Loading...
2003-12-17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD ROY URRICO CHARLES ABBATE JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-SUSAN HEMINGWAY AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT & JANIS STRASSER AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, STEFANIE DI LALLO BITTER, ESQ. PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM H. WALKER, III ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 157 PILOT KNOB ROAD, KATTSKILL BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING BOATHOUSE BY REMOVING THE EXISTING SHED ROOF AND RECONSTRUCTING IT TO A FLAT ROOF WHICH WILL CONTAIN A TOP DECK AND RAILING, WHICH WILL NOT EXCEED THE WIDTH AND OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING DOCK/BOATHOUSE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2003-142 INT. ALT. LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.14-1-21.2 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-5-20 MR. HAYES-Our first piece of business is a matter of housekeeping for the agenda. I’d just like to see who is here for Area Variance No. 88-2003, that’s Robert and Janis Strasser. Okay. I’ve taken an informal poll with the Board. Our concern is that we just got some important information tonight. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Well, that was provided by us. MR. HAYES-I understand, and basically the Board is of a mind to table this application, based on the new additional information that has been set forth, and to properly allow us to digest it, and we understand that this probably is a matter of litigation, too, and there’s some belief. Jon, you’re here for? MR. LAPPER-Yes. I don’t mind tabling it. I just want to get a copy of what they submitted. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I would be glad to provide that. MR. HAYES-Okay. With that said, anyone that’s here for Strasser, then, I would save you the waiting around the two hours to know that we’re going to table it, and that’s our intention. So that’s okay with the applicant as well? Okay. That’s our intention. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2003 ROBERT & JANIS STRASSER, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) 157 Pilot Knob Road, Kattskill Bay. For 60 days. One, to allow us to digest the additional information that was provided from Mr. Pritzker, and second to I guess identify the possible actions and litigation, and maybe those things will decide some of the issues that we might be being asked to decide in advance. Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II YALCIN OZBAY – USA GAS AGENT FOR PROJECT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOC. PROPERTY OWNER: YALCIN OZBAY ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 651 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF THE GAS STATION WITH REPAIR BAYS TO A SELF-SERVICE GAS/CONVENIENCE MART. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT, AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED CANOPY. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 57-2002, SPR 34-02; SPR 37-2003; AV 65-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 12/10/03 LOT SIZE: 0.14 AC.; 0.20 AC. TAX MAP NO. 302.07-1-32, 31 SECTION: 179-5-020, 179-8-050 179-4-030; 179-4-060 (c) DICK JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No . 93-2003, Yalcin Ozbay – USA GAS, Meeting Date: December 17, 2003 “Project Location: 651 Upper Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes conversion of a gas station with repair bays to a self-service gas/convenient mart with a 1,720 sq. ft. gas-island canopy. Relief Required: 1) 63 feet 11.5 inches of relief from the 75-foot minimum Travel Corridor Overlay Zone setback requirement for State Route 9, per §179-4-060(C). 2) 38 feet 11.5 inches of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement for the State Route 9 frontage, per §179-4-030 for the HC-Int Zone. Note: Relief based on the two parcels being combined. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 37-2003: to be reviewed 12/23/03 pending this application. AV 65-2003: withdrawn 09/17/03, front and Travel Corridor Overlay Zone setback relief for two new covered gas island canopies. SV 58-2002: tabled 07/18/02, setback relief for the replacement of the existing freestanding sign and relief for the number of allowed signs (including two new canopy signs). AV 57-2002: tabled 07/18/02, setback relief for the construction of a gas island with a 48’ x 36’ canopy. Staff comments: It does not appear that a compliant location is available for the construction of a gas island canopy. As noted above, the relief identified herein is based on the consolidation of the subject parcels. A condition that requires the applicant to consolidate the parcels would be appropriate if approval is considered. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) SEQRA findings status: The Planning Board has made a Negative Declaration finding with regards to an Environmental Impact Statement for this project.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 10, 2003 Project Name: Ozbay, Yalcin – USA Gas Owner: Yalcin Ozbay ID Number: QBY-03-AV-93 County Project#: Dec03-20 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes conversion of the gas station with repair bays to a self-service gas/convenient mart. Relief requested from front, and travel corridor overlay zone setback requirements for proposed canopy. Site Location: 651 Upper Glen Street Tax Map Number(s): 302.07-1-32, 31 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to reuse an existing building and site for a gas/convenient mart. The information submitted indicates there will be one covered gas island. The canopy will be located 11’ from Route 9 where 75’ is required. The property is an existing nonconforming irregular shape parcel. The existing parcel is 0.5 acres. The information submitted includes lighting, landscaping, lot- layout, and stormwater. The Board reviewed a similar application in July 2003 where there was two gas islands and recommended no county impact. The applicant had withdrawn at the local level. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. Staff comment: Staff would suggest the applicant work with the Warren County Soil and Water due to the proximity to Halfway Brook. There may be an opportunity to accomplish additional stormwater management efforts for the Halfway Brook management plan. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the suggestion the applicant work with Warren County Soil and Water due to the proximity to Halfway Brook. There may be an opportunity to accomplish additional stormwater management efforts for the Halfway Brook management plan.” MR. HAYES-Mr. Jones. MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones. I’m the architect for the project, and with me is Paul Heilmann from Valley Equipment, the equipment vendor for the gasoline and pumping equipment. Basically, what we’re proposing is a complete renovation of the building. It currently is a gasoline station with several repair bays. We would be converting it into a convenient mart, with a new gas pump island with a canopy. Originally we had proposed the two canopies. We’re back here tonight with the consolidation of that canopy into one area. Basically we’ve moved it from the Glenwood side of the property on the front of the building, more to a central location, and basically we are in conformance with all setbacks except the front yard setback and the corridor overlay to Route 9. With regards to the site, as I said, we’re redeveloping the entire building. We’re cleaning it up. We’re doing new canopies. We’re closing in the overhead door openings. We’re putting new window treatments in those areas. We’ve relocated parking to the front area in front of the existing building, the building will not be expanded but cleaned up, as I had indicated. The site itself, the existing site actually has less permeable area than is required by the Zoning Ordinance. We’ve created additional green spaces, planting islands, and additional buffering, which gets us up over the permeable requirements so we do not need a variance for that. In addition, one of the stipulations from Warren County was working with the Warren County Soil and Water Department. We had done that originally, and we had a letter back in August in regard to that. Basically, we’ve implemented stormwater management on the Halfway Brook end of the site, which involves a continuous trench drain across the northernmost ingress/egress from the property. We’ve also done some on site stormwater devices for infiltration on site, which are in the area of the four new parking spaces that we’re developing on that end of the property. We’ve also redeveloped the lighting. We’ve removed the existing lighting poles, provided new lighting. Our lighting under the canopy is over the guidelines for the requirement for the Zoning Ordinance, but certainly less than other facilities, other convenient mart gas stations that have just been completed in the Town. I’d be happy to answer any questions. MR. HAYES-Does the Board have any questions? Chuck? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. ABBATE-Hi. Good evening. My only question basically is this. Have the two parcels been consolidated. MR. JONES-No, they have not. That would be something that the owner will be willing to do. MR. ABBATE-When do they propose to consolidate both of these parcels? Because basically I thought it was evident that it would be difficult to give consideration until both of these parcels were consolidated. MR. JONES-I was not aware of the fact that there were actually two parcels until we got the notes the other day. MR. ABBATE-This was never brought to your attention? MR. JONES-Not that I’m aware of. MR. ABBATE-You didn’t receive a copy of this Area Variance Number 93-2003? MR. JONES-We just got this the other day, via fax. MR. ABBATE-I mean this, did you get a copy of this? MR. JONES-Yes, this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. When did you receive it? MR. JONES-We received it on the fax, I think it was Monday or Tuesday of this week. MR. ABBATE-Did you read the Staff notes? MR. JONES-Yes, I did. MR. HEILMANN-If I may, the attorney for the owner has begun proceedings to combine those together. I don’t believe they’re completed at this time. It’s his intention to move forward with combining those two properties. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. HAYES-Any other questions for the applicant at this time? MR. URRICO-No, but I do have a question for Bruce. Bruce, is there a buffer requirement between the two zones, the Highway Commercial and the Single Family Residential? MR. FRANK-Well, it’s buffering between use, not between different zones, and I believe the use next door to it is a commercial use. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Any other questions? What was the original Travel Corridor relief? MR. JONES-I think it was around that 11 foot dimension as well. It might have been 11 or 12 feet. Basically we need to keep the edge of the canopy at a certain distance from the overhead power lines along Route 9. MR. HAYES-Okay. So basically the biggest difference in the application is that you have one canopy instead of two? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. JONES-Right. We have one canopy now, and we’re only looking at a relief on the front yard setback. I think before we were looking at relief on the side yard toward Glenwood Avenue, yes, Glenwood as well. MR. HAYES-And what’s the overall size of that canopy, I mean, dimension wise? MR. JONES-It’s an irregular shape. It’s approximately 50 by 30, approximately, with the corners clipped. MR. HAYES-How does that compare in overall square footage with the two that were proposed before, I mean, as far as roughly speaking? I would say that we’re probably about two thirds of what we were before. Originally we had, I believe, 10 pumps and we’ve got it down to basically four islands with eight pumps now. MR. HAYES-This will go to the Planning Board, Bruce? MR. FRANK-Yes, it will. MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions for the applicant at this time? MR. URRICO-Is there any way to make the canopy narrower, is it still intruding on the Travel Overlay Zone and the frontage? MR. JONES-As you can see, the pumps are offset and angular, so that we can actually have better access from both directions, and basically you can see the pumps are very close to the front and back edge of that, the two outboard corner pump areas. I don’t believe that we can skinny that thing up much and still provide the coverage at the car. You can actually see part of the car is projecting from under the canopy area, and we can’t make the pumping stations, we can’t pull those any closer together, or then they can’t stack one behind the other in those lanes. MR. URRICO-The original plan had the pumps more parallel. MR. JONES-Parallel with, they were actually somewhat parallel with Route 9. There was actually a double pumping station or a triple. MR. HEILMANN-Double in the front, three down below and they were in line. MR. URRICO-And the canopy was in front of the building, if I remember. MR. JONES-One canopy was in front, the other was actually forward of the building, but narrower because we only had to cover the one row of pumps. MR. HAYES-The renovation that’s planned for the actual building itself, can you describe that? I guess I’m trying to determine what’s going to be the benefit for the neighborhood in a sense of recycling this property. MR. JONES-Basically the building is in good structural shape. It lacks some maintenance. Windows have been broken because it’s been unoccupied for the last six months. Basically, it’s our intent to keep the brick veneer on the outside of the building. The overhead door locations, the three locations on the front of the building, one will be closed in and then receive brick veneer to match the other portion of the building. The other two will receive new aluminum and glass curtain wall systems. We’ll also have a new entry door off the front side, and then