about this project is that the front yard variance, or the lakeside variance, is to the edge of the foundation that’s currently in place. However, there’s a deck sitting on top of that that’s going to be resurfaced, but not rebuilt. Back further is the actual building construction. It’s a bit odd in that respect. If you take the relief to the building or the new construction, we’re only looking for a couple of feet. MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff. I’m looking at the Floor Area Ratio worksheet, Bruce, and the numbers that I see in front of me, that, the lot size of 14,929 feet, multiplied by 22%, gives me 3284, and the proposed area of construction, which includes the garage, is 3708. That seems like more than 1%. MR. FRANK-It is. MR. STONE-Well, why do we say 1%? MR. FRANK-Well, because I addressed this to Mr. Miller. We discussed this. I went over the floor plans thoroughly, and as far as the numbers, we crunched numbers, and we both agreed that the actual percentage is 1%. MR. STONE-Is one percent? So their numbers, they provided numbers that are wrong? MR. FRANK-Initially. MR. MILLER-Can I speak to that? MR. STONE-Yes, please. MR. MILLER-What I did, there’s areas of the floor plan that are double height volume, and I included that second floor continuously instead of subtracting out the double height volume. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’ve got a cathedral ceiling? MR. MILLER-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MILLER-And there’s an area where the stair is that is double height space. Different towns look at things differently. MR. STONE-Yes, they certainly do. MR. MILLER-So it took us a little bit of time to understand what numbers we were talking about. Also, in that process, we supplied actual floor plans that weren’t initially required in the application. So that gave us the (lost words). MR. STONE-What are the actual numbers that should be in this worksheet? MR. FRANK-I believe the total is 3,425 square feet. MR. STONE-And that’s because the second floor is not 1454. Okay. MR. FRANK-And this vaulted ceiling is in. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else you want to add? MR. MILLER-I believe that’s. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, a question for the applicant, for the moment, and one, perhaps, for Staff or any of us here. The relief for the height, 3.8 feet it says in the Staff notes, and I’ve seen it in a couple of other places and in the site development data (lost words) are we right in the 3.8 or? MR. FRANK-The proposal is 33 feet on the site development sheet. I discussed this with (lost words) also and the elevation plans clearly show 31 feet 8 inches. MR. HIMES-So the 3.8 is all right, or is it actually more than that? MR. FRANK-It’s 3 feet 8 inches. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. ABBATE-Three feet eight inches, right, 3.8. MR. STONE-Okay. So, again, are we saying, and I don’t want to prejudge Mr. Miller as an architect, that we can’t measure height. I mean, you’ve got 33 listed in the notes. MR. MILLER-Well, here’s the short story. The previous application, 1996, the required height at that time was 35 feet, I believe, and I just took it off that previous application. When I went back and looked at the actual elevations, the correct height was 31 feet 8 inches, which is 3.8 over the limit. MR. HIMES-Okay. So that figure is all right. MR. ABBATE-So 3.8 is okay. MR. HIMES-The other question for you folks is the garage. Is there living space on the upstairs in that garage? You see there’s dormer windows sticking off one side of it? It’s pretty big. MR. MILLER-He had the storage up front, and that was, at the time, I’m not sure if you still do, Mr. Ahlers had a large sailboat, and that was to be utilized for sails. MR. HIMES-No living space in this floor plan? MR. MILLER-It’s not habitable, not at this point. MR. ABBATE-Not just now, is that what you said? MR. MILLER-It’s not what’s planned. MR. ABBATE-It’s not what’s planned. Okay. MR. STONE-Are there any other questions? What I’m going to do now is open the public hearing, and we’ll see where we go. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CONNIE LANGFORD MRS. LANGFORD-We submitted our concerns. MR. STONE-State your name, please. MRS. LANGFORD-Connie Langford. MR. STONE-And do you want to read them in, or do you want us to read them in? MRS. LANGFORD-I don’t care. I wasn’t sure I was going to make it tonight. That’s why I wrote them down. I’ll do whatever you think is the best thing to do, in the interest of expediency. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we can read them in. We’ll let the secretary read it in. MRS. LANGFORD-Okay, in the interest of expediency. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? Come forward, please. CHRIS NAVITSKI MR. NAVITSKI-Good evening. My name is Chris Navitski with the Lake George Water Keeper, and would it be all right to address questions also? MR. STONE-We’ll give you questions. You can say anything you want. You’ve got five or six minutes. MR. NAVITSKI-Okay. Great. MR. STONE-Speak into the microphone. That’s all. MR. NAVITSKI-We had a couple of questions regarding the construction materials and specifications for the proposed building. MR. STONE-Go ahead, ask them. Put them on the table and the applicant will answer them at some point. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. NAVITSKI-Okay. Also we had, again, we’d just like to reiterate the same questions that were brought up by the Staff regarding the suitability of the septic system and we also had questions regarding the number of bedrooms (lost words) and I think that was already address. We also had concerns along the lines of the County, which was also regarding the stormwater management, since it’s a new structure and what their plans would be. We do feel that there are feasible alternatives that could bring this into compliance with the codes and we have concerns, obviously, about the precedent that could be set here for relief granted. We feel that there can be effects to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and environmental concerns with the septic system and with the stormwater system if those are not properly certified, and those are the comments we have. MR. STONE-Okay. Sir, before you leave, you are the new, duly appointed Water Keeper for Lake George? MR. NAVITSKI-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-And, may I ask, congratulations for hopefully being a watchdog for the lake. You use the word “we”. Is that the royal “we”, or is that something else? MR. NAVITSKI-Well, that’s “we” meaning the Water Keeper program. I did the review. So I developed the comments myself. I said we, was the Water Keeper. MR. STONE-I just wanted to be sure. Okay. MR. HAYES-What is a Water Keeper, just so we all know, in brief. MR. STONE-We’ll give you a couple of minutes. MR. NAVITSKI-The Water Keeper program is a not for profit group that was set up to be an advocate for the lake and for the watershed, to seek to become part of the planning and approval processes of around the lake to make sure that the existing laws are complied with and enforced and be there also for concerns of the citizens that have questions regarding what is going on around the lake. We also want to work along with the Freshwater Institute and the other organizations around the lake to further protect the lake. So we want to try to fill in gaps that are obviously (lost words). MR. ABBATE-I have a question. I didn’t catch your last name. I’m sorry. MR. NAVITSKI-Chris Navitski. MR. ABBATE-Chris, okay. Based upon your comments, Chris, would there be a fair assessment on my part if I were to say that you do not object to this project as long as there are guarantees and compliance with the zoning in terms of septic and water runoff and what have you? MR. NAVITSKI-Well, we do have concerns about the, with the application as it is now, we do have problems with the, we feel that it can be brought into compliance. The relief that they’re seeking on the height variation or height variance, we feel, can be brought into compliance. You have the floor area ratio. That, we feel, you’re setting precedent and that can be brought into compliance. MR. ABBATE-I’m not sure what that has to do with your position as Water Keeper? It seems inconsistent. I’m trying to figure out. If you’re representing the Lake George Association, whatever you’re representing, and you have a position to ensure water level, etc., etc., you certainly have a right to do that. If you’re concerned about water runoff, you have a right to do that. If you’re concerned about a septic system and the health of the community, you have a right to do that, but then there’s an overlap into now you’re indicating floor area ratio, and it seems to me you’re going a couple of steps beyond, really, what your capacity is, unless you’re going to expand your capacity this evening. MR. NAVITSKI-I don’t have any capacity. What we are doing is taking a look at projects that are proposed along the lake and trying to evaluate those projects. MR. ABBATE-Okay, “we”. That’s to your position, correct? MR. NAVITSKI-Yes. I do have a small staff. I have a part time keeper and I also do have an intern, and I also am a part of the Fund for Lake George. MR. ABBATE-And that rolls all over the over way into floor area ratio and everything else? MR. NAVITSKI-That rolls over into the aesthetics of the lake and the watershed. So, yes, it does have. MR. ABBATE-So it rolls over into floor area ratio. It rolls over into requests for variance, even though it doesn’t affect the watershed? See, I’m confused. I’m trying to figure out what you’re really concerned about. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. NAVITSKI-Mr. Abbate, it does because we feel that this also can be a precedent setting, if this variance is granted, we feel that it can be precedent setting and then other applications can come in down the road and go along the same lines. When the line has been drawn and shifted, we feel that that could potentially open the door for other applications. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So I’m going to assume, now, you’re part of this Lake George Association. Correct? MR. NAVITSKI-I’m part of the Fund for Lake George. MR. ABBATE-And so there’s no other organizations, there’s no other subdivisions within your organization that would deal with floor area ratio, etc., etc.? So you’re saying your job encompasses everything in terms of an Area Variance? MR. NAVITSKI-Yes, I would say, yes, it does. MR. STONE-Chuck, in defense of Mr. Navitski, because I am certainly a defender of the lake and we know we talk about view sheds. I mean, that’s basically what he’s saying. He’s saying anything that impacts the lake, be it the water quality, be it the land around the water quality, anything that could negatively effect enjoyment of the lake and the preservation of the lake. He was hired by the Fund for Lake George, which is an organization devoted to protecting the lake, very similar to the Lake George Association, and I should not be the one to put it in the same sentence, but I will, but he was given the mandate to look at everything that might negatively or positively effect the lake from the southern basin to the northern basin. He is going to get very familiar with the back roads up to Dresden and Ticonderoga and a few other places and I think he has, he’s speaking for the lake in as broad a way as he can. MR. NAVITSKI-And if I might add, I am a licensed registered engineer. I’ve presented many applications (lost words) before Boards such as yourselves. MR. HAYES-Are you a resident of Queensbury? MR. NAVITSKI-I am not a resident. MR. ABBATE-You’re not a resident of Queensbury? MR. NAVITSKI-No, I am not. MR. ABBATE-I see. Okay. Good question. MR. STONE-Anybody else? Okay. Thank you. MR. NAVITSKI-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? Mr. MacElroy. DENNIS MAC ELROY MR. MAC ELROY-My name is Dennis MacElroy. I’m a property owner at 103 Knox Road, and I don’t necessarily want to be characterized as being opposed to the project. