Loading...
2002-10-23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 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 MR. STONE-Before we start, I’m asking for a point of personal privilege, since I suffered a slight heart attack earlier in the last week, I want to be here for a few of these, and then I intend to go and leave this thing in the capable hands of my Vice Chairman, Jaime Hayes. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2002 TYPE II ROBIN INWALD PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT THE DOWNSTAIRS OF AN ALREADY EXISTING TWO-STORY BARN STRUCTURE INTO A ONE-BEDROOM (2,182) SQ. FT.) SEASONAL APARTMENT AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE: ONLY ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING IS ALLOWED ON EACH LOT IN THE WR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 96-445 (REPLACE FOUND. UNDER BARN) BP 91-712 (DEMO OF COTTAGE) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-12/12-3-26.21 LOT SIZE: 2.3 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-010 C6 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ROBIN INWALD, PRESENT MR. STONE-We had a public hearing on this application on September 18, 2002, with the following results. Just read the tabling motion. MR. MC NULTY-The tabling motion. “MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2002 ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Cleverdale Road. For no more than 62 days, so that the applicant can appear before us personally and answer the concerns expressed by the Board at this variance application hearing. This will be tabled until the second meeting in October, specifically October 23. rd Duly adopted this 18 day of September, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 77-2002, Robin Inwald, Meeting Date: October 23, 2002 “Project Location: Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to convert the downstairs of an already existing two-story barn structure into a 2,182 sq. ft., one-bedroom, seasonal apartment. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the one single-family dwelling per lot requirement for Waterfront Residential Zones per § 179-4-010 (C6). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to convert the existing barn into a seasonal single-family dwelling. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives include subdividing the parcel to allow for the proposed barn conversion to a seasonal dwelling; however it appears as though some relief from the ordinance would be needed for a subdivision 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) because of the location of the barn relative to the existing dwelling. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: An additional single-family dwelling in a residential zone where only one single-family dwelling per lot is allowed might be considered substantial relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 77-2002: tabled 09/18/02 to October 23, 2002. BP 96-445: approved 07/19/96, replace foundation under barn. BP 91-712: approved 10/04/91, demolition of cottage. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant proposes the conversion would only be to a one-bedroom dwelling. However, the septic system design allows for the future expansion to three bedrooms, which would be a much greater impact than the project proposed. Consideration might be given to conditioning any approval to no further expansion. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper, you’re on. MR. LAPPER-Yes, good evening. For the record, I’m Jon Lapper, and I’m with Robin Inwald. I’d like to start out by apologizing. When I was here last month Robin was unable to join me, and I didn’t have all the answers. Robin’s been a client of one of my partners for a number of years, but this is my first involvement with the property, and I was prepared, but I didn’t have the answers, and so it was certainly the right thing to table it so that she could be here to answer some of the questions herself. At the same time, the Board made it clear what issues you asked us to focus on, and after I get done with a brief presentation, Robin has responses to some of the concerns of her neighbors that she’d like to read to you. We view this, fundamentally, as a pretty straightforward application, because the one principal use per acre is primarily a density issue on the lake, in the WR-1 Acre zone, and because she owns 2.3 acres, that would enable her to build two substantial size houses on one acre lots. I asked Tom Nace to just prepare, for the record, a very simple proposed subdivision, and again, this is just as an example, she has no intention, and she’s here tonight because she doesn’t want to subdivide, and she doesn’t want to maximize the development potential, but just to show that we could have, to get rid of what’s there, subdivide it, obviously sell it for a bunch of money because it’s on Cleverdale, and what we’ve shown are two houses, which are 2400 square feet on each floor. So you could do, and this certainly doesn’t max it out, in terms of what the lots could accommodate, but just to show, to prove the point that this is not the maximum development by a long shot, and that she could have two principal dwellings. So let me just hand this out. What Robin has applied to do, instead, is to simply convert the first floor of the existing barn into a one bedroom studio apartment for guests in the summer, so that the property can accommodate more people, but certainly not accommodate as many people as would be if you had two brand new large houses. Looking at the criteria under 179-14-080, from the Code, for an Area Variance, whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties would be created by granting the Area Variance, our argument is that there would be no change whatsoever in the character of the neighborhood, because we’re using existing buildings, or an existing building. No new construction. No exterior construction. It would just be renovation to the first floor of the existing barn. So there wouldn’t be any detriment. There wouldn’t be any change, and we’re not asking for even a separate curb cut. She would use the same driveway to access both residences. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than a variance, the answer is certainly yes. She could knock down the buildings that are there and sell it and redevelop it, but I think that would be more intense. Certainly that’s what’s being done on Cleverdale all over the place, where people are buying existing lots and knocking down the buildings. So she wants to keep the character and do a less intense development. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. I would argue that it’s not substantial because she has 2.3 acres. So the fact, if she were looking for a variance to do two residences on one acre or one and a half acres, that would be a different story, but on 2.3 acres, she has more than enough land to do two acres. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. We’ve shown a compliant septic system, which is far away from the lake, and again, no new construction other than interior. So I think the answer to that would be no, and whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. These are existing buildings. Certainly her desire to keep the historic barn, rather than to do something else, is self-created, but I don’t think that that’s, she’s trying to do less than what she could do. So I would hope that that wouldn’t be a big issue. I guess, at this point, I’ll introduce Robin and ask her to just respond to the issues that were raised by the neighbors. That was some of the stuff we were talking about last time, and I think that’ll answer many of the issues that you were asking to be addressed. MR. STONE-Did you comment on the fact that it’s a second home on a single lot, in your? If you did, I apologize. I didn’t hear you. MR. LAPPER-One principal building per lot. So we’re asking for two principal buildings per lot, but we have the right to subdivide it into two lots because we have the land. So that’s my answer to that. Okay. MS. INWALD-Okay. Good evening. I’m sorry that I wasn’t able to attend last time. MR. STONE-Would you state your name for the record. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MS. INWALD-Yes. I’m Robin Inwald. Anyway, I’m sorry I could come last time. My daughter is in high school, and I really didn’t feel that there was a reason to come, but there was. So I received the four letters that were written in opposition to my proposal, and I’ve written letters in response to each of the neighbors. There are a few things that are the same, because they had similar comments, but I’d like to read these in their entirety, because I was not able to be here at the last meeting. The first one is to Ms. Leigh Beeman, “Dear Leigh: I enjoyed talking with you last week, and appreciate your concerns regarding my plans to construct a one bedroom seasonal apartment in the ground floor of my white barn. I would first like to assure you that during my lifetime, and in the future, when I hope my children will use and maintain this property, I cannot foresee ever wanting to develop living space on the second floor of this barn. While you and I have never met, most of the people who know me in Cleverdale have seen the carefully restored original barn floor, complete with worm holes, in the second floor. I now store my books on shelves that were especially built of rough barn boards that fill this rough space and do not detract from the beautiful original barn beams and slate roof. I am very proud of this restored space that took three years to complete, and would not ever alter it. I have invited you to take a look at this restoration where I have made a significant investment in reinstalling the structurally important collar beams that were removed from the two barns when the hay track was installed around 1917. In fact, I may some day create a gift of the barns to the local historical society, since I hope they can be maintained as rare historical buildings of Cleverdale. I did receive an award for preservation of the red barn in 1998, from the Chapman Historical Society, and this is a copy of that award, and I took a picture of the interior of this barn, it’s just part of the barn. The whole second floor is storage for books and if you’d like to see either of these you can. In making an apartment out of the bottom of the white barn, I am merely replacing the two bedroom apartment that burned down around 1991 on the same property. I am not adding any structure, and I’m not asking to rebuild the cottage that burned. As you may recall, that was the original farm’s milk house, and was used as a second living space by previous owners. I am asking only to regain the living space that has been legally used on this property for decades. As far as renting is concerned, I do not have any immediate plans to use this space as a rental unit. My interest is to develop it for use by the large number of family members, including my three grown children and three siblings with their six grandchildren, who each have grown up on this property. Making an apartment will not change the number of guests that I have at my summer home, only the comfort of all of us, as we visit with each other. I have enjoyed the last 20 summers at Lake George and plan my year around July and August at the lake. If I were unable to spend a summer at Lake George, I understand that I do have the legal right to rent my entire property to one family, but I, myself, would not like to have anyone other than family so close to my house. I cannot envision any future tenants of the main house wanting to have noise coming from the white barn, which is very close to the house, unless it was from their own family. You expressed concern that the one-bedroom space, in such a large area, could be considered as providing more bedrooms. I have proposed to use the amount of space here only because it exists, and it makes sense to finish off the entire area rather than leaving some of it raw. I may end up using the living room for an overload of books anyway, since I have recently moved my 80 year old uncle into an adult home and must clear out a large New York City apartment full of my grandparents’ books, antiques, and artwork. Finally, you have noted your concern that with the development of this apartment, another family would bring another boat to the waterfront. I have purchased a dock at Harris Bay this summer, so that no further use of our waterfront would be needed. With my brothers’ and my boats, we, too, do not want more traffic there. I can assure you that you will not see another boat added to the docks already in place on the shore of this property. They are, in fact, already full. I also would like to assure you that I’m asking only to do the same thing that my neighbors are already doing on Cleverdale, and that owners of my property have been allowed to do for years, prior to the accidental burning of the milk house. Although I have one of the largest areas of property, over two acres, my immediate neighbors each have second living quarters on single-family properties that are much smaller than mine, such as the Haney’s boathouse, on less than one acre, Faulkner’s finished off garage on less than one acre, Alleto’s one-bedroom apartment in his shed on less than one acre, Herwitz’s studio above the garage on less than one acre, and Owens’ three-bedroom cottage with full deck on more than two acres. With the over 50 year history of my property, owning second living quarters, and the fact that my neighbors, with much smaller amounts of land, have more recently installed living quarters in their outbuildings, it does not seem fair to deny my property the use of its barn for the same purpose. I hope that my comments have helped to assure you that I am not a proponent of “funnel development”. I have a large family, and would like to enjoy the use of structures that already exist. I am not intending to subdivide my property, even though I have more than two acres in a one acre zoning area. I also hope that you will visit me this coming summer and take a look at the inside of the barns, once owned by your family. The second letter is to Amelia Owen. Dear Amelia: I have left several phone messages for your son, Steven, as you previously have asked me to talk with him about any issues relating to your property. Unfortunately, he has not returned any of my calls during the past month. Therefore, I’m writing to respond to your September 18 letter regarding my variance application. You have written that my 2.38 acre parcel is a single residence th and “should stay that way”. I assure you that I am not planning to subdivide my property at this time. I merely want to restore the living space that was provided for decades by the cottage that burned on my property around 1991. In addition, I feel that this is a reasonable request, since you, your family, and workers currently enjoy two separate living quarters on your own single-family property of over two acres, just next door to mine. In fact, when you moved next door, around 1986, my parents, the Herwitzs, did not object to your variance application to subdivide your cottage from your main house, making a 60 foot frontage property where 100 foot frontage was the standard. Their only concern, when you requested that subdivision, was that you not later be allowed to subdivide again, making three separate single family properties from your two plus acres of land. As you know, the Planning Board temporarily approved your 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) subdivision, but it was rejected by the Zoning Board that met a week or so later. If you’ll recall, it was the Town of Queensbury, and not my parents, who denied you that variance to separate off your cottage with 60 foot frontage. Therefore, ever since you have lived in Cleverdale you have enjoyed the use of your cottage as part of your single family property. I am surprised that you would object to my desire to use the white barn for additional living space. John McCall, the previous owner, had rented his cottage that burned down the year before I purchased the property, and that cottage was much closer to your house than my white barn. Provided that I obtain permission to use the white barn as a replacement for that cottage, I am not planning to rebuild the cottage, which I understand is my right, given the amount of property I own and, like you, pay taxes for owning. If I were to put a second building back on my property, near the location of the previous cottage, that would have more potential to disturb you and would require more construction on my property. I would think that you would be much happier with my additional family members, or even a sale or rental of my entire property to another family, when there is not a cottage close to your house, as there was up until 1991. You mentioned that you have enjoyed, “29 years of single family living”. So you have not lived in Cleverdale for that long. In any case, you never have complained to me about any of my family or guests causing any problems. Since I plan to stay in Cleverdale, I do not know how living space in the white barn would negatively affect you. As I have told you previously, I plan to keep the wildflower garden in the old cottage’s space, as was my original plan when I planted it three years ago. With regard to your concerns about the septic system, I believe that somehow you’ve been misinformed. The engineering report designed by the well respected engineer Tom Nace calls for only a two and a half foot build up and not the four feet or more build up that you have mentioned in your letter. Mr. Nace is not known for designing septic systems that “smell”, as you fear, and you must know that any smell would be even more unacceptable to me, since I am the one living on the property right next to the proposed septic system. There will be no major water problems, and I trust that Mr. Nace is qualified to know how to design septic systems that are acceptable to the Town of Queensbury. I would like to assure you that I have no current plans to subdivide my single family dwelling, only to use my property in the same way as you currently use yours. It seems to me that residents in Cleverdale should be allowed to use their properties in the same way, as long as they meet the Town’s requirements. Finally, you must already know that peace and quiet are very important to me, as well as to you, especially since I have complained to you in the past about the noisy ATV’s on the lawn adjacent to my house. You and my other neighbors know that I lead a quiet family lifestyle, and even have written full books while I am in residence in Cleverdale. I hope that this letter will help to allay your fears regarding my proposal, and that we will continue our previous relationship as friends and good neighbors at Lake George.” The next one is to Rosemary Faulkner. “Dear Rosemary: I very much appreciate your return of my phone call on October 8. I am writing this letter to you directly, since Rollie refused to set up another time to th speak with me and hung up the phone when I tried to speak with him. I’m very confused by his response to my call, as I do not remember ever having had a negative word with him, or with you, in the 20 years I’ve been in Cleverdale. I visited you last summer, as I have every summer for the past 10 years, and thought we always have had lovely conversations. This summer, I came down to your house on three separate occasions, specifically to say hello to you, and each time you were not at home. I actually left my packing on the last day I was on the lake, just to visit you, and told my daughter Stephanie where I was going. I had seen your house open on Saturday September 2 while out on the lake with my family, and hoped that you would be there nd when I came to visit on Sunday, September 3. As you know, I’ve always been the one to visit you each rd summer. I had understood that the reason you never come over to see me is because you keep to yourself, not that you were angry with me in any way. I walked over to your house that Sunday to be friendly, and did not even think of discussing the barn, though I certainly wouldn’t have hidden my plans if the conversation had turned to what I had been working on this past summer. I never considered the barn project, with regard to you, since I did not see how these renovations would effect you or your family in any way. Based on our previous positive interactions, I’m very surprised that you or your husband believed I was trying to hide something from you and never called me directly to express your concerns. This project was started this summer on July 11, when I heard that Ralph Schonhair had died, leaving the red barn for my use. I spent th six weeks cleaning out both the red and white barns, and got the idea to fix up the downstairs of the white barn while cleaning out Ralph’s things. I called my attorney to ask if this would be an acceptable project, and he immediately contacted Mr. Craig Brown, at the Town of Queensbury, to file the appropriate papers for the August hearing. The Town of Queensbury then required an additional survey of the property that made it impossible for us to make the deadline for the August meeting. Both my attorney and Mr. Brown were aware that I was anxious to start this project during the summer while I was living in Cleverdale, and that I was quite unhappy when the hearing had to be postponed until September. Since my daughter attends a New York City high school, and I’m the only parent in the house, it is much more of a hardship for me to attend fall meetings in Queensbury than it may be for you. In any case, I hope these facts help to alter your belief that I deliberately tried to set the hearing at a time when it would be inconvenient for you to attend. The house on my property has three bedrooms, two small rooms in the basement are not suitable as bedrooms since they do not have any windows, one contains the utility and pump room, and both are dark and damp. This past summer there were both mice and ants in the basement, which were difficult to control. As you know, I also created a museum type display of the original antique farm implements in my basement. I will continue to use this area for the antique farm implements that I think are important to preserve as perhaps the largest collection of this type in the area. As you may know, my red barn is the museum type exhibit, and I received an award for my restoration work. As the neighbors can verify, I give tours of the barns, and of my basement, whenever someone wants to see them. Some Cleverdale home owners regularly bring out of town visitors to see my farm collection. Therefore, in order to maintain the current collection of original farm equipment any additional living space using current structures on my property would have to be 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) developed on the ground level of the white barn. As you have seen, the top of the white barn is a carefully restored area that now stores my books. I have made a significant investment in restoring both barns, and would not alter these seasonal spaces. The only reason that the proposed seasonal apartment is 2,182 square feet is because that happens to be the size of the ground level of the rectangular barn. I also would like to assure you and your family that I do not intend to allow anyone other than my family members or friends to use the dock space attached to my property. For one thing, you may have noticed that my brother purchased a sailboat last summer and a motor boat this summer, taking up the remaining spaces on our waterfront. My 25 foot sailboat also is docked there. So there is no space for any other boats, even if I did want to put them there. In fact, in order to deal with the limited dock space on the waterfront, I have joined the Harris Bay Yacht Club. I now have an additional dock space just two minutes by cars, to be used by my guests or by me. Even if I did have the right to rent the apartment and the white barn, I would not want tenants walking down to the lake in front of my house. Of course I realize that I do have the legal right, as does every Cleverdale homeowner, to rent or to sell my entire house and its dock rights. However, I plan to continue spending my summers