we’ll be removing the windows on the north end of the building toward Halfway Brook, replacing those as well with a new door system and glazing system there. The roof basically would remain. We would be doing a canvas type canopy along the front portion of the building, and on the far end to provide lighting at the doors, and it would have a screen on the bottom, basically a lens on the bottom and on top, and keep the light basically on the ground in front of those areas. The siding would be repaired and repainted. All the trims would be 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) repaired and repainted as well. Basically, it’s our intent to bring the building back to what it was when it was originally built. MR. HAYES-Does anyone else have any questions? MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I have a question for clarification for Staff, and I hope the applicant doesn’t perceive this questioning as disapproval. Not at all. I just need some clarification. I’d like Staff to kind of clear up for me their term, as noted above, the relief identified herein is based on the consolidation of the subject parcels. A condition that requires the applicant to consolidate the parcels would be appropriate if approval is considered. Is that consolidation prior to approval? MR. FRANK-No. It’s a condition you can grant. MR. ABBATE-We can add a stipulation. MR. FRANK-If the applicant agrees to it, and he’s already stated he would, it’s more technical than anything else. MR. ABBATE-Okay. You’ve cleared it up. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. HAYES-All right. If there’s no further questions from members of the Board, then I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposing the application? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-We do have a communication. There’s a Record of a Telephone Conversation here from Marilyn VanDyke, Town Historian, who’s reasserted her concerns as outlined in her previous letter. She asked that the Board give whatever attention possible to the parking and traffic impacts of the proposed use. And I do have a copy of her previous comments. MR. HAYES-It has to do with traffic, though, she said? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I think it does that and a few other things. It’s not too long. Why don’t I read it again, just so that it’s a refresher. It’s been a while since we discussed this. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-This letter was originally dated August 19, 2003, and it’s from Marilyn J. VanDyke, PhD, Town Historian. She says, “I am writing in regards to the request for a variance by the owners of USA Gas who are planning a commercial operation at the corner of Route 9 and Glenwood Avenue. While there are several environmental concerns regarding this property, it must also be noted that this property is located at the entrance to Queensbury, one of the oldest towns in New York State, and as such is an important historical area. In this location at Halfway Brook were located the blockhouse which served as the residence of Jeffrey Cowprey, the first settler in Queensbury, along with several fortifications of the French and Indian War and the American Revolution. One can also observe that the Old Military Road from Fort Edward to Fort William Henry which was the 18 century passageway for armies in th the northern frontier crossed here at the brook. It was also here that Fort Amherst was erected as a staging area for armies in the frontier wars. And last but not least, Baroness Von Riedesel who was the only chronicler of the Revolutionary War on the frontier, passed with her children through the town from Fort William Henry in a calash on August 14, 1777 on her way to visit her Hessian husband who was allied with General Burgoyne who met his defeat at Saratoga. With the settlement of the town following the wars, Briggs Pond became the site of mills and a dam. Today it is Hovey Pond, a town recreation area. As a part of the many realizations growing out of the town’s new Master Plan that the several entrances to the town need to project a sense of our community along with reflecting our past, it would seem most 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) appropriate to consider an historical interpretive center at this location for the public to enjoy as they enter the town, rather than just another commercial facility. As such, an interpretive center could feature elements of the town’s history – Native American prehistoric life, the colonial wars, the settlement by Quakers, nineteenth century agriculture, and twentieth century suburban development. Visitors could come away from such a center with a clear understanding and knowledge of the community which now has nearly 25,500 residents and thousands of seasonal visitors. Since the site has some questionable environmental concerns located near Halfway Brook, it would seem most appropriate to work towards cleaning these up and providing a visitor’s center as a desirable and suitable entry to the community. To date, there is no such facility at any point of entry to the town. Thank you for considering these suggestions for planning and zoning. Sincerely yours, Marilyn J. VanDyke, Ph.D. Town Historian” MR. HAYES-Thank you. That’s the end of correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-That’s all. MR. HAYES-I will close the public hearing. If you guys would like to come back up. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions for the applicant? MRS. HUNT-I have a concern, about the exit. I go past there every day, and I know you say no left turn, but we have other businesses where they have the same thing and people make left turns, and that’s a very, it’s a rather dangerous intersection. I wonder if you couldn’t, for the left turn, as they have at Price Chopper, where they have the turn, you can’t really go, you can’t go, you can only go right. This way, I mean, it looks like, you know, you could either just, I don’t think. MR. JONES-Which one are you talking about? MRS. HUNT-The one on 9. MR. JONES-The one furthest, or closest to the Brook? MRS. HUNT-Yes. The one, the in is fine, but the out. MR. HEILMANN-If I may, Joyce, one of the reasons that that is pretty large is you have to bring a tractor trailer in in order to deliver fuel, and you need to have the turn radius and the accessibility for that big truck to get in there. MRS. HUNT-So there’s no way of delineating the two, the aisles, the two lanes? MR. JONES-It’s an existing curb cut. I’m not sure that by developing something in the middle we’re going to still be able to get our delivery truck in there. MRS. HUNT-I see. MR. HEILMANN-It’s been narrowed up, too, since in the original. Right? MR. JONES-No, this one hasn’t. It’s just this one. MR. HAYES-I think it’s a good point, but I think, and it’s certainly something t consider for the future, but I think that actually the Planning Board really deals with matters of traffic flow and that type of thing, and I think it’s a very good thing to get on the record, but I think really what we have to deal with tonight is the Travel Corridor relief and the setbacks, and I think you may have to identify that at the next level or have a plan for that at the next level. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. JONES-Okay. MR. HAYES-But does anybody else have anything else they’d like to add? MR. RIGBY-Jaime, I just had one question. You had mentioned about lighting as well. Could you restate what you had said about the lighting that’s associated with the canopy? MR. JONES-Basically we’ve got, there were some existing light poles on the site. We’re removing those and we’re supplying new light poles and fixtures with the cut off type lens on them, keep the foot candle levels on the site and try to diminish them by the time they hit the property line. The canopy itself, the regulations for the Town, I think it’s 10 foot candles is what’s allowed under the canopy? MR. FRANK-I don’t have that answer for you. I’m sorry. MR. JONES-I’m going to say it’s like 10 to 15 foot candles. The canopies that have been done in the Town in the last year and a half average anywhere from 25 to 35 foot candles under them. What we’re proposing is a foot candle level, and there was a submission in the packet that you have and basically I think our average foot candle level was less than 25, maybe in the 23 range. I don’t have that. MR. FRANK-And, Mr. Rigby, for the record, lighting is something that is now, under our new Zoning Ordinance of April of last year, it’s something that’s regulated. The light levels are thoroughly reviewed and they can, light can’t leave the site. It’s something that the Planning Board definitely will take a very close look at. MR. JONES-And our average foot candle level, too, for the record is 19.4 foot candles. So we’re actually less than 20. MR. HEILMANN-So we’re not asking for a variance on the lighting. MR. JONES-No. MR. URRICO-Just for my curiosity, this will be a convenience store? MR. JONES-Yes, it will. MR. URRICO-And the deliveries for the convenience store will be where? MR. JONES-They will come in on the north end. There’s actually a door on that north end toward the canopy. MR. URRICO-Okay, and your gas deliveries, where will that come from? MR. JONES-They’ll be coming in, the tanks sit right at the north end of the proposed canopy. So when they come in off of Route 9, they can fill right there. MR. URRICO-Will they be blocking that entrance when they go? MR. HEILMANN-Most likely what the driver will do is they’ll come from south and they’ll probably enter on the one way entrance on the southern entrance there, and then drive around behind the canopy, through one of the canopy fueling lanes, and be part of this trailer on the, towards the back, with its nose coming across a couple of the parking spots on the north end of the property. It’s going to be out of the entranceway. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I guess it’s time to poll the Board members and get a direction for a motion. We’ll start right here with Roy. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. URRICO-This is a better plan than the last one that came through, but I’m still having problems with the amount of relief you requested for the Travel Overlay, Travel Corridor Overlay as well as the setback relief from the 50 foot minimum, and the major culprit is the canopy, and I don’t know how you can rectify that, but as it stands right now, I don’t think I can approve it the way it is. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. It seems like an awful lot of relief, and it seems like a lot of building on one small plot, and I’m just looking at the canopy, and it really looks kind of overwhelming, and I would have to agree. I find that the amount of relief required is excessive, especially as you’ve said for that front canopy. So I would be against it. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. The problem that I’m having. Sixty-three feet, eleven and a half inches of relief from the seventy-five foot minimum Travel Corridor is quite a bit of relief, and in addition, you’re also asking for 38 feet 11 and a half inches of relief from a 50 foot minimum front setback. I think the plan is good, but I share the same concerns that both my other fellow members share that the relief perhaps may be more than justified, however, Mr. Chairman, I’m willing to listen to whatever else the Board members have to say. MR. HAYES-Is that a “U” for Undecided, on my notes? MR. ABBATE-I’m undecided on that. MR. HAYES-Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The last time that you came before me, I was basically in favor of your plan, and I’m still in favor of it, and I think that, you know, we have to reflect upon the narrow depth of the lot that you have there, and there’s really no way that this lot is going to ever, you know, fit in to the TCO, you know, that would put you back around the front of that building, and you really wouldn’t be able to put any pumps that would be covered out there. I think that what you’ve done is a compromise from last time. I think it still allows you to have the eight stations instead of the ten that you originally proposed. The new canopy is not going to be a standard canopy, as you’ve suggested. It’s going to have a colonial design to it, which will fit in, and I presume that the building, once you redo the façade on there, is going to reflect that also. I think the other point in your favor is the fact that as it stands, if you look at the picture up there where there’s no vegetation out in front, there will be some substantial vegetation planted in front to green it up a little bit and make it look better. I think that the concerns about the runoff, the non-point runoff from the property, have been addressed and will be addressed by the Planning Board also. So I’d be in favor of your plan. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I have mixed feelings. I’ll agree that the relief requested seems fairly high when you look at the numbers. On the other hand, the relief that’s requested is for a gas canopy, not a building. I guess technically it’s a building, too, but it’s not like it had walls right down to the ground and whatever. It’s just a canopy. If I had my druthers, I’d rather see something other than a gas station on this corner. I think the Town Historian probably has hit the nail on the head, as to what would be nice and ideal, but that doesn’t help the property owner. So I’m also looking at, if you deny permission to put a gas station in here, which we effectively would be doing if we denied the variance request, then what do you put in here that would be viable for the property owner? And there isn’t much of a choice. I think, as has been mentioned, the applicant has made a good effort to answer as many of the complaints we had last time as possible. They’ve redesigned the gas islands. They’ve reduced the number of pumping stations. They’ve clipped the corners on the canopy to comply as much as they can. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) So while I’d rather see something else there, I think, in balancing everything, I don’t think this is going to be a detriment to the neighborhood. As has been mentioned, it probably is going to be a little bit of an improvement because the site will be developed and neatened up, and I think there’s a definite benefit to the applicant. So I’m going to be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Leo? MR. RIGBY-Yes. I agree. I think that what I see is a definite improvement on the property. I believe that the, you know, I don’t know that there is a better alternative for the canopy. I suppose we could ask to go back one more time and see if you could come back with a better alternative, maybe for a little bit less relief, but I don’t know that that’s, I don’t know that that’s possible. I’m in favor of it. I think that it is a major improvement to the property. I’d like to see additional landscaping involved, since we’re giving significant relief here, if that’s a possibility. I think that, you know, the Town Historian does hit on a point. This is an entrance into Queensbury coming out of Glens Falls. I think it is an important spot and I like the improvement that’s being done, but, you know, if something could be done with a little more landscaping possibly that would help, too. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, the original application I felt that too much was being asked. I thought it was an overdevelopment of the property, particularly with two canopies. I didn’t even think it was close, actually, but in this particular case, we asked the applicant to come back with a less intense use of the property, and I think they have. To me, on paper, it looks like a good plan, which I think there’s a definite benefit to the neighborhood and greater community with this property being recycled in some fashion. Broken windows and vacancies are still a negative to some extent. This is, as Jim pointed out, an existing parcel. It’s not very deep. Basically, it’s going to be difficult for any applicant, this applicant or any applicant to do much with this property without encroaching on the TCO. I don’t remember for sure, but it seemed that we had some evidence introduced last time that the State had done dramatically what they were going to do in this area, with all these curbs and everything else. I think we had a letter or something indicating that they had expanded this, you know, sometime in the recent future, so I don’t know what additionally is going to be done there anyway, even though we certainly need to protect it. Overall, I think this is a good plan for this property, and I think it won’t, on balance, I just don’t see any real negative to the neighborhood or the community in a sense, and I think there is a benefit to the applicant of being able to utilize the property in a way. So I’m in favor. Having said that, according to my poll, I have four yeses and an undecided. So would someone, I think it would probably be most appropriate for somebody to make a motion in favor. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-2003 YALCIN OZBAY – USA GAS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 651 Upper Glen Street. The applicant proposes conversion of a gas station with repair bays to a self-service gas convenient mart with a 1720 square foot gas island canopy. As we related before, the relief required is 63 feet 11.5 inches of relief from the 75 foot minimum Travel Corridor Overlay zone, and that’s the setback requirement from State Route 9, per Section 179- 4-060C, and secondly, 38 feet 11.5 inches of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement for the State Route 9 frontage per Section 179-4-030 for the Highway Commercial Intensive zone. As we said before, it does not appear that a compliant location is available for the construction of the gas canopy, and as we related and noted. The relief identified herein is based upon a consolidation of both the subject parcels. A condition that requires the applicant to consolidate the parcels would be appropriate, in the near future. Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. JONES-Thank you very much. MR. HAYES-Before we move on to the next application, there is one piece of New Business that we should identify, if everyone will look at their agenda. I guess it was requested that we make a motion to, or entertain the possibility of the Planning Board becoming the Lead Agent on the Miller project. Traditionally we do this, and it seems like it makes sense, but it does require us to make a formal motion. MOTION THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENT FOR SEQRA PURPOSES REGARDING THE PROJECT OF DOUG & TERESA MILLER CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 2-2003 FOR AN INDOOR/OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITY, TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-3 ON SHERMAN AVENUE, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE MR. HAYES-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II MICHAEL & YVONNE WILD AGENT: MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR OWNER: ELIZABETH LITTLE ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF BLACKBERRY LANE NORTH OF BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION OF LAND TO INCLUDE THE RECONFIGURATION OF EXISTING LOT BOUNDARIES TO CREATE A 6 LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. NO. 20-2003 SKETCH PLAN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 12/10/03 LOT SIZE: 11.41 AC.; 1.10 AC.; 5.50 AC.; 1.03 AC. TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-35, 36, 31 289.19-1-1 SECTION: 179-4-030 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 90-2003, Michael & Yvonne Wild, Meeting Date: December 17, 2003 “Project Location: West side of Blackberry Lane north of Blind Rock Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes development and subdivision of 18.67 acres of land (12.32 acres of which are subdividable) to include the reconfiguration of existing lot boundaries to create a 6-lot subdivision. Relief Required: 1) 1.6 acres of relief from the 3-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot #1. 2) 1.6 acres of relief from the 3-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot #2. 3) 1.67 acres of relief from the 3-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot #3. 4) 50 feet of relief from the 200-foot minimum lot width requirement for Lot #1. 