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-I have some comments both in support and some questions. First of all, we are the property immediately to the south, perhaps effected most by the side yard setback request. I would just say first I’m a little disappointed in the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the application and the plan, because hat’s a little bit misleading in trying to understand what is happening. Now I think we have a good relationship as neighbors. I have, and will continue to, I did speak with Rolf over the weekend to try to get clear from his perspective of what the plan was, and how it may effect our property or others around us. Specifically regarding the side yard setback on the south, which is our common boundary, I would be certainly in support of the granting of that variance. We have a healthy buffer from that property line to our house of about 100 feet. As long as this project, and as I understand it is built upon the existing foundation, that that existing side yard setback won’t decrease. I also understand that the two shed structures on the southerly side will be removed. There’s a notation on the site plan that access to the basement would still be provided for in that location. It’s my understanding, from talking to Rolf, that that would be something similar to a Bilco door. On the plans, on the elevation drawings of the plans, there is an indication of some additional roof structure that I’m not certain about, Rolf had indicated that that was a part of the plan. I don’t know if that is or isn’t (lost words). It just doesn’t show on the plan view necessarily. So I’m confused about that, but again, so long as the setback is to the building line (lost word) the foundation line, we don’t have an objection to that variance, that side yard. The north side (lost word) that doesn’t effect us, obviously, 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) but if the building is on the foundation that exists, then I don’t have any objection, certainly, to the granting of that variance. Floor area ratio confusion based on the application. I still am not certain about, I have been advised by Craig and Bruce that the floor area of the space in the garage isn’t included in the computation. MR. STONE-No, it is included. MR. MAC ELROY-No, by definition, apparently, it isn’t. That’s my understanding, that’s not considered living space. MR. STONE-The garage is considered floor area. MR. MAC ELROY-The garage, but is the second level floor space? MR. STONE-No. I’m sorry. MR. FRANK-Not the second level. The second level has not been included, but the 780 square feet has been. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-So that the one percent, and I had talked with Bruce, and I went through the numbers as well, there was some miscalculation, misinterpretation of that area on the application. So the floor area ratio is very close. It’s up to you, based on what you’ve done in the past, to be consistent to what we may have done in other locations. The front yard setback is truly 31 feet while the mass of the building increase is at 46.33 feet in the second floor. The foundation and the deck remain and that truly should be considered what is the front yard setback or the shoreline setback. What we discussed was a second floor deck that is an increase in that setback area, and my question was, is that variance, is that requirement, that addition is necessary and would be part of this variance that he’s requested, the second floor deck that occupies part of the frontage. Now, regarding the height, I heard tonight that basically the house is what we’ve designed previously, which the height restrictions are somewhat different now, 28 feet. I wonder what effort was made to try to comply rather than just resubmitting the same plan. So that’s something, again, you’ll have to address in your capacity as to whether that, are there any other feasible alternatives, which was summarily stated as no in the application, but what effort may have been made to do that. I guess I understand there is no third floor from the explanation tonight, just a large roof area with dormers. There’s no floor associated with that, but that’s what the height of the building (lost words). Basically I have some question with the necessity for a couple of the variances. I would just state that, in looking at this, and these aren’t necessarily zoning issues, obviously, they’re neighbor to neighbor issues, but just to point out, this is a small lot, even in terms of shoreline or waterfront lots, this is small, and in looking at our common line, and I certainly was aware of this, but this brought the opportunity to bring it up. There is, I don’t know if any of you had the opportunity to review the site, but there’s a sailboat that is over the line and partially on our property. There’s some building materials from a dock rehab that are stored on our property. There’s some rock covered with a loose tarp that’s from a previous construction that is on our property. There are logs, firewood, stored, that is on our property. MR. STONE-That is an issue for you to decide. MR. MAC ELROY-Understood, and I have had those discussions and Rolf has indicated that they will be taken care of, but it speaks to the issue of it’s a small lot, and all those things we do in life take place on our property, including stormwater, and there are gutters that are connected to pipes that go underground and discharge onto our property. MR. STONE-Okay. In answer to that question and Mr. Navitski, that is the Planning Board. That would be site plan approval. Does this require site plan? MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Which I understand it does not go to site plan approval. MR. STONE-This would not go to site plan? MR. FRANK-The Zoning Administrator made a determination that it was not necessary. MR. STONE-Okay, but we could condition any approval on the fact that it should go to site plan. MR. FRANK-I don’t know if you can do that. Maybe you can. That’s a question for the Zoning Administrator. MR. STONE-We certainly can try. MR. FRANK-I had suggested that this needed site plan review. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-And at our agenda meeting, it was determined by the Zoning Administrator that it didn’t. MR. STONE-Okay. We can appeal his decision. We don’t have to appeal his decision. We can just write it in to a motion, and then they would have to appeal his decision. I have a question. I went by today, and there is a kind of a new log crib. Is that on your property, Dennis? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, it is. MR. STONE-Okay. It’s the first time I noticed it today. I went out by boat, sorry, guys. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak for or against or in any way? Correspondence, please. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. Two pieces of correspondence. The first is from the Lake George Association, signed by Heather Shoudy Brechko, Land Use Management Coordinator. “Dear Board Members: I’m writing on behalf of the Lake George Association, Inc. to provide questions and comments in relation to the above subject matter. I regret that I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting as I have a conflict with another meeting I need to attend. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing camp and build a year round home on the existing footprint. This existing footprint and associated deck do not meet the shoreline setback requirement nor does the proposal meet the height requirement. Because the applicant is demolishing the structure it would seem that they have lost the right to build on the existing footprint within the shoreline setback. The LGA has a few questions and suggestions regarding this application: 1. How can the current septic system handle the additional floor space? Although there are no additional bedrooms it is the LGA’s understanding that the first floor will have a den and two studies. Will there be sleeping accommodations in these rooms? If so, we would suggest that all rooms with sleeping accommodations be considered in the calculation of the necessary capacity for the septic system. We believe a decision on this project cannot be made until proof can be shown that the existing system is adequate or a new system is designed and submitted for consideration. 2. It seems feasible that a more compliant structure could be built further away from the Lake on this site. Please consider examining this alternative to keep impermeable and hard surfaces out of the important shoreline setback area. 3. The height of the structure could be minimized. This would reduce the visual impact of the building from the Lake. Also, what color materials are being used for the house? Could additional tree and shrub plantings be made to further filter and screen the view of the structure from the Lake? 4. Is there additional floor space in the basement and in the rafter area of the garage? If it is found that there is additional floor space please recalculate the Floor Area Ratio number to accurately reflect the amount of relief requested. Please consider all of the points mentioned in making your decision on this application in the interest of protecting the water quality and aesthetic resources of Lake George. Thank you for consideration of our comments and questions. Respectfully submitted, Heather K. Shoudy Brechko Land Use Management Coordinator” And then we have a letter addressed to the Board, from George and Connie Langford, at 254 Lake Parkway. “Dear Sirs: We have concerns with the variances requested. Queensbury Town regulations with regard to Lake George shoreline properties were established in order to bring a consistency to development and to protect the Lake from adverse conditions. Granting these variances, directly negates the purpose of the ordinance, and perpetrates the view held by many residents: that the Town does not apply regulations in a fair and equitable manner. Mr. Ahlers has responded to five vital questions regarding his request for variances. We take issue with the following responses in the application: #2 He says the variances would improve the character of the neighborhood, and there would be no detrimental effects on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Contentions: A. The height variance is out of character for the neighborhood. Judging by the size of the roof dormers above the second floor, a third floor living space, although not shown on the plans, appears to be a distinct possibility. B. The lack of an engineered septic system plan to accommodate the new building is a serious threat to the health of the Lake and its residents. State of the art septic systems are necessary for survival of the Lake. Town enforcement is critical. C. The 19 foot relief from the 50 foot lakeshore setback flies in the face of the zoning regulations. On the one hand, the Town considers this project a completely new build with no need for site plan review. On the other hand, a 19 foot setback relief is based on use of an existing basement under the deck, the construction and use of which was questionable when it was built. The 50 foot setback