at Lake George. So I do not have any plans to exercise these options. As I mentioned on the phone, I would like to have the use of more than three legal bedrooms on my 2.38 acre property. As you know, there always was an additional cottage with a full kitchen and bathroom, the original farm’s milk house, on the property, that burned down the year before I bought it. I did not rebuild that structure, as I believe was my legal right, because I was busy restoring the barns and believed that it would be preferable to put additional living space in the white barn, rather than creating the original cottage structure. I also had younger children then, and at the time, we did not need the extra space. In addition to my three grown children, now 16, 19 and 21, I had a surprising deluge of visitors this summer, including my brother from Chicago, who brought his wife, two daughters, two grandchildren, and a son-in-law. We also had my sister visit from Memphis with her family of four and my other brother from Connecticut with his family of four. After all these visits, my inlaws came with their families, and we had an overflow crowd. I had invited one of my best friends, Maureen Pratt, to live in the cottage on the additional acre adjacent to my house this summer for a monthly rent that was less than one week’s rental at peak season. This was her second season in the cottage and I could not house my family members there. As you know, I let the neighbors, the Whitings, use that cottage one summer rent free, and have rented out the cottage for two seasons in between. I seek only to use the existing structures on my property to restore the legal living space that was present on this land for decades, until a fire destroyed the cottage around 1991. I understand and share your concern that Cleverdale may become overpopulated. Perhaps we are all contributing to this inadvertently, as our children love Cleverdale so much that when their families grow they want to continue to enjoy the lake. I am simply requesting that I not be restricted on 2.38 acres, when both you and the Owens, who each have objected to my barn project, currently have separate living quarters on your own properties.” And this is a short one. The last one. Sorry. This is to Robert and Carol Yanney. “Dear Bob and Carol: I appreciate your concerns regarding my plans to construct a one bedroom seasonal apartment in the ground floor of my white barn. As I explained on the phone recently, I was not trying to hide any plans from you. I simply did not think that any renovations to my white barn would concern you in any way. Since we did not play tennis after Bob hurt his foot in July, we did not have the occasion to have any lengthy conversations, and I did not make a special effort to talk with you about it because I knew that my barn project would not affect your life in Cleverdale. As I recently explained on the phone, I have purchased a membership at the Harris Bay Yacht Club so that my family will have an extra dock space there in the future. I would like to reassure you that no boats, other than the ones already on our docks, will be added. My brothers and my boats fill up that area, as you know. So we share your desire to keep the boat traffic limited to our current use. I hope that this information helps to satisfy your concerns. I am simply asking to use the white barn to replace the second living space that was part of my property before the cottage burned down in 1991. Since you have a living space in your boathouse, as well as in your house, you know the advantage of having your son live in a separate area on your property. I would like to enjoy the same benefit on my property, and do not see any reason why extended family/friends in my white barn would present any real problems for you or your family. I look forward to seeing you again next summer and to continue our tennis games together.” MR. STONE-Is that it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MS. INWALD-Sorry. MR. STONE-Well, no. That’s fine. I have a few questions that came out of what I heard, and I’m sure the Board has some. Do you have waterfront? I’m trying to look at the tax map that Staff has given us, and can you explain to me how the yellow property, which is the property in question, gets to the waterfront? MS. INWALD-Yes. There’s just a dock space. My property has a dock space that is owned by Alma Herwitz, and I pay taxes on that dock space, and I have the exclusive use of that dock, but it is owned and maintained by Alma Herwitz. MR. STONE-And you have rights to go down through her property? MS. INWALD-Yes. There’s a six foot right of way on the north side of her property, that allows access from my property down to the dock. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. STONE-And that’s your parents? MS. INWALD-Well, my father’s deceased now, but my mother owns that property. MR. STONE-Okay, but that’s still individually owned by your mother? MS. INWALD-Yes. My mother owns that property. MR. STONE-Okay. How big is the current on-site wastewater treatment system? I mean, I hear, and I was going to ask the other question, how many guests do you have at any one time? It seems to me that you’ve got a lot. MS. INWALD-I do have a big family now. MR. STONE-Well, is the system big enough to handle this on any particular weekend? MS. INWALD-Well, this is the second system that we’re going to put into the white barn. MR. STONE-You’re going to put in. MS. INWALD-Right. MR. STONE-I’m talking about now. I’m just curious. MS. INWALD-There’s never been a problem. When John McCall sold me the property, he waived his hands over to an area by the north side of the white barn, because this is where the septic is, and I’ve never had any problems since, but I can’t, they couldn’t find it. MR. STONE-That’s a laying out. Pardon me, I don’t want to. MS. INWALD-No, that’s right. He just showed me, you know, he just said, it’s over here, and when Tom Nace came on the property to, I was hoping, of course, it would be a lot less expensive to be able to add to that system, but I was hoping he could find it. They weren’t able to really find it, and so they just said, it was going to take too much money to find everything. It’s much better not to break it but to start over and make a whole new system and that’s what I was advised by Tom Nace. MR. STONE-Okay. One of the things I just want to say for the record, that our job is not to referee neighborhood disputes. Our job is to decide whether or not the Code of the Town of Queensbury could be varied to grant you what you want. That’s basically all we do. MR. LAPPER-I guess a lot of the issues that were raised last time seem relevant to impact on the neighborhood. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. LAPPER-And that’s why we felt it was best to just set the record straight, in terms of what Robin’s position was. MR. STONE-Questions, gentlemen? MR. ABBATE-I have a statement. I have a question, then a statement. Counselor read some sections of ordinances which were favorable to your case, and rightfully so, because that’s part of your job, but would you take a look at, where it says relief required, and that section that says you’re requesting relief from the one single family dwelling per lot requirement for Waterfront Residential zones per Section 179-4-010 (C6), and then tell me what you think that says. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Well, it’s easier if you have the, don’t you have this? Don’t you have that? MR. LAPPER-Yes, I do. MR. ABBATE-It’s easier. Just look where it says relief required, one sentence. MR. LAPPER-One single family dwelling per lot requirement for the Waterfront Residential zone. I’m sorry? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll say it again. Do me a favor, please, and take a look at that one sentence under where it’s highlighted relief required, and it indicates that the applicant is requesting relief from the one single family dwelling per lot requirement for Waterfront Residential zones Section 179-4-010 (C6). MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-What do you think that means? MR. LAPPER-That, in general, a lot is one acre, because a minimum lot size, you’re allowed to have one dwelling unit per lot. What distinguishes this application is that we have a more than double size lot. So what that is trying to regulate is the density, and my argument is that there is no detriment by granting it because we have a big lot. MR. ABBATE-Okay. This late introduction of this diagram that you submitted to the Board, is that one lot? MR. LAPPER-No. That would be, that shows that without variances, that this property could be redeveloped into two separate single family homes. MR. ABBATE-But as it stands right now, today, is that one lot? MR. LAPPER-No. That’s an example of the maximum development that could be done without requiring a variance. MR. ABBATE-Well, let me say this. My statement isn’t going to be as long as Dr. Inwald’s statement’s going to be, but in my opinion, approval of this request would be metamorphosing the criteria foreordained in the Zoning Ordinances of the Town of Queensbury, and as such setting an unsheltered introgression by anyone in the Town of Queensbury impassioned with the banner of urgency that is, “I want one, too”. That’s it. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Well, if somebody has a two acre lot that they have the right to subdivide, you’re not, in terms of precedent, very few people have two acre lots. You wouldn’t be allowing somebody to build more than they could legally build. MR. ABBATE-You’re right. Why not subdivide? MR. LAPPER-That would be more intense, in terms of the neighbors. We could sell and have two big lots. MR. ABBATE-But as it is right now, it’s one lot. MR. LAPPER-Okay, but I guess, if I could just pull you back to the criteria that I read, in terms of the impact on the neighborhood, I don’t think you can come up with an impact, a negative impact, since she has the ability to build two big houses, and all she’s saying is let us use the existing structure. I don’t see how you can characterize that as a negative impact. MR. ABBATE-I’m not talking about impact. I’m just reading what the Ordinances state. Now as an attorney, we read from the words that are put into the law. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. ABBATE-And it says that single family dwellings, per lot, that’s it, period, on Waterfront Residential zones, Section 179, blah, blah. MR. LAPPER-Okay, and I don’t mean to be argumentative in any way, but that is the provision of the law that we are asking for a variance on, and the criteria for that variance, the analysis for that is what I read, the 179-14-080, and you have to do the balancing test of what impact, what detrimental impact. So my argument is that this is nowhere near as detrimental as what she could do of right, and that’s why this should be granted. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-Yes. That is true, except it was the question I asked you at the beginning. This is a 100% variance. I mean, you sort of skipped around that. It is 100%. MR. ABBATE-He danced. MR. STONE-He danced. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. LAPPER-I’d like to respectfully just caution you that New York case law says that you don’t, it’s not just a matter of percentages. It’s a matter of what’s the impact going to be, and I don’t think anyone on the Board has spoken of an impact of how this is going to hurt the neighbors. MR. ABBATE-I did, Counselor. Do you want me to read my statement again? I basically said here that approval, in my opinion, this request would be metamorphosing the criteria foreordained in the in the Zoning Ordinances of the Town of Queensbury, and as such setting an unsheltered introgression by anyone in the Town of Queensbury impassioned with the banner of urgency of, “I want one, too”. MR. LAPPER-And my answer would be, if someone has two acres and they want one too, and there’s no detriment to the neighbors, then that should be granted as well, because if you have the acres, why go to the trouble of subdividing? MR. ABBATE-And I respect your position, but I disagree. MR. STONE-All right. Does anybody else have any comments, any questions? MR. HIMES-Yes. Just things that I brought up with Mr. Lapper last month, a couple of observations, and then what I think the, in the floor plan, it is, one of the things we asked for was some explanation, and it really, in my expectation of what a studio apartment would be, you know, 2182 square feet, well, it fills up the barn (lost words), it’s got two full bathrooms, one opening up or accessible to the living room. The thing that I focused on is the bedroom. It says bedroom number one. Bedroom Number One, which I saw that and said, well, okay, where’s Bedroom Number Two, or what not, or maybe at some point down the road there might be, and, you know, maybe the world isn’t going to come to an end with that either. So I see that, in connection with the density or what not, that perhaps as much as, you know, tastefully speaking I’d hate to see it happen, but we have to face what the Code is and what your situation is, and the personal preference doesn’t become involved, but the density is that the building’s here and your house is here. If we split the two lots, there would be some separation in space, where although as far as Cleverdale is concerned, it might be the same, in connection with that area that we’re talking about, where the two structures are going to be, they are somewhat intense, and I think the, well, would you comment on the layout, in connection with the family room, the two bathrooms, an enclosed dining room right next to Bedroom Number One, an office on the other side of Bedroom Number One, and then a living room, a large living room, just some thought went into this, I think. MS. INWALD-Well, okay. I have renovated a lot of apartments that I’ve lived in in New York City, and I’ve restored areas, and you can see what I’ve done with the barn. So I like to be creative, and I thought, well, this is a big space, and what can I do in here that will make it useful, and so I, this was done by Dean Howland, this drawing, and I actually, this was sent, I think, directly to, I didn’t see this drawing. I just drew a picture of all the things. As far as two bathrooms are concerned, anybody who has a family knows that if you have a family with more than two people, you need two bathrooms. I mean, people get sick at the same time after they eat a bad meal, and they need to use a shower when somebody else needs to use the bathroom. So anyone who’s ever lived in a one bathroom apartment, and I certainly have, knows how important two bathrooms are to people. So that’s the reason for the two bathrooms. As far as the layout, most of it was to do with the windows, because I really wanted to, this started out as a fun project. I wanted to keep everything outside the same, just as I have done in all the rest of the structures, and I wanted to make sure that the windows that are really unusual, they have the old lead glass, and I didn’t, I was talking to different contractors, and I was talking to them and they’d say, you’ve got to replace these, and I said, no, no, no, I want to keep them just the way they are. I’m willing to do whatever I have to do to keep them because they’re beautiful and I don’t want to change the outside of the barn. I think it’s a historical building and if I can use it so that it’s useful, great, and so there were issues that I talked with the Building Department about this summer, when I thought it wasn’t going to be any problem at all to do this, and there were issues about the windows being certain amount of distance from the ground and issues about the windows and the space that was open around them, and so this design came around partly because of the windows. There was a lot of thought about it, but really I did design it because that’s the whole bottom of the base of the area. It’s the only area I would ever have for living space, and if there were one family with a couple of kids, it would fill up that space. It is a large space, and I wouldn’t, if it were a smaller barn, I would have made a smaller apartment. I really, the cottage that was there before was a full structure, and so as far as density is concerned, this property has had a full cottage on it, just as the Owens enjoy next door. They have a very large cottage that they’ve expanded. If you go to see it, it’s expanded from what it was, you know, 10 years ago, and so I’m not asking to keep expanding off of a shed, which is what my neighbors have all done, without asking for variances. My neighbors have not come to you for variances. They have simply renovated their sheds and their garages, and every single one that I mentioned, if you go and look inside, they have living spaces in their areas. So I was surprised to hear them, their concern, because this property had a legal second house on it, until it burned in 1991. MR. STONE-Are you saying that these expanded sheds are not attached to the house? MS. INWALD-Correct. I listed it in my letter. Would you like the copies of the letters? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. STONE-We can refer that to Staff. MS. INWALD-Yes, sure. MR. STONE-Bruce, are you, any comment there at all? Is there anything that you’re aware of, that was done in violation of our Zoning Ordinance, apparently done? MR. FRANK-Nothing that’s been brought to my attention, and as far as I know Craig’s attention. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-Since he’s been here a lot longer than I have. MS. INWALD-Well, some of them did have variances. Alma Herwitz had a variance to develop the studio on the top of her garage. MR. STONE-Okay. MS. INWALD-And the Owens did have the cottage. It was a legal, separate cottage, which they were trying to make as a second family, and were rejected from doing that, but they have a single family residence, with a full three bedroom cottage, on their property, right now next to mine. MR. STONE-You did say rejected? MS. INWALD-The Zoning Board rejected the desire to subdivide for 60 foot frontage, because there was 100 foot frontage required, but they had the right to subdivide if they did it 100 foot, 100 foot. MR. STONE-Just a quick question, only because it’s sitting here looking at me. The property to the north, the so called Inwald property to the north, is that yours? MS. INWALD-Yes, the cottage to the north is mine, yes. That’s the one that I mentioned that my girlfriend was living in for the last two summers. That’s a separate acre, that’s a separate full acre, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MS. INWALD-Yes, it is, and actually, when I talk about my children, if I were to have each of them with a family, they would fill up everything I have, and they’d be in the basement in my house with illegal bedrooms, and I really don’t like that. It’s awful down there, and it’s illegal, and I would prefer to have the three bedrooms back, you know, in the cottage. If the cottage hadn’t burned, I would have a two or three bedroom, I’m not sure, I think it was two bedrooms. I would have a two bedroom completely finished cottage if it hadn’t burned, on that property. So, I’m asking simply to, I have three bedrooms on my property, and my neighbors each have, five, six, some of them. MR. STONE-As I said, we’re not getting into neighbors because that’s, the only thing before us is your application. MS. INWALD-Sure. All right. I’m just asking to restore what was already there. MR. STONE-Chuck, do you have something? MR. ABBATE-One other question. Do you have farm equipment on your property? MS. INWALD-Farm equipment? MR. ABBATE-Or any kind of equipment, underneath the barn? MS. INWALD-I have, no. I’ve actually dug up all the farm implements. MR. ABBATE-Do you have any farm implements? MS. INWALD-Implements, yes. I have the original 1840’s, 1850’s farm implements that are like old scythes, and mallets. MR. ABBATE-But nothing of a mechanical nature? MS. INWALD-No. Nothing. No, I have all the original things from the late 1800’s. Come over, I mean, it’s a museum. MR. STONE-Roy? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. URRICO-Mr. Lapper or Ms. Inwald, would you respond to the Staff comments about septic system design allowing for the future expansion to three bedrooms? MR. LAPPER-Yes. I spoke to Tom Nace, in response to that comment, and what Tom said is that he conservatively over designed the system, because the soils, when you got down a little bit, were sort of clay like. So that was his intention, to just make sure that it was over-designed. The system, as you can see, and in response to the Chairman’s question, both systems are very far from the lake. So even though we don’t know exactly where the old system was because, before plans were filed, they’re both far from the lake, but that was Tom’s response, that he did over-design the system, just to make sure that there wouldn’t be a problem. MR. STONE-Did he ever comment on the existing system and it’s size relative to what’s there now? MR. LAPPER-No. He couldn’t. That was built, grandfathered, you know, like a lot of things on the lake, until they’re failing, nobody hears about it. Fortunately, that old system is far from the lake. MR. STONE-A set of one is two 55 gallon drums? No. All right. Any other questions before we continue with the public hearing, which I think we left open, or if we didn’t, we’ll open it anyway. Anything else you want to add? Any other questions? All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed to the application? Sir? You have five minutes, you know. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Okay. Good evening. My name is Chris Navitsky with the Lake George Waterkeeper program. I’d like to thank the Chairman and the Board for comments. I had forwarded a letter last month. When I was reviewing the file today, I saw that the record, that letter was not in the record. I spoke with Mr. Brown and I faxed a copy over to put in the record. I’d like to just point out a couple of items. In summarizing this, I am not actually opposed to the variance, but I do have, because there’s no additional construction that’s undertaken. However, I do have several comments regarding the septic system that was proposed that I would like to inform the Board and if this variance was granted, I would just like to have possibly they put in as a condition of approval, because I think there are a couple of items that need to be clarified. First off, that there is a conflict on the proposed system that is proposed. There are two different details shown, one being a shallow absorption trench system, and the other being a standard absorption trench system. My concern with that is that they have separate requirements for separation from groundwater, one being 24 inches. One being 48 inches. I think that should be clarified. The second issue would be regarding there’s no topography on the plan. That concern is, again, relative to the depth of the high groundwater that was found, and I believe it might be difficult to construct that system by gravity, with the grades that are proposed, and I think that that system should be, that design should be reviewed by an engineer, prior to approval, and again, the last comment would be separation of the system and the proposed fill that would be for the system that would extend towards the structure due to the size slips that are required on a fill system. So again, I would just like to have these concerns regarding the new system reviewed under some type of a site plan review or condition, and those are my concerns. MR. STONE-So you would, you’re asking us, if we were to grant the variance, that we put a condition that site plan get involved with the septic system? MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. I think that there would be concerns with the design as is, because there’s conflicts, and it’s lacking some information. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? STEVEN OWEN MR. OWEN-Good evening. My name is Steven Owen, and I am Robin’s neighbor. She has said a lot of things about acreages and everybody having second homes, but she does have a second home. She has a cottage, just like she says the rest of us have. We’re closer to four acres of land. So with her two and that was three. So we have our cottage. We’ve never done any alterations or changes to it, but I was just mainly concerned with commercializing renting of this space, but I believe if what Robin states is true, that she wants to keep it as one bedroom and only for her family, then what I would request is if this does pass that it is passed under those conditions, and not to be a rental property so me and all of the neighbors around us who have all disagreed, so it’s kind of obvious that nobody is agreeing with the philosophy or belief that we should allow any additional renting in our neighborhood. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. OWEN-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? Any additional correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-There is some correspondence. One is the letter from the Lake George Waterkeeper. I don’t know if you want me to read that whole thing? MR. STONE-I think he summarized it. MR. MC NULTY-He summarized enough. We’ll skip that one, then. We have a new letter from Ronald L. Faulkner, and he says, “Please be advised that I again must appear in a Town Justice Court and thus am unable to attend this evening’s hearing on the Inwald matter. I therefore request that this letter be read into the record on behalf of myself and my wife, Rosemary. Since the last hearing on September 18, Ms. Inwald th finally initiated contact with my wife and me as well as some of our neighbors. Nothing she told any of us has caused either my wife or me to change our minds with respect to our adamant opposition to the pending request. Ms Inwald stated that she now, after all these years, finds the lower level of her home to be too damp, inhabited by mice and therefore no longer appropriate to use for bedroom purposes, in addition to the bedroom upstairs. It is suggested that there are many electronic devices on the market which will keep mice and other pests from dwelling in the premises as well as good old-fashioned mouse traps. It is further suggested that de-humidifiers work wonders to eliminate dampness, and it may also help to utilize a ventilation system, all of which would cost a mere fraction of the cost of the proposed barn project. As stated in our previous letter to the Board, Ms. Inwald already owns an additional home contiguous to the subject property which, when purchased, was declared to be intended to be used to house visiting family members. That was short lived and was and continues to be used solely as a commercial rental property. We fully suspect Ms. Inwald’s true intentions are the same for the proposed barn project. Even if the Board were to grant the request with the proviso that the barn could not be used as rental property, this would create a situation which would be difficult to enforce and certainly would never withstand a Court proceeding initiated by any subsequent owner of the premises. Ms. Inwald allegedly told one of my neighbors that she has no intention of renting the barn at the present time, but is silent as to the future. Ms. Inwald also states that she has purchased a dock unit at Harris Bay Marina for $20,000.00 to be used by visiting family. Such a dock has never been necessary in the past! We submit that this is just one more step in making the barn project more attractive in order to market it as a rental. We are also mystified that the request is for only one bedroom. Will it soon become two or three bedrooms? And is one bedroom all Ms. Inwald needs to meet her family’s needs? And what will become of the remainder of the 2,182 square feet? Perhaps a kitchen, living room and dining room? My wife and I strongly suggest that Ms. Inwald spend the modest sum necessary to alleviate and remediate the dampness, mice and stale air or, in the alternative, utilize the house that she presently rents for what she states to be a give-away price since she wouldn’t be losing much anyhow. Again, we ask the Board to review our previous letter on file and ask the Board to heed the comments and feelings of all of us neighbors, to respect the residential nature of the neighborhood and to be a voice in preserving the integrity of the community. Respectfully, ROLAND L. FAULKNER” And one other letter from Robert Yanney. He says, “My wife and I separately talked to Robin Inwald on the phone on this matter and we have not changed our opinion and still want to express our disapproval for this variance application. (See our letter to the board for the first meeting, Sept. 18). Our primary concern is that this likely commercialization will lead th to a waterfront problem. Our property on Lake George is located directly in front of the Inwald property. We feel if Ms. Inwald were to convert the 2,182 sq. ft. area in her barn into a huge apartment, it will sooner or later be used for commercial purposes, just the same as the cottage she rents out now. Although Ms. Inwald said she will use this for relatives she could not tell us that she would not eventually rent this apartment. When she first purchased the Gunn Lane cottage, she planned to use it for relatives but now she rents it out. This leads us to believe that this new apartment will follow the same suit and also be used as a rental. If Ms. Inwald needed a place for relatives to stay, she already has a large house with 5 or 6 bedrooms, plus the cottage on Gunn Lane that she now rents out and also her mother has a house right next to her. If this new apartment becomes rental property along with her cottage she rents out, it will likely bring with it a waterfront problem since she only currently has a right of way use of a dock that goes with her property, and this is right next to our dock. Ms. Inwald said she is purchasing a dock at Harris Bay Yacht Club for use of whoever stays at the apartment. That sounds like something rental tenants would require, not relatives that come to visit you. Even if she buys a Harris Bay Yacht Club dock for her tenants and then she sells the property, how likely is that dock to go with sale of the property and what’s to keep the new owners from renting out this apartment, etc. On Oct. 23, I’ll be at home in Connecticut and won’t be able to attend the meeting. rd Therefore for the record my wife and I want to once again express our disapproval for this application. Sincerely, Robert H. Yanney October 15, 2002” That’s it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do you wish to comment on any of that correspondence, any of the comments? MR. LAPPER-Yes, a couple of points. Robin would agree, as a condition, of course, to an approval or to submit to site plan review for the septic system. That’s not a problem whatsoever. I guess I would just sum up all of the issues in terms of the use. I see this as a very simple application. I know that not all the members of the Board agree with me, that if you have 2.3 acres, and you have the right to build bigger structures that, in terms of the impact on the neighborhood and the density, that this is a very modest application to do interior renovations to an existing barn. So everything that the neighbors are saying, speculating what the maximum use could be, if she were to subdivide this, sell both parcels, people could build very large houses. I know the Yanney house is a big house. It would be a much different impact on the neighborhood if somebody, we had two families, five or six bedrooms, what have you, on a full acre parcel. There aren’t a lot of full acre parcels on Cleverdale, let alone 2.38 acre parcels. So we think that this is, that if you look at it in terms of the balancing test, the impact on the neighborhood, this is a very modest proposal, far less than what she has the legal right to do without a variance, and that’s why we’re asking the Board to approve it. MR. STONE-Is that it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? If not, let’s talk about it. MR. LAPPER-Robin has a couple of comments. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. MS. INWALD-Right. Well, I’d like to read that again, and respond to each of those points, but I’d just like to say that I do not have five or six bedrooms. I have three bedrooms in my house, and the basement is illegal. It was built by John McCall. He had a bar down there, and he had extra bedrooms. MR. LAPPER-You mean it would be illegal to put bedrooms down there. MS. INWALD-It’s illegal to put bedrooms down there. Right. I’m sorry. They’re not legal bedrooms. They have no windows, and people, my children used to like to sleep down there, well, they didn’t used to like to sleep down there, but I asked them to sleep down there, when they were little. My son refuses to sleep down there. He never knows when it’s daylight. My children grew up, and they will not sleep in the basement, and they will not have their families sleep in the basement, and I can’t fix that basement. The other things about what I was going to do with the cottage, I guess, I mean, it’s public here, but when I bought that cottage next door, which has nothing to do with this request, I bought it for my in-laws to move into, and I did tell Raleigh and Rosemary that I was doing that. I was hoping that my in-laws would move in there when they retired. They retired. They went traveling, and then I was divorced, and everything changed in my life. So, I didn’t plan a divorce. That was my husband’s decision to go off with someone else, and I am not responsible. MR. STONE-Now, now, let’s not go there. MS. INWALD-Listen, I’m going to go there because Raleigh is upset that I said that my in-laws were going to move in there, and a lot of this anger is because of that experience that he had, and I did let the neighbors live there free. I didn’t have a plan to make it commercial, and I haven’t made it into a big commercial property yet. I am saving that cottage for my family, and I have a lot of family. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Let’s start talking about it. Chuck, we’ll start with you. MR. ABBATE-Sure. Why not. Okay. Let me start out by saying, Dr. Inwald, that there has been a great deal of speculation, and I, personally, when an applicant comes before the Board, I personally assume that the applicant has a high degree of integrity and what have you, and there’s no reason for me to think otherwise of you. I’d like to congratulate you on the award that you received for the preservation award. I think that’s admirable, and I am not as opposed to your application as initially I may have seemed. I just was searching for questions and what have you. I would probably look favorable upon your application with certain provisions and options that your attorney has stated, and I believe that, at least in my opinion, that if those provisions were stated as stipulations, in any kind of approval, if there is an approval, I would go along with your application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Which, particularly, are you? MR. ABBATE-The indication about the basement. MR. LAPPER-Site plan. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. ABBATE-And the site plan. MR. STONE-Site plan. MR. ABBATE-I think this one gentlemen indicated about an engineering plan or a site plan or something or other. If you would agree to that, and you would agree to, I think also conditioning any approval to the septic system and the other final option is a stipulation as to no further expansion. That was the most important one. MR. STONE-Okay. MS. INWALD-I’ll never do it again. I promise. Never. MR. ABBATE-And, yes, based on those stipulations, I would look favorably upon your application. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I basically would be in agreement with Chuck. I think that, you know, given the fact that you have gone to considerable length and expense to restore the barns and keep them in good order, they have a specific use that, you know, historically they’re important within the community also. I think that, you know, your garden that you’ve put in and things like that show that you care about your property. You’re not just there to speculate and try to earn a few extra bucks on the side. So I really don’t see that this addition is going to be that big of a deal. I think that, you know, one concern I would have would be the future disposition of the property. At some point in time it still could be split up into a second lot where another large home could go, and, you know, I mean, that’s maybe something that we should also add in there, too, because I think that, you know, that’s a consideration, if you’re going to add this, but as far as your present house with the problems that it has, I mean, you know, maybe the house will get jacked up and a real cellar will get put in it. I don’t have a problem with that either because I think it would make your home more usable. It wouldn’t be to the detriment of the lake or the community as far as I’m concerned, and I think that your neighbor’s concern, neighborhood spats usually are neighborhood spats, and, you know, they usually don’t get resolved because everybody has their own point of view, but at the same time I would approve your resolution. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. This is, taking it according to the test, I think the benefit to the applicant would be a benefit. The applicant would be allowed to convert this barn into a seasonal single family dwelling. The feasible alternatives, there are feasible alternatives, whether there is one I would use, I don’t know, but it’s a feasible alternative to subdividing the property. As far as the relief being substantial, it is a 100% variance. No matter how you look at it, that’s the way it reads, and as far as the effects on the neighborhood or community, I really don’t see an affect on the neighborhood or community. Despite what we’ve heard, I’m trying to focus strictly on this property and only on what we’re dealing with here, which brings me to, is this difficulty self-created? And here I’m having difficulty deciding whether it was self-created or not. The barn was there, and you could keep it the way it was or why not make greater use of the existing structure, which seems to me what you’re doing. So it comes down to weighing all these options, and, the way I see it, what is better, if the property is subdivided or one in which the better use of an existing structure is presented? Like you’ve done. To me, the open space that you gain by leaving it the way it is and converting the barn is much better than subdividing the property and putting up two huge structures. So I think the willingness to invest in this barn signals to me a desire to preserve rather than encroach, and thereby I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I certainly agree with the Chairman in the sense that unfortunately I think we’ve been dragged into an overall dispute in the neighborhood in this particular matter, but I guess it’s going to be decided tonight and that’s probably a good thing. For that reason, I’m going to couch my comments strictly in the criteria that we’re charged with for an Area Variance and the benefit to the applicant is obvious. You’ve stated you have a need to have some additional rooms on your property for family members. Where I’m troubled is items two, three, and five. As far as feasible alternatives, I think I have to agree with Norm, that a 2,182 square foot is not a seasonal apartment. That’s probably bigger than the average house in the Town of Queensbury, and to me, there are feasible alternatives that are of less impact on the neighborhood than converting that much of your barn to an apartment. So, I’m troubled by that. I’m also troubled, as far as feasible alternatives, in the sense that you own the property next door, which is really not a big part of the consideration for this property, but yet if you have a need to house your family, you obviously could not rent that to people that you’re renting it to and place them there. So it takes away from, to me, a combination of the benefit to you, you could obtain in another method if you so desired. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I think it is. I really think it is. I think it’s tremendous. This is, 2,182 square feet, I think, is a whole nother house in a sense, even though it’s in a barn, and I agree with the other Board members that your property is beautiful and it’s a compliment to that neighborhood. There’s no question in my mind about 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) that. It’s well maintained, but I think that the potential of this being an entire new house, if you will, in this particular case, is, I think it’s substantial. The effects on the neighborhood or community, I think are limited, to some degree, but I believe that if this house, if this barn was developed to this extent, it could be rented. You say you have no plans to rent, but you’re renting another cottage you have on a separate parcel, which leads me to believe that that is at least a possibility, and that would be a pretty big effect on the community, in my opinion. I don’t like to speculate on what might happen, but you’ve already said, for the record, that you’re renting the piece of property that you have in Cleverdale, and is the difficulty self-created? I think that it is. I think, in this particular case, it’s unfortunate that your milk barn burned down, or what was that cottage, but, you know, I think that, in that particular case, that was your choice not to pursue the replacement of that, and now you’re asking us to create this additional space, this additional living space in this barn, and I think, on balance, I think I’m against the application. I would be in favor of a more limited application on this particular matter, because I think is some merit to the argument that the Counsel has made that this could be two legal lots and there could be two houses on there, but I think, in my opinion, the proposal is, on balance against the applicant. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-There’s a basic principal in zoning that says you consider the worst case possible, and that’s kind of the way I’m looking at this. For me, I don’t think it matters, whether it’s family that’s in there or whether the place is rented. It’s either going to be a one bedroom, two bedroom or three bedroom residence. The large septic design in a way is a plus, because, should it eventually become a three bedroom residence, you’ve got a septic system there that can accommodate that kind of a load. I guess where I come down is I look at this, and I think, if I allow this on this two acre plus lot, would I allow something similar on any other two acre plus lot, and if the answer is yes, then I’m changing the zoning. If the answer is no, then I need to look for something really unique that says I should allow it on this lot, where I wouldn’t allow it another. I can see a couple of possibilities, one is if the proposed subdivision were followed, you’d cut the barn in half. On the other hand, you could subdivide and do a gerrymandering boundary to avoid cutting the barn in half. I end up getting torn both ways on this. I think, if it were allowed, the plus would be it keeps a nice property looking nice, but on the other hand, in the long term, as some other people have indicated, there’s no control over who might own this property in the future, and somebody else gets it, in effect they would have two full time residences on one piece of property. Kicking all that around, I’m inclined to agree with Jaime on his analysis, and I think probably, as much as I would hate to see it happen, the proper route in this case would be subdivide if you want two residences on this piece of property. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I guess I’ve got to say that I’m going to have to kind of settle myself down here a little bit because I’m used to dealing with applications where there’s too little land, and people want to add where they’re going to encroach on people and all this kind of. Here we are with two or three acres, and it’s right in the middle of it. The problem is because you have so much land, and the very persuasive argument that Mr. Lapper has given, as he always does, very good and very forthright, but, now the bad part. I think that I’ll stick to just the feasible alternatives. It may be difficult or what not, but it would be within the regulations of the Code to expand your existing residence, perhaps. It hasn’t been talked about, unfortunately, the cottage that you had that burned down, and that, you know, this is, in a way, of kind of replacing that, even though it’s probably bigger, but the thing being that when we have a nonconforming situation, we try to eventually get rid of the nonconformities, if possible, and here’s a case where it is, and so I don’t see it as a steering or concluding factor that there was a cottage there a while ago, and therefore, we’re just kind of reinstating things. So I think that the matter of your need, convenience, you know, you have family and visitors, not having this does not cause any substantial damage to you and your immediate family enjoying the use of the property, or maybe suffering a bit of inconvenience when you have some company visiting you. So for those reasons, as much as I’d like to, as I admit, it’s a beautiful piece of property, and that barn, I would hope, although it’s not part of my argument, that you could find other uses for it, analogous to the many interests you have, but I’m sorry I could not support this application favorably. Thank you. MR. STONE-This is why I get paid the big bucks. First of all, I want to go on record in saying how proud I am of my Board. I think you have heard, however I go, and quite frankly I’m going to talk and I’ll see when I start talking where I’m going, but I’m very proud of the Board that they have given great consideration to this thing. They have listened to every argument that has been made, both by Counsel for the applicant, the applicant, and by the neighbors who have some concerns, and having said that, there are a number of concerns. One, I applaud the applicant for saying we would be willing to site plan to make sure that the septic system is in fact one that will support what is going on on this property, both the old house, with its occasional surges or weekend surges, and that’s always been a concern of mine, that we don’t regulate rental properties on the lake in Queensbury, as well as we should. We have a house that has two bathrooms, two bedrooms, and then we pile in 38 people for the weekend, and no septic system can handle that. I’m exaggerating for effect, obviously. So that’s a concern that I have. So if, in fact, the Planning Board, in its infinite wisdom, and we would refer it to them, make sure that the septic system is, in fact, large enough that however many people get in there, that it can handle it, and that’s a big concern of mine, personally. I’m also 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) concerned, however, that we can’t control certain things. I mean, we can ask the applicant to state that she will not rent this out. That she will not expand it, and we can put this in the record, in the motion, but we can’t do anything about it. We are not the police. We cannot go walking into the house and say, now there are three bedrooms in here when you said there was only going to be one. We have to certainly go on the faith of the applicant, and we certainly can put it in the motion that the applicant says to us, and we would if we go there. As I listen to all these arguments, and I know I’m going all over the place, because I am all over the place. Certainly if we follow the test, the benefit to the applicant is obviously very clear. The feasible alternatives, it could be subdivided, which would mean that obviously, as Counsel shows in the drawing, that the houses would have to the taken down and the land divided and then new buildings put up. Certainly the relief is substantial to the Ordinance. Now, this is one of those cases you either are two, or you are one, and there’s no halfway in the middle. So it’s obviously going to be substantial. The effects on the neighborhood, and that’s what’s probably going to cause me to go the way I’m going to go, and I can’t have suspense, I guess I’m going to have it. Mr. Urrico made a very interesting comment, one that I wrote down, that it will preserve open space, if we let this apartment be built, and I think that, to me, is the telling thing. I’m going to ask that in any motion to approve, because I will back an approval motion, that any motion puts as many legal limitations as we can, and as many suggestions as we can, namely that the applicant, put the applicant on notice that she has stated this, this and this. Now I don’t know, you’re the Counselor, Mr. Lapper. I don’t know what the, how much this is binding, but at least it will be in the record, and that’s sort of where I’m coming out. So, on balance, and this is one where the teeter totter is just barely over the edge, I would vote to approve this motion, and I would like a motion, Roy, to put all those things in that we have talked about from a negative/positive way, if you will. MR. URRICO-I hope somebody has been taking notes. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2002 ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Cleverdale Road. The applicant proposes to convert the downstairs in an already existing two-story barn structure into a 2,182 square foot one bedroom seasonal apartment. The benefit to the applicant would be that she would be able to convert this existing barn into a seasonal single-family dwelling. There are feasible alternatives which would include subdividing the parcel. In addition, the relief is substantial to the Ordinance, and it is determined that the effects on the neighborhood or community would be minimal, with the conditions that will be stated before this motion is completed here, and as far as the difficulty being self- created, in a sense it is, in a sense it is not because she’s taking a structure and making a good use out of it. The question here becomes the conditions, and I would state that in an effort to preserve the open space that would be a welcome benefit to subdivision of the property, that the following conditions be met. That it remain one bedroom. That there be no rental of the property, and that it not be subdivided. The applicant has agreed to these conditions, and then prior to construction, an engineering survey of the septic system be conducted, and that a site plan review be conducted by the Planning Board. That this is dependent on the plans being approved for a one-bedroom apartment, per New York State Building Codes. Duly adopted this 23 day of October, 2002, by the following vote: rd MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, before you ask for a vote, I wasn’t here at the meeting last month. I don’t know if the Zoning Administrator had pointed out that these floor plans are actually for a four bedroom apartment by New York State Building Code. Every one of the rooms is labeled. Dining room, office and living room have closets with doors on them, and so by Building Code they’re four bedrooms. We wouldn’t allow a building permit for this. So I don’t know if you want to make another condition that new floor plans be submitted for the Planning Board, showing this to be actually a one bedroom apartment by New York State Building Code. Did he bring that up at the last meeting? MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NULTY-No. MR. FRANK-I spoke with one of the Building Inspectors about this. New York State Building Code dictates that if a room has a closet with a door on it, it’s a bedroom. So again, they wouldn’t approve the plans. That’s the only reason why I’m bringing this up. There’s ways around this. I’m not going to go there, but I’m just saying, as the plans are now. MR. STONE-Well, then we should say that this is dependent on the plans being approved for a one bedroom per New York State Building Codes. MR. ABBATE-Can I ask a question? Isn’t a specific provision to determine whether or not a room is a bedroom, isn’t it determined by whether or not there is a window? MR. FRANK-We have a new New York State Building Code, you know, as of a few months ago. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. LAPPER-Bruce is right. That if an office has a closet with a door, it’s considered a bedroom. So the plans will have to get re-done. MR. ABBATE-Fine. Okay. No problem. Thank you. MR. STONE-So in other words, it must conform to New York State Building Codes. MR. LAPPER-For a one bedroom. MR. STONE-For a one bedroom apartment, and then it’s out of our hands. We have done our job. MR. ABBATE-That locks it in quite well. MR. STONE-Right. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-There you go. Next on the agenda, and again, the one that’s before us is a very limited item, gentlemen. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2002 TYPE II HOWARD AND JENNIFER NADLER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, ESQ. PROPERTY LOCATION: 15 ANTIGUA ROAD ZONE: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 728 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE WITH A HEIGHT OF 20 FT. THE DETERMINATION REQUESTED IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THEPREVIOUSLY DENIED VARIANCE APPLICATION. CROSS REF. AV 68-2002; BP 2002-729 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 2001-583 DEMOLITION; BP 2001-581 SFD; AV 63-2001; AV 101-2000; SPR 77-2000 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-So what is before us is, do we think this is different than the application that we denied previously, and I’ve been told by Staff that contrary to, and it’s still being researched, but, contrary to our previous thought that we needed a unanimous vote, a simple majority is all that’s necessary to say that this is significantly different. I’m trying to think where we go. Mr. Lapper, are you going to give us a quick rundown of why you think this is different, so that we can, we don’t need a public hearing on this thing. We just want to, we’ll decide whether we think it’s different from the 24 foot height that we turned down. MR. LAPPER-It was actually 22.5. I think that’s, the Board knows that we were attempting, last time, to work with the Board to make this a request that the Board would be satisfied with. We had applied for a six and a half foot variance from the 16 foot height requirement on a detached garage. I think that Staff pointed out that this is a 37 and a half percent reduction. We’re attempting to do something that gets a more attractive building that’ll look more in keeping with the attractive home that’s been designed, and also allow the applicant some upstairs storage, and at the same time convince the Board that it is minimal relief. So we’ve reduced the request by two and a half feet, which doesn’t sound like a lot of feet, but it’s a lot of percentage because we were only asking for six and a half to begin with. MR. STONE-So you’re asking for 24 feet of relief? MR. LAPPER-No, 20 feet of relief. MR. STONE-Four feet of relief. MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry, four feet of relief, four feet of relief from the sixteen foot requirement. MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen, any questions? Anybody feel violently opposed to the fact that it’s significant? Staff, well, why don’t we read Staff notes in there, I guess. It’s my fault. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 86-2002, Howard and Jennifer Nadler, Meeting Date: October 23, 2002 “Project Location: 15 Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 728 sq. ft. detached garage at 20 feet in height. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height requirement for detached garages as per the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-3A 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 structure at the proposed height in a compliant location in order to provide for much needed storage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited relative to the need for storage problem. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 4 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height requirement may be considered minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance (25%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Some of the difficulty may be attributed to the lack of suitable area to construct a storage shed large enough to accommodate the storage needs of the applicant. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 68-2002: denied 08/28/2002, 728 sq. ft. garage at 22.42 in height. AV 63-2001: 09/26/01; demolish existing structure and construct a 2662 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and a 784 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief for side setback, FAR, and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. BP 2001-583: 08/01/01; demolition of residence. BP 2001-581: 07/30/01; single-family dwelling and two-car detached garage (never issued). AV 79-2000: (withdrawn 10/18/00); single-family dwelling addition. AV 101-2000: 01/17/01; 1,178 sq. ft. first-floor addition and 624 sq. ft. garage. SP 77-2000: 03/20/01; 1,178 sq. ft. first-floor addition and 624 sq. ft. garage. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant claims the proposed garage will provide for much needed storage. The proposed garage would not be out of character with the neighborhood, and the applicant has provided statements in favor of the proposal from the immediate neighbors. The proposed garage would be well screened from the lake by mature evergreen trees (and the dwelling), and the cedar shake siding will help the structure blend in with the natural surroundings. In the opinion of staff, the current application is significantly different from AV 68-2002 (a proposed height reduction of 37.7%). SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-And the Staff notes should reflect that the Area Variance 68-2002 was denied on 8/28/02, a 728 square foot garage at 22.42 feet in height. Any questions, gentlemen? Are you prepared to make a determination? Let’s start with Norm. MR. HIMES-I think that this is, just in terms of the percentage, that yes, it is significantly different from the last application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Well, I would agree, too, that in my opinion that the applicant has made some significant changes. I would also agree that these significant changes would not be out of character with the neighborhood, and I would also agree that, if I recall correctly, that some of the neighbors, there were some favorable comments supporting your application. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would agree. I think it’s much more compliant than what the original plan was. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think there have been substantial enough alterations to warrant another hearing. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. It’s certainly a change. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll go along with the idea, yes. MR. STONE-And so will I. MOTION THAT, IN THE CASE OF AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2002 HOWARD AND JENNIFER NADLER THAT THE BOARD FINDS IT’S SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUSLY DENIED APPLICATION, AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2002, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) Duly adopted this 23 day of October, 2002, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-So we’ll see you next month, I assume? MR. LAPPER-Is that the case? MR. STONE-That’s the case. We don’t hear it at the same time. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. STONE-Right, Mr. Frank? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. They already are on the agenda for next month. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I thought, from the Staff notes, that we were on for both, and I guess we’ll be back next month. MR. STONE-You’ll be back next month. MR. LAPPER-What are the two meeting dates? MR. STONE-One is the day before Thanksgiving, and the week before that. MR. LAPPER-Do you know yet? MR. STONE-Yes, it’s the 17 and the 24, I think. Who’s got a calendar? 20 and 27. Thank you, thththth Thanksgiving is late. 20 and 27. thth MR. LAPPER-So I guess, because they’d like to get this thing under construction before winter, if we could request to be on the first agenda. We can always request. MR. STONE-You can always request. You can always request. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Sorry to disappoint you, but we never take them after we make a determination. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-2002 JOHN SALVADOR, JR. APPEAL FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S “POSITION” (DETERMINATION) THAT BECAUSE BOAT DOCK AND BOATHOUSES WERE REGISTERED IN 1981 AND 1982 PER 6NYCRR PART 646 (JULY 3, 1981) THEY ARE GRANDFATHERED AND THEREFORE LEGALLY PRE-EXISTING. TAX MAP NO. NONE INDICATED PROPERTY LOCATION: LAKE GEORGE SHORELINE FROM TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE TO TOWN OF FORT ANN JOHN SALVADOR, JR., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 3-2002, John Salvador, Jr., Meeting Date: October 23, 2002 “Information Requested: Applicant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking information regarding the grandfathering of legally pre-existing structures. Staff comments: The August 13, 2002 Memorandum from the Zoning Administrator does not take the position claimed by the Appellant in question number 7. The Zoning Administrator’s position is not “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.” This is not a statement from the August 13, 2002 memo and as such should not be considered accurate, nor should it be the basis for any appeal, as it is not the position of the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator’s position is that “the number, location, spacing and size of the docks on both parcels (Smith & Hopper) shall be considered “grandfathered” with the exception of the lengths of the docks on the Smith property”. This determination was and is based on the facts found in the Town of Queensbury building permit records and is supported by the building permits issued for the docks. No additional information or documents were submitted in support of the Appellant’s position.” MR. STONE-Why don’t you read the August 13 memo. th 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. STONE-I apologize for not doing it first. MR. MC NULTY-This is the August 13, 2002 memorandum from Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator, addressed to the Planning Board, and he says “In response to your direction for staff to gather additional data for the above referenced applicants, I requested, by letter dated July 25, 2002, information from the Lake George Park Commission and the Warren County Department of Public Works. As referenced in the staff notes from George Hilton, the information we received from the LGPC and from our old Building Permits, indicates that the current number and placement of docks on both the Smith and Hopper properties are consistent with those conditions in the early 1980’s. As referenced in Molly Gallagher’s letter of July 26, 2002, “…operation of marinas after July 3, 1981 required a permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.” The LGPC indicates that neither Smith nor Hopper have a current or past Marina permit. As referenced in William Remington’s letter of August 9, 2002, “…the Warren County Department of Public Works is not authorized to issue parking permits…” Mr. Remington’s letter also clarifies that the work permits issued by the County DPW are just that; permits to perform the work in the right of way, not permits to use the right of way. As such, it is my position that the number, location, spacing and size of the docks on both parcels shall be considered “grandfathered” with the exception of the lengths of the docks on the Smith property. Our building permit records indicate an original construction length of 24 ft with additions to reach a total of 30 feet. The docks, as depicted in the current application, range from 33 to 36 feet in length. Area Variances and Building permits shall be required if the additional, unrecorded lengths are to be maintained. If an approval is contemplated, it may be conditioned upon the granting of an Area Variance…no variance, docks must be reconfigured to original length. In the absence of a current or past LGPC marina permit or documented supporting information from either applicant regarding continuous, uninterrupted rental of the docks from a date prior to 1981 and through today, it is my position, still, that both properties are subject to review by the Planning Board for a Special Use Permit for the operation of a marina. I agree with Mr. Remington’s statement that places the responsibility for establishing parking regulations with the Town. Currently, this section of Pilot Knob Road is not restricted, signed or otherwise marked to prohibit parking along the roadway. However, I do not consider the use of the public right of way, to accommodate the necessary parking for a project, as a practice that should be widespread. It is my opinion that if a subject property cannot support all necessary improvements and appurtenances, the burden must not be passed on to other properties. Public lands should not be utilized for the furtherance of any private project. If the subject properties can demonstrate the ability to support the proposed use and not present any significant adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community, the project should be approvable. Such an approval can include any reasonable performance conditions.” MR. STONE-Before we start, Mr. Salvador, Mr. Frank, if I read your Staff notes correctly, I’m wondering why this was put on the agenda, if you don’t think it’s a valid appeal. MR. FRANK-For the record, these are not my Staff notes. These are the Zoning Administrator’s Staff notes. MR. STONE-So why did the Zoning Administrator feel they should be on the, if he says that that’s not what he said? MR. FRANK-That’s a good question, and I can’t answer it for the Zoning Administrator. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I have a point of clarification please. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Help me out, please. The Staff notes addresses grandfathering of legally pre-existing structures. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Does this automatically preclude the illegally pre-existing docks? There are illegally pre- existing docks. Those are illegal docks that don’t meet the criteria today. So we have two categories of docks. We have the grandfathering (lost words) pre-existing structure what this addresses, but what is not addressed is the illegal pre-existing docks that do not meet the criteria today. So we’re going to preclude those. MR. STONE-I’m not sure what we’re going to do. That’s why I’m wondering why we even have this on the agenda. I know that the point that Mr. Salvador, I believe, is trying to make, and I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I believe the word that he places most of his emphasis on, if I’m wrong, correct me, is the word “legal”. That these docks are, in fact, pre-existing, nonconforming and legal. That’s the point, I believe, as I interpret this thing, but I’m still wondering if the Zoning Administrator says he didn’t say that, what are we listening to an appeal for? And I don’t mean to, you know, I don’t want to cut you off at the pass. I don’t understand. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. SALVADOR-You won’t. MR. ABBATE-Five minutes. MR. HIMES-No, he has more than five minutes. MR. STONE-No, he’s the applicant. MR. ABBATE-I know. MR. STONE-I’m inclined to let you speak for a few minutes, to tell us why you think that’s what he said, because he’s not here to speak, except for this piece of paper, which says he didn’t say what you said he said, if I’m making any sense whatsoever. It’s almost as much sense as Mr. Abbate makes in that last thing. MR. ABBATE-Well, since you raised that issue, do you know why I made such a long dissertation? Because he doesn’t like to hear us setting precedent. So I made that long dissertation. Instead of saying we shouldn’t set a precedence, I went into that long dissertation. I’m using different language now, hoping it gets confusing. MR. STONE-Okay. Do you want to take a couple of minutes and try to explain what you think you’re doing and why you think he said what he said? Introduce yourself, sir. MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. As a point of order, everyone has a right to bring an appeal before this Board. You don’t need anyone’s permission. MR. STONE-But you have to have something to appeal. MR. SALVADOR-Exactly, and I filed my Notice of Appeal. You can determine whether or not I have a valid appeal. That’s your job. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. SALVADOR-Not the Zoning Administrator’s. I’m appealing the Zoning Administrator’s action. MR. STONE-But he says he didn’t make that action, but go ahead. We’re discussing. Go ahead. MR. SALVADOR-All right. As outlined in your agenda for this session of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, I am taking an appeal from the Zoning Administrator’s position of August 13 as to a matter th dealing with the number, location, spacing and size of docks associated with the Special Use Permit applications for two Class A Marina’s in the Town of Queensbury, on Lake George. As you know, I am not a party to either of these two Special Use Marina Permits, presently stalled before the Planning Board. However, I have been involved in the operation of a marina on Lake George for almost 30 years, and did serve on the Town’s Comprehensive Planning Committee which set the Special Use Permit requirement for Class A and Class B Marinas in motion. Staff comments, and by the way, I should say I received these Staff comments in the mail on Saturday, and did not have a chance to respond until Monday. MR. STONE-Nor did I, because I was in the hospital. So that’s why I was a little bit floored by them, also. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. In any case, the Staff notes do make it emphatically clear that this determination was, and is based, on the facts found in the Town of Queensbury Building Permit records, and is supported by the building permits issued by for the docks. Which begs the question, where are the building permits? I haven’t seen any. They haven’t been submitted by the applicants. So I submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Town, and, due to Staffing limitations and a lot of other problems, vacations and all, I did not get a chance to see these building permits, those that do exist, until this morning, and in fact I was just given copies to fulfill my FOIL request this evening. In any case, what I would like to do this evening is to ask for an adjournment of my appeal. I would like an opportunity to review, in detail, these building permits that I’ve just received, and I would like to have an opportunity to come back, during your November term, and carry on this appeal. I’m asking for this for a number of reasons. Number One I just mentioned, additional evidence has come forth, and I may be able to convince Mr. Brown, in the meantime, that he is incorrect in his determination and therefore there would be no need for this appeal. There are workshop activities going on now in the Town between the Planning Board, the Town Board, the Staff, in the area of these Special Use Permits. There could be additional requirements, refinements to this permitting process out of that workshop that would preclude this appeal. The applicants don’t seem to be in a hurry to get these marina, site plan use permits from the Town. They’ve submitted nothing. They’re sort of sitting and waiting for the outcome of the workshop sessions, and that might result in zoning changes, and this subject, gentlemen, has basin wide significance. In the Town of Lake George, where we are presently resident, there is also a requirement that all marinas have a site plan use permit. None of them have, and we are working, in that 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) area, to bring that Town and those marinas into conformance. So I would ask that this appeal be tabled, or however you do it, adjourned. MR. STONE-I appreciate that, and I appreciate the comment you made about the importance of this discussion, which is the only reason my wife allowed me out of the house this evening, and now she’s going to take me home, and I agree that I think this is worthy of a great deal of discussion, and we shouldn’t be hasty, and I applaud your request for an adjournment, and I would so move. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Salvador, if I may, sir, in all respect, suggest to you that in your application for appeal from the Zoning Administrator’s decision, you specifically said, legally pre-existing. May I suggest you put legally and illegally pre-existing docks. Otherwise you preclude that portion of docks that are illegal. MR. STONE-Well, his contention is they’re all illegal. MR. SALVADOR-No. My contention is, to be grandfathered, you must be legally pre-existing. If you’re not legally pre-existing, you don’t enjoy grandfathering privileges. MR. ABBATE-You’re absolutely correct. MR. SALVADOR-That’s all I’m saying. MR. ABBATE-You’re absolutely correct, but there are illegally pre-existing docks at the present time. That’s up to you. If you don’t want to encompass those, that’s up to you. MR. SALVADOR-No, those are the ones that we’re concerned about. MR. ABBATE-Right. Okay. MR. SALVADOR-But this is a very, very complicated, involved. MR. STONE-Yes, it is, absolutely. MR. SALVADOR-I can tell you. MR. STONE-And I’m going to put on record that, with Mr. Frank and Staff that the Zoning Board would like to be involved in any workshops that are held to discuss this subject. I think the more people who are involved, the better off we’re going to do in this whole thing. MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-2002 JOHN SALVADOR, JR., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: For up to 62 days, so that Mr. Salvador has an option to review the FOIL’d information that he requested and received, and that the Town wide discussion continue in whatever form it takes. Duly adopted this 23 day of October, 2002, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Now I’m going. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you all. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5-2002 GILBERT O. BOEHM APPEAL FROM ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION SEPTEMBER 12, 2002; ACCESSORY USES AND DOCKS ON VACANT PARCELS; APPELLANT SPECIFICALLY SEEKING DETERMINATION ADDRESSING “USE” GRANDFATHERING; “USE” IS TOO GENERAL A TERM APPLIED TO GRANDFATHERING. PROPERTY OWNER: NONE INDICATED PROPERTY LOCATION: SECOND SHORE LOT NORTH OF DUNHAM’S BAY MARINA TAX MAP NO. NONE INDICATED GILBERT BOEHM, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 5-2002, Gilbert O. Boehm, Meeting Date: October 23, 2002 “Information Requested: Applicant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking information regarding “grandfathering.” Staff comments: The Appellant sought, in a letter dated August 26, 2002, a determination regarding Accessory Uses and the “grandfathering” status that may or may not apply to the same. The questions to which the Appellant is apparently seeking answers to are questions that deal with the use of the dock on the property and the “legality” of the same. The Zoning Administrator has not yet taken a position as to the location, size, spacing or use of the docks. The Zoning Administrator has requested information from the affected property owner (August 20, 2002) and to date has not yet received the same. Upon receipt of the requested information, the Zoning Administrator will be in the position to make a determination relative to the usage of the dock. This appeal deals with and should be limited to the September 12, 2002 letter to Mr. Boehm from the Zoning Administrator, in which matters of Accessory Structures are described. No use determinations have been made to date.” MR. HAYES-We read the September 12 letter in, did we? th MR. MC NULTY-I think we probably should, if I can get down to it here. MR. HAYES-Yes. We’ve had some reference to it in the Staff notes. So we probably should. MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got it. This is the September 12, 2002 letter that’s referred to in the Staff notes. It’s from Craig Brown, and it’s addressed to Mr. Boehm, and Mr. Brown says, “I am writing in response to your request for a determination with regards to Accessory Uses. It is my understanding that you are specifically seeking clarification of the Town’s position regarding docks on vacant parcels. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance describes an Accessory Structure as: “ A building or structure subordinate and clearly incidental to the principal building on the same lot and used for a purpose customarily incidental to those of the principal building.” In the case of a vacant parcel, it is my determination that a Use Variance would be necessary if one wished to establish an Accessory Structure prior to a principal building on the property. In the event of a pre-existing accessory structure on an otherwise vacant parcel, it is my determination that the pre-existing non-conforming structure; ( non-conforming because there is no principal building ) could be continued and maintained, but not enlarged without a Use Variance. Hopefully, this will answer your questions. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact this office.” MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Boehm? MR. BOEHM-You’ll notice that this process is presently stalled. As he says, he can’t determine, can’t render a determination because there’s no response from the owner. He will never get one from the owner, because you, in turn, have no leverage on the owner. The owner, for the last 20 years, in effect, has utilized the same philosophy for everything, including violations, notices of violations, requests that he get marina permits, etc. To date, there is no marina permit, and there has never been any follow through. Now, are we going to sit stalled, and if so, I’m saying that your general philosophy or your general process is flawed, because you have no leverage to induce an owner to go contrary to his benefit. By him responding, he just creates problems for himself. By sitting still, and being mum, you’re stalled. Now, what do you do? MR. HAYES-Well, I have a question for Staff. What is our leverage to require an answer to information requested pertinent to an appeal or to a use? MR. FRANK-Well, let me shed some light on this appeal. You don’t have to go there because the individual in question did, just recently, submit the information that the Zoning Administrator requested. So because the Zoning Administrator was on vacation until today, he has not had the opportunity to go over it thoroughly, but the individual that is mentioned in here, I don’t know if I need to mention his name, has supplied him with the information that he requested. That’s what I was informed of today, by the Zoning Administrator. MR. BOEHM-All right. That’s new news to me, and a surprise. Now I was hoping, and a result of the responses and the determination, to get into the usage issue, as opposed to the general philosophy which seemed to be, if there was an approved structure grandfathered, then usage, per say, was also grandfathered, and I’m saying that usage is separate from structure. As an illustration, if a structure was built so that you had four slips, but at one point or another there were objections and said you could only put three boats on those four slips. That’s the usage that limits those slips. Yet when the information may be presented to you, in terms of the physical structure, as pre-existing, you make the assumption that four slips represents four boats. That’s not necessarily true. So you need to look further. I will take another illustration. Mr. Salvador has, in the past, through his previous ownership, has had sea planes, and helicopters on his property. Now he can point to that as legally pre-existing use. Would you want that now? Now there are other laws restricting that. Yet he can say it was pre-existing. Now that’s a usage, as opposed to the physical structure. So I’m saying, as you look at the grandfathering issue, you’d better look deeper than just the physical structure. The physical structure can be misleading to you. One other point, was the physical structure legally built? And yet it was operated illegally as a marina. Now do you grandfather it because it’s been previously used as a physical structure for rent, commercially? Now you’d say no. So my appeal, or my request is that you better start 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) looking at the usage per se, separate from the physical evidence you’re presented with, in terms of physical structure. Now, Mr. Brown pointed me to the records at the Lake George Park Commission for additional information if I wanted some, and my looking through the history on this particular property that we’re talking about, it was built and registered as a U-shaped dock, 30 foot span wise. Okay. The piece of paper that was submitted indicated that the property could conceivably indicated as being 60 foot wide, because they had 15 feet on either side of the U-shaped dock. It leaves you with the conclusion that the property is 60 foot wide. It turns out the property is only 50 foot wide. Now, subsequently, through the years, there were questions as to whether or not it was being operated as a commercial dock. There were violations posted against it, served against it, by both the Park Commission and Mac Dean, requirement that they file for a marina permit, and they had to respond within 30 days. There’s no response in the record as to follow through. However, the following year, they applied for a marina permit. That marina permit request is in there, with no subsequent indication as to acceptance, denial, issuance, etc., and it lay that way, and it has laid that way until now. Now in the intervening time, the docks required repair. A repair request was filed, and granted. Now this is a repair request. Through the repair, and through the repair request, the span of the docks changed from 30 feet to 32 feet. So the applicant grew his dock, changed it. At the time of the marina request, there was a notice of, let me find out what the notice is called, application for notification of availability for review. Okay. Now this was for the marina request. There was a letter returned saying, hey, four slips, first of all, the applicant asked for a marina permit for four boats. A complaint was filed that four boats would have one boat overhanging the adjacent property line, because the docks were not centered on the property. They were slewed off center. Now, that could be why perhaps nothing further took place there, but you’ve now got, in the record, you’ve got an indication that there was an objection to four boats on these slips. The applicant now would probably say, hey, he’s been using four slips, and therefore he’s grandfathered. Here again, you have to look at the usage, and you have to look deeper into the record to find all of these differences, and these changes, many of which are nonconforming. MR. HAYES-Mr. Boehm, not trying to shorten your appeal, but I’m wondering, and a question for Staff, he’s appealing a decision that hasn’t been made, that was not made based on some new information, and we have the new information, which I’m hoping means that we’ll have a decision from the Zoning Administrator based on that information, new information. Right? I mean, that’s why he’s saying he had not made a determination, because he didn’t have the information that was requested? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-So I guess my concern, Mr. Boehm, is that we’re essentially going to hear this appeal twice, because he’s going to make a determination. MR. BOEHM-I agree. I accept. MR. HAYES-I mean, if you’d like to table it until the next meeting, if that’s okay with you. It just seems like that’s the most logical thing to do, get an actual determination. MR. BOEHM-I understand. MR. URRICO-Table it until the meeting after the decision is made. MR. HAYES-Right. Which I think should safely be made. MR. FRANK-Yes. The appeal may not be necessary once he makes his determination, now that he has the information. MR. BOEHM-I understand what you’re saying. I accept. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BOEHM-Okay. Thank you. MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5A-2002 GILBERT O. BOEHM, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Until after a decision is made by the Zoning Administrator on the subject parcel. Duly adopted this 23 day of October, 2002, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-2002 TYPE II JOSEPH, JR. AND BARB BRAYTON PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: JOSEPH BRAYTON, SR. PROPERTY LOCATION: 237 FULLER ROAD ZONE: SR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 960 SQ. FT. POLE BARN. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SIZE LIMITATIONS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (500 SQ. FT. OR LESS IS ALLOWED IN AN SR-1A ZONE). ALSO RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR AN ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY. CROSS REF. BP 2002-756 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 300.16-1-6 LOT SIZE: 12.52 ACRES SECTION 179-5-020 JOSEPH BRAYTON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 82-2002, Joseph, Jr. and Barb Brayton, Meeting Date: October 23, 2002 “Project Location: 237 Fuller Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 960 sq. ft. pole barn. Relief Required: Applicant requests 460 sq. ft. of relief from the 500 sq. ft. maximum size requirement for accessory structures and for a second accessory structure as per § 179-5- 020(D). 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 oversized structure to fulfill the need for additional storage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 460 sq. ft. of relief from the 500 sq. ft. maximum size requirement and relief for an additional accessory structure may be considered substantial relative to the Ordinance (92% and 100%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-756: pending approval of this application, 24’ x 40’ pole barn. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant claims a 500 sq. ft. accessory structure, allowed by code, would not meet their storage needs. If approved, the pole barn would not be visible from any of the neighboring properties due to the dense forest on and around the periphery of the property. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 9, 2002 Project Name: Brayton, Joseph, Jr. & Barb Owner: Joseph, Jr. & Barb Brayton ID Number: QBY-02-AV- 82 County Project#: Oct02-27 Current Zoning: SR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 960 sq. ft. pole barn. Relief is requested from size limitations for accessory structures (500 sq. ft. or less is allowed in an SR-1A zone). Also relief is requested for an additional accessory structure on the property. Site Location: 237 Fuller Road Tax Map Number(s): 300.16-1-6 Staff Notes: The applicant requests an Area Variance for the construction of a 960 sq. ft. pole barn that exceeds the minimum size requirements of an accessory structure in the SR-1A zone. The minimum size for an accessory structure in the SR-1A zone is 500 sq. ft. The project site is 12 +/- acres and the location of the pole barn is 60 feet from the west boundary and 225 ft. from the south boundary. The applicant indicates that the neighbors will not be able to see the structure. The plans show the location of the pole barn on the lot. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll 10/10/02. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Brayton? MR. BRAYTON-Yes. My name’s Joe Brayton. I’d just like to say, I should say, none of the neighbors can see any of my property. I think that’s what it was supposed to mean, and I’d just like to also say that I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Himes. He was concerned with future development, seeing I had 12 and a half acres of property, with no neighbors, other than my father being the closest, and I’d just like to say that I was always under the impression, when I built the house, it was an LC-10A zoning, where you couldn’t build anymore houses on there, but I was kind of surprised it said, you know, 1A, and also it would be very difficult to develop anymore of the property, because of the 24 inch city water main that runs the whole length of the property there. So I just wanted to get those concerns up front. Basically, the only other thing I wanted to bring up is in that 12 and a half acres, there is only 50 foot of road frontage. So really that’s my driveway and nobody else could ever build anything in there. MR. HAYES-Nothing else to add to your application? MR. BRAYTON-I don’t believe so. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions of the applicant at this time? MR. HIMES-Just one, please. I remember we talked about the, you showed me all the stuff you’ve got out there, and a sailboat or something, and the rest and I was wondering if you might have a floor plan, so to speak, that would kind of indicate why you need this much storage? MR. BRAYTON-Actually, I know you recommended that, and I didn’t draw up a floor plan, but, actually this building is going to be small. I have two kids with cars also. I have the boat. I have my tractor. I maintain 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) the property. I have all the attachments. I have the jet ski. I have a utility trailer, and this would certainly be better looking and more convenient to have it stored inside rather than five or six tarps sticking in my back yard with things covered up. MR. ABBATE-That shed is going to be beyond that basketball court in that little corner, correct? MR. BRAYTON-Yes. MR. ABBATE-That piece of wood that’s cut out there, so to speak? MR. BRAYTON-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes, okay. MR. HAYES-Any other questions of the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And it’s time for us to talk about it. I guess I’ll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes. I don’t really see any problems with this application. The only question, as far as the criteria, as far as the benefit to the applicant, the feasible alternatives, obviously, there would be a benefit to the applicant, and the feasible alternatives seem to be limited, because of the way the property is structured. As far as the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, it is a substantial relief, but I think part of that is mitigated by the size of the property and I recall a similar situation that occurred earlier this year, of a property up on Gurney Lane, and we didn’t seem to have a problem with the size of the structure because of the amount of property that was involved. Effects on the neighborhood would be absolutely minimal, if non-existent, and as far as the condition being self-created, I think it is, but I really think this is a good project, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’d be in agreement with Roy. I think we had previously, the one on Gurney Lane was Nelson Miller’s house, and he has 30 acres up there, and this one is 12 acres. I think that the fact that it’s not going to be seen by any neighbors or anybody else, it’s going to give you more storage space is to your benefit to have that, and, you know, with the luxury of that large lot, I don’t think it’s any problem for us to grant this variance. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I agree. I, quite frankly, believe that this structure would add to your property, in terms of appearance and what have you, and you do have 12 and a half acres there, or approximately 12 and a half acres, and the feasible alternatives, I believe, as you indicated, are limited also by that water main. Am I correct on that? MR. BRAYTON-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. MR. BRAYTON-It pretty much splits the property. MR. ABBATE-Yes, and it’s, I don’t see any negative effects on the neighborhood, and I do believe that your request is reasonable, and I would support it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I agree with fellow Board members. I have nothing further to add. I would support the application as submitted. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Chuck? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree. I normally would be opposed to this kind of an increase, but this is kind of a unique piece of property. There is, as has been mentioned, several acres there. So I don’t think it’s going to be a problem, or objectionable, in the area. Plus another thing impressed me, you didn’t have all your toys scattered all around the front yard when I got there. A lot of times we get requests like this and what you look at is almost a junkyard to begin with. So that encourages me that your goal is to neaten up the property and keep it neat. I don’t see any impact on neighbors or anything. So I think the test falls in favor of the applicant, to their benefit, and I don’t see a detriment to the neighborhood. So I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I, essentially, agree with my other Board members. I think that our test is largely the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the neighborhood. I don’t see any detriment to the neighborhood. So my only real consideration at that point would be the benefit to the applicant. I think they’ve laid out some plausible reasons why they need this additional storage or this building. I’m satisfied in that regard. So I would be in favor of the application. Having said that, is there a motion out there? MR. ABBATE-I’ll take it, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-2002 JOSEPH, JR. AND BARB BRAYTON, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 237 Fuller Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 960 square foot pole barn. Relief required, the applicant is requesting 460 square feet of relief from the 500 square foot maximum size requirement for accessory structures and for a second accessory structure as per Section 179-5-020(D). Benefit to the applicant. Obviously, the applicant will be permitted to construct the oversized structure to fulfill a need for additional storage, to include storing many of the objects that are currently exposed to the elements at the present time. Feasible alternatives. They are extremely limited, particularly when you take into consideration the water main which I do believe crosses through your property. Is this relief substantial relief to the Ordinance? 460 square foot of relief from the 500 square foot maximum size requirement, and relief for an additional accessory structure may be considered substantial relief relative to the Ordinance (92% and 100%). This is a true statement. However, this is a rather unique piece of property, and I do believe, in my opinion, that mitigates that relatively high Ordinance increase. Effects on the neighborhood or community. I do not see any negative impacts on the neighborhood or the community. I see nothing but positive impacts, and is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, but there is an urgent need for storage of objects that are currently stored in the open, and in view of this, Mr. Chairman, I submit that we approve Area Variance No. 82-2002. Duly adopted this 23 day of October, 2002, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. HAYES-There you go. MR. BRAYTON-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-2002 TYPE I DOUGLAS & DEBORAH PETROSKI PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: CURTIS D. DYBAS PROPERTY LOCATION: 53 FITZGERALD ROAD ZONE: WR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF FIRST FLOOR DECKING AND TO REBUILD THE DECK WITH WALKWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. CROSS REF. BP 2002-626 DOCK; BP 93-262 PORCH; SPR 9-93; SPR 8-93 AV 9-1993 TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-3 LOT SIZE: 0.39 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030 CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 81-2002, Douglas & Deborah Petroski, Meeting Date: October 23, 2002 “Project Location: 49 Fitzgerald Road (advertised as 53 Fitzgerald Road) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of first floor decking and replace with a larger deck and attached window washing walkway that extends to the southwest corner of the dwelling (increase of 162 sq. ft.). Relief Required: Applicant requests 25.75 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-1A Zone, § 179-4-030. However, the applicant needs 30 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement as the measurement should be taken to the closest section of shore. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to build the deck and window washing walkway in the desired location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 30 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance (60%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 113-1996: approved 12/18/96, north side setback relief not requested for a section of single family home approved in AV 78-1996. AV 78-1996: shoreline and south side setback relief for single family home. SP 9-93: approved 02/23/93, construction of an 8’ x 22’ dock. SP 39-89: approved 06/22/89, replace decaying stairs and deck with new stairs and deck. AV 41-1989: approved 04/19/89, shoreline setback relief to replace decaying stairs and deck. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed deck and walkway if approved will encroach on the shoreline setback less than the existing stone patio and the attached existing wood deck below, which was granted relief in a previous variance. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-Dr. Petroski? MR. DYBAS-I’m Curt Dybas. MR. HAYES-Do you have anything you’d like to add to your application? DOUGLAS PETROSKI DR. PETROSKI-No, I don’t. MR. DYBAS-The only thing I’d like to add is I have to apologize for not knowing we had to measure from the back side of the boathouse for shoreline setback. I didn’t think that was shoreline, but. MR. HAYES-Well, that’s what you pay your taxes for I guess. If you have nothing to add to your application. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I just wanted to ask, I think I maybe have the answer, but the deck being brought up, is that so you have a continuous line all the way across where that part of it that you’re putting on so you can get at the windows? MR. DYBAS-You are correct. MR. HIMES-And I guess this doesn’t have a heck of a lot to do with the application. I wonder if two feet would be enough. How do you wash the windows now? And how are you going to do it two feet? I mean, looking down that way and up this way. DR. PETROSKI-The two foot walkway is directly in front of the windows. The top of the window would be only slightly higher than a man’s head, and right now the windows are washed by someone who has to cable themselves to the front of the building, or use pump jacks, which we find so dangerous we can’t watch them do it. MR. HIMES-That’s understandable. Yes, that’s what I was looking at, but I had, when I was over there, got a little mixed up about the existing. MR. ABBATE-And receives hazardous duty pay for that, right? DR. PETROSKI-I don’t think so. I just hope they all have insurance. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? None? Having said that, I will therefore open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would wish to speak in favor of the application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HAYES-For the record, Mrs. Kane has delivered a letter which we’re going to read as a matter of correspondence. I guess we can read it now. You’re saying you’re in favor of the application? AILEEN KANE MRS. KANE-Absolutely. MR. HAYES-Okay. Why don’t we read it now, as a matter of. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We’ve got one other piece of correspondence. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. HAYES-All right. We’ll save the correspondence. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed to the application? MR. MC NULTY-Why don’t we read the correspondence. MR. HAYES-Okay. There we go. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We have two pieces of correspondence. The first one is from Mrs. Kane. She says, “I live next door to the Petroski’s – south-east side. They are homeowners who take pride in their property and spend a great deal of time and effort improving it. They have always made sure that any changes and improvements follow guidelines and rules set down by the Town of Queensbury and the Planning Board. I have no objection to this project. M. Aileen Kane” The other piece of correspondence we have is from Dr. and Mrs. Kim, and they show their address at 23 Fitzgerald Road, and they say, “We have no objections to the proposed removal of first floor decking and rebuilding the deck with walkway. Sincerely, Hyung R. Kim, M.D. Eleonora Kim” MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. That being the end of the correspondence, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-I’d like to discuss it with the Board members. I’ll start with Chuck, and I do go in order, guys. Excuse me, Jim, I almost contradicted myself. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I live on the lake. I live a few houses down from here, and I use this as an example of one of the homes on the lake that is naturalized. It does fit in, you know, with the environment that it exists in, and I think that they have always gone the extra yard as far as trying to naturalize their property. In my opinion, I think it would fit in. The two foot walkway to wash the windows is probably an obviously good thing to do, given the fact that people are risking their lives to clean windows up there now, and I think that the deck itself, because it’s going to be over the top of an impermeable surface, down below it’s really not going to add anything, as far as detriment. It’s probably going to be like the other decks on the house, it’ll fit in there. So I don’t have a problem with it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I don’t see any adverse impact. I think what the applicant is requesting makes a lot of sense. It will probably reduce his insurance premiums. You won’t have to worry about paying hazardous duty pay anymore, but if I were to place myself in your position, I would probably request the same thing, and so it would be very difficult for me to say no. I think it makes sense. I think it’s logical, and I see no adverse impact on the area or the community, or the neighborhood. So I would be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I agree. I think that, you know, sometimes these things might be said, we’re compounding a situation by adding more to something that already had a variance to get close to the lake in the first place, but you’re really not going any closer to the lake now, than what you have already in place going out towards the water, with the deck below it, and if you were adding on to the side of the house, you wanted a variance for something over there, that would be a little different. So, you know, we aren’t making things any worse, I don’t think, and certainly, looking at the house now, with that railing going all the way across, it’s better looking, by far, with that on there, then it is now, in my opinion, so, given the need, as expressed by my fellow Board members, I agree there is a real need, and I support the application as submitted. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’ll basically agree. I think, you know, the benefit to the applicant is obvious with this. Feasible alternatives, the only real alternative is simply re-deck the existing deck and not do the walkway. If this were totally new construction, it would strike me as being substantial relief, and I’d probably be opposed, but it’s not new construction. It’s replacing something that’s there. I don’t think it’s going to be obvious that it extends any further towards the lake than what the existing deck does when it’s all done and said with, and I think, if anything, it’ll have a positive effect on the neighborhood. It certainly is not going to be a detriment. The difficulty, in a sense, is self-created, because it’s something the applicant wants to do, but on the other hand, it’s partly because of the way the house was built, but I think, clearly, in summation, that the test falls to the benefit to the applicant, and I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I know that applicants sometimes sit out in the gallery before their thing and wonder, oh, my God this is going to be rough, but good applications are easy to approve, and this certainly is a good application. I have to agree with the comments of my other Board members. Jim Underwood’s kind of become our Glen Lake czar. We have a Lake George czar, but Jim’s kind of our Glen Lake czar now, and 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) I agree. It’s a very well maintained property. Certainly the things that are proposed by the applicant are done so for reasons other than necessarily just getting closer to the lake. I think there’s been some compelling reasons, safety, and aesthetics, to make this motion, and I think it carries easily. Having said that, I’d like to ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-2002 DOUGLAS & DEBORAH PETROSKI, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 49 Fitzgerald Road. Applicant proposes removal of the first floor decking and replacement with a larger deck and attached window washing walkway that extends to a southwest corner of the dwelling, for an increase of 162 square feet. The relief requested is 25.75 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-1A zone, Section 179-4-030. However, the applicant needs 30 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement, as the measurement should be taken to the closest section of the shore. So in actuality it’s 30 feet of relief. The benefit to the applicant, he would be permitted to build the deck and window washing walkway in the desired location. Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. Is the relief substantial? Thirty feet of relief from the fifty- foot minimum shoreline setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate, relative to the Ordinance, but the house is there. It’s a pre-existing home, and it wouldn’t be increasing any setbacks from the water, other than what they already is. It’s actually going to be a little less than the patio down below. Effects on the neighborhood. Minimal effects would be anticipated. It will probably fit in well with the rest of the home at the present time. Minimal impacts. Duly adopted this 23 day of October, 2002, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. HAYES-There you go, Doctor. Enjoy. DR. PETROSKI-Thank you. MR. DYBAS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-2002 TYPE II WILLIAM AND PENNY BLACK PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: JOE ROULIER PROPERTY LOCATION: 13 FIELDING LANE, CLEVERDALE ZONE: WR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING ONE-STORY DWELLING AND CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY DWELLING AND CONVERT A SECOND SMALLER DWELLING INTO A GARAGE. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM SIDE SETBACK AND THE FAR REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. CROSS REF. BP 98-269 INTERIOR ALT; BP 99-069 ROOF OVER BOATHOUSE ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-16 LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030 JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 83-2002, William and Penny Black, Meeting Date: October 23, 2002 “Project Location: 13 Fielding Lane, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing one-story dwelling and construct a 3,625 sq. ft. two-story dwelling and convert a second smaller dwelling into a 660 sq. ft. garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6.5 and 6.13 feet of side setback relief for both sides from the 15-foot minimum side setback requirement, and 14.7% of relief from the 22% Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 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 may include an expansion of the existing dwelling with a FAR requiring less relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 6.5 feet and 6.13 feet of relief from the 12-foot side setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance, considering relief is being requested for both sides (43.3 and 40.9%). 14.7% of relief from the 22% maximum FAR requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance (66.8%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Some of the difficulty may be attributed to the size of the preexisting nonconforming parcel. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 99-069: issued 06/25/99, replace peaked boathouse roof with sundeck. SP 26-99: approved 06/22/99, replace peaked boathouse roof with a sundeck. AV 47-1999: approved 06/16/99, side setback relief for boathouse roof replacement with sundeck. BP 98-269: issued 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) 05/26/98, interior alterations to 1,537 sq. ft. dwelling. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant proposes to eliminate the smaller dwelling by converting it into a garage, thereby making the site compliant with regard to that section of the Ordinance. The applicant proposes a moderate to substantial FAR, which they claim will meet their needs for a year round home. However, should the application be approved, none of the next-door neighbor’s view will be impacted, and the land across the road is owned by the NYS DEC to remain forever wild. Any difference in the appearances from the lake will be minimal due to the screening by the large mature trees. Staff suggests discussing the benefits of eliminating an additional dwelling (which could be used as rental property) and allowing for an increase in the FAR. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 9, 2002 Project Name: Black, William and Penny Owner: William and Penny Black ID Number: QBY-02-AV-83 Warren County Project#: Oct02-26 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to demolish existing one-story dwelling (1620.26 sq. ft.) and construct a two-story dwelling (3310.74 sq. ft.) and convert a second smaller dwelling into a garage. Applicant seeks relief from side setback and the FAR requirements. Side yard (east) 15’ is required; 8.87’ is proposed and side yard (west) 15’ is required; 8.5’ is proposed. Site Location: 13 Fielding Lane, Cleverdale Tax Map Number(s): 227.13-2-16 Staff Notes: The applicant requests a variance for the construction of an addition to an existing home that does not meet the zoning requirements. The applicant proposes to modify an existing 1 ½ story home with 1,620 sq. ft. of living space with a two story home with 3,310 +/- sq. ft. of living space. The existing home exceeds the 22% floor area ratio at 25% and the proposed floor area ratio is about 35%. In addition the existing home does not meet the side setback requirements where the existing is about 10 ft. and 15 ft. is required; the applicant proposes 8 +/- ft. The applicants plans also indicate that an existing secondary residence will be converted to a garage. Staff recommends discussion to request the applicant to provide information on erosion and stormwater control measures. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact The applicant provided requested information about erosion and stormwater control measures. The Board recommends No County Impact.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 10/10/02. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Please state your name for the record. MR. ROULIER-My name’s Joe Roulier, and I’m representing Penny and William Black. I’m here for any questions that you may have, and certainly explain our position on this and why we think it’s a reasonable request for this Board. MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to the application, as it was read, or clarify anything? MR. ROULIER-Yes. I have, actually, a question for Mr. Frank. In the Staff notes, Number Three, that 12 foot side line setback, I was under the impression that it was a 15 foot side line setback. MR. HIMES-It says, further up the form, it says 15, under Relief Required. Then it says 12 down. MR. ROULIER-It says 12. So it would affect the percentage calculations that we have. MR. FRANK-I think that’s a typo, because it’s a 50 foot wide lot, and 50 and 60 feet requires 15 foot side setbacks. MR. ROULIER-All right. I just want to, so do the percentages that have been calculated? MR. FRANK-All right. Let me crunch it real quick for you, and I’ll let you know. MR. ROULIER-All right. MR. HIMES-While he’s doing that, could I ask you a question? MR. ROULIER-Absolutely. MR. HIMES-It’s probably, it’s on the site development data sheet, and down on the setback requirements under height, you’ve got what looks like a mathematical greater than sign. MR. ROULIER-Right. MR. HIMES-And then plus over minus, 28 feet. MR. ROULIER-Right. That, I can assure you, will not exceed 28 feet. In fact, I was asked by Mr. Frank about that. I was also, I spoke to Craig Brown about that, and I assured him that this structure, even though it scales, on that plan that was submitted, to slightly over 28 feet, it would be limited to 28 feet. It would not go over that, even if there’s a revision. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. ROULIER-I would just like to make a few comments. First of all, I’m a firm believer of variances and I’m a firm believer of the floor area ratio. What they allow the Town to do, what they allow the Boards to do, are to be able to sit back and say, hey, look it, let’s take a really good, hard look at this proposal. Even though you have that capability, through the ZBA, through the variance process, the addition of the floor area ratio gives you one more thing to basically hang your hat on, saying, we really want to evaluate this. We want to see how substantial this proposal is going to affect the neighbors in that area. That’s what the floor area ratio is designed to do. Is it going to either, is it going to encumber the adjoining properties? Is it going to devalue the adjoining properties? Is it in any way going to affect the character of the neighborhood or the pleasures that neighbors have on those properties? The floor area ratio and the variance give us great opportunities to make those evaluations. In this particular case right here, yes, we’re exceeding the floor area ratio. I’ve been in front of this Board many times. I’ve probably asked, many times, for slight increases, sometimes moderate increases, in the floor area ratio, and I can assure you, every time that we’ve done builds on property, I’ve had adjoining neighbors come back and say, Joe, this looks really good. It does not have any detrimental effect on our property, if anything, every time we do a project like this any time there’s an enhancement of properties on Lake George, and you know it and I know it, the values continue to escalate. This proposal, even though, as Mr. Frank said, it might be considered moderate, will have no detrimental effect on the neighborhood. First of all, we’re not encroaching further on the lake. We have more than adequate setbacks, and, first and foremost, the setback from the lake should be the most consideration. Obvious erosion considerations, aesthetic considerations, they should be considered, and this project certainly meets those, when you look at the distance that the house, the proposed house, will be from the lake. The side line setbacks, yes, we’re asking to increase the size of the house by two feet on either side. I’m not asking for any more than what adjoining property owners have in that particular area. Most of them are closer than what we’re proposing to do, and most of the neighbors in that area have two story homes. So we’re not asking for a home that’s unrealistic, in terms of the size of the neighborhood or the character of the neighborhood. The biggest, the biggest benefit, unlike a previous application that was before you earlier tonight, asking for additional guest house on the property, what we’re proposing to do here is to take the guest house that’s currently on the property, eliminate it, turn it into a garage, meet the requirements by the Town of Queensbury for the height requirements. We are eliminating a guest house. The benefit to this little road is that there’s a decrease in the activity on the road, through renters or personal use, but more importantly, we would be upgrading not only the septic system of the new home that would be built there, but we would be eliminating, totally eliminating the septic system that’s now affiliated with the guest house. I can say without a doubt, and I’m sure this Board would agree with me, any time we approve new construction on Lake George, the first consideration, first and foremost, is where is the septic system going? What are you going to do for the septic? Will it be back from the shore 100 feet? This proposal eliminates the septic, eliminates a guest house, and puts an entirely brand new septic system on that piece of property. The structure that we would be building is a one family structure. It is for his personal use only. No renters on the property whatsoever. I can go on and on and on about the benefits to the neighborhood, but I can assure you right now, and I’m relatively sure that most of the Board members have probably gone up and visited the site. I did the project right to the west of Mr. Black, which is Mr.Van Schaick. It’s almost an identical sized home. That’s 28 feet. The overall width of the structure is almost identical. The length of the structure is almost identical. We’re not asking for anything out of the ordinary for what we have allowed in that particular area. One of the other big benefits to, in my opinion, why you should approve this application, no views will be encumbered. As I said to you earlier, one of the biggest considerations of the floor area ratio is that, are you affecting other people. What is the affect of this project. I’ll give you an example. If I were to come in to you and say, here’s this proposal on 50 feet of shoreline and I want to build this over on Rockhurst, for example, where we have basically story and a half, smaller pieces of property, now we want to put something up 2800 feet. I would be embarrassed to bring that particular project in to you, but over in this area, where we have two story homes, where this particular house will fit in to there, where it will absolutely not encumber either the neighbor to the east, west, and more importantly anyone to the rear, because it is State owned property, I think it should be approved. The other consideration is if you would look at the site development data that is presented in front of you, and I just want to check with Mr. Frank. Does the Board have the updated numbers that we discussed the other day? MR. FRANK-They don’t, actually, I don’t think we even had the opportunity to discuss it. I have with a couple of members that I hand delivered the notes to. The amount of floor area relief that was requested is greater than what’s needed, based on the numbers for the area. This survey map has an area of .25 acres on it. It’s larger than .25 acres. Again, I can’t just establish numbers on my own. I determined what I thought it was, and Mr. Roulier came in with me and met with me on Monday. We went over together and he concurred. So the figures you have before you now are accurate. MR. ROULIER-Can I just explain the basis of that? MR. FRANK-Sure. Before you go there, Mr. Roulier, also, that’s a typo, that 12 foot. Those percentages are based on a 15 foot requirement. So you can just change that from 12 to 15. Sorry, go ahead. MR. ROULIER-Okay. When I initially prepared this map, I had prepared it from a map drawn by Van Dusen and Steves, and I, of course, relied on the numbers that were provided to this, and I went from iron 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) stake to iron stake, and then the numbers that I originally submitted were based on the square footage of that calculation, based on the survey. When I met with Mr. Frank, and after we reviewed the property, there’s a considerable amount of additional square footage on the lake side that’s beyond those stakes that would be considered part of Mr. Black’s property. So because of that additional calculation, because of that additional square feet, I was able to reduce the requested percentage increase in the floor area ratio. I just wanted the Board to be aware of that. All right. MR. HAYES-The number that we have in the Staff notes now is accurate? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. What you have on the application was inaccurate, okay. MR. HAYES-But the Staff notes are? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. ROULIER-I think what’s most important here is regarding the site development of the property, and if you refer to the different percentages of the existing square footage that is nonpermeable, versus the proposed square footage of nonpermeable, we’re talking 29.7%, to increasing to 30.65%. So we’re basically talking a .95 increase in the actual use of the property. So even though the floor area ratio exceeds that, the actual use of the property is nominally increasing, and I think that’s important for the Board to realize that. I have several letters, actually I have three letters, and I know Mr. Frank has a letter from one of the, or two of the adjoining people now, or one. MR. FRANK-I believe two were submitted, unless something came in besides. MR. ROULIER-Right, and these letters are from adjoining neighbors who indicate that they approve it or have no problem with the proposed plans. They’ve reviewed the proposed plans, and I think, when you go back to why we go through the variance process, why we have the floor area ratio, it is to protect the adjoining neighbors. It’s so that a project like this isn’t burdensome on the neighbors in that area, and when you have neighbors writing letters in support of a project like this that are immediately adjacent to it or once removed from this, it says to the Board, look it, we’re the ones that have to live with it. We feel as though Mr. Black is a good neighbor. It’s a good proposal, and we think it’s in our best interest, obviously financially, why it should be approved. I don’t believe, at this juncture, that we’ve had any negative letters come in. MR. HAYES-We’ll get to that in the public hearing. MR. ROULIER-Okay, and if you have any questions for me, I would be more than happy to answer them. MR. URRICO-You say that the second structure will be converted into a garage? MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. URRICO-What kind of garage are we talking about? MR. ROULIER-What we’re proposing to do is to keep the current footprint of that, essentially gut it out, gut the structure that’s there, convert it into either a one and a half car or two car garage, and meet the height restriction, it’s either 14 or 16 feet within the Town of Queensbury. So, essentially, the structure that you see there, as a guest house, will be eliminated. MR. HAYES-What is the height requirement? MR. FRANK-Sixteen feet, for a detached garage. MR. HAYES-So it will have a garage door, no bathrooms. MR. ROULIER-No. There will be no bathroom. No kitchen facilities. There will be some storage upstairs over it, but it is not, it’s purely a garage. MR. URRICO-Okay. Currently how many bedrooms exist on the property, between the two structures? MR. ROULIER-There’s three bedrooms in the principal house, and I believe that there’s two bedrooms in the guest house. All right. MR. HAYES-Any other questions for the applicant? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. ROULIER-Can I just throw something else in here, too? I just want the, I can’t stress enough the importance, at least it’s important to me, that once this conversion is completed, that there would be now one state of the art septic system on the property. I cannot tell you, now, exactly what comprises the septic system either of the principal dwelling or of the other dwelling. I know that they’re both original septic systems, and I know that both structures probably date back in excess of 50 or 60 years old. So, one of the benefits, and this was a question that was brought up at Warren County. There’s a lot of construction going on around the lake. A lot of people have a lot of problems with the new construction going on around the lake, but every time a new structure or a major upgrade is completed to the properties, we do have new septic systems. I have a much more difficult time accepting projects like I see up on Lockhart Mountain Road right now, where you go up for example, up Lockhart Mountain and all of a sudden you see these monster homes that are just sticking out on the edge of the hillside up there. It’s going rampant over on the Bolton and Diamond Point side. Over on the Lockhart Mountain side, you can see it developing, as I speak. They’re cutting trees down as I speak. MR. URRICO-But you have to admit that putting this size structure on the small piece of property is very similar to what you’re talking about. MR. ROULIER-No, not totally, because what we’re doing is, with the exception of increasing the footprint by two foot on either side, we’re basically working within the confines of the structure that we have, going up two stories. We’re not cutting down, there’s a gorgeous, gorgeous oak tree to the front. That tree will stay there. I could tell you, unequivocally, this summer, that if you were out into the Sandy Bay area looking back at this house, it will be totally undetectable to you. Whereas, if you go over to the Dunham’s Bay area, and you look up at the Lockhart Mountain area, all of those homes are going to jump right out at you. Okay. So, that’s what I’m saying to you is that, yes, it’s a bigger structure. There’s no question about that, but I think that there’s no detrimental effect on the neighborhood, which is a principal concern of mine, all right, the fact that we’re not going to be altering any trees to do this particular project, the fact that we have adjoining homes in that neighborhood of equivalent size, all right. They are all fundamental reasons why this Board can, and in my opinion should, approve the proposal. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions of the applicant? MR. ABBATE-The acreage is .31? MR. ROULIER-The acreage was increased. MR. ABBATE-To what? MR. ROULIER-To approximately, I can’t give you the percentage of it. MR. ABBATE-That’s all right. MR. ROULIER-I can tell you. MR. FRANK-It’s .268 acres. MR. ABBATE-Say that again? MR. FRANK-We came up with .268. They’re being assessed for .31 acres. MR. ABBATE-So they have less. MR. FRANK-Well, they have less than what they’re being assessed for. That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So what do they actually have? MR. HAYES-More than the original calculations. MR. FRANK-More than the original calculations. Joe based his calculations on .25 acres, and we determined he has .268. MR. ABBATE-.268. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-So that’s certainly less than .31. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. ABBATE-Okay. So this is going to be my question. .268 acres, and you’re suggesting that we approve a 3,625 square foot two story dwelling and converting a second smaller dwelling into a 660 square foot garage. In my opinion, based on a .268 acreage, 3,625 square feet of a two story building is considerable, and a 660 square foot garage as well. MR. ROULIER-First of all, I’ve been using numbers instead of percentages. It’s easier for me. 11,690 square feet. It’s easier for me to make the calculation. The existing structure, right now, is 23.3% of the parcel of land, okay. The proposed increases to 36.67%. MR. ABBATE-And that converts, still, to 3,625 square foot. MR. ROULIER-It increases to 4286 square feet of the size of the property, right, and that’s why I wanted the Board to consider what the actual percentage is increase in the site development of the property. Because when you look at the site development of the property, we’re actually only increasing it by .95%, okay. Yes, I agree with you. How do we define substantial? How do we define moderate? How do we define minimal? To one man, substantial might be 50% increase. To another one it might be 100. It can go on and on and on. I don’t think a house of that particular size, looking at the benefits that will be gained both to the community and to the Town and to the neighbors, I don’t think a house of that size, when there’s comparable houses in the neighborhood, is out of the ordinary. The home that’s adjoining it, and I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me, is of a similar size, when you add in the garage and the house, on that particular piece of property. As you go further into the bay, further own Fielding Lane, where there’s still two story homes, the parcels of property are smaller than what I’m talking about. So, yes, it’s an increase. It is an increase. There’s no question about that, but whether we want to characterize it as nominal increase, or moderate increase, but to answer your question, I, personally, don’t feel as though a family today that has two children, that that’s an unreasonable size home, but that’s my interpretation of it. MR. ABBATE-Yes. How do we measure that? I wonder what some of the other residents in the Town of Queensbury who have perhaps one acre, SFR-1, minimum one acre, and requesting 3,625 square foot house with a 660 square foot garage is considerable, and with your client, we’re talking about .268 acres. So you asked, I’m answering your question. Your question was, how do we determine what’s significant. MR. ROULIER-Right. I mean, obviously, if you have an acre of land, there’s no question about that. If you have an acre of land and you want to build a three, four or five thousand square foot house, you obviously have more land to accommodate that structure, okay. This is a smaller parcel of land, but as I said to you, I think, fundamentally, what, the benefits that we gain by approving this, in particular since the site development is only increasing by .95%, I mean, we already have a structure there. Yes, we’re going to allow for a larger structure, but we’re really not utilizing that much more square footage of the property to do it. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I understand all that. Now I notice here, on the map that was submitted here, that there’s a piece of acreage which is .30. If the individual who owned that property came before this Board and said, I would like to construct a 3,625 square foot two story dwelling and I would also like to put up a 660 square foot garage, I would probably laugh. MR. ROULIER-I think that most important consideration is to look at the effect on the neighborhood. MR. ABBATE-That’s one consideration. MR. ROULIER-I think it’s the most important. Because it’s the neighbors that are adjoining the piece of property that are the ones that are going to be effected, not only six months from now, but 15 years from now. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but we have to be, we have to take into consideration what’s in the best interest of the Town of Queensbury. MR. ROULIER-Well, that’s true. MR. ABBATE-In other words, we’re trying to set a standard here. I don’t want to go through that dissertation I did earlier. MR. ROULIER-Okay. MR. ABBATE-You know, if we approve this, then if a person comes before us with this .30 right on the edge of the water, and says I want to build a 3,625 square foot two story dwelling, and add a 660 square foot garage, how can we say no? MR. ROULIER-No, you can absolutely say no. Because that’s the benefit of the ZBA. That’s why we go in front of the ZBA, so that you can look at each project on its own individual merits, and either approve or disapprove. I mean, if all of a sudden, and I use the example on Rockhurst. If we go up to Rockhurst, and 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) we have a 3,000 square foot lot, and we want to build a 2500 square foot house, we would be looking at that on its own individual merits, but the house, fundamentally, does not fit in. MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me approach it from this angle, then. Cleverdale. That’s a problem in itself. So why add to the problem? MR. ROULIER-I don’t believe that we are. I think I’m beneficially adding to Cleverdale. First of all, unlike the preceding application, where I believe you approved the barn there for an apartment, okay, in this particular case, we’re eliminating an entire guest house. MR. ABBATE-Twelve and a half acres, two acres, excuse me. Two acres. MR. ROULIER-It doesn’t matter. The location where that is is a tough location. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I respect your opinion. MR. ROULIER-And I respect yours, too, but the benefit of going in front of the ZBA is not that I’m concerned about, are we setting precedent for the Town of Queensbury. That’s up to the Town Board. It’s up to the different advisory boards to set what it is. The benefit of going in front of this Board, is so that this Board can act in the best interest of the adjoining neighbors or people to the rear and say, do you really have a problem with this, and if you don’t have a problem with this, we think it’s a good application, and that’s what I’m saying. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s all right. Thank you. MR. ROULIER-Okay. MR. HIMES-I’m trying to look through my notes, and I think I saw somewhere, or implied, that it’s a seasonal residence now? MR. ROULIER-It has been used for the most part nine to ten months out of the year. During the bitter cold portion of the winter, it has not been used. MR. HIMES-I’m just looking at the site data. It says the applicant will be allowed full utilization and enjoyment of their property on a year round basis. MR. ROULIER-Correct. MR. HIMES-Okay. MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. His intention, he has another home in Lebanon, New York. He’s anticipating retiring within the next couple of years, and he wants to live at the lake. MR. HIMES-I understand. I just wanted to confirm and clarify what was happening. Thank you. MR. ROULIER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? Then I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed? Please come forward and identify yourself. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HEATHER SHOUDY BRECHKO MS. BRECHKO-Thank you. Good evening everybody. My name is Heather Shoudy Brechko and I’m with the Lake George Association. First of all, we are encouraged that there is minimal impermeable space created, and a stormwater plan is being done, and also by the improved septic system proposed because of the new construction that’s being asked for, but as of the tenth of October, when we looked at the files, or 11 of October, I didn’t see any plans submitted for (lost words), but perhaps those have been submitted th since then. The LGA is very concerned about the relief sought by the applicant for the floor area ratio. This property is starting out with a negative allowable floor area of 329 square feet. So they’re already starting behind. Because the lot, as you have stated, is .268 acres. The existing floor area is 2725 square feet, and the proposed floor area, with everything that’s included, is 4286, as you’ve probably seen on the application. So they’re adding 1661 square feet under your rules. We believe that all conversions to year round need to meet the current zoning, and the purpose of the floor area ratio is to limit the density of the property, in part to protect the lake. There’s only .268 acres of land on this property. Please keep in mind that each variance is decided on on its own merits, even the applicant said this, even though, you know, the applicant’s trying to use the justification that other things have been decided in this area in support, it really does need to be 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) decided on the merits of this application, by the unique circumstances, and it shouldn’t be compared to others in the neighborhood. This request is substantial relative to the Ordinance. The lot is nonconforming. It’s one acre zoning here, and it’s .268 acres. Feasible alternatives might exist. It’s detrimental to the neighborhood because people bought their properties, maybe newer residents, post zoning, thinking that the 22% floor area ratio was going to be consistent and standard. So we’d ask you to carefully consider these comments, and that the applicant doesn’t meet the balancing test required for approval. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Who are you? I’m sorry. MS. BRECHKO-Heather Shoudy Brechko with the Lake George Association. MR. ABBATE-You’re with the Lake George Association. MS. BRECHKO-Yes. MR. ABBATE-So you’re speaking on behalf of the neighbors, etc., or on behalf of the Lake George Association? MS. BRECHKO-The Lake George Association. We have members all over the lake, 5,000 members, and some of them do live in Queensbury. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. I’m sorry, I didn’t catch that. Thank you very much. MS. BRECHKO-That’s okay. No problem. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Anybody else that wishes to speak in opposition to the application? Mr. Salvador. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Not necessarily in opposition, but I have some questions. MR. HAYES-Please come forward. MR. SALVADOR-A couple of questions. I we sure that the difference between the surveyor’s area calculation and the .31 that we’re using is not really something we call accretion? That’s a term you gentlemen should become very familiar with, because it’s going to come up in this marina permitting process. Okay. Commonly called fill. A surveyor works from a deed. A surveyor works from a deed, the meets and bounds of a deed, and it could very well be that Mr. Roulier is going out and, you know, looking at the conditions as they exist today, and that could be the difference. The other question I have is, were there any variances granted by the Town Board, as the public Board of Health, for the septic system? MR. ROULIER-In regards to this property? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. ROULIER-No. MR. SALVADOR-None? MR. ROULIER-No. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, and there’s not an on-site well? MR. ROULIER-There’s no wells. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Mr. Roulier, would you like to answer Mr. Salvador’s question about the difference? I believe the difference is not the difference between, it’s not .31. It’s the difference between the survey found .2. MR. FRANK-They’re going to have to, if this was to be approved, they’d have to submit an as-built survey. I’d be willing to bet my job on these numbers. So you can hold me to that. I’m on the record. They put the wrong number on this map. They have area of .25 acres. It’s a 50 foot wide lot, and anyone that wants to review this afterwards is more than welcome to, but it’s a, they made a mistake. They put the wrong area on this map, and that’s what. MR. SALVADOR-The surveyor? MR. FRANK-Van Dusen and Steves did. So I will go on record stating that. I’d bet my job on it. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. HAYES-Okay. You can answer that question, but I guess we’re still preserved by the notion that we’re only going to approve or disapprove a certain amount of relief, and it’s still going to be on the applicant to comply with that level of relief. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Even though Mr. Salvador’s point is, you know, obviously is germane here, because it’s a controlling number for all these calculations. MR. ROULIER-I thoroughly agree with that. I just wanted to address Mr. Salvador. Based on walking the property, looking at the property, seeing where the bedrock is and all that, the shoreline of that, and the fact that Mr. Frank has been up there, the area that he is referring to is not a filled in portion of Sandy Bay or Cleverdale. Okay. The numbers, either whether it’s approved or disapproved, the approval, of course, would be predicated upon the numbers that we’re agreeing on tonight. MR. HAYES-A specific amount of relief, and if it exceeds that, then there wouldn’t be a building, a CO issued, essentially, in the end. Right? MR. ROULIER-That’s right. There’s no question about that. MR. HAYES-Or even a building permit. MR. FRANK-The situation here is this could be confirmed when Van Dusen and Steves re-crunches their numbers in their Auto CAD program. The owner is going to go to them, because they want to have their assessment corrected. So this will be re-looked at. MR. HAYES-It’s going to happen. MR. FRANK-It’s definitely going to happen. MR. ROULIER-May I address the young lady from the Lake George Association through this Board? Not directly, but through this Board. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. ROULIER-Okay. I’m always concerned about what’s being built around Lake George. I think that even though, and I’ll give you an example. You can have a piece of property that may be a substantially larger property, and you build a humongous home, for example, that’s on the end of Assembly Point, and I don’t know if all of you know what I’m referring to, but that home, most residents, and I’m a resident of the lake, would consider that to be totally out of place for, no matter what size piece of property that is. There’s a structure there that’s used. You come further down into the bay, and even though they have a piece of property that can substantial that square footage of house, it doesn’t look right on the lake. This particular case right here, because of the large oak tree, because of everything, will blend in to this property better than those other huge monster homes that are being built on Assembly Point. Secondly, and as I said to you earlier, I said I would be more concerned about the properties that are being built on Lockhart Mountain Loop, and particularly I would say, look at what has been developed on the west side of Lake George, where we have condo, time share, condo, time share. I mean, it’s a royal mess. It seems to me that the Lake George Association should be directing their focus more on that type of major development, than a smaller project like this. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. MS. BRECHKO-The Lake George Association’s Land Management Program takes the focus of both individual projects as well as the larger scale projects that you mentioned. We were in a three year law suit with one of the time share projects on the western side of Lake George that I think you’ve somewhat referenced, you know, spent a lot of money and a lot of time, trying to make that project better. In addition to that, as you all know, we are here a lot, you know, on different months and occasions, commenting on various projects, because, you know, it’s really the tragedy of small decisions sometimes and some of those trends happen, bit by bit. So we try to keep abreast of everything that’s happening. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Before you go, a question. The Lake George Association is not in favor of this. I don’t see, the Waterkeeper left. Can I assume, because he left, you may not know the answer, that he’s in favor of the application? MS. BRECHKO-I can’t speak for him, and I don’t know what his position is. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. ABBATE-Because I’m really getting confused with who you are and who he is and what your jobs are. MS. BRECHKO-Sure. We don’t work together. We’re not the same organization. MR. HAYES-Not the same funding. MS. BRECHKO-Not the same funding. Actually it’s a new position that he’s part of the fund for Lake George’s program. MR. ABBATE-All right. MS. BRECHKO-We’ve been around since 1885, longstanding, diverse organization. Not me, but the organization has been around for a long time. So, thank you. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. All right. I believe, Mrs. Salvador, did you want to speak in opposition? KATHLEEN SALVADOR MRS. SALVADOR-Again, just a comment, that’s all. Kathleen Salvador. We’re talking, on this project, about a, basically, a 4300 square foot house, including a separate garage, on less than a third of an acre. Just to put this in perspective, we are building a 2200 square foot house, with a two stall garage, 600 square foot garage, on a third of an acre. Now if you look at that, and our septic field is 30 by 50, I don’t know what this septic field is, how much of the property that’s going to take up, but I can tell you, by looking at the foundation of our house, on our lot, with our septic field, I would never put a 4300 square foot facility on there. That’s all. Thank you. MR. HIMES-Mrs. Salvador, could I ask you a couple of questions? MRS. SALVADOR-Sure. MR. HIMES-Is yours two story or one story? MRS. SALVADOR-Two story. MR. HIMES-Two story, and may I ask how many bedrooms does? MRS. SALVADOR-Two bedrooms. MR. HIMES-Two bedrooms. Okay. Thank you. MRS. SALVADOR-You’re welcome. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application? If not, we’ll go to correspondence. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We have three pieces of correspondence. The first one is from Gary P. Moore at 19 Fielding Lane. He says, “I am in receipt of the Public Hearing Notice to consider Area Variance Application submitted by William and Penny Black, 13 Fielding Lane, Cleverdale, and have reviewed the site and project plans with the Blacks. I am in support of this project and recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals grants this variance. Respectfully yours, Gary P. Moore 19 Fielding Lane Cleverdale, NY.” And we have a letter from Sherry Kearns at 15 Fielding Lane. She says, “William and Penny Black are my neighbors to the west; our properties adjoin each other. I have no objection to the Blacks’ proposed building project of demolishing their current residence and constructing a two-story dwelling on that site. Neither do I object to their proposed construction of a garage behind the residence. Please note for the record that my response to their plans is one of approval. Sincerely, Sherry Kearns” And we have a note from Mary Beth Young at 11 Fielding Lane. She says, “I have received the notice about the public hearing in regard to Area Variance No. 83-2002, Type II, which Bill and Penny Black are seeking for their property at 13 Fielding Lane, Cleverdale. I am unable to attend the hearing, but will send on my comments. Bill has shown me the blueprints for his planned 2-story home and I have no concerns or objections to his building it. I have observed the renovation of his current home at the same address and have found it to be tasteful and well done. I am sure any future work he intends to do will be similarly done and his new house will be built to fit in nicely with the surroundings at Lake George. Sincerely, Mary Beth Young 11 Fielding Lane Cleverdale, NY 12820” MR. HAYES-Mr. Roulier, did you say you had additional letters? MR. ROULIER-No. The additional letter that I have, you’ve just read. MR. HAYES-Okay. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. ROULIER-Can I just make one more comment? MR. HAYES-Briefly. MR. ROULIER-Okay. I just want the Board to, and I don’t want to, I just want the Board to realize that these are adjoining neighbors. These are the people that are most affected by this proposed project. He did his dock over. It used to be a peaked dock. He cut the peak down. He eliminated that. He did it very tastefully. Everybody was happy with that. Here he’s proposing to eliminate the guest house, the septic system, build a new house that’s in keeping with the neighborhood, and I ask that this Board consider these comments by the people most affected by this project, and hopefully approve this project for him. Thank you very much. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And it’s time to talk about it. I’ll start with Chuck. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I’m going to keep an open mind on this. My initial reaction is no, and that’s based upon the comments of those folks on the Board who have more experience dealing with lake side property, and I’m just sorry that Lew Stone isn’t here, because I would look forward to see what he had to say. There has been an admission, over a period of time, that Cleverdale, based on zoning, is a mess. Not that the homes are a mess. They’re beautiful homes. The zoning is a mess, and do we want to contribute to that mess? My initial reaction to the application is no, but I will listen to what the other members have to say, and if they can change my mind, fine. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I recognize the importance, perhaps, of getting rid of the guest house. I think that’s important, and I think going from a seasonal thing to a year round residence is a matter. Three bedrooms, and the floor area ratio is sometimes I look at it as a statistic because it has to be considered, in my mind, such as the way you described, what’s around it and what have you and how does it fit in and whether it’s some monstrosity or what have you, and as long as permeability is okay, you know, there’s no impact, or as much of an impact as there might be otherwise when you have a high floor area ratio, if the permeability is okay, and I think it is, in this application, but then, you know, I think, well, I do have to say if it was a vacant lot and they were coming in and so on, it would seem like a lot, you know, maybe not five pounds in a two pound bag, but three pounds in a two pound bag, something like that, and so, in looking at the size of the rooms, there’s three bathrooms, three bedrooms and some pretty good sized rooms which, you know, we’d all want to have, but maybe those would be more suitable for a larger lot. I wonder if it might be possible, and maybe more palatable to others yet to speak, if we might think about, when we’re all through, before a vote’s taken, whether there could be something done to maybe compromise a little bit on that floor area ratio. So, I’m really going to have a little difficulty approving it as submitted, but I think it’s a good thing to be rid of the extra residence on there, that guest house. So I’m just about 50/50 here, and would like to think about it a little more, but I would like to see some effort made to ask the applicant to reconsider where maybe a little bit could be given up on size somewhere in the structure. That’s it for me. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I have several thoughts. One, the applicant’s mentioned the other large houses nearby. I guess, to me, previous errors don’t necessarily justify future errors, if approving those previous houses were errors, but anyway, just because there’s some other large houses in the area doesn’t carry much weight with me, regarding approving this one. Regarding the neighborhood, I think to me, at least, in dealing with the lake, the neighborhood really is the whole lake. It’s not just the guys living on each side, and it’s not just the guys living on each side now, but also the people that would be living on each side, 20, 30, 40 years from now. So I think it’s a larger picture than what, perhaps, has been painted. Benefit of increased value in the neighborhood. It’s getting to the point where that’s not going to be a benefit. Houses on the lake now are selling for two to three times the assessed value. The more you push the value up, the more people that currently have homes on the lake and are on fixed incomes are going to have to sell their homes, the next time the area is reassessed. I think that’s going to be a real problem coming up, the way things are. So I think increasing the value is not necessarily a plus. The side setbacks and slightly increased footprint doesn’t bother me a great deal. It’s a small lot. It’s a nonconforming lot. I could give on that, but the floor area ratio which was designed to give us at least a general guide on what size house is appropriate for a lot does bother me a great deal. Conclusion is I think it’s just too large a house for the parcel. I’m going to be opposed. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. When I came up to this property, my first reaction was, wow, there’s a lot on this property, for a small parcel, and I’m thinking, what are we doing to really eliminate that? We’re taking a second house and converting it to a garage. So that’s not changing it. We’re taking out a shed, and we’re 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) taking a house that’s already on a congested lot and making it larger, but I don’t think we’re helping the situation. When I look at the benefit, and I see a benefit. I see feasible alternatives. I want to come back to the relief substantial, but you kept mentioning the effect on the neighborhood or community, and I agree with Mr. McNulty, that this is an impact on the entire community, not just the neighborhood, the community being the Town of Queensbury, and Lake George itself, because we’re adding already to an intensely developed area, rather than trying to alleviate it, which is what the zoning code is intended to do. So I see this as being self-created, and then as far as the relief substantial to the Ordinance, I really think we need to scale this back a little bit, especially on the floor area ratio part. I just don’t see this as beneficial to the area, and I would be opposed to it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. James? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Certainly we have a long record of dealing with these parcels out on Cleverdale that are asking for relief that’s way in excess of, you know, what the capacity of the lots really is, in reality, and I think that, you know, when you’re talking about a floor area ratio that’s, you know, 30% or greater than that, as opposed to the 22% that is our community standard, I think the reason that we have our 22% floor area ratio is to ensure that we aren’t building these monster houses. I think that, Polonsky’s out there further down the road, you know, we dealt with that. They added a garage and things like that to it, too, and I think that when you do this on these small lots that are only 50 feet wide, it’s nice. It gives the person who’s going to benefit from it everything they want, but at the same time I think that you can still go back and redesign this so it’s more in compliance with what we expect. I think that, you know, there’s no reason to have a house that’s so much greater than what the sustainability of the lot is, and I think that you could shrink it down some, and we’ve had lots of people come in before us that have had to modify their plans and ideas, and I think that that’s a feasible alternative for you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, on first blush, I think that everyone’s reaction, you know, to a number in the 30’s, the scary 30’s, is obviously a taking back, to some degree, but in my particular case, I’m in agreement, to some degree, with Staff notes, in that the reduction of two residences to one is very compelling to me, and that places me in position where I think some compromise is in the best interest of the greater neighborhood or community in that particular case. I guess, in summary, I would say that I’m probably closest with Norm’s position, that I certainly would be in favor, myself, of approving floor area ratio relief in a circumstance where we were eliminating a residence, eliminating a septic system. I think that that, I voted against that first application, and I think that this idea of renting and owners renting to other people and these type of things can lead to a great deal of increased usage and intensity of usage in an area, in this particular case. I also agree that a new home that’s two stories would have virtually no real impact from the lake, which is, you know, a major concern of our considerations here, from a visual perspective. I think that there’s mature vegetation there that has a pretty big impact on that. So I think that that’s a plus, and I also think that the fact that the immediate neighbors who are most impacted are in favor of this application, to me, indicates that some of the concerns of view blockage or view shed blockage are not a concern to the neighbors, or else they wouldn’t have submitted documentation in support of the application. It’s very clear to me that you don’t have support for the current level of size house that you’re proposing. So, I would say I am in favor of relief from the floor area ratio on this application, but I don’t think that you have the support for the 3200 square feet. I should also say that the garage at 660 square feet does not alarm me if it’s converted in the sense that you’re describing, being that that structure is there now, and the 660 square foot garage is not in excess of Town Code, or is not a super large garage, in my viewpoint. So I’m not that concerned about, but at this particular time, I think that the pleasure of the Board in this particular case. Do we want to move to a motion? Would you like to, or should we allow the applicant to withdraw his application? MR. ABBATE-I think, in the standard of fairness, I think we should give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw the application and come back to the Board. We’ve done it to other applicants. Why not? Otherwise, if we put it to a vote, and we vote, as the Chairman said, the votes are not here to support it. You have a long road ahead of you. MR. ROULIER-Okay. So basically what I’m getting from this. MR. ABBATE-You want to withdraw your application and resubmit. MR. HAYES-I’m not going to have the Board quantify what they would or would not accept. I’m not going to put them in that position, but if you listened to the statements that were made, there was a certain uncomfortable-ness with the level of extent of relief that was requested. MR. ROULIER-Right. MR. HAYES-Am I summarizing that correctly? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Absolutely. MR. HAYES-So you need to alter that. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. ROULIER-Can I just ask one question? MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. ROULIER-With the exception of the Chairman, is that pretty much a unanimous feeling among the Board members? MR. ABBATE-Now you’re asking us to put it to a vote. You’re pushing the envelope on that one. MR. MC NULTY-I’ll give you my take on it. I think there’s probably about three members that would consider a reduction in floor area ratio. I’m not sure how much. MR. ROULIER-Okay. That’s fine. MR. MC NULTY-Personally, I would have to see a substantial reduction, for my vote to change. MR. ABBATE-I would have to see a substantial reduction as well. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, and I think it’s only fair to tell the applicant that, so he doesn’t come back with just 500 square feet off or something. MR. ABBATE-It would have to be substantially different. Is that fair enough? MR. MC NULTY-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Your application, in terms of floor area ratio, would have to be substantially different, significantly different. MR. ROULIER-I understand that. MR. HAYES-You need to come back and make an application, because I guess in the Staff notes they use the word “significant, moderate, minimum”. We’re telling you you don’t have the votes right now. We’re going to let him withdraw. We should leave it at that. MR. ABBATE-Fair enough. MR. HAYES-Otherwise, that type of, to say significant is tantamount to a denial, because. MR. URRICO-It should also be pointed out that he may not get the same Board. MR. MC NULTY-Right. I was going to make that point. There could be a few different members, because we’re missing a person now, and we have some alternates. So you could get a different mix. MR. ROULIER-All right. I would certainly, I appreciate the input from the Board, and I think that’s what I’ll do, and the person that I’m working for says, no, I don’t want it, then it’s a done deal anyway. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. ROULIER-But at least you leave the door open for me. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. ROULIER-And I appreciate that. MR. ABBATE-Sure. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. MR. ROULIER-Thank you. MR. FRANK-And, Mr. Chairman, I need to make a statement. If I was a weasel, I could not say anything at all, since this is going the way it’s going, and I owe a major apology to the applicant’s agent. I owe a major apology to Van Dusen and Steves, and I hope Mr. Salvador is not going to force me to resign my position tomorrow, but after crunching these numbers six times, I found a mistake. I’d like to stick my foot in my mouth right now, and I could have weaseled out of this because he’s withdrawing the application, but I think that area is accurate, and I’ll go over it with you afterwards, but I just found my mistake. MR. HAYES-Honesty is the best policy. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. FRANK-But I’m horribly embarrassed, and I apology to everybody for wasting their time making that statement, and next time I start to do that, I’m going to ask John to stick his foot in my mouth. MR. ABBATE-This supports my theory, Mr. Frank, that you are loaded with integrity. MR. FRANK-And I’ll tell you one other thing. I’m sorry that I didn’t have the opportunity to have somebody else check over my numbers with me. I usually have somebody do so, and we were short staffed, but that’s not excuse. Sometimes when you check over your numbers by yourself, you don’t see the same mistake. Unfortunately, it took me six times, and I did, and I’ll show you what I did afterwards. MR. HIMES-Maybe it’s good that we didn’t go to a vote. MR. HAYES-Well, we need to kind of deal with this application. MR. ROULIER-All right. Well, can I just add one more thing to that? MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. ROULIER-I don’t know what Mr. Black will have me do after this, but if he does decide to pursue it, if we do decide to scale down, what I’ll do is I’ll go back to Van Dusen and Steves and have the exact number by them. MR. FRANK-Well, I think the applicant, the owners are going to be extremely pleased, because they were going to go to the County anyway, and now they’re going to have even a greater assessment when they see this. So, they have accurate numbers. I made a mistake, and I’ll show you what I did, and I’m sorry to you, and I’m sorry to Van Dusen and Steves, and, please, John, if you want me to quit tomorrow. MR. HAYES-You’re withdrawing the application? MR. ROULIER-At this juncture, yes, I will withdraw the application. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. MR. ROULIER-Thank you very much. Can I ask a question, if you guys are done, something totally unrelated? MR. HAYES-Sure. Are there any minutes, Maria, that we need to take care of? MS. GAGLIARDI-I don’t think so. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. ROULIER-I just want to ask this Board a question. I’m a resident up in Harris Bay, and, as you know, every year, there is an increase in the number of size, the size of the boats on Lake George. Forty years ago, when I first was there, all it was is these little utility boats, 17, 18, 20 foot. Today all we have is 30 through 38 foot homes, camps, two bedroom camps, some of them with two (lost word). If I come before this Board, and I propose for any one of your residents, a bedroom or two bedrooms, the first criteria that I’d have to meet is what are you going to do with the septic system. Right? You make me put a new septic in. You make me upgrade it. You make me really do all these things that are required, but every year, when I drive by the Harris Bay Yacht Club, I see all these two bedroom homes being dropped into the lake, and yet the septic system is the same old septic system that was built in there 40 years ago. Now the pumpage stations that they have, the pumpage from the boats, the sewage, is now going in the holding tanks. About five years ago, they go in the holding tanks, that’s discarded, but the gray water from the showers, from the washer and dryer, is still being pumped to an area adjacent to the swamp on the other side of the road, as close as I’m sitting to every one of you Board members. That’s where all the gray water goes. Now 40 years ago, 45 years ago. MR. ABBATE-I thought this was gong to be a question? You’re going into a dissertation. MR. ROULIER-Well, I want to know, this is what I want to ask, okay. I want to know that if the Board, if the ZBA ever has the opportunity of dealing with boats on Lake George, will they consider limiting the size of the boats? MR. ABBATE-Hypothetical questions are not answered in theoretical manners. MR. ROULIER-I’m just throwing it out there for you. MR. ABBATE-That’s your answer, as far as I’m concerned. MR. SALVADOR-Next you’ll be after my cabin. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/02) MR. ROULIER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Yes, thank you. MR. ROULIER-Thank you very much. Mr. Salvador? I’ll remind you you’re under the five minute. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Okay. Just a couple of comments. The first application this evening, you had closed the public hearing and you were talking about the rental aspects of that. Be aware that the County is moving toward what we call an occupancy tax, and that will be levied on, what’s the term they call it, tourist accommodations, like hotels, motels, and they also have another parameter in there, even a tourist accommodation that would be rented for less than 90 days, a rental contract less than 90 days. So any of these homes around the lake that get, you know, that could be rented for a month, a week, two months, a season, whatever have you, less than 90 days, they’re going to have to register, as a tax collector, and collect an occupancy tax and remit that to the County. So, that’s something all of these people should understand, if that program goes through. MR. ABBATE-You opened the door. Now let me take a second here. I wanted to go home, but I’ve got to tell Mr. Boehm. Mr. Boehm, out of all the documentation you submitted, one sentence hit a nerve, when you said that the use changes as the economic conditions, economic conditions, which means income, reportable income, okay. So you hit a nerve on that one. I meant to tell you and I forgot. I’m sorry, and your point as well, you know. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. It’s the same. MR. ABBATE-So there’s a lot of enforcement in the future. MR. SALVADOR-Well, the rules have been there for a long time, but the lack of will to enforce them just has not been there. We talk about the mess on Cleverdale. That mess on Cleverdale could have been precluded if the Town did what they were supposed to do, in accordance with the very first Zoning Ordinance that this Town adopted in 1968. There’s a provision in there to register all seasonal dwellings. That was mandated. That was up to the, it was called the Building Inspector then, because you didn’t have any Zoning Department, but that was his job, to register seasonal dwellings, and then, any conversion would be compared against the existing conditions. All of these developers, contractors, engineers come in here, and no one can find the existing septic system. There’s a simple way, short of a shovel. The very simple way is to flood it. Just keep pouring water down, just keep flushing the toilet, and sooner or later the water’s going to come to the surface. That’s a very simple way, and you can do it at the end of the year, when you’re shutting down, or something like that, leaving. You don’t have to do it in May. That would not be the right thing to do. MR. ABBATE-And based on 1.6 gallons, how many flushes would be required? MR. SALVADOR-Just block the lever. The other thing, you talk about floor area ratio, everybody seems to be concerned about floor area ratio. I’m more concerned about permeability, in that it’s not the practice of this Town to count the septic infiltration area as nonpermeable. I went through this in our application, with you folks, and I maintained that you should not count that area as permeable, because in fact there is evapo- transpiration taking place, and that soil is somewhat saturated in any case. That’s why the grass grows green, and that, if you start using that, calculating that, you’ll find that’s the determining factor. The issue of closets. I don’t know if any of you have ever been resident in Europe, but it’s a very common practice in Europe. That’s why they have what they call a shrunk, a gardoroba, a wardrobe. That’s what they have, a wardrobe. It’s simply because they have no closets because the doors are taxed. That’s a basis for taxation, or assessed valuation, I should say, are doors. They count them. So no door, no closet, etc. They all have these wardrobes. So, anyway. I think that’s, thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. There being no further business before this Board, I will adjourn the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 43