5) 27 feet of relief from the 200-foot minimum lot width requirement for Lot #3. All relief per §179-4-030 for the RR-3A Zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SB 20-2003: 12/16/03, Sketch Plan for subdivision of 18.67 acres into 6 residential lots. Staff comments: 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) Even though the proposed Lots 1, 2, and 3 are not out of character with some of the neighboring pre-existing nonconforming parcels, the 12.32 subdividable acres of the 18.67 total acres could be subdivided into 4 compliant lots without any relief from the zoning code. Results of the Subdivision Sketch Plan review by the Planning Board will be announced at the December 17, 2003 ZBA Meeting.” MR. MC NULTY-And I do have a summary of the Planning Board’s review of this. That says, the Planning Board reviewed SB 20-2003, a proposed six lot residential subdivision of 18 plus or minus acres as a Sketch Plan application on December 16, 2003. Some comments from the Planning Board members inquired as to whether or not conforming lots could be created as a part of the subdivision. The applicant stated that currently this property consists of two pre- existing nonconforming lots which could be developed with curb cuts off Blind Rock Road and that the remaining lands could be developed with additional curb cuts off Blind Rock Road. One Board member commented that there appeared to be many variances involved and another member discussed the idea of possibly scaling the subdivision back to five lots instead of six. Overall the Planning Board was in favor of any future subdivision of this land having access from an interior road versus multiple curb cuts off Blind Rock Road, and Warren County looked at this, “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 10, 2003 Project Name: Wild, Michael & Yvonne Owner: Elizabeth Little ID Number: QBY- 03-AV-90 County Project#: Dec03-23 Current Zoning: RR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes development and subdivision of land to include the reconfiguration of existing lot boundaries to create a 6 lot subdivision. Relief requested from the minimum lot size and minimum average lot width requirements. Site Location: West side of Blackberry Lane North of Blind Rock Road Tax Map Number(s): 289.18-1-35, 36, 31 289.19- 1-1 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a six lot subdivision off of Blackberry Lane. The applicant has requested relief from the required lot size of 3 acres to Lot 1 – 1.4, Lot 2 – 1.4, Lot 3 – 1.33, where the remaining lots are greater than 3 acres and the applicant is requesting relief from the lot width. The applicant also requests relief from the amount of lots to be developed where 4.1 lots would be allowed and the applicant proposes 6. The information submitted shows an alternate plan with six lots where there would be at least three additional curb-cuts on Blind Rock. The proposed plan only has access from Blackberry Lane and the lots having frontage on Blind Rock will have a 50’ no cut buffer zone. Staff recommends discussion due to the density and emergency access. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve County Planning Board Recommends Approval.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 12/17/03. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. MR. RIGBY-Mr. Chairman, I think I need to recuse myself from this. I’m a member of the Warren County Republican Committee, and I believe the owner of the property is, and the representative for the person who’s requesting the variance are both involved heavily in the Warren County Republican Party. So I’d like to recuse myself from the. MR. HAYES-Okay. So we’re going to have six members for this particular hearing. So, if you’d like to introduce yourself for the record. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I would. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and I’m representing the applicant, and I also represent the seller of the property, Betty Little. The applicant is Michael and Yvonne Wild and Michael’s here with me at the table, and with us also is Tom Nace who is the engineer for the project. It sounds like we’re asking for a lot, but basically we’re asking to create one additional lot. I think the Staff comments are wrong. We will show you very clearly that we can have five compliant lots, and basically what we’re looking for is the ability to have one additional lot. We think that what we’ve put together is a plan that has a lot more benefit than it does detriment. It has a lot of advantage to the Town, the community, and to the adjoining neighbors. I’ve handed you a small map, which is a composite, if you will, of the tax maps of the parcels. There are five parcels that are involved in the present ownership of Betty Little, and if you look at that map, 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) there are two that are directly accessed to Blind Rock Road as single family one acre lots, that’s Tax Map Parcel 289.19-1-1, and 289.18-1-36. Those are pre-existing lots. People could come in, or buy those right now and go in and ask for a building permit, establish a driveway on to Blind Rock Road, have a front yard right down to Blind Rock, without any variance of any nature. The balance of her land is 289.18-1-35, which is the big parcel, and then there’s a small tie-in parcel which is just the extension of the road. It’s 289.19-1-4, and there’s an adjoining parcel that has frontage on Mannis Road which is 289.18-1-31. It is those five parcels that we are wishing and hope to be able to reconfigure into this six lot subdivision. I think when you take a look at the overall thing, you will see that although there are five specific dimensional requirements that we are asking for variances from, they really are minor in the sense that you are creating one lot. I think the first question that you’re going to have is, is an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood, or is the proposed proposal to the detriment of nearby property owners, and first I think you have to ask, what is the character of the neighborhood. It’s residential and clearly what we’re going to do is propose the same thing, single family residence, and you ask what type of lot is it, what type of setting is it. Most of that whole corridor is wooded, looks rural. We don’t propose anything to change that. In fact, what we’ve proposed will ensure that it will keep that rural character. The houses that you will see on the plan are away from Blind Rock Road. We’re talking about eliminating the two curb cuts, eliminating the two front yards that would be directly on to Blind Rock Road. We’ve had a number of meetings with, or not a number of meetings, but we’ve had good communication with the neighbors, and trying to determine how we would accommodate their needs and accommodate our needs, and part of that discussion has lead us to say, we initially said we would do a 50 foot no cut line along Blind Rock Road. Mr. Horrigan who lives here indicates that the power lines run right along there, and one of the problems with the neighborhood is that they apparently don’t have an existing easement to cut. So there is actually a need maybe to cut along the edge of the road. So what we’ve done is moved this back to a 60 foot and indicated that we would stipulate that we would grant Niagara Mohawk the necessary easement to cut along the line, and apparently, and he’s here. He can talk about the number of outages that they’ve had and haven’t had. We also talked to Mr. and Mrs. DelSignore, who are on this corner piece of property, right here. We now, in response to comments that they have, and if you look at the original map, they happen to be right next to one of the pre-existing, nonconforming