requirement should be set in stone for demolition/new build. Nineteen feet far exceeds any reasonable consideration. #3 Mr. Ahlers says there are no feasible alternatives to these variances. Contentions: A. The deck and basement underneath could be eliminated. Landscaping with a stone patio (which now seems to be favored by many new homes on the Lake) would be far more friendly to the Lake; a perfect option to right the wrong of the deck basement, eliminating the need for a 19 foot variance to the Lake setback. The second floor deck is an additional encroachment on the Lake setback, and should be eliminated. B. The roof could be lowered to 28 feet with no adverse affect on the design. Another option might be to lower the sides of the building which would maintain the roof pitch. C. The garage could be demolished so the house and garage could be set back. Other residents have had to demolish far more valuable structures in order to comply. #4 Mr. Ahlers states that the amount of the variance relief is not substantial relative to the ordinance, and cites a previously granted variance (1996) which has lapsed. Contentions: A. The only structure in evidence as a result of a previous variance is a garage. Said garage has remained unfinished and an eyesore for six years. Was a C.O. issued for a structure left in that state? Regardless, what does a 1996 lapsed variance have to do with 2002 regulations? B. The amount of relief requested for the 50 foot shoreline requirement is very substantial. We take issue with the planning 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) department’s notes which state “it is moderate”. It is just one foot short of 40%, which is obviously substantial. The 50 foot setback requirement is ample, and is a relief from the previous 75 foot setback for new construction. The understanding, in establishing the 50 foot setback threshold, is that it is fair and attainable for most projects. This project should not qualify as an exception. #5 Mr. Ahlers says the project has no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and cites the same footprint and number of bedrooms as justification. Contentions: A. Same footprint: As stated earlier, the basement under the deck is a wrong which should be corrected. The large foundation, 31 feet from the Lake, prevents substantial water absorption in a large area adjacent to the Lake. This results in an extremely detrimental environmental impact. This is precisely the kind of condition storm water regulations are meant to address. What is the status of a storm water plan for this project? B. Number of bedrooms: The design specifies three bedrooms; however, other areas (2 studies, a den, as well as potential expansion in third floor and second floor of garage) could be utilized as bedrooms by future owner/occupants. The septic system should be designed to accommodate possible future usage. If this is in fact a demolition and new construction, the Town is obligated to apply its own zoning requirements. The fact that there is an existing foundation should not be germane to this project. We must consider the whole Lake George community as our neighborhood. Allowing unnecessary variances sets a dangerous example which, bit by bit, eats away at the quality of life, and more importantly, the quality of the Lake. We hope that the Board will give very serious consideration to the negative ramifications of this application. This type of variance sets a dangerous precedent and exposes the Town to criticism by residents who have been refused much less relief in the past. It is counterproductive to a cooperative effort by many towns and organizations to preserve Lake George. Sincerely, George and Connie Langford 254 Lake Parkway Lake George, NY” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-I have several questions for Staff before I decide whether or not, where we’re going to go with this thing. Bruce, you’ve been on the property. I would consider the ramp way to the dock to be construction. It is not inlaid stone into the ground. It is raised above the ground, and it certainly brings it right down to the shoreline, and it’s almost a land bridge. I’m not still not sure what a land bridge is, but it seems like it might be a land bridge, but it certainly is construction. It is not embankment. It’s not railroad ties, holding, it is actually designed to be used as a way to go from the house to the dock. I am concerned about that. I am also concerned that, since there has been a great deal of reference to the previous variance, that we weren’t supplied with the minutes, which might have been helpful, I mean, I sat in on that, and quite frankly I don’t even remember what we did, but I do know that we need to see, there’s been some question raised about the second story and the balcony. In light of a property near me that the Board did grant a variance to on the street side, I would like to see elevations and distances to the lake from every part of the elevation. From the ground only doesn’t really tell the story. I think we need to, because if you put up a 28 foot wall or a 31 foot wall, it has a very different appearance than a four foot deck when you’re talking about distance from the lake. So I would like something like that, and of course I think the thing that we all are much aware of, we need to know about the septic system. We need to know, one, if the current one is adequate. If it’s not adequate, where it can be built to be adequate, so that we know how hard we might want to push on moving the property back, if that’s the feeling of the Board. I guess, when I get all done, having said that, I’m going to call for a tabling until we get definitive word on the septic system, in terms of its adequacy for the house. I would also like some more information from the applicant, some more views of the proposed property. I heard the public raised a couple of questions. Mr. MacElroy raised some good questions. Mr. and Mrs. Langford raised some good questions. Certainly the Lake George Association raised some good questions as did Mr. Navitski, the newly appointed Water Keeper. I would like to see more information that would help me. Go ahead, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want some commentary from us, though? I mean, the concerns that we have, too. MR. STONE-Sure, if you want. Yes. I still want to leave the public hearing open because I do believe that, unless we go in a different direction that I don’t think we’re going to go, but, yes. First of all, let’s assume we’re, the public hearing, you can make any responses you would like to make to what you heard. MR. MILLER-I would appreciate that. Taking the easiest ones first. Materials would be a synthetic slate on the roof and a cedar siding, glass, metal (lost words). I think the common question that’s come up, and we’ve really talked about, is, you know, we fully expect to provide an engineering report, and if that engineering report says that the septic system is of the right capacity, then that will be evidence of that. If it says it’s not, we will supply a new septic design system to the current regs, and we certainly want to do that. The same would hold true for stormwater. We would offer up that contingency before building permit is issued, but (lost words) designs are in place and are acceptable to the Town. The issue of the height, we show a nine on twelve roof. If you take two foot from ground to first floor and add up the floors and structure, it brings you to about 20 feet to the top of the second floor wall. To hit 28 feet would require a six on twelve roof. If the Board requires us to do that, we could comply with that. In this North Country, I don’t like putting on six on twelve roofs. (Lost word) snow, it requires more structure, and the historical vernacular architecture all had steep roofs. So I don’t know why we’re going through that exercise, but if that’s a requirement, that’s one we 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) certainly could comply with. I think the issue of the process that the applicant has done, the long term process of, in 1990, building the foundation, from 1996 building the garage, and getting the permits to build the house as we’re asking for shouldn’t be lost in this, because there’s a process that hasn’t varied all the way through, and there’s been some reference to moving the house back. Well, that’s quite a hardship, in the sense that money was spent to build the foundation where it is, and six years ago money was spent to build the garage where it is, and the garage in particular blocks any further development in that direction. So I would ask the Board to take that into consideration, that, you know, this isn’t a momentary shot at a project. This is a long, ongoing process. MR. STONE-Go ahead, sir. MR. AHLERS-I would like to add two points. When the basement was built, I had the intention, and maybe these intentions were conveyed to the Town of Queensbury, to the Board, to take out the old septic system and to replace it with a new one. Mr. (lost word) did that work, and he began opening the septic tank, and said this is an operational septic system. You don’t need to change it. So he left it, but my plan has been to change it. I just want to mention that the concerns of the Board, the concerns of the quality of the lake, the concerns for the neighborhood, are extremely important, and the tendency has been to do better than what was required, much less. On the septic system, perhaps also the Board needs to know that yesterday, since the application was made, Mr. Miller wanted to locate and did contact an engineer to provide exactly that kind of report that we need, and I’ve been very uptight to get that report for tonight. So much so that since the report didn’t come, I contacted someone else, one of the local septic tank emptying organizations, and the man was already on his way, and then I thought, and Mr. Miller, apparently, was out of town. I couldn’t be in touch with him, and then I thought, well, supposing this man comes and I get some kind of written statement that the system is operational, that might still not comply with present code. So I called the organization yesterday, around 10 o’clock. You can verify that if you want, and called that organization off, because I think what we really need is an engineer’s report because length of leach field, someone told me today, is different than it was five years ago. So we have made a major effort during these last few days to get precisely that kind of report and the plan is to comply exactly with what is required, as I would like to mention again. There is no attempt to evade any kind of compliance, and that’s the second point I’d like to make. Mr. MacElroy raised this issue. I think that it’s probably the most important issue, but it has been lost among many other concerns which have also some significance. When we went through the approval process in 1996, we went also to the Town, to the County, and the Warren County requires (lost word) new roof on, roof slope, in comparison to the one that exists now, and specified that runoff procedures be put in place, in form of the driveway, but only on the north side. I can’t recall now why they didn’t require those same kind of specifications on the south side, on Mr. MacElroy’s side. I think this is very important. I think we need to have adequate runoff construction on both sides of the house, and I talked with Mr. MacElroy, as he indicated. I think this is of great importance. The way things are now, the septic tank is on the one side, on Mr. MacElroy’s side, also the dry well, which empties the surroundings of the basement also are on Mr. MacElroy’s side, but at this point there is no plan for the south side roof runoff, and I think this is probably the most important issue. So, these two issues will be addressed, and I did my best to attempt to get to the engineer report for tonight. So that will be addressed, and the septic system will be replaced if it does not conform to standards. The second point has been lost among all of the discussion here, namely that adequate roof runoff on both sides of the house be addressed, and I’m anxious that that be done because I’ve had an extremely positive relationship with Mr. MacElroy and our neighbor, but especially Mr. MacElroy, and by addressing these two issues, I think, the quality of the lake concerns will be addressed. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. First of all, no intent was made to imply any kind of wrong doing or any kind of obfuscation to get around anything. I mean, if we’ve given that impression, we’re sorry. We’re only asking questions. The public is asking questions, and that’s our job to do that, and having said that, Jim, you had some? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, I don’t know if you want to just solicit comments from all of us just what our thoughts were or wait until we come back again? MR. STONE-Well, do you have questions or comments? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, just a few comments. MR. STONE-Okay. I guess I would like to know the Board’s feeling on proceeding at all, since we don’t have this septic system, and that has been requested by the Zoning Administrator. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, it might be a bit of a hardship for the applicant if some comments aren’t addressed now, then in a month from now it delays us even longer. I think maybe the applicant might want to hear the comments or questions. MR. HAYES-Good or bad. MR. ABBATE-Sure. I think that’s a reasonable approach. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. STONE-Yes. No, I have no problem with that. Jim, why don’t you make some comments and we’ll, I don’t want to ask where you’re coming on the overall thing because I don’t think we’re there yet, but make comments. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, but I think that we need to move these things along. I think that a lot of times we get hung up on these sewer septic issue things, and I think that, you know, those will be addressed properly somewhere along the line anyway, but I think that, as far as the house goes, I think Mr. Navitski brought it up, too, you know, part of what we need to do is we need to keep in mind the size of these lots and the suitability of these lots for what’s proposed upon them, and I think to a degree when we’re looking at exceeding the 22% Floor Area Ratio, even if it’s by a little bit, especially on this lot, due to its very narrow nature, it appears that it’s something that maybe could be worked down to something smaller than what you have at the present time. Your architect addressed the height of the building, and I think height is something that’s always easy to get rid of if you want to. With a full upstairs, I know in my house I put knee walls in, and then you still have plenty of head room for bedrooms upstairs, and I assume that’s what you’re going to have up there also. My only other concern would be the addition of the deck on the second story, which I think was addressed, too, and I think that that’s something that, you know, could either be eliminated or cut back in size, you know, so you’re not intruding towards the lake to the degree that you were. I think the suggestion that you were, that was suggested about down below, too. Because of the very flat nature of that lot, you don’t have a lot of slope there to deal with, that, you know, you could consider eliminating the deck out front and going to a patio. I don’t know if a patio is going to be more impermeable. It depends on what you build it out of. MR. MILLER-See, the full foundation goes underneath that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but I mean I still see that as something that could be eliminated. It’s not a whole lot out in front of there to have to deal with. That’s about it. MR. STONE-All right. Anybody else? MR. URRICO-Well, the only comment I have is that I was not a member of the Board in 1996. When I’m looking at this, I’m looking at this as a brand new application. I’m not looking at it as if you were granted a variance in 1996 and therefore there’s some sort of an advantage to that. This is, as far as I’m concerned, this is brand new and I’m looking at the Code as it is now, and the application as it is now. MR. STONE-And to echo that, the WR-1A zoning was changed significantly after the application was granted in ’96, after variance was granted. I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I’m going to ask for comments. I’m going to ask where you guys stand on it, because if there’s enough feeling that even if we condition it on the basis of getting an adequate septic determination, is there a feeling, and I’m not trying to put words in anybody’s mouth, that maybe they don’t want to grant this variance the way it sits right now, without modification. So let me just start down at the end with Norm. MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes. I look at this from the standpoint that if we have a chance to correct, make things considerably better, we very often have situations where you have an existing structure and so on and it’s going to be expanded in some way or some maybe requiring a variance or sometimes two variances. This has got five variances, and a lot of them are pre-existing. He we’ve got, you’re taking something down to the ground, and granted there’s a garage there, but I see this as a very hard thing for me to stand up and say that I would vote for this application. It would take an awful lot of changes for me to do it, because I see this as an opportunity to, provided that the septic tank and everything else can fit in the lot, that the thing be reduced so that it conforms. I know that a lot of our figures are based on one acre. This is considerably smaller than that, and still five variances. So I will end with the fact that I would not support this application without very significant changes. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Let me preface my remarks, Mr. Ahlers, by saying, there’s no doubt in my mind that you’re a man of integrity, and it’s obvious tonight by your statement that you are, there is a sincere desire to comply with all the Ordinances, and perhaps even go past those. So I don’t have any problems with that at all. There was an oblique statement by your architect, your engineer, that there would be a willingness to modify this application. Did I catch that correctly? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. MILLER-We’re looking to upgrade this property, and whatever we have to do, whatever caveats you folks put on. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Well, the reason I raise that, obviously, if I was correct in my assumption that you’re willing to modify the application, it might be, and this is just my own opinion, might be in your 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) best interest perhaps to do just that. Because there are other considerations, reasonable size for the lot, 2,928 square foot single family dwelling on a small lot, that’s a beautiful home. There’s no question in my mind, and you know what, it’s a large home as well, and more power to you. Don’t misunderstand me, but again, the question of reasonable size for the lot. So there are some questions to the application in terms of the amount and the extent of the relief that you are requiring and I would think, on a personal point of view, that it might just be in your best interest to modify the entire thing, and in the time that you’re modifying this, perhaps the engineering report for the septic system, referring to that as well as stormwater, both on the north and the south side, might also be addressed, and if I were in your position, I would then come back with a revised plan to include, as you pointed out, the issues of the engineering report for the septic system, stormwater, the south side, which was not even addressed, runoff, which is wonderful on your part even to raise that issue, and then take into consideration is this house appropriate reasonable for the size of the lot, and it might be interesting to see what happens when you come back with that. That’s just a personal opinion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-May I interpret your comments as if we had to vote on this application as it is, you would vote no? MR. ABBATE-Right now? If I had to vote on the application right now, I’m afraid I would not be able to support it. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. As far as what you’re requesting, I think the shorelines setback relief to your building is, what, 41 feet right now, is what it is, to the actual building. I’m not talking the deck. MR. MILLER-Forty-six. MR. STONE-He’s talking 46, but it’s 31 to the deck right now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thirty-one to the deck. MR. STONE-If you don’t count the pathway. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that we need to focus on where the building’s going to be and I think if we eliminate that, if you were to eliminate that overhead deck, it would be reasonable to assume you could rebuild the building. It’s a tired old building as it presently exists, and if you don’t do this project, the building is still going to be there. You’re not going to be increasing the size of the building, since you’re building on the same footprint. I think that’s reasonable to assume. I think that you could somewhat shrink something down, either by changing that roofline to keep the height of the building down. I think that’s a doable thing that you could come back to us with, to keep it down to what level we think is reasonable, and that’s 28 feet. The side setback relief, I don’t think is a problem because you’re building on the same building that’s already there, and I don’t think any of us probably would have a problem with the side setback relief, because you’re not increasing it. It’s staying exactly the same. So I would think your major points would be the deck, the overhead deck on the front there. Keeping the deck on the ground would probably be reasonable because you’re not changing anything other than what’s there at the present time, other than a rebuild of it. So the Floor Area Ratio, I would like to see that come down to what’s reasonable, and that is the 22%. That’s not going to relieve you of that much. You know, you have plenty of storage, overhead in your garage, and I think that probably you would see a stipulation from us that that garage never be used for living space. MR. STONE-So, again, Jim, just to pin it down, the application, as presented to us, you would vote no? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I would vote for it if there were some. MR. STONE-No, as presented to us. MR. UNDERWOOD-As presented, I would vote no at the present time. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s all I want. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. As I alluded to earlier, I look at the zoning code, the reason grandfathers exist in the zoning code is so that, it would be unreasonable to ask people to change their homes every time there’s a change in the code, but when there’s new construction, which this is new construction, there’s an opportunity to bring things into compliance, and that’s the aim of the code is to bring things into compliance and make them better, and so there are some issues, some things that I’m bothered by. The height, in conjunction with the shoreline setback, bothers me. Closer to the lake means the height really becomes an issue, more so than if it was buried in the woods somewhere. So I’m really hung up on the 28 foot height. We get real close to 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) that, and maybe right at it, from my benefit, and the side setback to the south I’m not bothered by. Your neighbor said he doesn’t have a problem with that. There’s 100 feet between the house and his house, and that would satisfy me. I agree with Jim about the deck. If that was eliminated, I could live with the setback as presented, and as far as the Floor Area Ratio, I’m a little confused as to whether it’s one percent or more than one percent, but I think I’d like to see that come down to the 22% as well. So, as presented, no, I would not be in favor of it, but I think there are only really two issues in my mind that need to be addressed, the height and perhaps the Floor Area Ratio, and the depth. Three issues. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I’d like to segment my comments into two main areas, and I’ll be brief because I think they’ve been pretty much hit on, but I’ll agree primarily with Roy and Jim that the existing setbacks are not troubling to me, as long as they’re not increased, particularly by the double deck in front. I think that that certainly is something that I would not be in favor of, and that’s an additional encroachment, and this is a tight approval, and additional variances are a no no, as you can obviously tell. So I also think that with some design work, even if it means a flatter roof, that the 28 foot requirement that close to the lake could be met, and we’ve held to that pretty close, in the past. As a matter of history, we’ve, the view shed has been important, and it can’t be changed after the building is built, and we’ve fought for that pretty hard. The one percent over the Floor Area Ratio, I’ll agree with Jim in the sense that it probably could be designed to meet that, but I would say personally one percent variances don’t bother me that much. I mean, that, in my mind, would be minimal relief, you know, in a lot that’s a little bit difficult, per se. I think that, I guess reading into a little bit of what Jim said, and Mr. MacElroy, the property as I viewed it does need to be recycled, to me, and the idea that there’s the potential for a new camp to be constructed here, with this beautiful design and all new materials, I think that there is, there has to be some credence given to the fact that that will benefit the neighborhood. While a seasonal camp, I didn’t find it attractive in its unfinished nature as I came upon it, and the idea that it may be finished now is a benefit to the neighbors. I don’t, I’m not speaking for you, but that was what I sensed, and I think that there has to be some value that’s placed on that in our balancing test. The other part of my comments, in the letters that were read into the record, the idea that the Code, as it was in ’96, and Mr. Ahlers’ attempts to build and comply in an unfinished way to that Code have no credence on our decision making process I don’t agree with. I think that even on the legal business that deference is always given to prior decisions and to prior Code because the Code in itself is a changing, moving thing. It’s constantly being improved, constantly being updated, but the fact that the ’96 Code should be dismissed out of hand or Mr. Ahlers’ attempt to comply with it by building his basement or his garage or whatever has no value or no place in our discussion I don’t agree with. I think even in our decisions in the past, as far as a Board, precedents of the past are attempted to be maintained, in accordance with fairness. Now, new Code was tightened up for good reason. Reasons that I, personally, agree with, and I think that gives us the opportunity to be stricter and to expect better plans, better designs, and I think tonight you’re going to feel that we are going to expect that because I think that’s what the Board is telling you, but the idea that that’s just tough luck because you did the basement in ’96 to me, I think that’s a little bit harsh. I have to say that. So I guess I’m in agreement with the rest of the Board that I’m really not in favor of the height variance, but as far as the dimensional relief, I think we have approved camps in existing footprints on tight lots when there was no additional encroachment on particularly the front lake setback, and if there’s no additional encroachment on that, I think that I could be okay with this bringing the height requirement in line and hopefully, possibly, bringing the Floor Area Ratio in line, too, even though that’s not an exact requirement by me, but I also agree with Jim that possibly some, the minimalization of that front deck in the plans and its impact on the lake would be a positive feature for me. MR. STONE-Let me just ask a question, something that Mr. Hayes referred to. My understanding was that the basement in question under the front was built in 1990, and nothing to do with the variance that was granted in ’96. The only thing that was done on the basis of a variance was the garage, or was anything done, any expenditure of money made? MR. AHLERS-I can reconstruct that fairly well. We got the variance in 1996 for both the house and the garage, according to these plans that Mr. Miller has submitted now. Originally, I thought we’d only build the garage, and then I inquired of the Town of Queensbury to see whether if the Zoning Board approves it now, we could build the house later. I did not inquire about lapsing, how much time we had. We built the garage. We thought we had the money, and we didn’t build the rest of the house, and then the building, the zoning approval, not the building permit, but rather the approval, we never got the building permit for the house. We got the building permit only for the garage in ’96, and then the zoning approval, which had been granted, lapsed, and there are various reasons for that, namely money, the education had to be finished for the children. I have two sons who graduated and this is the time for us to do this. Education is very expensive in the United States. So, the approvals lapsed, that’s all, and now we have to approve them. MR. STONE-Okay, but by the fact that it lapsed, you did not loose any money? You did not do anything on the basis? MR. AHLERS-No. MR. STONE-Except for the garage. Okay. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. HAYES-They replaced the basement on the expectation that they could. MR. STONE-That was 1990. MR. HAYES-Right, but I’m saying, they still replaced it on the expectation that they could rebuild over it. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically echo what’s been said. The height bothers me. I’d like to see that down. I would like to see the house moved back to the 50 foot setback. Now I understand that that can end up being costly, although I don’t think it has to be total catastrophic. There’s a number of options. I don’t like to suggest architectural changes. I don’t think that’s our job. So I’m not going to say take the deck off or whatever, but I’m just saying I’d like to see the entire thing moved back to the 50 foot thing. It’s always conceivable that the garage could be jacked up and moved back if he needed more space. So it doesn’t mea necessarily the garage has to be torn down. It would mean that the new foundation for the garage would have to be built. I could, I think like the other Board members, I could go along with the side setbacks. It’s a narrow lot. It’s a difficult one, and I don’t see how you’re going to build hardly anything in there without having some side setback relief. So side setbacks I think I could go with. I would like to see the height complied with. I’d like to see the shoreline setback either complied with or something close. So if it was conceivable that you could eliminate the cellar under the deck, take the decks off and utilize the rest of the foundation and need three or four feet relief, I think I could listen to something like that, but that’s basically where I’m at. MR. STONE-I’m basically in concurrence with what the Board is saying, and nobody has said it quite this way, but there’s too many variances, and we have, as a Board, been reluctant to grant, I mean, to grant an application, to approve an application where this, this, this, and this has to be granted a variance. It appears to me you have two alternatives, one, well, there are probably three. We could, if you’re willing, if you’re saying this is what you want, we could vote to deny it. I mean, that’s the general feeling I get the way it stands. We could table it, with your understanding, now, of where this building is coming from in terms of our concerns. I mean, you’ve heard them and certainly, you can certainly look at the transcript that will be available relatively shortly, to see what our concerns are, or you can withdraw the application, and resubmit it in light of what we’re doing. I mean, I don’t make, our preference usually is to get it off the table if we can, but I think, in this particular case, I wouldn’t haven’t any problem recommending that we table it and let you come back within 62 days to, with something which hopefully will convince more of the Board to say, okay, here’s a project that we can approve. You certainly heard the concern about stormwater runoff, and certainly any property in the Town of Queensbury is ultimately responsible for its stormwater. I mean, it’s not supposed to leave the property, and that’s where the Planning Board gets into site plan, and we certainly can specify that when the time comes, but I am disturbed that something on a lot where as much variance was being asked for, that site plan was not considered. Because this is pretty close to the line and it’s very close to Mr. MacElroy’s line, but having said that, I’ll give you your choice, in terms of what you want to do. I can ask for a motion deny, on the way the application stands, and what that means is that we deny it. You still have to come back with something that is considerably significantly different, but the only step there is you’ve got to come before us a second time, procedural, to convince us that it’s significantly different, so that’s another month in the process. If you withdraw it, you can come back, well, they can’t come back next month, can they? Since under our new regulations, we don’t have time. MR. FRANK-The submission date has past for the September agenda. MR. STONE-Right. MR. FRANK-So if they want to reappear on the September agenda, if you want to request to be tabled, you could act on that. MR. STONE-We could table it with the specific thoughts that we’ve got here. We can incorporate, in the tabling motion, the transcript, I think we’ve heard so many different things. We can do that. Would you like to do that? MR. MILLER-I think that would be our best option. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. STONE-I thought you might. Okay. I’m going to leave the public hearing open. We never did close it. Just to reiterate that. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2002 ROLF AHLERS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) 105 Knox Road. For up to 62 days so that the applicant can respond with a modified application reflecting the comments made by the Board as contained in the transcript that will be available to the applicant for their use in drafting a revised plan. Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-So, you’re going to respond with a modified plan. You’re certainly going to provide septic information, as soon as possible. MR. AHLERS-Runoff. MR. STONE-Runoff. Well, runoff is a given. We’ll probably, since the Zoning Administrator has not said this needs site plan, we’ll put it in whatever our motion is. MR. ABBATE-To include that south side, which was never addressed. Am I correct? And as a matter of fact, it was the applicant, to his credit, who raised the issue. MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-So that’s to your credit. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MILLER-Thank you for your time. AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED CR BARD OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: RIST FROST ASSOCIATES/DAN BRUNO ZONE: LI LOCATION: 289 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 9,800 SQ. FT. ONE-STORY ADDITION FOR THE EXPANSION OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE LI ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 36- 2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/14/02 TAX MAP NO. 302.07-1-43 LOT SIZE: 7.90 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030 RONALD GREEN & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 65-2002, CR Bard, Meeting Date: August 21, 2002 “Project Location: 289 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 9,800 sq. ft. addition for the expansion of manufacturing activities. Relief Required: Applicant seeks 10 feet 2 inches of relief from the 30-foot minimum side setback requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the LI Zone, § 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet 2 inches of relief from the 30-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance (33.9%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal negative effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the location of the existing buildings close proximity to the side property line. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 36-02: 08/27/02; expansion, awaiting outcome of this application. BP 97-746: commercial interior alterations. BP 97-087: commercial addition. BP 94-002: interior renovations. BP 92- 326: interior alterations BP 92-288: interior alterations. BP 91-855: picnic pavilion. BP 91-854: picnic pavilion BP 91-021: commercial addition. SP 4-91: storage shed. AV 96-90: storage shed. Staff comments: Minimal negative impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. However, the potential for positive impacts is great. The new addition will lead to the hiring of approximately 80 new employees. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 14, 2002 Project Name: CR Bard, Inc./Ron Greene, Facility Engineer Owner: CR Bard, Inc. ID Number: QBY-02- AV-65 County Project#: Aug02-28 Current Zoning: LI Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a 9,800 sq. ft. one-story addition for the expansion of manufacturing activities. Relief requested from the side setback requirements of the LI zone. Site Location: 289 Bay Road Tax Map Number(s): 302.07-1-43 Staff Notes: The applicant requests a variance to construct a 9,800 sq. ft. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) addition to the existing manufacturing building of CR Bard. The applicant proposes to locate the building 19 +/- feet from the side property line where 30 ft. is required. The applicant has indicated that expansion of the other buildings on site would separate the manufacturing process. The building will be screened from adjoining property and is only proposed to be one story. Staff does not identify an impact on County resources. Staff recommends NCI. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 8/16/02. MR. STONE-Gentlemen, before I ask, I just want to make a comment, and maybe I’m off base, but I don’t think the comment about the hiring of new employees is germane to the application. MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree. MR. STONE-Having said. MR. ABBATE-I was going to ask if it would be appropriate if we asked if we could submit applications. MR. MC NULTY-I had another question for Staff. We mention they’ll be needing relief from the side setback. Their comments indicate that they’re well into the 50 foot buffer. Don’t they need relief for intruding into the 50 foot buffer? MR. FRANK-I’ve been informed, I looked into that myself, that the buffer could be on property (lost words) themselves. MR. MC NULTY-Light Industrial isn’t required to have a buffer? MR. FRANK-There is a buffer. The buffer exists entirely on the parcel to the south. That’s what I was told by the Zoning Administrator. MR. STONE-So that’s a restriction on the property to the south. Is that what you’re saying? MR. FRANK-That’s what I’ve been told. I inquired about that. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s the answer. Okay. Go ahead. I’d ask you to identify yourself. MR. GREENE-My name is Ronald Greene. I’m a Plant Engineer at CR Bard. MR. CENTER-I’m Tom Center, Project Engineer for Rist-Frost Associates. MR. GREENE-The reason that buffer is on the other side is this building, the pre-existing building when they did the zoning was right on the property line. So there’s no way to get the buffer on CR Bard’s property. So when they rezoned they put the 50 foot buffer on the other property. So there is a building actually touches the (lost word). MR. MC NULTY-Okay, but normally with a buffer there’s a 100 foot buffer, 50 feet on both sides of the line. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. I believe what the applicant (lost word) the zoning change came after what they had, the building was already in place. I inquired about it from the Zoning Administrator when I reviewing the application, and that was what I was also told. MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead, gentlemen. MR. GREENE-Okay. About three months ago, the corporation came to us, and just like every other corporation, they’re downsizing, trying to save money, and they wanted to know if we could take on this project, and it’s a fairly good sized project for these big machines, which is kind of unusual (lost words) high tech machines, pretty high tech industry, and it’s going to be good for this area, in light of what’s happening with paper mills and Nibco, the other industries around. So we’ve looked at the options on the property. Basically, what this is, it’s a machine shop is what it is, and we’re going to use the existing warehouse as it sits now, and set up in that. We need to get some of the equipment running right away. So we’d lease property from Collins, right next to Hannaford, for warehouse space. We’ll move our warehouse over there. When everything’s approved, we’ll start renovation of the old warehouse, order the brand new machines so we can get people trained and start producing some of the product and build an inventory. At the same time we’ll be building the addition that will house all the new equipment that will be coming. The corporation has given us a timeline. They want everything up and running, the other plant shutdown by July of next year. We have a real tight deadline. Again, I know the jobs (lost words) my guess would be some place from the mid 30’s to the mid 40’s, engineering jobs, programmers. We have a contingent out there in Ohio right now (lost words). 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. STONE-And this property next door that you’re impacting is one that we granted a variance to a couple of months ago. It’s one big lot with what’s going to be a small house on it, and I think we restricted it to one small house on that lot. So, there’s nothing. MR. HAYES-That was a road frontage variance. MR. STONE-That was a road frontage variance, but we conditioned it on that basis. Any questions of the applicant? Well, hearing none, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. We’ll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Other than calling over, and I’m still waiting for a phone call back so I can get my personal visit set up, I went over myself to view the property. I don’t have a problem with this. I think the five test areas are satisfied to my, they’re satisfactory to me. I know the 33.9% is moderate, but I think given this location, and it’s not going to really infringe on much, and I think the benefit to the applicant and the feasible alternatives, the effects on the community and the fact that this is self-created outweigh any negative impact of the relief substantial to that Ordinance. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think I essentially agree. It’s a balancing test in this particular case. The applicant has limited alternatives based on the manufacturing requirements that he’s put forward on the table, as far as where this building can be placed. I was going to bring up but Lew beat me to it. You guys don’t remember, but I’ve sat next to Lew for my entire time on the Board, which at times has left me crumbs to talk about. I think that the fact that the immediately impacted parcel has now been restricted to a single family house, the buffer that Chuck has alluded to in my mind is a little bit mitigated by the fact that we’ve already done that, and I don’t think it’ll impact that house, which is essentially in the center of this lot over here, in a way that would be detrimental to the neighborhood or the immediately surrounding community, and is the difficulty self- created? Yes, and no. I mean, this is a needed expansion, which they’ve said they have reasons for, and this is a Light Industrial piece of property that’s kind of tucked in a mixed use area, for sure. There’s Collins’ warehouse behind Hannaford, but then there’s residences. So, on balance, I think that my concerns have been addressed, and I think that, you know, 10 feet of relief is not something that goes over the top, in my mind, as far as the substantialness to the Ordinance. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I guess I’m in favor, too. When I came in here I was not, but now that I understand the situation with the buffer, that helps a lot. If you were cutting into a buffer, I’d have a real problem with it. It still may impact the adjacent lot some because I know the owner’s intention was to have a very private situation for the residents. This’ll be one more building sitting there, but that’s not a big a problem for me now. I do have to comment on the thing that Lew brought up about the jobs thing. That rubbed me the wrong way, very frankly. My experience working, I worked State wide for a while, helping groups get controversial projects in place, and working with local government, and offering something in exchange for something bad that a company is going to do is not a good idea, because eventually the town accepts that and accepts the money comes to detest themselves and the company that paid them the money. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a fire truck so we can (lost word) your water a little bit or whether it’s, we’ve got a bunch of jobs so let us violate your Zoning Ordinance, but that being said, I think the benefit to the company and the community is going to definitely going to be in favor versus any detriment of cutting into the setback by this amount. So I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I agree with the other Board members who are in favor of the application. The whole layout is clean as a whistle. It’s quiet, and it’s about as attractive as it can be made to be, certainly from the road. (Lost words) and a couple of other buildings that are already, one of which is closer to the line than the proposed one. So it’s not something to be created where nothing was before. Okay. So I think that’s a mitigating factor, too. So, in short, I am in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I certainly agree with what my other Board members have stated. The question I wrote down here, who wins? Well, certainly the applicant wins and I believe clearly the Town will win. The only other question I have is that you mentioned these are going to be high-tech people with 30 to 40. Is that what you said? MR. GREENE-I would guess. I don’t know. MR. ABBATE-Euros or US Dollars? Did you take a look at the market today? I think we’re below, now, the Euro. MR. STONE-Is it? Jim? I think you’re done. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’m done. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I have no problem with it either. I think the fact that you’re utilizing that one building you already have explains the issue of where you’re putting this building. So, I mean, it’s an obvious, you know, best fit for you guys, and I don’t think it really has any impact back there. I mean, you still have 20 feet from the property, from the line. MR. STONE-I agree with the Board. I think it’s a very good project. The fact that it’s going to lead to more jobs in the area, and good jobs, makes every politician in the world happy, because that’s what every politician in this Town has promised in every election, including myself, when I have run for office, and none of us have anything that we can do about it, but we all want good jobs. This is a positive thing, and I think it’s great, but I don’t think it, as I said, it doesn’t have a place in the notes because we judge applications, is it a good project or is it a bad project, and we don’t care who’s project it is. It could be ENCON, and I’m being facetious, but that’s not our call. Fortunately Bard happens to be a good company and a good employer, and a good citizen, and that’s great, but that’s not why we’re judging the application, but it’s a good application. It’s going to be bordering on a lot that, as Jaime says, we have already constrained. We’ve constrained it because we had a very cooperative landowner, and I think this is going to be a very good project. I do need to propose a motion. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-All right. Now I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2002 CR BARD, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 289 Bay Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 9,800 square foot addition for the expansion of their manufacturing activities on site. Specifically the applicant seeks 10 feet 2 inches of relief from the 50 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the Light Industrial zone, Section 179-4-030. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant could build the addition as depicted on the plans and as they have described the necessity to do so. Feasible alternatives. I believe in this case feasible alternatives are limited, based on the unique shape of the lot, the fact that the bike path passes through the lot, and the existence of other buildings on the lot, and also the manufacturing requirements set forth by the applicant. Is the relief substantial relative to the applicant? 10 feet 2 inches of dimensional relief in this case in my mind is minimal, possibly moderate, but it’s certainly not consequential in the sense that it would change the balance of the test in my mind. Effects on the neighborhood or community. I believe, based on the fact that this Board has previously approved a variance that allowed one single family house on the lot that is going to be most impacted by this project will amount to a very minimal impact by this building being placed a little closer to the property line than is allowed. As Mr. Himes brought out, the Bard complex, as I see it, and other Board members possibly, has been very well kept. It’s clean. It seems to be a well- maintained site. I believe that that will continue, and in that sense, there will be very little impact on the surrounding neighborhood by the addition of a new building. Is the difficulty self-created? I believe that it is more attributable to the location of the existing buildings on the lot now, versus a purposeful placement on this site. So I don’t think the difficulty is self-created. Based on those facts, I think the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I would move for its approval. With the intent of making sure that the impact that is approved is what it is approved at, at that exact distance, contingency of the approval from this Board would 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) be the submission of an as built survey of the building when it’s finished to make sure that it complies with the distance so depicted. Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: st MR. STONE-Question, Bruce. This does require site plan approval? MR. FRANK-I believe so. MR. STONE-Okay. I just want to be sure. MR. GREENE-Yes. We’re on the agenda for them. MR. STONE-Okay, and would that automatically trigger an as built survey? MR. FRANK-That I do not know. It’s (lost word). I don’t know. MR. ABBATE-Maybe you want to stipulate it. MR. STONE-I was just going to say. Jaime, are you willing to put that in there? MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. STONE-I think that since we’re granting. MR. HAYES-All right. AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen. We have a couple of things to do. Two things. Actually we have three things. We’ve got some minutes to consider, since we haven’t considered them lately, but I have before me, I have a file from the Code Enforcement Officer, or the Zoning Administrator. It is a file. It is a letter to me from Mr. John Salvador. This is new business, any business that may come before the Board. He is, “Attached is my application for appeal from the Zoning Administrator’s “position/determination” concerning the grandfathering status of certain docks and boathouses on Lake George. I understand I have just missed the closing date for your September calendar, and would like to request an expedited schedule for my appeal. In fact, as you review this subject, in light of the recently published revised Zoning Ordinance, you may want to schedule a special session for this appeal. Thank you for your consideration. We wait to hear of your proposed hearing date.” As you may or may not know, there is a matter before the Planning Board that we had a little bit to do with, in terms of a special Use Variance for two dock facilities on Pilot Knob Road, both the Smith and the Hopper application. The Planning Board is quite frankly struggling with what to do about these applications. They apparently, and, Bruce, you say you don’t have an update, but I heard that they made a request of the Town Board to revise the Zoning Ordinance in connection with this thing because they are apparently hung up on exactly how to treat this, and I think Mr. Salvador has, I can read the whole thing. He’d like to do it, have this appeal on the September, one of the September meetings. I understand from Bruce that we have a light schedule, because people forgot that we have this new deadline, I suppose. MR. FRANK-That’s correct, and Craig discussed it. He decided he would hear it and it would be okay as far we’re concerned because we do have, I think, two appeals and five variances. So it wouldn’t be overloading any one of those agendas. MR. UNDERWOOD-What is the general consensus? Do they feel like we need to decide how many docks are permitted or? MR. STONE-Well, let me read what his appeal is from the Zoning Administrator’s position that because boat docks and boathouses were registered in 1981/’82 per 6NYCRR Part 646, July 3, 1981, they are grandfathered and therefore legally pre-existing. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think so. MR. STONE-Well, John doesn’t think so, either, and he’d like to use us as a way of getting this looked at. MR. HAYES-The only thing, though, with John is he comes in here and chastises us for not following the rules and yet he’s asking for an expedited hearing. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. ABBATE-It’s an interesting point Jaime raised. MR. HAYES-Yes. He always comes in here like this. MR. ABBATE-Is this a request to us? MR. HAYES-Yes, it is a request. MR. ABBATE-This is a request. Well, you know what my answer is? No. MR. UNDERWOOD-He can wait his turn just like everybody else. MR. HAYES-That’s right. MR. STONE-I have no problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-This isn’t anything that’s going to throw a wrench in the works. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I’m not so sure I like the idea that we’re being used as a puppet. I’m not sure I like that either. MR. STONE-No. We’re not being used as a puppet. We are being used, I think, as a board of reason. MR. ABBATE-Why not go to the Town Board? MR. STONE-Because the courts, if you listen to John, and I do, and this is nothing to do with this, but the courts don’t seem to want to take, make hard decisions, quite frankly. I’ll put that on the record. MR. UNDERWOOD-Fine, let us make it, then. MR. STONE-That’s what he’d like us to do. He’d like us to make it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. STONE-Or at least get involved and see what happens, but you’re also saying let’s do it in October? MR. UNDERWOOD-Do it in October. MR. ABBATE-Let him wait his turn like everybody else. MR. STONE-Okay. Make a motion, Roy. MR. URRICO-I don’t mind hearing it. I do mind expediting it. MR. ABBATE-Unless of course he’s willing to pay our stipend. MR. FRANK-The Zoning Administrator wanted me to make it perfectly clear that we’re not asking for a special meeting here. MR. URRICO-But, except with Dennis. MR. STONE-Would you move, as what I heard you wanted to say, Roy, that we are willing to consider this appeal, not that we can do anything about it, but that we’ll do it in a timely fashion, namely at the next, at one of the October meetings. MR. HAYES-Just say you deny his request. MR. STONE-Yes, just deny his request. Go ahead. MOTION THAT WE DENY JOHN SALVADOR’S REQUEST TO EXPEDITE HIS APPEAL, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen, we do have some minutes, but before we get to them, let’s talk about the item that I sent you all, except Jaime who said he didn’t get it. Do you want to read, you all saw what I sent, right? You all got a copy of it? MR. ABBATE-Yes, and I think you’re to be commended, Mr. Chairman. Because I think your recommendations are outstanding and I think appropriate and I think make a commonsense approach to the whole thing. MR. STONE-Let Jaime read it. We do have, I did get an e-mail, and some of you others did, too, from Al, who couldn’t be here tonight, and he asked me to, I don’t have standing tonight, well, of course he does, he’s a Board member, and even though he can’t act on an application because he’s not here, he certainly can put input in, as you can, Joyce, in this particular thing. So why don’t you read what he wrote. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I also received a copy. Basically he says, I was called away to a project meeting, and so I won’t be here. I’m summarizing this. However, I would like to make it known, there should be time limits on all discussion at any ZBA meeting. This goes for the public hearing as well as the original presentation. During the public hearing, there should be a five minute. MR. STONE-Is there any confusion. MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, during the public hearing there should be a five minute limit with a three minute rebuttal allowance. The original presentation should be limited to ten to fifteen minutes, no exception. I think that, and I love this, I think that the timekeeping task should be given to the secretary, and not to the Chairman. If I were the applicant, I would prefer that the Chairman give his undivided attention to my application and not to a stopwatch. Let me modify this just a little bit. He and I have discussed this and, I hate to, I think that if we were to limit the public hearing to five minutes, I think that Allan would be very happy. MR. HAYES-Per person, you mean? MR. ABBATE-Yes, per person. Yes, the public hearing. MR. HAYES-We’ve got to be clear. MR. ABBATE-At the public hearing, yes, I think he would be a happy camper, based on our conversations. MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, I wrote back to him, I’ve got it here somewhere. I said I didn’t disagree with what he said, except that he seemed to intimate that the applicant should be constrained, and we don’t want to constrain the applicant. MR. ABBATE-No, because we talked, he and I talked about that. MR. URRICO-Here’s the setting side that I can see, in that you have an applicant, and most of them are cut an dried, but you have an applicant like Jonathan Lapper come or O’Connor, and they spend 45 minutes to an hour making their presentation. Now you open the floor to the public and you say to maybe the one person that might be objecting, you only have five minutes to counter that. That really doesn’t allow them a fair hearing on our part. MR. HAYES-Even when you argue in front of the Supreme Court, though, you have time limits. MR. STONE-Yes, but you have submitted briefs, though. Remember. That’s the only difference. MR. HAYES-You’re talking about a more weighty issue. What I’m saying is even the Supreme Court recognizes that in five minutes, if you’re well prepared, you can say a million things. MR. ABBATE-And let’s go one step further. The Town Board limits. MR. HAYES-Well, Saratoga, which their Planning Board is similar to us in activity, they’re five minutes. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I have no problems with that. MR. URRICO-Maybe it should be everybody. MR. HAYES-Because they’re supposed to be talking about these things. MR. ABBATE-Correct, which is always published. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. HAYES-And invariably they end up talking about 15 things. MR. STONE-Well, and I’m just playing Devil’s advocate. I don’t disagree with anything. What about the second round? Because we’ve always, I’ve always prided myself on the fact that this Board allows somebody to come back up again. MR. ABBATE-There’s nothing wrong with that. MR. STONE-In Lake George you can’t do it, for example. MR. URRICO-I do agree we need time limits. I just have a concern about being fair about it. MR. STONE-Well, what I wrote, if you remember, this is a suggestion, that we say you’ve got five, but if you tell me up front that you need up to ten, I’ll grant it, and then you can come back for three, or four or five. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but you know, you always give your speech, Lew, about how we don’t want to hear repeats of what they’ve already said, and a lot of that takes care of, and, you know, as things roll on they are shorter and shorter. MR. STONE-They’re definitely shorter and shorter. MR. UNDERWOOD-But occasionally, like last week with that 45 minute dissertation. MR. HAYES-That would be like a loose five minutes. So that people, you’re forcing people to summarize, because if you say you can have ten, then people will take the ten, though, too. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I agree, and if you state that at the beginning, that puts everyone on notice. MR. UNDERWOOD-And they’re going to be better prepared, instead of just rambling on. MR. STONE-Okay. So we want to go that you’ve got five minutes and you can speak again if you have something new, put the same time limit on it. MR. ABBATE-Something new. MR. STONE-Something new. That’s what I always said. MR. MC NULTY-The only thing with that, though, is I think we’ve got to be careful that we don’t interrupt by asking questions. They’ve got five minutes, they’ve got to have their five minutes, and then our questions. MR. ABBATE-Good point. MR. MC NULTY-And we need to be careful with our questions we don’t give a particular person 20 minutes instead of. MR. STONE-Well, if we ask questions, though, that’s us. I mean, if they raise enough points that we’re curious. MR. HAYES-Yes, but that doesn’t mean the Board can’t grant them more time, but we’re saying. I mean, as Chairman, you could say I’m going to allow you more time, but the point is. MR. STONE-Well, we’re going to say five minutes for your initial presentation, and if we choose to be a little loose, and the Town Board is a little loose, too. They started out with a, five minutes are up, and I think that egg timer has (lost word). MR. ABBATE-But when you do that five minutes, you put everyone on notice, and you could have stopped Mr. Kelly the other day. MR. STONE-Well, I was looking for a way to stop him, but I just never came up with the right. MR. HIMES-I think if people are told you’ve got five minutes, then you can say at five minutes, all right, now, you seem to be rambling, whatever. Leave the discretion to the Chairman or the Vice Chairman, if he’s not at the meeting, need a little more time, give a little more time. MR. URRICO-So like a debate. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. HIMES-I’d prefer to give the Chairman the latitude to do that. If you stop at five minutes, and say, okay, we’ll give you a few more minutes, and keep after them. MR. HAYES-Because they’ll close their remarks properly. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HIMES-Now the only other thing I might say, something I mentioned at a couple of our meetings here, that I am critical in our process, they come up and they have expert witnesses. Sometimes they’re not even experts. We take it as gospel. I mean, we don’t, we question, but we have no way to be in our own expertise. Now, if somebody in the audience gets up, who is a representative expert, representing himself as an expert, is opposed to the application, he should be given considerably more time, but I’ve never seen that happen, but it’s too bad that it doesn’t. We get two or three people talking about how wonderful something is. I’d love to hear some engineering expert say, I’m an expert in such and such and then give him the same amount of time that the applicant had. MR. STONE-I’d love to, too. Well, I always say both ends. When I go out and see somebody, go out to look at a piece of property, and I find somebody who wants to talk, and I say, how do your neighbors feel. They say, they love it. I say, why don’t you get them to come. It would be nice to hear that they really like it. Because we don’t get many of those, except for the Johnsons. They got the whole world out to say how wonderful it was, and, Bruce, you don’t know where that stands in the courts? Craig was supposed to get back to me. Anyway, before we go rambling, all right. The consensus of the Board is that I write in my little spiel five minutes, and knowing among ourselves that we’ll give them five and we may give them a little more. MR. UNDERWOOD-The other thing to consider is if there’s a spokesperson, you know, like with, when you guys had your thing over on. MR. HAYES-Kelly Carte. MR. STONE-Kelly Carte. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. When someone else is going to, who’s sort of the lead agent for the group or something, or there’s some representation, that they could be granted more time, too. MR. HAYES-But even in mine, though, they all spoke in the end, though. I mean, that went on. MR. STONE-A long time. MR. MC NULTY-But you’ve got a danger there, because then you’re letting 20 people that are showing up saying they want to speak cede their time to somebody else, but I think if you give everybody basically five minutes to start with, that gives you an overview of all the issues, and then if there’s somebody that we want to hear more from, we can invite them back up, you know, for more questions. MR. ABBATE-That’s fair. MR. URRICO-And this is during the public hearing, right? MR. STONE-This is the public hearing only. MR. MC NULTY-The public hearing. MR. STONE-The applicant we’re not, I wouldn’t go there yet. There’s no reason. MR. ABBATE-I’d like to move, if it’s appropriate, too, since he’s going to be the timekeeper, an additional five dollar stipend be added to the secretary’s. MR. HAYES-That’s got to go to Town budget meeting. MR. STONE-Okay. So we don’t need a motion. We’ll just do that. My discretion. MR. HAYES-We’re all trying to do a good job on these applications. When they go too long, every, I’m 38 and I can take the gas eventually, like when that guy. MR. ABBATE-There’s an implication here. MR. HAYES-I was speaking just for myself, that in the end, we may do a better, it’s not going to hurt the application. We may do a better job. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. I lose focus. People ramble on I don’t even hear them after a while. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. STONE-Okay, guys. MR. URRICO-Does that five minutes include dead battery time? MR. HAYES-The other thing that I think we should consider, and that is pointed out there, because I was talking to Lew about it before, is the County Impact Statement. Chuck reads that thing from top to bottom, which includes the heading and everything else, which we’ve already heard in the application and we’ve already heard in the Staff notes, and three quarters of the time, after all that, it’s No County Impact. I mean, I don’t know why we can’t just say the County is No County Impact. MR. ABBATE-That’s a good idea. Why not just say that, Jaime? Let’s take Jaime’s recommendation. MR. STONE-Just do the results, unless. MR. HAYES-It’ll save 15 minutes. MR. UNDERWOOD-If it’s denied, you can say. MR. STONE-All right. Two good ideas. Okay. I’ve got minutes here for March 20, I’m told, 2002. th CORRECTION OF MINUTES March 20, 2002: NONE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 20, 2002 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Abbate ABSENT: Mr. Bryant March 27, 2002: NONE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR MARCH 27, 2002, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Bryant May 15, 2002: NONE MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES FOR THE MAY 15, 2002 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant May 22, 2002: NONE 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES FOR THE MAY 22, 2002 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Bryant June 13, 2002: NONE MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 13, 2002 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Bryant June 19, 2002: NONE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE JUNE 19, 2002 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Bryant June 26, 2002: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE JUNE 26, 2002 MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-That’s it. That’s all I’ve got. MR. URRICO-I have one other request. The signs that are supposed to be posted by the applicants. I’m having trouble findings some of these properties. MR. STONE-You’re right. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/21/02) MR. URRICO-I know it’s being sent to them. Right? You don’t know? MR. FRANK-I’ll have to ask Sue, my support staff. I’ll make a note right now to myself. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 38