The URL can be used to link to this page

2003-08-27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY PAUL HAYES ROY URRICO ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES ABBATE JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT NORMAN HIMES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II JOHN A. & ELAINE G. HERSEY OWNER: JOHN A. & ELAINE G. HERSEY ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: 27 LYNNFIELD DRIVE, WESTLAND SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES A 310 SQ. FT. MASTER BEDROOM ADDITION AND AN 8 FT. BY 18 FT. COVERED PORCH. SEEKS RELIEF FROM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1- 52 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 JOHN & ELAINE HERSEY, PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-And we had a motion to table this when we met on June 18, “MOTION TO th TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2003 JOHN A. & ELAINE G. HERSEY, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 27 Lynnfield Drive. For 60 days. They will need to have their application back in by that time. Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE” MR. STONE-Okay. Would you read in the Staff notes, since additional information has been provided, namely the floor plans, but read it in anyway. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-2003, John A. & Elaine G. Hersey, Meeting Date: August 27, 2003 “Project Location: 27 Lynnfield Drive Westland Subdivision Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 310 sq. ft. addition and an 8’ x 18’ porch to the front of the existing structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 8.75 feet of 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement and 4.02 feet of relief from the 20- foot minimum side setback requirement of the SFR-1A Zone, per §179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable. Staff comments: The applicant has submitted detailed floor plans for the existing home. It appears as though the proposed addition is an extension of an existing bedroom along with the modification of an existing entry area.” MR. STONE-Mr. and Mrs. Hersey, do you wish to add anything to your application, comment at all on Staff notes or anything? MR. HERSEY-Well, just briefly. First of all, thanks for having me back. I appreciate that. When I last left here, I was under the impression, or I got the impression from the Board, that conceptually the majority of the Board was on board with this. However, the plans that I had submitted were not detailed enough, the first go round, with the thought being that we wanted to show that where I’m putting it really is the logical place to put it. So what I’ve done, as you know, is re-submitted a Sketch of a basement, first and second floor plans, to more or less show that the location of the property, the addition, more or less fits the flow of the house. Putting it off the back of the house, I would essentially lose my den. I would lose the screened porch. I would lose the deck, and I’d also have to relocate my septic system. As far as the basement is concerned, I think someone brought up a point about the basement. There’s not enough head room in the basement, as it is to put any additional living space, nor is there egress. Also had consultation with my architect about going up, going out over my garage, and again, the architects felt that it was not a feasible plan. So that’s really what brings me before you today. MR. STONE-As I understand it, and I wasn’t here the last time, the addition is going to come out from the 12 by 11 bedroom office toward the street? MR. HERSEY-Correct. MR. STONE-No further, no closer to your neighbor on the west side? MR. HERSEY-Correct. MR. STONE-And, okay. So the side setback is the existing side setback? MR. HERSEY-Correct. Yes. It’s my understanding that the property was rezoned at some point after it was built. So it’s nonconforming. MR. BRYANT-Correct me if I’m wrong. I think the reason we requested a Sketch of the existing layout was because there was a question as to whether or not, to the right of the patio, if you could do the extension, and I think, the way you show it on this existing drawing, that area is directly behind your kitchen, garage, is that correct? MR. HERSEY-Correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Your roof has got quite a pitch on it, and you have two bedrooms upstairs? MR. HERSEY-Two bedrooms upstairs. The back is fully dormered. MR. BRYANT-You know in the old Cape Cods on Long Island, when they used to do the dormer things. Couldn’t consider doing something like that? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. HERSEY-I talked to the architect about that, to see if we could accomplish our objectives, getting a third bedroom and an additional bathroom, and he didn’t come up with a feasible plan. I’m a banker, not an architect. So I can’t speak to his. MR. STONE-So, in other words, you can get the money, but you can’t build the house. MR. HERSEY-I can find the money, yes. MR. ABBATE-May I, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-Surely. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thanks. Nice to see you both again, glad you came back. I like your plan, quite frankly. I think if I were in the same situation, I would thoroughly enjoy modifying my, I live in an SFR-1A zone myself, and I’ve often thought of enlarging it to make it more livable and comfortable, etc., etc., and if I did, quite frankly, I probably would look at your plans, because I like what you have done. I don’t, I would, in your position, do the same thing and request the same thing. Thank you. MR. HERSEY-Thank you. MR. STONE-Does anybody else have any comments? MR. BRYANT-Just one question. The bedroom that you’re adding, what are the dimensions of that bedroom, just out of curiosity? Okay. I’m looking at the wrong drawing. MR. HERSEY-Sixteen by twenty. MR. BRYANT-That’s your master bedroom. So in reality then you’re going to have five bedrooms in the house? MR. HERSEY-No, three bedrooms. MR. STONE-You’re making that front bedroom office bigger? MR. HERSEY-Essentially, where that front bedroom is is the bathroom in the first plan that I presented. So, yes, I am making that bigger. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I see what you’re doing. Okay. MR. STONE-Now, what are you going, and maybe I, how are you getting in to this house, after you seem to cover up the patio, the opening patio? MRS. HERSEY-It’s going to be a side entrance. MR. HERSEY-So if you look at the larger plan, the plan done by the architect, the entrance will actually be from the side. You will not see the door from the street. MR. STONE-So the entryway door is going to be there? You’re just going to come in and do a 90 degree? MR. HERSEY-Yes. The existing entrance is located on that plan, too. So you can kind of get a sense for, if you compare it. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? Comments? Well, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it, then. Chuck, why don’t we start with you. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’ll agree that it’s an attractive proposal. Design of the house, and I can understand the reasons for it. I’m still hung up on, I think, what I was last time, in that I think it’s going to put it enough closer to the road that it’s going to look out of place in that neighborhood. Most of the houses seem to be lined up pretty much with a common setback, and I think this bedroom addition is going to stick out closer to the road, and in my opinion change the character of the neighborhood somewhat, at least in appearance, and for that reason, I’m leaning on the negative side. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to disagree with Chuck because I think, you know, even though it’s going to intrude almost nine feet out closer to the road, but again, I think that we have to consider, you know, what the purpose of this variance is for, and that is that the bedroom that’s currently there on the ground floor is pretty small. By upgrading it and making it a little bigger, it’s going to be essentially the same size as the ones that are upstairs, which makes it a lot more livable and usable. I don’t really think it’s that great of a thing to ask for. I think you could put some plantings out in front to camouflage it a little bit and (lost words) I’m sure you’re going to do something like that at the same time. So I’d basically be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I agree with Jim. We only have one time in life. If we can make our lives a little more bearable, and not disturb the neighborhood or substantially disrupt the environment, why not do it, and so, based upon that, I would support the application. MR. STONE-Al? MR. BRYANT-Isn’t it great when you come back the second time, everybody has a different demeanor. I would like to, I know it’s impossible, it’s only a 15 foot bedroom. It would be nice if you could alleviate some of that protrusion into the front area, but I guess you can’t. I’m going to go along with the other Board members, and say it’s a good plan. MR. HERSEY-Thank you. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I was in favor of it weeks ago, and I’m still in favor of it. I think taking the criteria, I think that they really won’t change the character of the neighborhood. I think the benefit you’ll gain from it would be very difficult to achieve in some other method. So I’d be in favor of that part, and 8.75 feet may seem like a lot, but I really don’t think so. I had a hard time determining a front plane to the neighborhood there. So I didn’t think that 8.75 feet is really going to intrude that much, and also the four feet to the side, we didn’t hear from any neighbors. I don’t think, we didn’t hear any complaints. So I don’t think that’s going to be an intrusion in that direction. I don’t think there’ll be any physical or environmental impacts, and although the difficulty is self-created, I think the plan is a good one, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. HAYES-I essentially agree with Roy. I think, in the end, I think that this is pretty minimal relief when all things are considered. Both pieces of dimensional relief are single digit. It’s not even 10 feet in this particular case, and, you know, in employing the balance test that we’re charged with, as I felt before, I just don’t see any negative impact on the neighborhood, and the applicants have demonstrated to me, you know, a plausible reason why they need to do this, why they want to do this. So I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-I hear both sides of the argument. The telling argument for me is that the most effected neighbor is not here. They obviously feel, yes or no, they don’t seem to care. Certainly the side setback doesn’t bother me. You’re there already. That’s the way it was laid out and that’s not a problem. I think Mr. McNulty makes a reasonable point, in terms of what kind of line are we going to have as we look down from, along the front of the houses, but I think it is minimal, and I think that listening to the majority of the Board members, I think it’s a reasonable project. Would I like it to be four feet? Yes. Would I like it to be two feet? Yes, but the eight feet is not unreasonable. Therefore, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2003 JOHN A. & ELAINE G. HERSEY, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 27 Lynnfield Drive. The construction of a 310 square foot addition and an 8 by 18 foot porch to the front of the existing structure. The applicant requests 8.75 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement, and 4.02 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the SFR-1A zone per Section 179-4-030. In making this application, the applicant has shown, in my estimation, that there will be no change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created as a result of this. That the benefit they are seeking cannot be achieved by some other method that is feasible. The requested Area Variance of 8.75 feet of relief, while somewhat maybe longer than we’d like, is really not much more than what exists right now, and the 4.02 feet of relief from the side does not appear to intrude too much on the neighbor next door who has not made a comment one way or the other, and as far as, there is no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and while this is self-created, this situation is self-created, this appears to be a good, solid plan, and I make a motion for its approval. Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Himes MR. STONE-There you go. MR. HERSEY-Thanks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II JEFFREY THREW AGENT: VANDUSEN & STEVES OWNER: JEFFREY THREW ZONING: WR-1A/SR-1A LOCATION: 25 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING 1,280 SQ. FT. POLE BARN AND CONSTRUCT A 1,400 SQ. FT. STORAGE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM BUILDING SIZE AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2000- 796 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 8/13/2003 TAX MAP NO. 316.5-1-12.1 LOT SIZE: 6.02 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-5-020(D) MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF THREW, PRESENT MR. STONE-The public hearing was left open, and there was a re-notification for all property owners within 500 feet. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. STONE-Read the tabling and then read the. MR. MC NULTY-On Wednesday, June 25, we had a motion to table, “MOTION TO TABLE th AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2003 JEFFREY THREW, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 25 Eagan Road. For up to 62 days, so that we can get clarification on the nature of this building, recognizing that the applicant has already stated that whatever this building is, he’s request 1400 square feet, 22 feet high. Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2003, Jeffrey Threw, Meeting Date: August 27, 2003 “Project Location: 25 Eagan Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of a 1280 sf pole barn and construction of a 1400 sf storage/garage building. Relief Required: Applicant requests 900 square feet of relief from the 500 square foot maximum allowable for a storage building. Additionally, the applicant requests 5 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height allowed for accessory structures in the Waterfront Residential, WR-1A zone, per §179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-796 2200 sf Single Family dwelling with attached 2 car garage Staff comments: Does a 1400 sf residential storage building appear to be a significant request? Does the applicant (excavating contractor) propose any commercial use with the proposed building? Will there be any storage of items other than typical residential items? No revised elevation drawings were submitted for review.” MR. STONE-Gentlemen. MR. STEVES-Good evening, Matt Steves, representing Jeff Threw who’s with me tonight. A quick recap, basically exactly what the secretary has just stated. One of the questions at the last public hearing, the last meeting, was that we revise the application and the plan to say garage, which we have done. It was proposed to be 2400 square feet. After talking to the Board, we had decided and agreed that we would reduce it to the 1400, which is the 900 for the garage and the 500 for a detached building combined. This will be a garage. As far as the commercial use, no, there is no commercial use. Mr. Threw does not work for or own a construction business. He works for Mr. Schermerhorn Construction. He doesn’t store any construction material there or trucks, anything like that. So as far as, is it going to be used for commercial, no. As far as the revised building plans, the existing building plan that he had drawn up, if we know that we can get the approval for this size building, we will draft them back up, but we will stipulate the height as we have already, and we will stipulate the size that is shown on my plan, of 43.75 by 32, to be 1400 square feet, and that’s for the exterior of the building, not the interior. That’s the entire footprint. It will be sided to match the house and shingled to match the house. If you’ve been down there and looked at it, the pole barn when it was built, years ago, was an allowable construction in that zone. Now, after years of owning the property, selling the smaller house he owned up on Eagan Road, and being able to build a house for his family, in a prime location for 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) the house, it makes sense to try to be able to move that pole barn so we can finish the landscaping and stuff and the driveway, and have a better appearance to the house, and we’d open it up to any questions this Board might have. MR. STONE-You made a comment, Mr. Steves, combined square footage. Would you comment on that? MR. STEVES-When we were here last time, they had talked about a garage that was 900 square feet, I believe, and a storage building would be 500. So at the, after discussions with this Board, we said that we would reduce it to the combination of the 900 and the 500, which would be a maximum of 1400 square feet, and that’s what we did. MR. MC NULTY-This is proposed on the same piece of property that the house is on? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. MC NULTY-And the house has a two car garage attached? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. MC NULTY-Doesn’t this constitute a second garage, then? Shouldn’t that be part of the relief requested? MR. BROWN-Yes. You can relieve it that way if you guys go that direction. Sure. MR. STONE-But is it something, as Mr. McNulty says, is it something that should have been on the application, consideration of a second garage? MR. BROWN-As far as, you mean the description of the? MR. STONE-Advertising. MR. BROWN-No. I don’t think that that makes a big difference. It’s a 1400 square foot building, and what the use of it turns out to be, you guys can decide on that. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-I have a, I vowed I’m going to be a little more tolerable on your application than I was the last time we met, so I’d like to ask this question. In the event that this would be approved, would you agree to a stipulation that there be no categories of any type of commercial use? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That doesn’t mean I’m in favor of it, but I just wanted to ask that question. MR. STEVES-I understand. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STEVES-I understand, I’m sure Mr. Threw does. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a question for the applicant, too. Your site that you’re planning on, you know, being right at the top of the bank, I know it’s, most of you guys probably haven’t been down on the river, but I have. To think of a storage building right there, sticking out like a sore thumb, I’m just wondering why you have to set it back that far off the beaten path. Why can’t you keep it up closer towards the frontage there, so it’s not seen from the river? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. STEVES-You mean more in? MR. STONE-More inland, you mean. MR. UNDERWOOD-You know, more inland. MR. STEVES-Right, moving it basically straight ahead toward Eagan Road. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, well, just to get it away from, so it’s not in the view shed looking from the river there. That’s something to consider. MR. STEVES-The steepness of that bank, as you know, and the distance of 200 and some odd feet, you’d have to be on the other side of the river to really see it, and we’re open to suggestions. We did move it farther away from the top of the bank than we originally had, with the shortening of the building. We had it in line with house, and we have kind of pushed it a little bit to the Eagan Road side, but, you know, I don’t think, personally, I don’t, but Mr. Threw, if he doesn’t, he wouldn’t be objectionable to stipulating the distance farther away from the bank. It was just in the location where it worked as far as driveways and such, but I don’t think it’s a big deal to move it forward. MR. STONE-Moving it up the driveway, shortening the driveway. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-Moving it basically at a northeasterly direction, which would be parallel or perpendicular to Eagan Road. However we want to call it. MR. STONE-However the road says on here, we’ll figure out which way it is. MR. URRICO-I’ll ask the same question I asked the last time. Is this a storage building, or is it a garage, a second garage? MR. THREW-Both. MR. URRICO-It’s going to be both. MR. STEVES-Yes. I think that was the question last time when we said storage building, and the question from this Board was are we going to be using it for storage of automobiles. He’s looking at an RV and then his antique car, and then we came to the conclusion, all of us, that if it’s a car, whether or not it would be licensed for the road at the time, it’s a garage. So that’s why we revamped the application and the plan to say garage with also saying storage. I mean, it’s going to be a garage, and then storage of the RV and miscellaneous items. MR. ABBATE-Storage, that hits another bell. You work for Mr. Schermerhorn I understand. What do you do, out of curiosity? MR. THREW-I’m a foreman. MR. ABBATE-Do you ever drive any heavy vehicles or equipment? MR. THREW-Yes. MR. ABBATE-You do. Do you ever drive them to your home? MR. THREW-At times, yes. To clean up my yard. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. ABBATE-What size of vehicles do you drive, commercial vehicles do you drive to your home? MR. THREW-I drive a pickup home. MR. ABBATE-That’s the largest size? You have no heavy equipment you ever drive at home? MR. THREW-To clean up my yard. MR. ABBATE-Well, what kind of heavy equipment would that be? MR. THREW-A backhoe. MR. ABBATE-A backhoe. Would you own a backhoe? MR. THREW-No. MR. ABBATE-You borrow it from Mr. Schermerhorn? MR. THREW-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And do you store that huge backhoe in your garage? MR. THREW-No. MR. ABBATE-So you store absolutely, other than the pickup truck. We’re not talking about that. Other than the pickup truck, you never store any heavy equipment in your garage, or on your property? MR. THREW-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Just a question. Thank you. MR. STONE-Why does this building have to be so high? I mean, obviously the square foot relief is one thing, and we haven’t, of course our Code doesn’t address volume except in the fact that we do have a height requirement, which creates a normal, or a natural cubic dimension, if you will. MR. STEVES-Well, the, if you look at the width of the building, 16 feet either side of the eaves, plus the rake overhang, to maintain a suitable pitch for snow load, you’re going to have some height. Even with an eight or nine foot wall, it’s not like we’re having a 10 or 12 foot high wall. You’re still going to have, I mean, we could reduce it as much as we could. I would say that architecturally and structurally, you would be hard pressed with a 32 foot wide building, even though we’ve narrowed it, to go much less than 20 feet, and still maintain a pitch suitable for snow load. MR. STONE-You just said much less than 20, and you’re asking for 21. MR. STEVES-You’re asking me what I can go down to, as far as snow load pitch, and I would say that 20 would be the absolute lowest. Twenty-one is optimal for the pitch for snow load. MR. BRYANT-What’s the pitch of the roof if it’s 20? MR. STEVES-4/12, rather than 5/12. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, comments anybody wants to make? Well, let me, we don’t have to open the public hearing. It’s still open. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? In favor? Please come forward, sir. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN EDWIN BOGUE MR. BOGUE-My name is Edwin Bogue. My wife and I have been at 79 Eagan Road for 56 years. We’ve only got our numbers here a few years ago. I’ve known the Threw family for a good many years, and I have no complaints, we have no complaints for this changeover whatsoever. It’s not going to be visible from the road that I can see, and at the time I wrote this letter, there’s a letter on file, an e-mail from my son-in-law, because I wasn’t sure I’d be able to make the meeting. I have a wife tied up with Rheumatoid Arthritis. So I never know where I’ll be, however, I wish to express our thoughts. We’re not against it, and we certainly would not do anything to destroy his venture. The last time I was at this meeting, I went through the same thing pretty much with the winery, if you remember, which seemed to appeal to all of you people, and they’re good neighbors, too. I don’t want to see any problem, but I just don’t understand why there’s so much flack. I don’t see any sense in tar and feathering someone. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, that’s, you’re saying you have no problem with it. MR. BOGUE-No, sir. MR. STONE-That’s the most important thing. MR. BOGUE-That’s right. MR. STONE-Is there anything in your letter you want to read? MR. BOGUE-No, you have it. MR. STONE-He says he doesn’t have it. Do you want to read it? MR. BOGUE-Okay. MR. STONE-Or you can turn it in and we can read it for you. MR. BOGUE-I’ll turn it in. MR. STONE-Why don’t you give it to Mr. McNulty and we’ll read it later. MR. BOGUE-Knowing that there’s two sides to each road, and each street, the one side is non- commercial, the other side is residential, and we happen to be on the residential side, which doesn’t allow any business, but I have one question to ask, and I’ve been to the Building Inspector about it, too. I have a neighbor who’s continually dumping all sorts of debris, most of it’s Town Highway debris, and I see the neighbors just dumping their grass and everything else. Is he running a hidden landfill, Mr. Fritsch? MR. STONE-You’ve made your, the Zoning Administrator is now aware of it. He will look into it. MR. BOGUE-I’ve called you a couple of times about it, and it comes right out to the road, and Mr. Threw is good enough to go in and push it back for him, and yet he’s one of the biggest complainers, and I just don’t believe you should tar and feather a man, and I have to live with this. All morning long I listen to a tailgate on a big dump truck banging, banging, dumping debris. MR. STONE-Okay. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. BOGUE-And I’d like to know what he’s doing there. If not running a business, then someone tell me. MR. STONE-I would suggest that Mr. Brown is now aware of it. I suggest that if you want to amplify those, you give him a call in the morning at his office, and he’ll be glad to entertain your comments. MR. BOGUE-Okay. Now you’re going to read this? MR. STONE-We’ll read it in when we get all done with humankind here. MR. BOGUE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of the application? Anybody opposed? Come forward, sir. CHRIS HADSELL MR. HADSELL-Chris Hadsell. I live directly across the street from the Threw residence, old and new, 25 Eagan Road, and when I was here last time we discussed a few things. They said they were supposed to advertise it as a garage. My letter says public hearing notice, 1400 square foot storage building. Relief requested, building size and height requirements. I don’t know where Mr. McNulty got his information as far as the addition and subtraction that he was doing, 16 and 5 to me is still 21 and not 22 that they’re asking for. MR. STONE-No, it is 21. They are asking for 21. Mr. Steves indicated a willingness, if it’s the Board’s pleasure, to go no higher than 20. That’s what I heard him say, and he certainly can comment on that eventually, but that’s what I heard. MR. HADSELL-There’s 40 signatures on a petition here, and in that petition there’s a Business Registration Number 201-7071 . I’ll read you what it says, “I hereby certify that I am conducting or transacting business under the name or designation of Adirondack Truck Repair at 25 Eagan Road, City or Town of Queensbury, County of Warren My full name is Tara B. Threw” Jeff’s wife. MR. ABBATE-At my age sometimes I get a little slow. So let’s take this thing one step at a time. MR. HADSELL-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Are you suggesting that there is a business at 25 Eagan Road? MR. HADSELL-I’m not suggesting it. It says it right here on this application. MR. BRYANT-Can we see that application, please. Where did you get this from? MR. HADSELL-Warren County. MR. ABBATE-And you also mentioned something about a petition. Has that been entered into evidence, or has that been provided to the secretary? MR. HADSELL-There’s copies there. MR. BRYANT-It’s right here. MR. STONE-Here’s the petition here. MR. HADSELL-With the addition of Mr. Fritsch’s signatures that he just brought to me, we have 39 signatures, 49 signatures, excuse me. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. ABBATE-Signatures opposed. MR. HADSELL-Opposed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-This has 30 on it, the one you gave me. MR. HADSELL-There’s 30 there and there’s 10 on the one in Jaime’s hand, I think, and nine on the one in, his name tag’s missing. MR. ABBATE-Okay. While we’re mulling that over, let me shift over to Craig. Craig, is this valid, this Business Registration number? MR. BROWN-I haven’t seen it. MR. ABBATE-This is the first it’s been brought to your attention? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So you don’t know any more than we do. MR. BROWN-It’s news to me. MR. ABBATE-Now, let’s hypothetically assume that it is valid. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. ABBATE-So, the next step, if it is valid, then there is a business being conducted in a WR- 1A zone. MR. BRYANT-You’re allowed to have a business. MR. ABBATE-You’re allowed to have a business there. MR. BROWN-Well, no, you’re certainly not allowed, you wouldn’t be allowed to have a commercial truck repair business there. MR. ABBATE-You wouldn’t? MR. BROWN-No, you would not. I don’t know what the nature of the business is. If it’s an office or an Internet based business, that’s not a problem. That’s not a violation. If there’s actual repair work being conducted there, which you may want to ask when the applicant’s come back to the table, then that could cause a problem for them. MR. ABBATE-What have you personally witnessed, in terms of the type of occupation that’s going on there, personally witnessed? MR. HADSELL-Personally witnessed? I’ve seen J.D. Boucher’s rag truck in and out of there a number of times, which hasn’t occurred since, like once since our last meeting, which he’s cleared up a little bit, and other than that just trucks in and out. I don’t know what they’re doing with them. They could be doing landscaping, but to me, a guy that’s in the landscaping/demolition/construction site business shouldn’t take a week, ten days to be able to create a landscaping job. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anything else? I mean, we obviously will give the applicant an opportunity to respond to what you’ve said, and we appreciate the effort that you’ve gone to with your neighbors. MR. HADSELL-This is the copy of the notice that was in the paper that states demolition a pole barn and construct a 1400 square foot storage building also. MR. STONE-Okay, but they had, the information that they have just provided to us with their survey does say garage. So they’re on notice. They have given us notice that it is going to be a garage, and you’ve commented on that, and we appreciate that. Anybody else wishing to speak against? In opposition. Why don’t you read whatever we’ve got in there. Why don’t you read the nature of the petition and then indicate that there are, how many signatures? MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I think we have someone who’d like to speak. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. Somebody else? Excuse me. I’m sorry. I didn’t see you. Didn’t mean to exclude you. PAUL FRITSCH MR. FRITSCH-Paul Fritsch, Eagan Road. My opposition to whatever it is, whether it’s a garage or, I’d like to keep it within the parameters that the Board has already set ,which I believe is 900 square feet, and my property line adjoins Mr. Threw’s. We share a common line there, and I am not at all interested in a truck repair business being run out of that garage. He can use it for storage or whatever. That’s fine by me, and keep what it’s supposed to be, so it’s visual impact on me or my property value is not that harsh, but this business thing is, as far as I know, it’s the same as mine, Waterfront Residential One Acre, and I’ve been told you can’t operate a business on that, of any kind. MR. ABBATE-Have you personally witness business being conducted in the manner in which you just described? MR. FRITSCH-How are you going to do that unless you’re in the garage? MR. ABBATE-Well, but you have to answer my question. MR. FRITSCH-Trucks going back and forth. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but have you personally witnessed this reported business? MR. FRITSCH-No. I’d be trespassing to do that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. FRITSCH-That’s up to you. You’re going to have to figure it out. MR. STONE-Now you are to the west of this property, Mr. Fritsch? MR. FRITSCH-I’m to the west. Yes. MR. STONE-I mean, that’s what it says on the survey. I just wanted to be sure. MR. FRITSCH-I did observe that J.D. Boucher, I believe it was a concrete flooring truck or something to that nature, going back and forth, from Eagan Road to Mr. Threw’s property for quite a number of weeks. I don’t know what, you know, what the truck was doing there or anything. I can’t say if he was repairing it. I do know that that information you received you received is public information, and it was listed in the Post Star over a year ago, Adirondack Truck Repair, 25 Eagan Road, Tara B. Threw. I don’t know why the Board’s not aware of this. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. STONE-We will ask that question. MR. FRITSCH-It does say in the first sentence right there that she’s conducting or transacting that business at that address. Adirondack Truck Repair, to me, does not sound like a computer type, or anything that was suggested before. It sounds like it would be heavy truck repair. MR. STONE-Well, we will ask t he question and get an answer. MR. FRITSCH-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak? Come forward, please. KEN REYNOLDS MR. REYNOLDS-Good evening. Ken Reynolds, 54 Eagan Road. My biggest concern is just going to be traffic. Eagan Road already, for the size that it is, already has enough traffic running up and down it. We were here a little while ago for this vineyard, but we don’t know what happened with that, but there’s definitely more traffic going in and out of our road every day. The oversized traffic has definitely simmered down a little bit from dumping clean fill and all that, but whatever’s going on on this property, whether it’s storage or whatnot, that’s fine, but I mean, having a small business with truck repair is definitely a concern to us, just for kids and residents. I have not witnessed any business. I mean, I have seen trucks in and out of there numerous times, but I have not personally witnessed any business being conducted out of that property. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. BRYANT-I just want to ask a question. Excuse me. Obviously, this was registered, the business, last year? MR. STONE-Yes, 2002. MR. BRYANT-So they’re probably doing it in the pole barn or something. So building this building is not going to really change that. I mean, you’re just against this business completely? You think it’s going to increase? MR. REYNOLDS-I don’t know. That’s what I don’t want it to do. Whether he’s using it for storage, that’s fine. Visually, from the road, what’s there now is not too much of an eyesore. I don’t know from other properties and stuff like that. River wise, yes, it is visible, but I don’t know if it will increase the business. I don’t know what the intentions are, but obviously a bigger building will be able to hold more stuff. MR. BRYANT-Well, actually this building is about the same size as the pole barn. MR. REYNOLDS-Right. The initial proposal was definitely for a larger building, but I don’t know, again, what the intentions are. So those are mainly the concerns. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Come forward, please. BILL MC LAUGHLIN MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Gentlemen, I’m Bill McLaughlin from Bardin Drive, which is in this same area. I just wanted to speak on behalf of the people in the Eagan Road area, just to remind the Zoning Board that some time ago a gentleman, with the full support of all the neighbors in our area, was denied putting up a pole barn on his property simply because he had a garage 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) already on his property. I think if that was the point at that time, why should it not be the same point at this time. It is a residential area. There are new homes being built in there. We want nothing to reduce the value of our homes with any type of business, whether it be or whether it will be or whether it is at present. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Well, wait, before you go, I’d like to ask a question, because you raise an issue in my mind. You stated that an individual in the same location, general location. MR. MC LAUGHLIN-In the same general location. MR. ABBATE-Was denied. MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Denied a pole barn, erecting a pole barn on his property. MR. ABBATE-Do you recall the name of the individual? MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Jeffrey MacPherson. MR. ABBATE-MacPherson. Do you recall the size of the pole barn by any chance? I know I’m putting you on the spot, and I don’t mean to? MR. MC LAUGHLIN-No, I don’t know the size of the pole barn, but it was to cover, simply cover, his boat at the time, and his motor home. MR. ABBATE-Can you recall why it was denied? MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Because he already had a garage on his property. MR. ABBATE-The reason I’m asking these questions is because I’m not aware of this history, and I want to make an intelligent decision, and it was denied because he already had a garage on the property. MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Already had a garage on his property. MR. ABBATE-And where was this location physically located? MR. MC LAUGHLIN-On the corner of Wolfe Road and Bardin Drive. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. MR. MC LAUGHLIN-Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? MR. FRITSCH-Can I speak again? MR. STONE-Surely, if you have something new to say. MR. FRITSCH-Well, I wanted to ask a question. MR. STONE-Well, come forward. MR. FRITSCH-Paul Fritsch, Eagan Road. Are you suggesting that the business is grandfathered in now? MR. BRYANT-No, not at all. I’m just saying if they’re conducting a business, it’s not going to make any difference if they build the building or not. They’re still going to conduct the business. He’s not supposed to conduct the business. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. FRITSCH-Right. MR. BRYANT-There’s no argument about that. MR. BRYANT-But taking place without the building. MR. FRITSCH-All right. What about the existing building? Is there any way we can challenge the Town to come up with the permits for that? MR. STONE-You certainly can challenge the Town. It is not part of this variance, but you can see Mr. Brown at any time. His office is always open. MR. BROWN-And more than likely, just to give a quick response to that, more than likely we’d ask the applicant to provide the permits. MR. FRITSCH-If there’s no permits for that building, where does that put us? MR. BROWN-Well, if there’s no permits for the building, and there’s any way to substantiate that it wasn’t there at a certain time and then all of a sudden it was, then it could be a violation, but if it’s an older pre-existing building that was constructed before permits were issued, then there’s no violation at all. MR. FRITSCH-Okay. Well, is there any way, I understand Mr. Hadsell who’s already left made that request before. I think he left. I may be wrong. I thought that they were, the Town, as a matter of fact, I did speak to Building and Codes about it, and they said they would check and see if the original building had the necessary permits and get back to me, and that was over three weeks ago. MR. STONE-Okay, but before us is an application to tear down that building and build another building. So that’s what we’re considering. If we were to turn this down, and that building would therefore stay, I assume, then I would suggest that you follow the procedure of going to see Mr. Brown and he will ask. MR. BROWN-Yes, well, I certainly think you have the applicant here tonight. You could certainly ask him. MR. STONE-We’ll bring the question up, yes. MR. FRITSCH-Well, that’s speculation, I guess, but if there were no permits for the original building, can they put up another building after they tear that one down? MR. BROWN-The question is how much weight do you want to give to that existing building as a tradeoff for a new building? And I guess until you have the answers to the validity of the existing building, you can’t answer that. MR. STONE-We’ll ask those questions when we get through with the public hearing. MR. FRITSCH-All right. Thank you. MR. HADSELL-Your name, sir? MR. BRYANT-I don’t have a name tag, and there’s a reason for that. I don’t want anybody to know my name. Bryant. MR. HADSELL-Bryant. You say, as far as an existing building, this and that, and it’s not going to be any different. Well, his existing building has a nine foot wide, maybe seven foot high, 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) maybe a little bit bigger, I’m not exactly sure of the dimensions, garage door on it, not a 14 footer. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Read in the petition with the language, and then just state the names and read whatever else you’ve got. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. The petition that we’ve been presented with tonight is dated August 20, 2003. It says, We the undersigned would like to express concern regarding the proposed change, Number 55-2003, and they list these points, size: 1400 square foot building, use of 1400 square foot building, business registration number 201-7071, Adirondack Truck Repair, commercial in nature in a residential area, and height affecting overall views from surrounding area. And best I can tell there’s something in excess of 40 signatures on these petitions that we have here. At least some of the names are the same names that were on the petition that we had at the last public hearing. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-But it’s a different petition. MR. STONE-A different petition, and there were 40 some names. MR. MC NULTY-There’s 40 here, plus whatever. MR. STONE-Any other correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-And then we had the note from Edwin and Mary Bogue that says, “Please be advised that Mary and Edwin Bogue, adjacent property owners to Mr. Jeffrey Threw, do hereby endorse his petition to the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury for the removal of the existing pole barn and the replacement structure for the enhancement and improvement of his business”, and as he indicated, he now understands it’s not a business. “Feel free to contact us at our Queensbury telephone number”, which he gives, “or our Ballston Spa telephone number”, which he also gives, “if you have any questions.” MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-That’s all I can find. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, would you also, did you read the business certificate in there? Could you do that? MR. STONE-Sure. Why don’t you read the business certificate that was provided. This is provided by the petitioners, and we can assume it’s a real copy, but it was provided by the. MR. BRYANT-I think it’s got a Warren County stamp on it. MR. MC NULTY-It’s provided by the petitioners. It does have a stamp indicating that it was recorded in Warren County on June. MR. STONE-10 2002. th MR. MC NULTY-And it reads, “I hereby certify that I am conducting or transacting business under the name or designation of Adirondack Truck Repair at 25 Eagan Road City or Town of Queensbury County of Warren State of New York My full name is Tara B. Threw and I reside at 25 Eagan Rd. Queensbury, New York I further certify that I am the successor in interest to the person or persons heretofore using such name or names to carry on or conduct or transact business.” And it was signed on the 10 day of June, 2002. th MR. STONE-And notarized. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. MC NULTY-Yes, and notarized. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Would the applicants come forward. We’d obviously invite your comments on what you heard, and we obviously have a number of questions to ask you. MR. STEVES-Okay. Matt Steves again. I’ll make a few comments, and then I’ll turn it over to Jeff. As far as the concerns that the neighboring residents have, I don’t want to put words in their mouth, but primarily sounds like there’s a business there, and we have no intentions of running a business out of this garage, tearing down the older pole barn and putting up a new pole barn that is not the intent of this at all. When we were here in front of this Board last time, the question was asked whether you carry or have any kind of equipment there, and Mr. Threw responded that he does in his second job drive a form truck for Mr. Boucher and asked him if that would be removed from the property, and it has been removed from the property. He’s not storing it there any more. If he drives that at night, it’s stored off of this property onto other sites, and I let Mr. Threw talk, when he left the Bill Threw, Inc. business, and before then, and between then and working for Mr. Schermerhorn, he was doing some truck repair, mobile truck repair. He had a Dodge panel truck and would go around and repair vehicles that were down, heavy equipment on site. Excavators would call up and have a problem with a dump truck or a backhoe and that’s what he’s done for many years, and he’s pretty good at it. So that’s what he went and did. I believe that the mailing address, that’s his home address, didn’t want to open up an office somewhere just to be able to do some mobile truck repair, and I can let him explain a little bit more of that. MR. THREW-Any questions? MR. STONE-Yes, state your name for the record. MR. THREW-Jeff Threw, 25 Eagan Road. MR. STONE-Well, obviously the question that everybody has, and, Mr. Abbate, why don’t you ask it. MR. ABBATE-Do you want me to try it? Okay. What’s the purpose of Adirondack Truck Repair? MR. STONE-I open up a mobile truck repair, equipment repair business. MR. ABBATE-And what do you show as an address? MR. THREW-25 Eagan Road. MR. ABBATE-Why do you show that as an address? MR. THREW-For the office. MR. ABBATE-So you’re operating a business on that property? MR. THREW-An office. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask this question. If you wanted to repair trucks on the property right now, based upon the permit that was granted by the Town, could you? MR. THREW-Could I? There’s nine by nine doors in there. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. ABBATE-It doesn’t have to be inside the door. MR. THREW-No. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask the question again. Based upon the Adirondack Truck Repair business, would you be able to conduct that type of business on your property? MR. THREW-Could I? Probably. MR. ABBATE-Either yes or no, not probably. MR. THREW-Yes. You could work on anything anywhere. MR. ABBATE-So your answer is yes. MR. THREW-Right. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, I’m confused, because I went through your application about ten times, and nowhere in there, and this is the first I’ve heard about a permit for an Adirondack Truck Repair business having been authorized on this property. Now, taking this surprise, Christmas present, into consideration, and the fact last time I was quite adamant concerning you wanted 2400 square foot, and I said, what are you talking about, 2400 square foot is larger than most of the homes in the Town of Queensbury. Now you’ve reduced it to 1400 square foot. Now I find out this evening that you have a permit to repair trucks. That permit allows you to repair trucks on your property. You admitted that. It’s on the record. MR. THREW-I could do it at your house, too. MR. ABBATE-But my house isn’t registered as a truck repair. MR. STEVES-Could I ask a question? And I don’t want to muddy the waters. I want to clarify something here. I think you said does he have a permit. He doesn’t have a permit from this Town to run a repair shop there, no. You’re asking if he has a valid business registration, yes, he does. You asked him whether or not he could run it there, yes he could. Whether or not he is, no, he’s not. MR. ABBATE-But he could. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. ABBATE-So we grant your variance this evening. MR. STEVES-I’m saying he could. He could do it there, but it would be against the Code. You’re not allowed by Town Code or Town zoning to operate a business out of that district. MR. STONE-Yes. Mr. Abbate, that’s not part of the variance. I mean, I’m sympathetic with what you’re saying, but this would not give him permission to operate a business. It would still be in violation of the WR-1A zone if he conducted a business, actually did the work on site. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I understand. No problem. MR. STEVES-And what we’re saying is that, and I’m not going to speak for Mr. Threw, but from conversations, he will not be operating a business there, at the request of this Board last time, trying to show good faith that we’re telling you the truth, is that you said please get that truck out of there, and he has done so. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. ABBATE-Would you agree to a stipulation that he revoke his permit, request to revoke his permit? MR. STEVES-Permit? Business registration? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. STEVES-Or move the address of the business registration? MR. ABBATE-Yes. One or the other. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And let’s go back to this truck business. Because something in the back of my mind is bothering me. You have a pickup truck, which is, you know, nothing wrong with a pickup truck. That’s the only truck you have on your property? MR. THREW-Pickup? Yes. MR. ABBATE-No, is that the only truck you have on your property? MR. THREW-The pickup? Yes. MR. ABBATE-Are there any type of other trucks you have on your property? MR. THREW-No. MR. ABBATE-No. Have you ever had any other type of trucks on your property? MR. THREW-To do work around my house, yes. MR. ABBATE-What kind of? You had the big, huge. MR. THREW-I brought a dump truck there to be able to move dirt, bring in topsoil. MR. ABBATE-But for your personal use? MR. THREW-Right. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Any other questions we want to ask of the applicant? So, as I understand, just for, before we begin to discuss it, that you have indicated that you want to tear down the pole barn. You want to put up a building which requires 500 square foot additions, and you asking for five feet height relief. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. STONE-And you have made certain concessions, and we’ll get to those when the time comes. MR. STEVES-Right, and we also want to reiterate the fact that 1400 square foot is not in addition to the existing 1280. It’s taking the 1280 down. MR. STONE-Correct, and as part of your application, you indicate that you will be tearing down the existing 1280 foot pole barn. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. STONE-Okay, and you’ve also indicated somewhat of a willingness to come down to 20 feet, and a willingness to move the garage, the new garage, up to the northeast slightly along the indicated proposed drive. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. STONE-On the survey. Okay. Having said all that, let’s start with Jim. What do you think? MR. BRYANT-I want to ask one more question. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. BRYANT-Just to satisfy one of your neighbor’s questions, when did you build the pole barn? MR. THREW-Probably ’83, and I did have a permit. MR. BRYANT-There is no permit. It was built before your house? MR. THREW-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay, because there’s no permit on record. We don’t have that permit. MR. THREW-For the pole barn? MR. BRYANT-Not for the pole barn. MR. THREW-I’ve got proof of it. MR. STONE-Okay. There’s nothing in the Staff notes, but, and as Mr. Brown said, he would ask them to show it, and Mr. Threw says he can show it, and we certainly can condition things on that if we so choose. Jim, where do you stand on this thing as we’ve been discussing it? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think there’s several points to consider. Number One, I think, is the appropriateness of a building of this size and scale for, you know, what’s essentially a residential neighborhood. You do have six acres of property there, and as we know, land in the Town of Queensbury is very quickly being developed. Who knows whether that will get subdivided at some point in the future into smaller lots, because it is a WR-1A zone, or SR-1A zone. I think the other thing to consider is that, because we are a WR-1A zone, and because of where you initially had planned to site it, you know, where it would be in plain view from the riverfront, even though you are setback quite a ways from the actual side of the river there, I think that has to be considered also because I think it, you know, most of our zoning code appropriately determines where buildings, especially commercial sized buildings go, and certainly in any other WR-1 zone in Town, I don’t think we would allow anything like this, you know, whether it was a marina pre-existing. If they wanted to add a building of that size, I think we would probably be opposed to it. The other point that I think that we need to consider is that, you know, because it is a residential zone, you would be taking down this one pole barn that you have. The other one is essentially the same size, but the one thing that kind of trips in my mind the fact that you have other intentions for the building is the size of the doors that you have on there. When you’re going to put up 14 foot commercial doors on a building, it suggests that you’re going to have a commercial use for those doors in the building, and I think, you know, in your present building with nine foot high doors, I think it limits your usage of the building to more of a residential usage, but certainly a building that’s going to be as wide as what you’re proposing, to me, suggests that you could go smaller, have appropriate, we’ve had a lot of these requests for large garages across Town, and most of them try to have a 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) residential nature to their, you know, usage, and I think that yours suggests more than that. So I would be opposed to the application. MR. STONE-You indicated, yes, would you like to just comment, one point. MR. STEVES-Yes, one point. On the doors, the original application was for the 14 foot doors, but with the shrinking of the building, they would be 10 foot doors. MR. STONE-Okay. Does that have any effect, Jim, on what you’ve said? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I think I’m basically opposed. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Several points. I shouldn’t say more significant. There are two significant points. One I am shocked at the level of disapproval, adamant level of disapproval, by the neighbors. This in itself tells a story. I don’t reside there. They do. We are discussing property that’s classed as WR-1A. So would I, as Jim had mentioned earlier, approve this type of construction on a WR-1 at the present time, on the boundaries of Lake George perhaps as an example, and the answer to that would be absolutely not. Two, there is an implied, although not implied, application for something perhaps that may be extended beyond that which is being requested, and I am very suspect of that. I could go on, but I’m sure other members have other choices, and so, in effect, Mr. Chairman, I would not support the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-First I want to say, we appreciate the amount of work that you’ve done at bringing this down to where you brought it. You took 1,000 square feet off the original application. Another five feet off the height. So you’ve done some work to bring it down into the normal realm. I understand what Mr. Abbate is saying and what Mr. Underwood is saying, but I also want to make the point that it is a six acre lot, that the building is not visible from the street. I don’t understand this undertow of your neighbor’s disapproval of the whole thing. Obviously you must have been a bad boy, because they all are against it, and you can’t see it. You can’t see your house from the road, and you probably, you wouldn’t be able to see the garage from the road. So I don’t understand the undertow. If we didn’t have this neighbor disapproval, I would probably go along with it, reduce it to maybe a 20 foot height, and I would probably go along with it, but at this point, with all this dissention, I’m really undecided, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to look at the test, and the test asked whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the nearby property will be created, and it’s been pointed out by Jim Underwood earlier that this is a WR- 1A zone, and it does effect the view from the lake, from the river, I’m sorry, and I think that, as well as the character of the neighborhood, is going to be affected. I’m going to add that, even though the pole barn is 1280 right now, and this is 1400, I don’t think because there was a previously existing accessory use structure that was nonconforming, that we should automatically approve another one, and so I think, in terms of the requested Area Variance, I don’t like the height. I think it’s five feet too big. I really don’t like garages that are above 16 feet. If this is a shed that we’re applying for, then it’s 900 feet too big, according to our zoning code. If it’s a garage, it’s 500 feet too big. So one way or the other, it’s still, it’s, I think, an excessively sized storage structure, or an accessory use structure. The benefit sought by the applicant, if he’s looking for extra storage space, I think they can do so closer to what is allowed, either as a storage shed or as a garage. As far as the adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. I’m not sure if it will or it won’t, and I’m not sure if this difficulty is self-created or not. It appears to me that it is self-created, in 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) replacing the pole barn, but I’m not really sure there, but I am sure about, I come down on the negative side on this, based on the test. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I can’t speak for the rest of the Board, but I certainly think there’s a sense here that there is two sides to this particular case, and both sides have points. In my mind, I do not see that the opposed garage is going to be that visible, you know, in the sense that the detriment to the neighborhood is going to be created by the construction of this building, and I think that Mr. Threw has answered the questions about the business, in a sense, because really, I can tell you from practical experience, it’s not uncommon, right or wrong, for people to have their business mail go to their house, and to have the business be someplace else. I mean, it does happen every day. I guess, on the other side of the coin, which my other Board members have pointed out, is that Mr. Threw already has a garage at his house, and that’s a decent size. I guess it’s a two car garage, if that’s correct, and essentially, this is 1400 square feet of more garage, and the garage ordinance has been challenged fairly significantly, in my experience on the Board, but not challenged to this extent, and I guess that’s where, that’s the controlling issue for me. I think that I’m not in favor of some relief on the building for Mr. Threw, but in this particular case, I think that we’re just looking at a situation here that we’ve, not approved garages significantly less than this when they were the primary garage, and I think on balance, in the consideration of the previous considerations, I think I would be opposed. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m going to reiterate some of the points that have been made. I think one of the bottom lines is this WR-1A zone, and as someone else said, when I think about would I approve something even remotely like this if it were Lake George waterfront or Glen Lake waterfront, the answer is no, absolutely not, and I think Hudson River waterfront’s got to be looked at the same way. It’s the same zoning. I’m a little disturbed on the re-advertising because I thought when we tabled this last time, that the point was to re-advertise it as a second garage, but however you cut it, again, as the point’s been made, if it’s a storage building, it’s way too large. If it’s a garage, it’s a second garage. There’s already a garage on the property. So it’s a second garage, and it’s too large. Even ignoring any potential for commercial use or not, just throwing that out entirely, just commercial garage, or just second garage, I think this size is way too large. It’s too big of a request. The neighbor’s comments are certainly an indication, but they’re a guide. They’re not a vote, but it’s just plain too much, and I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-It’s always interesting to me, as I sit here as Chairman, week after week, month after month, to see the thoroughness of the Board, in terms of looking at every issue that comes before us, and it’s interesting to me tonight because the first comment I wrote down, I wrote it somewhat differently than it’s been stated, but I said in its wisdom, the Town Board made this zone like that on Glen Lake, and Lake George, and as a number of the members have mentioned, we would never grant this kind of relief in those areas, and this is exactly the same zoning. This is a massive building by the standards by which we judge buildings. There is already an existing two car garage. This is an additional 1400 square feet. There is always the potential that this six acre lot can be subdivided, and therefore we’d have even more buildings on this thing. I think Mr. Urrico did a very good job as our resident checking the five points, as he does very, very well. MR. HAYES-That’s his charge. MR. STONE-That’s his charge, and I think he went through it very well, and I think when you come down, doing the balancing test with which we’re charged to do, I see no way to approve this, even with the modifications that the applicant has been willing to suggest he might make. I think it’s just a very large building, and having said that, I want a motion to deny if it’s, unless you want to say something else. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. STEVES-I just want to make one comment, and like I say, we do respect the Board’s decisions, and I just want to reiterate one thing, and I understand where this is going. I’m sure Mr. Threw does also, is that to re-state that the existing pole barn was there, and it was an allowed use when it was built, and I understand that if you were asking for that large of a building when you didn’t already have an existing building, what, if, you know, we can always come back with a new application, I understand, if it’s significantly different. MR. STONE-You can withdraw the application, too, and therefore we don’t have to deny it. MR. STEVES-Understood. My question to this Board is, before we get to that point, if you have an existing building there, and if you’ve been down to the site, and you’ve seen the nice home that he built, wouldn’t you be, if it was your house, wouldn’t you at least like to be able to move that building out of the way. Now, if you were to take the exact same size of that existing pole barn, move it exactly the same distance away from the water, but not right in front of the house, and move it over basically right in front of where the proposed building is going to be, is that an option? And I’m not looking for an approval. MR. STONE-The only thing I would caution you, because I don’t want to put people on the spot. I don’t think it’s fair, but we’ve always made our statements. The minutes will be available to be read and perused at your leisure, and therefore you can make that determination on your own. So the two options we have, it appears to me, looking at the votes, that we would deny this if we made a motion to deny it. You have the right to withdraw it without prejudice, so to speak, and do what you want. MR. STEVES-We’ll withdraw. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, can I caution the applicants that public opinion weighs quite heavily. MR. STEVES-And we don’t disagree, and I would believe that one of the things that we would do, and I’m sure we’ll be back, is to talk to the neighbors, and I don’t know this for a fact. I haven’t talked to them, but I believe that the main concern with the neighbors is traffic, if he’s operating a business. We’d dissolve that business that had a mailing address there, or we’d move the mailing address to a different location, and assure them that there won’t be any truck traffic down here. It’s going to be used for his personal use, and the building will be in line with the character of the house that is there, not the pole barn that is there now, a lot more eye appealing, as far as aesthetically, and generally the same size, but like I say, the building exists. We’re not asking for a building that isn’t already there. We’re basically asking for it to be moved with a slight enlargement. So if we make some changes and talk to them, we might be able to come back. MR. ABBATE-I think there’s a point, a very important point that you’re missing here, or maybe you’re just avoiding it. We’re talking about a WR-1, and let me leave it at that. MR. STEVES-And I wholeheartedly understand what you’re saying, but I wholeheartedly know for a fact that the building exists there. So you wouldn’t allow a new one, but one already exists. So you can’t force him to take that one down. MR. STONE-And we’re not suggesting that. MR. STEVES-And we’re just saying that maybe there’s a possibility of some other option to move that building. MR. STONE-There is, and as I say, if you study the minutes, I think we have been quite extensive in our comments, a lot of thought has gone into our comments, and we understand that officially you have withdrawn your application, and we will move on. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. STEVES-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II ANTHONY KOENIG AGENT: JOE ROULIER OWNER: ANTHONY KOENIG ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 60 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 176 SQ. FT. SINGLE-STORY SCREENED-IN PORCH ADDITION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 8/13/03 LOT SIZE: 0.07 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-52 SECTION: 179-4-30, 179-13-10 JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 73-2003, Anthony Koenig, Meeting Date: August 27, 2003 “Project Location: 60 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 176 sf single story screened in porch addition on the south side of the house. Relief Required: Applicant requests the following relief from the WR-1A requirements: 20.5 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback 17 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback 5 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum sideline setback (NOTE: Plot plan width dimensions total 52.5 feet in width, while overall width is indicated at 53.5 feet. Likewise, the road to shore dimensions total 64.5 vs. 65 foot indicated overall. Which dimensions are correct?) Additionally, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming structure per §179-13-10. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Would a narrower (6ft) porch be a feasible alternative? Will the proposed screen porch addition present any significant adverse impacts on the neighborhood? A Stormwater Management Permit from the Town will be necessary for this project.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 13, 2003 Project Name: Koenig, Anthony Owner: Anthony Koenig ID Number: QBY-03- AV-73 County Project#: Aug03-26 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 176 +/- sq. ft. single-story screened-in porch addition on the south side of the house. Relief requested from setback requirements and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: 60 Rockhurst Road Tax Map Number(s): 227.13-2-52 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 176 +/- sq. ft. porch on the south side of an existing home. The screened in porch will be located 10’ from the side setback where 15’ is required and 11’ from the front property line where 30’ is required. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources and recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 8/16/03. MR. STONE-Gentlemen. MR. ROULIER-Good evening. I’m Joe Roulier. I’m representing Mr. Tony Koenig who’s sitting next to me, and we’re here for your questions, of course, but first I just want to address one of 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) the notes that Mr. Craig Brown put down in the Staff notes regarding the size of the property. There’s a typo regarding the width. It goes from 53 feet six inches to 52 foot six inches. Okay, and then on the lateral sides of the property, the actual size is 65 feet. Now, the significance of this is that there’s a slight alteration in the area square footage. The area square footage that we initially indicated was 3478. This is subsequently reduced to 3413. The total allowable floor use based on the 22% Floor Area Ratio is reduced from 765 to 750. These are pretty insignificant reductions, but I want the Board to of it nonetheless. The existing floor area remains the same at 552, and the remaining area of development under the Town of Queensbury Floor Area Ratio calculation is 198.5 square feet, and the proposed screened in porch is 176 square feet. So even the proposal that is in front of you is less than the allowed Floor Area Ratio. Something unusual for a change. The Area Variance Site Development Data regarding the nonpermeable calculation goes from 1014 for the nonpermeable. The parcel area is 3413, and the percentage of nonpermeable goes from 29.15 to 29.71. So I realize that these are relatively insignificant or minor calculations, but I feel it’s important on a lot this size that the Board be thoroughly aware of this. The next part of this that I would like to bring to your attention is that the proposed screened in porch will be no closer to the water than the existing seasonal camp that’s there. It will be back from the rear road area. The house is set back now at 11 feet. The proposed screened in porch will be set at 13 feet. It will have no effect, obviously, on the north side of the property, and the effect will only be seen nominally on the south side of the property where we’re obviously looking for relief on the side line setback. The structure’s height, the proposed height will be identical to the structure that’s there. Mr. Koenig told me that he wants the roofline to be tied in, the proposed porch roofline will be identical to the roofline that currently exits on the house, and that the porch itself will be constructed, designed and built in a fashion that’ll be compatible to the house that’s there. Mr. Koenig has gone through great lengths to keep the house a small seasonal cottage. There’s, we want to keep the porch in keeping with the design. He’s basically made it look like a small little Adirondack cottage on Rockhurst, and I think he’s done a great job of it. I could tell you that if the property was in different hands, we might be in for an expansion of bedrooms. We might be in for an expansion of septic systems. We might be looking for a second story, and this is not in the cards. All we’re asking for right at this time is for Mr. Koenig’s family to be able to enjoy this, with the addition of the screened in porch. There’s no other, are there any feasible alternatives? There’s no feasible alternatives. If any of the Board members have been up to that particular piece of property, you certainly can’t go further out in front of the house towards the lake. You can’t go to the north side, it’s encumbered by fencing, approaches the property line already, and you certainly would never go to the rear or to the roadside of it. So this, we feel as though is the best location. There’s, always when I’m in front of the Board, one of my principal considerations is will this be obstructing anyone’s view, of the neighbors’ view, will that be compromised or encumbered, and we truly believe that this proposed screened in porch will not affect any of the neighbors, particularly the neighbor to the west, which is across the road, and the neighbor to the south, adjacent to the property where it would go. Mr. Koenig was good enough to take pictures, and I’d like to present them to the Board. What these pictures are, it shows Rockhurst Road. Because of the narrowness of the road, you can see where the traffic or the people that own property there are forced to park either in the road or on their own property. Mr. Koenig parks his vehicles over on his own property, immediately adjacent to this area, but the combination of the vehicles parked by the neighbors on both sides, the combination of the fence, you can see from these pictures it demonstrates that no views of any neighbors will be compromised, and I think, before I present this to the Board, I would like to make one other comment. No trees, if you go up and you see where this proposed screened in porch will be built, it’s not like we’re going to have to remove any shrubbery. We’re not going to have to remove any trees. This is an open area. There’s trees down towards the shoreline portion of his property, which will block any view from the lake of the screened in porch, and I know that the Board, in the last application, is concerned that, what is the appearance of something from the lake, whether it be the river, Glen Lake, or Lake George, and in this particular proposal, what we have is a grouping of trees down there which essentially will block any view of the screened in porch from Lake George, but I think it’s important that the Board knows that we will not be removing any trees to accomplish what we want to accomplish. So with that, let me present these pictures to you. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. ABBATE-Could I, are we under any kind of pressure, based upon how we’re going to vote, from 007? If you check the size your lot, it’s 0.07. I just, well, that’s all right. I was just trying to lighten up the evening. That’s all. MR. BRYANT-I have a couple of real questions. When you reduce the lot size, width, by 52’ 6”, does that affect the ten foot setback? Does that change? MR. ROULIER-No. The 53’ 6” to the 52’ 6”, okay, that was just an error when we did the, when we actually put the numbers down on the plot plan. All the other numbers on that plot plan remain the same, and are correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay, because if you add the 24, 6, 10 and 18, you come up with 52’ 6”. Okay. MR. ROULIER-Okay. You made the statement that the deck is not going to be any closer, the porch is not going to be any closer to the lake. What about the stairs? They look like they protrude beyond the house. MR. ROULIER-Yes. We would propose that the stairs be in that particular location. I don’t know if there is any restriction, Mr. Brown could certainly address that, if we would not be allowed to put the stairs in that location. MR. STONE-The stairs count. MR. BRYANT-They count, and you made a statement that you’re not getting any closer to the lake, but the stairs are closer to the lake. MR. ROULIER-The stairs would put that within a three foot closer to the lake. That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Out of curiosity, why would you build a porch looking in your neighbor’s window? Why didn’t you build a porch in that little square cut out of the house in the back there? MR. ROULIER-The little square that’s cut out on the house is approximately four foot by twelve foot. So in order to gain the same square footage that we would like to have, and it’s a pretty nominal square footage, we’re looking at 176 versus approximately 48 square feet. It would be hardly worth the effort to do that. MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m not saying build a four foot porch. I’m saying you could have built a six foot porch there, by 12 foot, 72 feet. Yes, it’s not 100 and whatever, 76 feet, but it’ll give you a better view. That’s my only, you know what I’m saying? When you sit on the porch, you don’t want to look at your neighbor taking a shower. You’d rather look at the boats passing on the lake. MR. ROULIER-It would be an extremely small screened in porch, four foot wide by twelve, and for that reason, I mean, I understand what you’re saying, why don’t you make it six foot wide, but then you’re back to the scenario of then encroaching further on the shoreline. MR. BRYANT-I understand that, but from a, you know, in this case, quality is better than quantity. ANTHONY KOENIG MR. KOENIG-Can I answer the question? There is a deed restriction going further in front of the existing property than it is. So, we could go no further out than four foot on that, and it wouldn’t be economically feasible. MR. STONE-Let me ask a question before we get too far away. The stairs bit. It says 20.5 feet of relief from the 50. Now that was not including the stairs? Because it would be 23 feet. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. BROWN-No, I did not include the stairs. I went by the dimension that was on the plot plan, 29 and a half feet to the porch. MR. STONE-But the stairs would count. So it’s actually 23 and a half feet of relief. MR. BROWN-If it’s a three foot wide set of stairs, that’d be correct. MR. STONE-Is that correct, are these stairs three foot wide? MR. ROULIER-Yes, that’s correct. It would just be an open staircase. MR. STONE-But it’s okay. They’re construction and they count, in terms of setback from the lake. So what you’re looking for is 23 and a half feet of relief, approximately, from the lake. MR. ROULIER-If that’s how the Town of Queensbury would interpret it. MR. STONE-That’s how the Town of Queensbury does interpret it. MR. ROULIER-Then that’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-See, you could have seven feet instead of four feet, see. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, on a serious note, I think your presentation, quite frankly, was well thought out. You’ve covered a lot of the bases and saved a lot of questioning. I like the idea of the fact that, other than the stairs, it’s not going to be any closer to the lake, and I like the idea that the height is going to be identical to the roofline at the present time, and, third, I like the idea that the construction is going to be comparable to the construction that’s there at the present time. MR. ROULIER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-I think these are extremely important views, and, you know, you’re under, 0.07, you’re under tremendous stress to do anything on a lot that size, in my opinion. So if you could accomplish anything at all, it would be almost a miracle, but. MR. ROULIER-I think it’s remarkable, first of all, that Mr. Koenig has the proposal, and as I said earlier, that we’re not looking for a second story or anything. You know what we’ve done up on Rockhurst. I mean, we’re always in for something and we’re always exceeding the floor area ratio. In this particular application, we actually have something under it. Now granted we may have a bit of difficulty with the stairs. In my opinion the stairs, it’s not a big hurdle for us to get over. I think that that can be accomplished, and even if we throw in the stairs, we’re still under the, just squeaking by the 22% on the Floor Area Ratio. As you go back over the test, you know, as you look over the pictures and you go back over the test of why an Area Variance should be granted, will it have an adverse effect. Will this have any adverse effect. We have basically a community up there of relatively small homes on relatively small pieces of property. It’s undeniable. I think, if this was in the hands of any other property owner, we could be coming back in with a far in excess Floor Area Ratio calculation. We could be looking at a lot of other scenarios that aren’t as simplistic and nice as, and clean, as this particular proposal, and that’s why I would certainly hope that the Board would take all of that into consideration and pass this for Mr. Koenig. MR. STONE-Thank you. Mr. Koenig, just for purposes of information, how long have you owned this property? MR. KOENIG-It’ll be three years this year that I’ve owned this piece of property. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. STONE-Okay. So just for the record, you bought it with the current zoning in place? MR. KOENIG-Yes, I did. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. URRICO-I have a couple of questions, just curiosity more than anything else. It seemed like there were about three cars parked in front when I was there yesterday. Is that pretty typical, that you have that many cars parked that close to the home? MR. KOENIG-On 52 feet 6 inches, you can fit three cars, but one of them has to be about 197 inches, otherwise you’re not going to be able to get in and out. We’re very careful with that, and, you know, it’s what’s there. There is availability to rent space down at the Cleverdale Country Store which many people do use that as an override, but you will see, you know, two to three cars on most pieces of property up there. There’s a 37 foot frontage two houses up on the other side, and they park two cars there. So, it’s close. MR. URRICO-Now you also mentioned a deed restriction. I’m not sure I understand what that says. MR. KOENIG-Yes. The deed says that you can’t go any further towards the lake or towards the road than the existing structure. You can’t put a structure up there. In other words, I couldn’t put a screened porch out in front. MR. STONE-Just as a matter of information, does the neighbor’s fence bother you? Because it appears to me that it’s an illegal fence on the road. Does that bother you in any way? MR. KOENIG-The neighbor’s fence has been there since 1994. I moved up to Rockhurst Road in 1994. I had that same fence in front of my house, and I took it down. That particular house, which is to the north side that you’re speaking of, I believe it’s the, no, it’s not the only one that’s left, because if you look going out of Rockhurst Road off the point, there’s two fences on the west side. MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, it’s in front of the house, and it’s at least six foot high.\ MR. KOENIG-But it’s been there a long time. MR. STONE-Well, ’94 is, I don’t know when the Fence Ordinance. Craig, any comment on that? Have you seen that fence? MR. BROWN-Yes, I’ve seen the fence. MR. STONE-It’s not legal, is it? MR. BROWN-Well, I don’t know the date that it was. MR. STONE-Well, he’s saying ’94, well it’s been there since ’94. MR. BROWN-At least ’94. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. If it were put up today, it would not be a legal fence. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. KOENIG-I might say that I visited the properties in 1957, on Rockhurst Road, and they all had those same fences that you see to the north side. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. STONE-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions? Well, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-We’ve got a couple of pieces of correspondence. One is from Thomas and Susan Sargent from 59 Rockhurst Road. They say, “We live at 59 Rockhurst Road which is directly across the street from the subject property owned by Anthony Koenig. We have no objection to the proposed porch addition and support approval of variance 73-2003. Thomas & Susan Sargent 59 Rockhurst Road, Cleverdale, NY 12820” And the other one is a note from a J. Horrigan, it says, “I do not have any objection to the application of Anthony Koenig, Number 73-2003.” MR. STONE-And what’s their location, does it say? MR. MC NULTY-It gives their home address. MR. KOENIG-They’re at Number 53 Rockhurst. MR. STONE-They’re across the street, too. MR. KOENIG-They’re across the street and down a little bit. MR. STONE-Okay. So, the neighbor either to the north or the south on your side has not commented yes or no. MR. KOENIG-Yes. My wife spoke to Elaine on the north, and I don’t think she had a comment. We haven’t spoken to Bert in regard to it. MR. STONE-Okay, but they have no position on it that we’re aware of. Let me close the public hearing. That’s it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-All right. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Anything, comments you want to make? Go ahead, Chuck. MR. ABBATE-All right. My memory is really bad, but last year, either you or your brother came before us for a gazebo. Is that correct? MR. KOENIG-That was me. MR. ABBATE-That was you. I’m not doing bad at all. MR. KOENIG-That was, probably four years ago, three, four years ago. That was for my home. This is a camp, and it’ll always be a camp. MR. ABBATE-Completely different. MR. KOENIG-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes, okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-So your home is in Queensbury, too, then? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. KOENIG-It’s 55 Rockhurst Road. It’s catty corner from this property, and I don’t have any problems with Mr. Koenig. MR. STONE-Thanks, Chuck, for letting him get that in. MR. ABBATE-That’s okay. MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? Well, let’s start with Mr. Abbate, since you just. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, you’re dealing with 0.07. It would be pretty tough to say that you had many options, and Counselor said it right. You’re not being unreasonable on this thing, and I said earlier, at another application, that public opinion really has to count, because after all, these folks are the ones that live around that area, and there are two pieces of correspondence which support your application, and if your life and your family’s life can be a little more enjoyable because of a 176 square foot story screened in porch, then you know what, good for you, and I would support the application. MR. STONE-For the purposes of the record, since Mr. Roulier does not want to deny it, I don’t believe he is of the legal persuasion. MR. ROULIER-No, I’m a general contractor. MR. ABBATE-You’re not counsel, you’re a general contractor. MR. ROULIER-That’s right. MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me start from the beginning again. MR. ROULIER-But thank you very much. I don’t know if it’s good or bad, though. MR. ABBATE-You’re very impressive. MR. STONE-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I have a couple of issues with it. Number One is of course the stairs, and now if you have a deed restriction that says you can’t build any closer to the lake, you’re going to have to shorten the deck a little bit, or the porch, to get the stairs inside the structure. Is that what you plan on doing? MR. ROULIER-Can I just have one minute, please. MR. BRYANT-Sure. MR. STONE-Sure, go ahead. MR. KOENIG-The stairs are not a structure, according to the way the legal professional handles it. As far as your guidelines, yes, it’s part of the structure, but it’s not a permanent structure as far as the, you know, the stairs going down. So it wouldn’t be the same thing that we would have any problem in the court system if this Board chose to approve it. MR. HAYES-Do you agree with that, Counselor? MR. STONE-Now, are you speaking as a lawyer? MR. URRICO-Let’s ask our Town Attorney. MR. STONE-We’ll ask Mr. Brown. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. HAYES-That’s a private agreement, though. MR. BROWN-Yes. It gets back to the enforcement of deed covenants and restrictions, which we don’t do. If it would help the Board at all, maybe the applicant could supply a copy of the deed so you could see the wording, the verbiage itself, but if it’s a condition of a private contract, it’s not something that the Town can enforce. MR. STONE-All right, but the point is, the stairs, as far as their closeness to the lake, does count in terms of the 50 foot setback requirement. MR. BROWN-Right. Certainly if you know about the deed restriction and there’s a way to deal with it without, you know, developing a problem that would be in conflict with that restriction, that would probably be a good thing to do, but you’re not charged to do that. MR. STONE-The deed doesn’t come involved, if they want to put the steps where they do, that is going to be approximately 27 and a half feet from the lake, as distinct from the requirement of 50. It is a structure. It is part of a setback. MR. HAYES-Dimensional relief. MR. STONE-Dimensional relief. That’s the point. If we grant the application as presented to us, we are granting 23 and a half feet of relief. MR. HAYES-And you’re modifying your application. MR. STONE-Well, they haven’t modified it. MR. ROULIER-No. I’d like to ask Mr. Stone a question. MR. STONE-Sure. MR. ROULIER-If we leave the stairs there, would that jeopardize our request with this Board at this time? MR. BRYANT-We haven’t gotten that far. We’re just starting to talk. MR. STONE-He’s still talking. We just started. I mean, I certainly am going to bring it up. Let’s put it that way. I cannot speak for the rest, and they will speak, we’re still on the second one. So let’s listen to Mr. Bryant. MR. ROULIER-Okay. MR. BRYANT-Basically, what I’m saying is, yes, it would jeopardize. I’d like to see the stairs end at the end of the building. MR. ROULIER-Okay. MR. BRYANT-So that was Item Number One. Item Number Two relates to your neighbors on the south. They’re the ones that are going to be most affected, and we didn’t hear from them, and that’s unfortunate. All in all, I think it’s a good plan. You don’t have, there’s not a lot you can put on a postage stamp. So, it’s a small lot, and you really don’t have anyplace else to put a porch. So, I think it’s a good plan if you just cut it back a little bit, square it off with the house. There are some comments in the Staff notes that they’d like to see a narrower porch. Your porch is, what, it’s going to be eight feet now? MR. ROULIER-It will be eight feet. In fact, I asked Mr. Brown about that, and he indicated to me that that was purely a speculative number that he through out there. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. BRYANT-Yes, sure. I mean, you know, our, we’re charged with granting the least amount of relief possible. Whatever we can get away with, that’s what we’re going to give you. Six feet is a little small for a porch. Mr. Koenig is not a slim fellow, and neither am I, and I need a lot more room than six feet to stretch. Do you know what I’m saying? So I think it’s a good plan. Just cut the porch back a little bit. I’d be in favor of it. Just one question. You didn’t take any insulation off your pipes today or anything? Because there was a State inspector, somebody had dumped some asbestos illegally in your road. There was a big bag full of pipe insulation. Did you see that today? They were out there today. They stopped me and they wanted to see identification and all that stuff. It was right on your road there. MR. KOENIG-Well, the road there, they’re kind of fussy about to who goes up there. MR. BRYANT-They’re fussy anyplace about asbestos. MR. KOENIG-No, I don’t know. I never even heard anything about this. So, it’s new to me. MR. BRYANT-In any event, Mr. Chairman, I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Well, you’re in favor if, you’re not in favor of the 23 and a half foot of relief? MR. BRYANT-Right. I’m in favor of the. MR. STONE-20.5 feet of relief? MR. BRYANT-Exactly. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Being that I’ve been officially charged with using the test, I feel compelled not to do it, because I’m sort of a rebel, but I will because it will help me figure this out. I don’t think it’s going to change the character of the neighborhood, for one thing. I mean, obviously, they’re pretty well fit tightly together there. So I don’t think this is going to have a change. Whether this could be achieved by some method, well, yes, you don’t have to put the porch up. So there is a feasible alternative. This is just, if I go through the test. As far as the Area Variance being substantial, I do agree with Mr. Bryant, and I think I would like to see the stairs moved back so there’s no further intrusion out toward the lake. One of the points that we make is that there is no additional protrusion out into the lake, but the stairs do count, and I would like to see the porch moved back so that it is flat to the house again. As far as the impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, I really don’t see any there, and I do think this is a self-created situation because you are putting a porch up, but if I was in the same position, I’d probably do the same thing, but it is self-created, in my estimation, but I would be in favor of it with the condition that the stairs be moved. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think I essentially agree with the rest of the Board members. As I’ve looked at this application and looked at the size of the parcel, you know, it was very clear to me that very little could be done. I mean, it’s just really almost by definition. I could only be in favor of an extremely minimal undertaking, and perhaps this is that, in the broadest sense. We certainly are all aware that Rockhurst is an area that’s got to be protected. It’s certainly overdeveloped. I don’t think anybody that lives up there would argue with that depiction. Certainly people that are doing things to protect the lake feel that way. So I would be against anything that amounted to anything that amounted to a real expansion of this facility or this house, but I don’t think I would characterize this porch as that, as long as it remains a porch. I would only be in favor of it if there was some kind of contingency in the motion that this would never be enclosed, you know, in the sense of living area. Because I think that a porch is different, at least in its impact than a, you know, a true part of the house. So I guess, you know, looking at the 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) test, as Roy just did, and I think that, you know, it’s a narrow balance here, but I really don’t see any true negative or important negative impact on the neighborhood as a result of what you’ve proposed here, and I think that, you know, the benefit to you is fairly obvious, and I really think that feasible alternative are limited in this particular case, to something like this, no more. So, on balance, I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I, too, would be in favor, I think, as has been said, I think this is a relatively minor proposal, and anything you do there is going to require some relief. Judging from the appearance of the place there now, I’m sure it’s going to be attractive, and the three feet intrusion of a set of open stairs into the setback, three feet additional, I’m not sure that that really bothers me, either. So, I’d be in favor of the proposal as it’s been presented. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I basically am in agreement with everyone else. The stairs in front, I really don’t have a problem with those either. I think it’s a minimal effect. It’s not going to have any effect on the lake as far as that goes. The only alternative that I could come up with in my own mind was, you know, some kind of a portable screen house you put up in the summertime and then you could put that out on the front side there on the grass, but, you know, given the very small nature of the home, and, you know, the eight foot wide porch as you’re proposing, I’d go along with your request. MR. STONE-I’m going to start out as the contrarian, and where I end up, you’ll just have to listen, because I’m not sure where I’m going to end up. These stairs smacks me of my own personal experience. In 1991 I came before this Board, knowing that I wanted to be as close to the lake as possible, and knowing that I wanted a porch as large as possible, and in order to accommodate the zoning and ask for a minimum of change, because we did get a variance, in all candor, I put my steps down parallel to the shore, so that they did not encroach closer to the lake than the current zoning, as it turns out. So I understand the need to make concessions, and we did make a concession. I’m also concerned by the fact that Mr. Koenig bought this property three years ago when WR-1A current zoning was in place, knew what the requirements were for this piece of property. Yes, it’s a small piece of property. Yes, all the properties there are small, but nevertheless, I don’t think it is the Zoning Board’s responsibility to, as I always say, correct a business decision that was made with full knowledge. However, I am sympathetic to the comments that I’ve heard by the Board. I certainly understand the need, if you will, the request for a porch. I recognize the character of the neighborhood, and I think Mr. Roulier did a very excellent job of talking about the neighborhood and minimizing impact on it. This is a small house on a small lot in a neighborhood of small houses, and I have been fairly vocal on particularly going up, and I have been in opposition to some of my fellow Board members on a number of occasions when it comes to that. This, of course, is not going up, and I applaud that. I appreciate that. I think, on balance, and that, of course, is what we’re charged to do, I think if the porch were, or if the stairs were made to be within the easterly dimension, if you will, impact on the lake, I could, in fact, vote for it, but I think the minimum relief that I could grant is 20 feet. I could not grant 23 and a half. I think we’re almost half the distance to what it’s supposed to be. Having said that, and looking at the numbers, I think we need a motion to approve. I’m going to ask you to make it, Jaime, but I think the motion certainly has to include. Go ahead, sir. MR. KOENIG-Can we say something? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. KOENIG-Basically the question is if the stairs were to be moved to the south side, where we would be asking the three feet, we’re asking for ten feet on the south side, and, I’m sorry, five feet on the south side, where that would be eight. Would that be more acceptable? 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. STONE-The only concern I would have with that is that the neighbor is going to be impacted, and he must be told about it. We could table it with that, and make them aware that you’d like to do that, because now you’re getting closer to his property, and that does have a direct effect on your neighbor. MR. KOENIG-A second option is in the, the frontage on the house right now is 10 feet from the road. This would be 13 feet from the road. If the steps were put in to that three feet, where they would still be within the front of the house, it wouldn’t be any closer to the road, but the steps would be right there. It would still fall within the same. MR. STONE-I know what you mean. That would, I would have no problem with that. I can’t speak for anybody else. MR. BRYANT-You don’t want to give up three feet of that deck, do you? MR. KOENIG-I’m a big man, just like you said, and, you know. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but not that way. MR. KOENIG-I’m big every way. My son-in-law’s six, six. MR. BRYANT-I’m not understanding exactly where you’re going to put that? MR. STONE-He wants to fill in on the west side. MR. KOENIG-On the west side. MR. BRYANT-Yes, I know, but isn’t there a fence there? MR. KOENIG-Yes. MR. BRYANT-So where is that going to be in relationship to the, how far is the deck, the porch away from the fence? MR. KOENIG-It’s going to be pretty close to it. That piece of fence where that eight feet out, the fence would come out, and you would have a stair there. MR. BRYANT-So how are you going to put the stairs there? MR. STONE-He’s taking the fence out, he said. MR. KOENIG-The fence won’t be there. That piece of fence for the eight feet wouldn’t be there. MR. BRYANT-I still don’t understand what you’re going to do. MR. STONE-You want to come up and show him on his, I think I understand it. MR. KOENIG-This would all be blended in. MR. BRYANT-So now you’re going to get rid of the fence and put the stairs there? MR. ROULIER-We would alter the fence, so that we could have a stair right here. Keep in mind that the land grades down toward the lake, okay. So we would actually have possibly one or two stairs in the rear portion of it, versus the staircase we would need in the front. MR. STONE-You’d have a stoop more than anything else. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. ROULIER-Yes. It’s very shallow right, in fact the house only sits about six inches above grade right at that point. So it would essentially be a door walking right out. It would be a landing, that’s all. MR. BRYANT-So you’re going to get rid of the fence. MR. ROULIER-We would alter the fence. MR. BRYANT-This porch is not going to protrude the front of the house? MR. ROULIER-No. MR. BRYANT-No. The stairs won’t come past the front of the house. MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. KOENIG-Absolutely not. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ROULIER-So the porch is what’s indicated there, less the stairs on the lakeside. MR. HAYES-So you’d be modifying the relief back to the original, then essentially. MR. ROULIER-We would be back to the 29’ 6”. MR. STONE-And the front setback now goes to 20, though. MR. BRYANT-It’s the same. It stays the same because he’s not protruding. MR. STONE-Well, then why did we need relief? MR. BRYANT-Because the house already is in violation. MR. STONE-I understand that. You’re going to go out to here. We were seeking 30 foot minimum front setback, even though the Town Code, it’s not the front of the house. Those of us who live on the lake know, but Mr. Brown doesn’t live on the lake, and he doesn’t know that that’s that’s not the front. MR. BROWN-Well, I hope to one day, but I don’t live on the lake today. No. I guess my question would be, to answer your question, what the building code requires, any time you have an exit, you know, a set of stairs entering a residence, I think you’re required to have a landing, if the rise is more than one step. So if the entry into this west end of the porch is going to be higher than eight inches, you may be required to have a three foot landing there to accommodate the door swing. MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. BROWN-So you don’t have to stand on the stairs and back down the stairs to go in. So I don’t know if that’s going to fit in your, what looks like eleven from the road to the house, and 13 to the deck. Is that going to fit in that two feet area there of landing and stairs, or is that west end of the deck going to get shorter now? MR. KOENIG-We would alter the west end to, so we would have a three foot stairs. So it would be 21 6, instead of 22. MR. STONE-Okay. In other words, you want to be as close to the lake as you’re proposing. You’re willing to give it up slightly on the other end. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. MC NULTY-If you’ve got to have the landing there, couldn’t you turn your stairs and make them parallel to the road? Rather than cut off the end of the porch. MR. KOENIG-I think you need three foot for a landing, and it’s only two feet, six. MR. HAYES-You need a three foot square outside the structure. MR. STONE-Well, what you’re proposing is you’re asking for the. MR. BRYANT-It’s more than seven inches. MR. STONE-You’re asking for 19 feet of relief, and you will figure out how to do it in that 19 feet. MR. ROULIER-What we’ll do, the dimensions that are on the plot plan, that’s all the setbacks that we will require, and then if we have to alter the back portion, which would be the westerly portion, possibly by altering the grade, we could certainly raise the grade right there so it would be an eight inch step right in to the back. MR. STONE-The structure he’s going to build is going to be no closer than 11 feet to the road. So you need 19 feet of relief on the front, and you need the side relief and you need the 20.5 feet of relief to the lake side. MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Everybody understand what we’re talking about? MR. BRYANT-I don’t understand why you need additional relief if the stairs don’t protrude the front of the house. MR. STONE-Because they needed relief because they’re building something that doesn’t exist, and it’s within the setback. The porch needed relief. MR. BRYANT-Yes, I understand that. MR. ROULIER-It’s the identical, Mr. Stone, the identical relief of what we’ve requested is what we would like you to approve. We don’t want any additional relief for stairs or anything. Because the most that we will be looking at would probably be an eight inch landing and we’ll probably address that with some type of grading. MR. STONE-Yes, but if we grant relief to the current road side of the house, that would get it up to 19 feet of relief, and that would cover it all. MR. BROWN-It doesn’t sound like that’s what they’re asking for, though. They don’t want to do that. They want to stick with the 13 feet from the road. Is that what you just said? MR. ROULIER-Yes. MR. STONE-Well, what are you going to build in there? MR. HAYES-Well, if it’s not an eight inch rise, then all they have to do is have a step, right? MR. BROWN-They’ll have the porch, and rather than have steps, they’ll raise the grade up so it’s just one step out to the grade. MR. STONE-I understand. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. BROWN-So they don’t need a three foot landing. MR. STONE-But if we granted relief all the way out to the front of the house, that covers it. If they don’t use all that. MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. BROWN-I was just trying to get to Mr. Bryant’s question. It didn’t sound like that’s. MR. BRYANT-Here’s where I would go, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead. MR. BRYANT-I don’t want to even touch the front setback. I’d go with the 20 foot 5 setback from the shore, and cut the deck by three feet. That’s what I would agree to. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-You know, what you’re doing is you’re robbing Peter to pay Paul. I know you want to protect the lake, and I understand that, but now you’re creating a situation where you’re building something closer to the road. MR. STONE-Well, I’m listening to them. I’m not. MR. BRYANT-Here’s my position. My position is I’d give them exactly what they asked for, 20 foot 5. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-And 17 feet. That’s it. Okay. That’s where I am. MR. STONE-That’s where you are. Okay. So they’re going to have to work in that as far as you’re concerned. Okay. Let me just go through. We’ll make a motion. MR. ROULIER-Just so that we’re clear on this, okay, because Mr. Koenig thinks it’s something different. What we will do is make the entrance to this for, to come out of the deck, we will put on the westerly end. We’re not going to have the stairs on the lake side. MR. STONE-Right. MR. ROULIER-We’re proposing the screened in porch to be the identical size, no stairs. So we want the front of the screened in porch to be exactly where we’ve depicted it on the plot plan. I hope there’s no confusion over that. Is there? MR. STONE-Okay. No, but therefore you will have merely a, what do we call that? Just a landing? Not even a landing. MR. BROWN-Basically one step from the finished floor of the deck to the final grade. MR. STONE-One step from the floor to the ground. Whatever that is. Okay. MR. ROULIER-With the screened door on the west side of it. MR. STONE-I don’t have any problem with that. MR. ROULIER-And the dimensions of the screened porch will be 176 feet. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. STONE-That’s not a question as far as I’m concerned. Okay. Jaime, do you want to try something? MR. HAYES-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2003 ANTHONY KOENIG, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 60 Rockhurst Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 176 square foot single story screened in porch addition on the south side of the house. Specifically, the applicant requests the following relief from the WR-1A requirements. 20.5 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback, 17 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback, 5 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum side line setback. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a pre-existing, nonconforming structure, per Section 179-13-010. The criteria for considering this type of Area Variance, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created. I don’t believe that there will. I think that the project is limited in a way that won’t affect neighboring properties. In terms of received public comment or neighborhood comment, all comments received were positive, on this particular matter. An important aspect of this, at least in my estimation and will be part of my stipulation, is that this is a screened in porch and not an addition to the home. I think that that weighs into the impact on the neighborhood or any detriment to nearby properties. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. I believe that, based on the size of this particular parcel, which is very small, that any additional usable space, in the form of a screened in porch, that there really isn’t any feasible alternative that the Board could look to or point to. To support that, the applicant has indicated that there are private deed requirements that he not go closer to the lake or closer to the road, which also limit feasible alternatives in this particular case. While that’s not controlling to this Board, it certainly is controlling to the applicant. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. I don’t believe that it is in this particular case. I think eight feet, as has been depicted articulately by other Board members, is probably the minimal amount of area that someone could use effectively, as far as a porch in this particular case. While there’s three different pieces of dimensional relief, none of which is overwhelming or in my mind fatal to the application. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. I don’t think that it will. As I’ve already pointed out in part one, it’s a screened in porch. The applicant is not proposing to add bedrooms or go up or out in a way that certainly could effect the critical environmental area that this obviously is in by definition, and whether the difficulty is self-created. I guess self-created in the sense that the applicant wants his screened in porch and he doesn’t have one now, and as the Chairman pointed out, he was aware of the zoning and the restrictions on this property when he bought it, but again, I believe that the necessity of a porch or the necessity of a variance in this particular case has almost entirely to do with the size of this parcel, and the proximity of other homes. As an important stipulation to my approval, I would further move that the applicant would be required to agree that this variance would be granted for a screened in porch only, and that any further enclosure past a screened in porch would not be allowed, now or in the future, on this particular parcel, by screened in porch, that would mean an area that did not have storm windows or any type of thing that air or such could not go through. Based on that stipulation, I think the balance would fall in favor of the applicant, and I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 2003, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Question, Mr. Brown. Would this require an as built survey? MR. BROWN-Typically, no. MR. STONE-So we can put it in. I think in this particular case we should call for an as built survey. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. ROULIER-Wouldn’t that be part of the responsibility of the Building Department, though, for the Final CO of the screened in porch? MR. STONE-No, it would be your responsibility to provide it if the Board agrees that we should have it. Because of all the dimensional relief we’ve granted with the stairs, I think I would like to see an as built survey. It’s something that we do on occasion. Not often, but we do on occasion. MR. ROULIER-That’s fine. MR. BRYANT-Would you please verify the setbacks? MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. STONE-He said 20.5 from the lake, and 13 from the road, and the relief would be 20.5, 17 and 5. MR. HAYES-I’m stating that the relief is exactly as applied for, no more, no less. MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. STONE-One of the reasons I’m asking for the as built survey, so that we’re sure, even though it has been stipulated that the stairs will be on the west side, just to be sure that, in fact, that is what happens. MR. BRYANT-And that relief includes the stairs and everything, right? MR. HAYES-Right. MR. STONE-It’s not going to be stairs. It’s going to be basically at ground level, at the western end. MR. BROWN-If there are stairs there, relief includes the stairs. If the plan changes. MR. HAYES-If they change the plan, they’re going to have to shorten the deck. MR. STONE-It’s where the line is on the drawing, and the one thing, one of the things you ought to say is that this motion supercedes the drawing submitted with the application, in that the steps on the lake side will not be there. MR. HAYES-I certainly can do it, but the motion takes care of that, in effect, because those stairs, he would need additional relief to do it. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think that’s right. The stairs as shown have not been granted relief. If stairs end up on the lake side of the deck, they’d need to be inside the relief that’s granted. You can put them there, but they have to be inside the relief that’s been granted. MR. STONE-Okay. Everybody understand what we’ve done? MR. BROWN-Did you agree to adding the survey to the motion? MR. HAYES-Is that what the rest of the Board would like? I’m happy to do it. MR. ABBATE-It doesn’t make any difference to me. Is there a financial burden in providing this? 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. STONE-Yes, there is. MR. ABBATE-Then I’m not sure that it’s necessary. I don’t think we should financially burden the applicant. MR. STONE-This is something we have talked about in the past, about doing it under certain circumstances. Normally, if you put a new house up, an as built survey is required by the Town. In this particular case, where there is a construction that requires severe relief like this, just to ensure that the building, in fact, conforms to the relief we’ve granted, we have done this. MR. ABBATE-Couldn’t we accomplish the same thing by suggesting that the Building Inspectors inspect? MR. HAYES-They’ll do that anyway. MR. ABBATE-They’re going to do that anyway. Right? MR. BROWN-Absolutely they inspect it, but the Building Inspectors are not charged with determining where property lines are, measuring from property lines. MR. BRYANT-Actually this is an environmentally sensitive area, and I think Mr. Hayes makes a good point. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Whatever you feel is in the best interest. MR. STONE-Okay. Do I hear a second? MR. BRYANT-Second. AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen. Thank you for your cooperation. MR. ROULIER-Thank you very much, gentlemen. Good evening. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II JOSEPH P. RUIZ OWNER: JOSEPH P. RUIZ ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 662 MOON HILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 144 SQ. FT. GAZEBO AND 64 SQ. FT. SHED ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 289.07-2-8 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE SECTION: 179-4-030 JOSEPH RUIZ, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 74-2003, Joseph P. Ruiz, Meeting Date: August 27, 2003 “Project Location: 662 Moon Hill Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 144 sf gazebo. Applicant has constructed a 64 sf addition to an existing shed. Relief Required: Applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 75-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement and 2 feet of relief from the 30 minimum side setback requirement of the RR-3A zone for the construction of the gazebo. Further, the applicant seeks 8 feet of relief from the same shoreline requirement for the addition that is already constructed on the westerly side of the “shed.” 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 93-186 porch addition BP 95-385 new roof The historical record for this property does not reveal any clear indication as to when the multiple sheds were sited on the property. Staff comments: Will the proposed gazebo and constructed addition present significant adverse impacts to the neighborhood or community? There appears to be ample area for compliant construction of the gazebo.” MR. STONE-There’s no County? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Sir, go ahead. MR. RUIZ-Good evening, members of the Board. My name is Joe Ruiz. What other questions would you have? MR. STONE-Well, do you have any comments about Staff notes and the fact that there was work done without a permit? MR. RUIZ-No, I have no questions. MR. STONE-Do you have any comment on that? MR. RUIZ-No. MR. STONE-Okay. What is that pad on the west, it appears to be a pad on the west property line? MR. RUIZ-That’s concrete. MR. STONE-I mean, it’s just a pad? There’s nothing underneath it? MR. RUIZ-No, dirt. MR. STONE-It’s got a light pole over it. MR. RUIZ-Yes, I have a couple of light poles around the yard, yes. MR. STONE-Right. Okay. You’ve already built a pad for the gazebo as you propose to put it? MR. RUIZ-It’s going to be for, yes, for a gazebo. I want to have a picnic table and the grill out there. Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody have any questions? MR. URRICO-I have a question for whoever might be able to answer it. Being that this is the outlet for Glen Lake, would the dredging of the lake have any impact on the flow at that end? Does anybody know? MR. UNDERWOOD-It won’t make any difference. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. URRICO-It won’t make any difference? MR. BROWN-No. MR. URRICO-That’s my question. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Ruiz, that shed that you just put the addition on, it’s 18 by 12, right? Approximately, give or take a few feet. Is that what it is? It’s hard to tell from this little drawing. MR. RUIZ-No. I put an eight by eight addition on. MR. BRYANT-Okay. You put an eight by eight. What was it, 10 by 12? MR. RUIZ-Yes. MR. BRYANT-So it was 120 square feet before. Anything over 100 square feet you need a permit for, right? MR. BROWN-120, that’s right. MR. BRYANT-Anything over 120? MR. BROWN-Right. MR. BRYANT-What about 120? 120 or above? Or over 120? MR. BROWN-Over 120. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you didn’t need a permit for the original one, is what you’re saying? MR. BROWN-Well, with the two sheds on site, we don’t know which one came first. MR. BRYANT-Yes. That was question number two is, in an RR, what is this, RR-3A, it’s, you’re only allowed one accessory structure. Is that correct? Okay. When were these sheds put in? Did you buy the property with the sheds on it? MR. RUIZ-Yes, they were there. I cut the trees down. Now you can see them, and I added a little piece on the side there, and a little roof around the front. MR. BRYANT-How long have you been there? MR. RUIZ-Twelve years. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you put both sheds up? MR. RUIZ-The one shed was here. I added a little piece on the back of that also. MR. BRYANT-That’s the one near the gazebo. MR. STONE-No, that’s the one near the house. MR. RUIZ-The one near the house. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. RUIZ-I fancied it up so that it’ll look nice. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. BRYANT-So when did you put this other shed up, the one by the gazebo? MR. RUIZ-I added that on I think four years ago. MR. BRYANT-Okay. When did you put the addition on? MR. RUIZ-That’s what I mean. I put that on four years ago. MR. BRYANT-The addition you put on four years ago? MR. RUIZ-Yes. MR. BRYANT-And how old is the shed? MR. RUIZ-I don’t know. It was there when I went there. MR. BRYANT-So when you bought it you had two sheds on the property? MR. RUIZ-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Those are my questions. MR. RUIZ-So I improved on the quality of what was there. I don’t know if you guys, did you people take a look at the site? MR. STONE-Sure. Were you aware that, at least from what Mr. Brown is saying, that you needed a permit to increase the size of the shed? MR. RUIZ-Yes. He told me that. MR. STONE-That is correct. Right, Mr. Brown? MR. BROWN-That he needs them, or? MR. STONE-He needed it. He needed to get one. MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. STONE-And did not. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments before I open the public hearing? MR. BRYANT-Yes. One more question. Just one more question. So how did you come to come here? I mean, did the? MR. RUIZ-How did I get to come here? I was putting in a sidewalk, concrete sidewalk. I just had a lot of lumber out in front, two by fours to form up the sidewalk there, and I was going to put a little pad in the back to put a gazebo on, and one of the Building Inspectors rode by. MR. BRYANT-Okay. That’s how you found out originally that you needed this permit for doing this addition, and to do the gazebo? MR. RUIZ-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Now I understand. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. RUIZ-Do you need to know why I want to put this where it is, or no? The gazebo? MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’d like to know why. MR. RUIZ-Because of the view of the stream and the view of the mountains I have. It’s set back from Moon Hill Road, which is getting to be more traffic than I would like. You can’t even walk on the road. I feel it’s one of the joys of life to have something I can come home to. It’s in a nice, beautiful spot, and I try to keep the neighbors informed of what I’m doing, architecturally keep it. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but there’s also Codes, so that other people downstream can enjoy the same things. So building the gazebo closer than the setback allows, and building the shed closer than the setback allows, to an environmentally sensitive area, affects what the people down stream, the experience they get from that, okay, and that’s why there are Codes. MR. RUIZ-Well, it’s set back enough that I can’t see the people on either side can see it. Do you know what I’m saying? MR. STONE-Well, I think what Mr. Bryant is saying, that’s all well and good, but we have a Code, and one of the things that this Board has taken a dim view of is construction done without, one, without a permit, and, two, if a variance is deemed to be required, without getting it prior to doing the construction, and in this particular case, obviously you haven’t built the gazebo. You have built the pad. You haven’t built the gazebo, and so you’re perfectly fine on that, in terms of asking for what you’re asking, but in terms of the shed, you have built in violation of the zoning code, and this Board will take that into consideration as we make the consideration. MR. URRICO-I just want to make sure I understand the sequences. The two initial sheds were on the property when you purchased it. MR. RUIZ-Yes. MR. URRICO-Then the addition was added on four years ago to the second shed, the one closest to the stream. MR. RUIZ-Yes, and I put a little porch, not a porch, but a place to store things, added a little piece of roof on the one side. MR. URRICO-Okay, and then you’re adding a gazebo in addition to that? MR. RUIZ-That’s what I’m requesting, yes. MR. URRICO-And the gazebo counts as an accessory structure? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Does the pad come into play, Craig that he’s built? MR. BROWN-How so? MR. STONE-Did that require a building permit? MR. BROWN-No. MR. STONE-No. I didn’t think so, but I just wanted to get that on the record. So he could put the pad in, even though the pad is too close to the stream? 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. BROWN-Right. It’s not considered a structure, and it’s not within that 50 feet of the shoreline where the hard surfacing comes into play. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-So he’s entitled to one accessory structure, but because the property was purchased, the two sheds existed when he purchased the property, he was in compliance at that time. By adding the addition on to the second shed, that basically required a variance because it was a second accessory structure at that point? MR. BROWN-Well, not only that, but, you know, the shoreline setback is less than 75 and the fact that it went over, yes, one of them is a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. You’re allowed one. There’s two. So you pick one of them is pre-existing, nonconforming. MR. STONE-He wants three, though, right? MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s my question. So the gazebo counts as an accessory structure? MR. BROWN-Right. MR. ABBATE-So that would give that piece of property three accessory structures. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-So, but it doesn’t say that, or does it? The relief does not say for additional structures, does it, or am I missing something? MR. ABBATE-I think you may be right. I don’t think it does. MR. STONE-I’m reading the Staff notes, but Staff notes say, talks about the 20 feet of relief, 2 feet of relief, and 8 feet of relief. MR. ABBATE-Yes, it doesn’t mention, no, you’re right. MR. BROWN-Yes. I guess we’re kind of mixing, you know, what are accessory structures. A pool is an accessory structure. You can have a pool. That doesn’t mean now you have four accessory buildings on the property. One’s an accessory structure that’s a pool. One’s an accessory structure that could be a garage. One’s an accessory structure that could be a shed. Now you’ve got five different types of accessory structures. You’re allowed that, but one of each is what’s allowable. MR. ABBATE-So he has two sheds at the present time. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Which means that’s two accessory structures. MR. BROWN-Two accessory of the same type. MR. ABBATE-Of the same type. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Of course now the gazebo, while it may be a third accessory structure, doesn’t fall into the same category. So it could be permissible. MR. BROWN-I would agree with that. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying the gazebo is not a shed, because it doesn’t have walls. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-On the side, side walls. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay, and we’ve established, at least Mr. Ruiz has established, that there were two sheds. One has been improved upon, though, in violation. MR. BROWN-I think he’s testified that both of them have been improved upon. MR. STONE-Yes, he did say that. Right. Okay. MR. BROWN-And just to clarify, the only reason I put in the Staff notes that the historical record doesn’t reveal how or when the sheds were put there, previous plot plans that were submitted for building permits didn’t show the sheds on them, you know, I think there was a roof on, and then a porch addition, and neither plot plan for either one of the building permits indicated that there were sheds on the property, ’93 and ’95. MR. HAYES-Right. So he actually filed for a building permit when he did those things. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. RUIZ-This is what I bought, and that’s the improvements. MR. STONE-So you’ve raised the roof, so you took the modular home, or as you say trailer here, was it in fact a? MR. RUIZ-Well, look at it. Tell me what it, it’s got a metal roof on it. What would you call it? It’s manufactured housing. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what I would call it. I would call it manufactured housing, rather than a trailer, but that’s your terminology, or at least. It’s a very attractive piece of property, and there’s no doubt that you care a great deal about the property, and you’ve done a lot of very nice work on it. MR. RUIZ-Well, as you can see right there, I’m trying to make it look architecturally compatible to the other buildings. Neighbors have homes that are three, four hundred thousand dollar homes. I mean, the least I can do is make mine decent. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else have any questions, any comments? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM DI CICCIO MR. DI CICCIO-My name’s Jim DiCiccio. I live at 648 Moon Hill Road next to Joe. Joe has done nothing but take a piece of property and make it into something nice. My fiancé’s here. She’s all for it. Joe’s come to us and said I’d like to put up a gazebo. He took two old sheds, I’ve lived in the neighborhood my whole life, he cleaned it up. I guess I’m just here to, I’d rather see Joe build a gazebo that looks nice, than go down to Lowe’s or K-Mart and get a screened in house 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) and throw it up there. I mean, he’s done a nice job. I know he was fixing up a sidewalk. That’s how he got caught. He took something, he’s done a nice job. He’s a good neighbor. He’s cleaned up the stream. I’d like to see him be able to do what he wants to do there. If not, if there’s an alternative that he can do. MR. STONE-Okay. Don’t go any further. If you’re giving him support, don’t go any further. MR. DI CICCIO-I just built a home next to him three years ago, and location is a big thing in the Town of Queensbury. You can build a million dollar home next to a dump, you’re never going to change it, you know. Joe has a beautiful place, and that’s why we chose to build there. MR. URRICO-Are you the second house from the corner? MR. DI CICCIO-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Is yours one of the $250,000 homes? MR. DI CICCIO-If you’d like to give me that, I’ll sell it. Joe’s a good neighbor. He’s done a great job, and I’d like to see him put up a gazebo, and he’s done everything to make it look like it belongs there. He took a mobile home, basically, you want to call it trailer, pre-manufactured home. MR. STONE-His words. Not mine. MR. DI CICCIO-I took a double wide and moved it and built a home there. So, I mean, he’s really trying. He’s done a great job. I appreciate your time. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-One piece of correspondence. It’s from a Drew Monthie at 120 Tee Hill Road. He says, “I am a neighbor in the immediate vicinity to the project proposed by Mr. Joseph Ruiz. I can think of no adverse impact posed by this project in regard to either the setback requirement or shoreline regulations. I am self employed as an ecologist/native plan consultant and feel there are no negative environmental impacts to the adjacent riparian corridor which also adjoins my own property. To the contrary, Mr. Ruiz has done a fantastic job beautifying his property and in the process our neighborhood. I urge the board to approve a variance allowing Mr. Ruiz to construct a shed and gazebo on his property. Sincerely, Drew Monthie 120 Tee Hill Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804” MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing. Any other questions of Mr. Ruiz before we talk about it? MR. URRICO-I want to ask if he would be willing to move the proposed gazebo back just a little bit from the river bank, from the stream bank. MR. RUIZ-How far back? Right now I have this other shed that I had put some nice windows in. You can see the picture there, and I don’t want to block the view from that. MR. URRICO-So that, you selected this spot with a lot of thought, I would say. MR. RUIZ-The west sun comes down and it’s nice. It comes in to the building. MR. STONE-So you don’t want to block the sun going in to the small shed there. MR. RUIZ-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Allan. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. BRYANT-Let me ask you a question before I say anything. In the small shed, that addition was the porch, right? What is it, like a porch? MR. RUIZ-Yes. I’ve got, I just extended the roof down a little bit so I could put storage in there. MR. BRYANT-Is that a storage shed? What is that? MR. RUIZ-Yes, I call it a storage shed. Yes. MR. BRYANT-You store stuff in it and use the porch to sit on the porch. MR. RUIZ-Yes. Well, occasionally, but there’s a lot of stuff stored on the porch. You can’t really sit on it. MR. BRYANT-I agree that looking at the pictures that Mr. Ruiz has done a great deal to improve on the appearance of the property. I mean, the shed looks like a little house. I mean, it doesn’t really look like a storage shed. It’s got a nice little dome on the top. MR. RUIZ-I’m a weekend carpenter and I try to make it look nice. Architecturally pleasant. MR. BRYANT-I do have a problem with the setbacks to the stream. As a Board, we generally try to protect environmentally sensitive areas, and this, unfortunately, happens to be one. I don’t have a problem with the side setback. I wish there was something you could do. I know you’ve already got a concrete pad there for the gazebo. I’d like to hear what the other Board members have to say. That’s my only concern is the setback to the stream. MR. RUIZ-Not to get off on something different, but I mean on Glen Lake they raise and lower the dam a little bit, so, you know, whatever it takes, whatever concerns they have on the lake, I don’t know. I mean, the water falls down for them, so they cut the water back a little bit. I mean, that should be an issue too, maybe. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m going to look at this a little differently, I think. I think the issue with the first shed, or the second shed being expanded is really, I look at it as a technicality more than something that was purposely came in under the zoning radar, so to speak, and I’m willing to overlook that, because of that, but I have to say, this is, the property is a surprise to me. I drive up and down that road all the time, and noticed it before, but stopping to look around, I was very surprised how nicely it was taken care of. I shouldn’t say surprised, but I was especially pleased to take a chance to look around there, because you really have done a great job with it. MR. RUIZ-Thank you. MR. URRICO-And as far as the gazebo setback, you know, I think we have to take a look at the stream. This is a brook. This is not Glen Lake. This is not Lake George. This is not even the Hudson River, and the 75 feet is really a lot. I mean, for that area, that’s a lot of setback, and I don’t know if that’s, I know it’s what we’ve set in our zoning codes, but I think this is excessive, and I don’t have a problem, 55 feet away from there is still pretty decent, and I know we’ve granted relief for a lot less on Glen Lake. So I don’t see where this stream really creates a problem, and I know the flow is controlled at times, but I don’t see where he’s intruding on it where it’s going to be hazardous to the environment. When I look at the test, I don’t think it’s going to produce an undesirable impact on the neighborhood, in the character of the neighborhood. Yes, the benefit could be sought if he moved it back to 75 feet, but I really don’t see what the point it. I really don’t think where that’s going to really protect that stream any more than it is already, and that goes for the Area Variance being substantial. Twenty feet seems like a lot, but I think in this case it really isn’t, and I don’t think it’s going to affect the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and I do think it’s self-created. So I 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) would like to see you move it back a little bit, if possible, but I won’t use that as a stipulation. I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I think I really agree with Roy in this particular case. We don’t want to excuse away, you know, enforcement of the zoning code, and we really don’t here. If anybody attends the meetings, I’m sure they’re fully aware that we don’t take it very lightly, but in this particular case, it’s hard for me to imagine, and maybe some environmentalists will get upset at me for saying this, but it’s hard for me to imagine that we would have a greater standard for that stream than we do for the previous application on Lake George. I mean, if this was a Lake George application, you could move that gazebo closer to the lake and have it be permitted. I think that’s a little bit ironic. I have to say that. So, you know, as I viewed this property, it was well kept. I didn’t see anything that troubled me from a neighborhood perspective. I think your neighbors have testified that you’ve done nothing but improvements. That doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want, and I don’t mean to give you that impression, because, myself, the next time you come back it’ll be a different matter. MR. RUIZ-Yes. The houses are about 150 to 175 feet from this gazebo. MR. HAYES-Yes, and I guess what I’m making the point to you is, you know, a certain amount of lack of knowledge is understandable by regular people, and our Code is certainly complicated by the other ones, even in other townships nearby, but you’re aware of it now. MR. RUIZ-Yes. MR. HAYES-I mean, I hope. Let me just finish. I guess, I certainly agree with Roy that the setback from the stream does not trouble me, that the small additions that you made to the sheds, while if any more went on, I think that would be a problem, but I don’t see the negative impact there. One of the biggest issues for me in this particular case was the fact that when you put a porch on and you put your roof on, you got a building permit, which means, by implication at least to me, that you understand that, you’re coming here with fairly clean hands, in the sense. You haven’t tried to do the big things without a permit, like you were trying to beat the system, and if you were trying to do that, we are very alarmed by that, and sometimes that falls into the test, even if it shouldn’t, in this particular case, but on balance, the 20 feet of relief from the 75 foot shoreline is still 55 feet that you’re back from that. I don’t think there’s any real detriment to the neighborhood by this action, in particular, and I don’t think there’s an adverse effect. I think, you know, you’ve given a reason why you want the gazebo there, and it doesn’t trouble me. I’ll finish by saying that I certainly wouldn’t be in favor of any more relief for accessory structures on this parcel, because I think you’ve, you know, got your, not your free pass, but you’ve got your, from me anyway, and I wouldn’t be in favor of any more. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-This one is a difficult one. I think the first point I wanted to make, I guess, is just because we don’t like what the zoning is doesn’t give us a right to say go ahead and ignore it, and I think there may have been a purpose for the setback from this stream, and it’s not that one individual getting a little closer to it with a structure is going to cause any big problem, but collectively, if that happens all along this stream, it could impact it, and that’s the whole problem with environmental impact. It’s a cumulative thing. It’s not just one little action, but having said that, I think maybe this is one of those cases where this is why variances exist. Certainly the job that’s been done on this property is very nice. I can understand the desire for placement of the structures where they are. I think one factor in favor of granting the variance is that fact that this is a gazebo not another shed or a solid wall structure that’s being proposed this close to the stream. It’s just basically a roof to cover a picnic table, and the alternative that I thought of was, well, put a picnic table there with a big umbrella on it, but it wouldn’t look as good, and it would essentially be the same thing, on a smaller scale. So, given that, with some 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) reluctance, I’m going to be in favor, I think, given the job that’s already been done on the property. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d be in agreement with everyone else. I think that the proposal, the gazebo, is not going to have any affect on the stream outlet, and I think that you’re, you know, if we were talking a WR-1 zone, it would be 50 foot setback, and 55 feet is more than adequate, as far as any impact from runoff. The 64 square feet that you added on that shed certainly improved the looks of it, to a great degree, and as everybody else has mentioned, I don’t think there was any intent on your part to grab an extra big chunk of land and put up a big structure. It’s made it look a lot better than it did. So, I don’t really have any problem with your request at all. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Well, reputation and perception always impacts any kind of a decision, and certainly your neighbors gave you raving reviews. They apparently think quite a bit of you, and it’s obvious, if one has made a visit to your property, that you have, indeed, made significant positive improvements, and as Jaime says, since you came to the table with, I’m going to, this is a new term, fairly clean hands, I would probably go along and support the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-I think my fellow Board members have quite accurately stated the case here. Certainly the one piece of relief that we haven’t talked about very much, the two feet on the side, the neighbor that is most affected, who is the only neighbor affected by that, as someone said, talked about your property and your situation with glowing terms, and he’s not troubled. Therefore, I’m not troubled. The stream is one that I would ask the question that we quite often ask when somebody comes to us with an already built structure that requires a variance, would we have granted the relief if, in fact, you had come without building the addition on the shed, and you would have asked, as you are asking here for eight feet of relief, and I have to admit, that would not have troubled me at all, and therefore that doesn’t trouble me tonight. Now we’re going another additional twelve feet. You’re still going to be 55 feet from the stream, and, yes, it’s always better to be further away than closer, but I think in this particular case, looking the way the land is taken care of and the way it’s groomed, the way it’s landscaped, with obviously very permeable soil, you’re doing a good job to make sure that water doesn’t get off your property, almost. Therefore I would be in favor of this application, with the remonstration that, please don’t do it again. I think Mr. Hayes made it very clear, this is the one time that you can have built without a variance. Be aware of the Code, and as I say many times, our Community Development Department stands ready, at all times, to provide any assistance that an applicant needs or any property needs. Having said that, I need a motion to approve the variances as requested. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2003 JOSEPH P. RUIZ, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 662 Moon Hill Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 144 square foot gazebo. The applicant has also constructed a 64 square foot addition on to an existing shed. The relief required, the applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement and two feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement of the RR-3A zone, for the construction of a gazebo. Further, the applicant is seeking eight feet of relief from the same shoreline requirement for the addition that is already constructed on the westerly side of the shed. As far as has been discussed by the rest of this, we feel that the setbacks are more than adequate to protect the outlet at Glen Lake stream, and that this construction would have a positive effect on the neighborhood, a screened gazebo. Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 2003, by the following vote: th 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Himes MR. STONE-You’re all set. AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II COORDINATED REVIEW Y. OZBAY, USA GAS AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER: SANDRI REALTY, INC. ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 651 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF GAS STATION WITH REPAIR BAYS TO A SELF- SERVICEGAS/CONVENIENT MART WITH TWO (2) NEW COVERED GAS ISLANDS AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AND THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN ADJACENT USES. (NOTE: JULY 16, 2003 THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTED LEAD AGENCY STATUS TO THE PLANNING BOARDE FOR PURPOSES OF SEQRA EVALUATION FOR THIS PROJECT) CROSS REFERENCE: AV 57-2002, SPR 34-02, SV 58-2002, SPR 37-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.07-1-32, 31 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES, 0.20 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030, 179-4-060 C SECTION: 179-8-050 RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Now we come to a situation, Mr. Jones, do you want to come forward? We, as a Board, were, quite frankly, blindsided by the revised agenda, as you were told by Mr. Brown. We are not prepared, as a Board, I’m saying this unilaterally, but I know a couple of people have (lost word) this to me. We are not prepared to make a determination tonight. We will listen, obviously. In addition to that, I don’t think the public was sufficiently notified in this particular case that we would be hearing this tonight. So I am making the decision that we will be glad to listen to your application. We will read the application in to the record, I won’t even open the public hearing, unless there’s, are you part of the applicant team? Okay. Then I won’t even open the public hearing. You’ll make your presentation. We’ll ask whatever questions we want to ask at this point in time, and then we will adjourn until next month. MR. JONES-We’re somewhat disappointed with the fact that evidently you did not receive the information in a timely fashion that we had submitted. MR. STONE-I can only tell you that when a number of us walked in and we were told by Mr. Brown, and I don’t fault Mr. Brown because it just happened last night, all of us said, well, we didn’t even bring those files with us because we did not expect it to be on the agenda tonight. MR. JONES-Well, the agenda that I had printed off the Internet says that it was revised on 8/21. MR. ABBATE-Yes. However, our agendas are delivered to us by the Town Board, and we don’t use the Internet to determine the agenda. MR. JONES-And I realize that, but we were at the original meeting a month ago, and there was a question in regard to the SEQRA determination which had to be done, had to be completed. MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. JONES-We were told at the last Planning Board meeting, that we would be scheduled for your Zoning Board meeting last week. They didn’t do the SEQRA because they didn’t feel comfortable doing that at that point. They were waiting for a final signoff from C.T. Male. They, at that meeting, rescheduled us for this meeting. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. ABBATE-The Planning Board rescheduled you for the Zoning Board meeting? They have no authority to do that. MR. JONES-Well, George Hilton from the Planning Department indicated that that’s what was going to happen. MR. BROWN-I think that’s what happened at last week’s Zoning Board meeting. They were initially scheduled to be heard last week, if you remember. MR. ABBATE-Correct. MR. BROWN-And the application was tabled to this week, pending the outcome of the Planning Board SEQRA determination. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I recall that. MR. BROWN-And I guess I could shed a little light on the new information aspect of it. I don’t want to interrupt your presentation if you want. What happened when the information came in, I believe it was the seventh or eighth of the month. It was early on in the month when the information was submitted. It was delivered to the Planning Board so they could make a determination, a SEQRA determination. Again, under coordinated review, this is an Unlisted project, multiple agencies have to review it. The Planning Board was determined to be SEQRA Lead Agency. Rather than forward information, that information to the Zoning Board, it was my decision to not forward it, obviously, until the Planning Board had completed their SEQRA finding. To give you a set of plans that may change based on a SEQRA finding, it’s not a productive use of our time or my time to review those things. So up until the Planning Board had actually made a SEQRA determination based on a set of plans, the application really didn’t progress through the Zoning Board portion of it. Now that the Planning Board has decided and made a SEQRA determination based on a set of plans, now those are the plans that we want to give to the Board for them to make determinations based on the zoning issues. MR. STONE-Right, and we don’t have those. Am I correct? MR. BROWN-Well, you have a revised site plan in front of you right now. You don’t, obviously, have a complete set that the Planning Board had. I don’t know if you need a complete set. You don’t need a lot of the stormwater and lighting. MR. STONE-Are you saying what was given to us for last week still applies? MR. BROWN-I think so. More importantly, what was given to you tonight applies, and may raise another variance that may be required. That has not been identified, until I had a chance to look at the plan. MR. STONE-Right. We got this at one minute of seven, and we pay full attention to each and every application. There is no way we could have even opened this up. MR. BROWN-No question, and like I said, it was purposely not given to you until the Planning Board had decided that that was the plan that they wanted to proceed with, and in review of it, which I did early on with one of the other applications that was on, it looks as though the plan has eliminated two parking spaces and gone from 13 spaces provided on site to 11. MR. JONES-That’s correct. MR. BROWN-Where 13 are required. MR. JONES-No, 11 are required. If you look in the Zoning Ordinance, you can take out the mechanical and storage space. 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. JONES-And that’s what we did. In order to, at the request of the Planning Board, to increase the green area, we were over 30%, but they asked us if we could increase it, and basically that’s what we had done. We had taken out some of the parking, to be able to do that. MR. BROWN-Okay. Well, I wasn’t aware of that. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, may I speak for myself, please? MR. STONE-You certainly may. MR. ABBATE-I don’t feel that I can intelligently make any kind of decision based on the information before me this evening. MR. STONE-And that was the determination I attempted to convey, that we would not make a determination, that it’s up to Mr. Jones, if he wants to make the presentation, I will start the process if you want me to. MR. JONES-Well, I guess my concern or my comment would be that the Zoning issues before you, which are the setback variances that we’re looking at for the two canopies, have not changed. The canopy locations have not changed from the original submission in July. The issues that basically created the revised drawings were all site plan review issues, which were part of the C. T. Male review, part of our working with Warren County Soil and Water in reference to basically coming up with some alternate solutions to collection of stormwater on the north side of the property. So in essence the variances that we’re asking for have not changed from our original application in July. MR. BRYANT-Therein lies the problem, because since, personally, I was not aware, I didn’t bring any of that paperwork. So I don’t know what the variances you’re requesting are. I don’t know what the Staff notes say. I don’t know what the original drawings say and how to compare this information. So therein lies the problem. MR. ABBATE-Well said. MR. BRYANT-I think that’s the problem Mr. Abbate and Mr. Urrico and the others, this is all we have. We weren’t prepared, and it’s unfortunate, you know, that you’re here, but we don’t have the information that we need. I couldn’t even tell you what variance you’re asking for. MR. STONE-And I also, I certainly concur with that. I also think that because of the nature of this particular project, and its high visibility as far as the entrance to Queensbury is concerned, I think the public should be made aware, again, of this pending action. I think it should be advertised clearly, and I think, I won’t go as far as to say people should be re-notified, but I would probably like to see them re-notified, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we want to just preliminarily go through what the Staff notes were, just so people. MR. STONE-Well, I was going to do that, if Mr. Jones wants to continue. I would read the regular application in, and then I will be guided by you, because you’re right that you could have expected certain things, but then so could have we. MR. JONES-I know. MR. HAYES-The one thing that I would add, though, and it certainly isn’t, you can’t have Mr. Jones get more upset than he is maybe a little bit now, but it seemed the worst thing we could do is do like an intermediate review of this thing. 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) MR. STONE-Yes, okay. MR. HAYES-It’s wasting everybody’s time, and there’s certainly going to be a different Board. Do you know what I’m saying? We either should hear it or not hear it. MR. JONES-I’d prefer not to ramble on. MR. ABBATE-And, Mr. Chairman, let me make one other issue, too, perhaps even on a personal basis, I don’t know, but I think we would run the risk of severe criticism if we proceed after the record has indicated that we have nothing in front of us. MR. STONE-That’s a very excellent point. MR. JONES-And that would be my point as well. You have nothing to refer to. MR. STONE-Okay. So we will adjourn this to the first meeting, first item next month. Can we do that, as far as the deadline past, Mr. Brown? MR. JONES-Well, we made our submission. MR. HAYES-Yes. They’re well within the submission deadline. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. JONES-And I asked if, we were scheduled for the first Planning Board meeting in September. We need to be scheduled to the second one, so that we’re in the proper sequence again. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-That’s possible. I know there’s a special Planning Board meeting that the Planning Board’s going to hold for Wal-Mart, which is the day after the first Zoning Board meeting. I’ll check the schedule. Maybe we can slip you right in to that one, rather than the next week. MR. JONES-Put us on first? MR. BROWN-If we get you on that meeting, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Should I formally adjourn this, table it or not? MR. BROWN-That’s fine. MR. STONE-Because we haven’t really started the process, but I’ll do it. I’ll table it. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2003 Y. OZBAY, USA GAS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 651 Upper Glen Street. Until the first meeting in September. So that the Zoning Board has a chance to totally review the file, including the SEQRA determination made by the Planning Board. I’d also ask that this be re-advertised and that the appropriate neighbors be notified. Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/27/03) ABSENT: Mr. Himes MR. STONE-Sorry. MR. ABBATE-We apologize, really. MR. URRICO-When this is officially submitted, will these be the same plans we’ll be looking at? MR. JONES-Yes. That is the final submission. MR. STONE-That’s the final submission? Okay. MR. HAYES-One point, I think we should clarify, just as a matter of order, when I was out in the hall, they asked me, do we need a survey or not, so I’d just like to, because I’m not sure that was clear in the motion. MR. STONE-Who, these guys? MR. HAYES-No, Mr. Koenig. MR. STONE-It was clear that we needed an as built survey. MR. HAYES-Well, I never actually said it, okay, and I think that we just need to get the minutes clear, because if they’re not clear, then they should be clear. It’s my fault, and I just want to clarify it with the Board, so that everybody understands that my motion did include a provision that an as built survey be provided, and maybe we should make it clear that that’s how everybody voted. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION TO CONFIRM BY VOTE THAT AREA VARIANCE 73-2003 ANTHONY KOENIG INCLUDE THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN AS BUILT SURVEY BE PROVIDED BEFORE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS GRANTED, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes MR. STONE-We’re adjourned, gentlemen. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 56