lots. Somebody could go in, with a building permit, build their house there, and do whatever clearing they want, right out to Blind Rock Road. As we said, all the houses are moved back. The house that would be right next to them is now no longer next to them. It’s back, it’s actually outside of their property lines. It’s behind their back property lines. We’ve talked about doing the 60 foot no cut zone, and we’ve talked about doing a sweep. Instead of just having a no cut along Blind Rock Road, we would define and we would show on the map that we have to go back to the Planning Board with where we would give them the full corner that would be no cut. So what is there, what exists and their desire to maintain their privacy behind their house would be maintained. We also have talked to the owner of this parcel, Edward, and we’ve talked about doing a no cut zone of 25 feet along his entire boundary, and we have agreed and stipulated that we would plant 20, 5 foot shrubs at his desire, or located at his desire, which is to be defined. Apparently part of the problem is not necessary just the house going here, but this little extension of the road, which would occur whether we have five houses, fifty houses, or six houses, because there apparently is a growth, there’s some trees that are in what is in that road bed, and that would expose this end of this lot more so than probably the houses that we build in here, regardless of what the number is. So we’ve indicated he can put the shrubs if he wants along this boundary line or along that boundary line, but we would do that at our expense. We have also talked to Mr. and Mrs. Povie who own this particular parcel here, and we’ve agreed to put shrubs along their boundary, and I believe we’ve agreed to do 10 shrubs along their boundary, which would give them privacy, into this subdivision. It’s my suggestion, and we’re going to go back to the Planning Board and we would have no problem with you conditioning your approval of us keeping this no cut zone all along this boundary, this boundary and this boundary. In fact, you could keep it right around the boundary if you wanted to. We think that the no cuts that we are providing actually does a lot to ensure the people of their privacy and of the affect that it’s a wooded neighborhood, it’s a rural neighborhood, regardless of the fact that we will have one extra house in there. The lots as we propose them are still good sized lots, and that’s probably the third part of the character of 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) the neighborhood. All the lots that are actually impacted by the variances that we requested are smaller than the lots that we suggest. In fact the whole neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood, and Staff noted that. The Area Variances occur right in this area here. The DelSignore lot is 1.04. The Horrigan, Ed Horrigan’s lot is .71. Michael Hayes’ lot is 1.14. Those are the lots that would be impacted, perhaps, by having three houses near them. Although the houses, if you look at the cul de sac, are way back. Even the Hayes lot has some benefit in that there’s no real development in their side yard or down by Blind Rock Road. If you take a look at the whole neighborhood, this one is 1.14, .65, .67, .58, .48, .47, .71, .51, .47, .55, .58. The only lots that are large is Mike Swan’s lot over here, which is 4.31, and I’ll talk about that directly in a minute, and also the Williams’ lot here which is 4.25, but those lots are not in areas that are directly affected by the variances we’re requesting. The lots that adjoin them will be fully compliant lots. There is no available land, which is also a test. The only land that we believe is available is a fellow has called and told us that he would sell us this road bed. It’s a 30 foot road bed, but according to calculations that we make, that doesn’t even add to density, even though we would get additional square footage. Our calculations on density take out the road bed, they take out the wetland, they take out the area that slopes over 25%, and that’s on one of the calculations. As I indicated and which I will keep repeating, there are two legal one acre lots on Blind Rock Road. We actually are increasing the size of those lots. I think it goes to .14, 1.4, 1.4, 1.33, and we are asking or we are showing no cut zones. We’d be willing to talk to you, if you want to condition it further, as I indicated, to have the no cut zone go all the way around the back of the property. There could conceivably be an addition to the two permitted driveways, or the driveways I know we can walk in and get a permit for, an additional two driveways. If somebody didn’t want to pay for the cost of doing this cul de sac and this addition, they simply would take the two other pieces that front on Blind Rock Road, this piece here, and this piece here, and create a driveway for each of them, and maybe the lot in back would be big. It could be even an administrative two lot subdivision that doesn’t require any municipal improvements. So you’re doing away with the potential here of four driveways on Blind Rock Road, and I’ll get to that as far as, I think everybody’s aware that this is a graded property, or a property with a lot of slope, and you’ve seen the driveways that are up in here. I would think that we are adding greatly to the safety by not bringing people out onto that road directly. It also would help the three parcels across the street, because when the three parcels across the street are developed, they won’t be in competition with driveways that are directly across from them, and I think that’ll have some significance when they are developed. We specifically and purposely didn’t ask for a rezoning. If I asked for a rezoning the room would probably be full. Because a rezoning is a blank check. If we come in and ask for one acre lots and many people who have looked at this property say, well, we’ll buy it if we get one acre zoning, but then you don’t have control, and you can’t put conditions on it in the sense that we are offering the conditions that there will be no curb cuts on Blind Rock Road, that there would be the no cut zones that we’re offering. I did indicate, or I haven’t indicated, I did speak to some of the neighbors myself. I spoke to Mickie Hayes, who is the owner of this particular parcel here, and he said that he had no objection to it, and I think that’s based upon his relationship with Betty, if not anything else, but he understands and has looked at the map, knows where the improvements are going to go. We spoke with Ed Horrigan, and he’s here tonight, and maybe he’s going to speak for himself. I don’t know if he is or he isn’t, but I think that we have satisfied his concerns by offering the no cut zone and by offering the shrubbery that’s going to be on his property line. We’ve talked to Mr. and Mrs. Richard Delsignore, who are the people on the corner, and I think we satisfied them last evening with the no cut zone directly along Blind Rock Road and the no cut zone that was along their property line. We’ve even greatly improved upon that by giving the corner, by giving the, if you will, making a full corner, so it almost goes back to their property line. So they’re going to have the privacy of what’s there without actually owning it, because that’ll be a no cut zone. So, in fact, the lot that will be next to them is 1.4, and they before were looking at a one acre lot. We’ve talked to Mrs. Beth Povie, and I think she’s here tonight and may speak, and I understand that this afternoon she was satisfied with the landscaping that was going to go alongside her property line and with the proposed no cut zone, and this is the former house of Betty Little, and I just would indicate that in the contract of purchase, when the property was sold, we indicated to them that there would be a request for rezoning of this parcel, so it’s not a surprise, and it really hasn’t been an issue, and we talked about rezoning it to a one acre density, and they purchased that property, I think, 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) in February of 2003. In fact, if you looked at their survey map, their driveway runs across a part of this extension of Blind Rock Road that we’re going to build, and we’ll work out, there’s easements provided to them right now until this is dedicated as a Town road. There’s also construction easements for us to reconstruct the driveway, and we will work out the reconstruction of that driveway to their satisfaction as part of this thing. The smaller lots actually don’t adjoin their parcel. This parcel back here and, this doesn’t really show, this map here, the tax map shows the Williams’ parcel. This doesn’t show where they have a frontage out to here. They actually front on this parcel here, and come out to the back side of the cul de sac. I think it’s on your small map. They have 4.85 acres. Part of that may be in the wetland. I’m not 100% sure, but I spoke to Mr. Williams today and he said he has no objection, no concern with the plan and would support it. When we sold his property, we put actually in his deed and in his contract, recitals to the effect that the adjoining property was in the process of being subdivided and we hoped that it would be subdivided with a density of three quarter of an acre. So they aren’t surprised by what we’re talking about. The lot that does adjoin them does conform. You have a letter in your file from Lucille DelSignore. When I became aware of that letter, I spoke to Jim DelSignore, as well as Richard DelSignore who actually owns the property, and I’ll submit to the Chairman a short letter that I spoke to my mother, Lucille DelSignore, yesterday, regarding variance request for the property off Blackberry Lane in Queensbury. She has no opposition to the planned lots as presently submitted. If you look at her letter, I was a little bit confused. It says that she would oppose a blank check one acre zoning, but if it was built as presented, she would have no objection to it. So we got that letter to try and verify that. In December of 2002, I wrote to the Glens Falls Country Club who also owns a parcel that’s adjoining this property, asking that they join in a petition to rezone the property, their property and our property, to a one acre zone. The Board of Governors, at it’s January 20, 2003 meeting, declined to join in the petition to have their property rezoned, but the minutes would reflect that they had, by motion, said they had no opposition to the Little property being rezoned to one acre. I guess I’ve got to go back and forth. They own this particular parcel here. If you look at the tax maps it’s flagged over to this piece here. It’s separated from the main Country Club parcel. It really is a great piece of property. It has a great ravine in it, but they are an adjoining neighbor. We spoke with Mike Swan a couple of times. Mike Swan is the fellow who owns the 4.3 acre parcel right here, and he’s here and may speak, but my understanding is that the lots that adjoin him are compliant. He does not oppose what we are doing. His concerns were that there is a ravine in there, which we took out of our density calculations, and he wouldn’t want it filled in, and there’s no intention to do that. If you take a look at where we’ve shown the proposed development, it is quite a ways away from him as to the clearing. We are proposing that we will clear only where it is necessary for construction, for the residences, or the septic systems. There may be some limited tree cutting beyond that, but it’s not going to be a clear cut. We’re going to try and preserve the wooded appearance, the rural character of the property as much as we possibly can, and as I may have indicated or not indicated, I own one of these parcels. Ed Boyle owns another one, and Harry Rutherford owns another one. We are three of the principals in the BRB Group which owns the property on the corner. We have no objection to this. In fact, we think it will improve the safety of whatever we have tried to establish for a driveway. When these properties are developed, we probably are going to do one driveway, which would come in and serve all three properties and maybe go out the other way, as opposed to having right angle driveways. I’m not 100% sure of that yet, but we wouldn’t want to have four driveways across from us where we’re competing coming up out of the lower part of this property to get on to that road. I don’t know if I pointed, again, I’ll go back to this map. Lucille DelSignore is in this property here. Richard DelSignore is that property there. If you will look at that little handout that I handed to you, I purposely tried to highlight in yellow everyone who says that they have no objection, that they have told us that it will not affect the character of the neighborhood, or that it will not infringe or impinge upon them in any unreasonable manner. Certainly everybody would like to have this become a forever wild park, but they understand that the mitigation we’ve offered, in lieu of the variance that will allow us one lot, is a good compromise or at least that’s my understanding. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some other feasible method or plan. Our answer is no. If you look at the application, Mike had an attachment for an alternate design attached to that, which would show six lots, as we are proposing now. Staff hasn’t made any comment to me saying that variances would be required under that 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) configuration that he set forth. I don’t know if they necessarily looked at it with a fine tooth comb for that purpose, but it gives you very odd looking lots. That was part of the package, it had a separate cover on it that says alternate, and I don’t think it would be very conducive to good planning. I said before, one alternative which would give us still the five lots would create the, or would retain the two pre-existing lots and ignore them. They don’t have to be combined. The seller and the developer are combining them as an act of mitigation, if you will, and this shows one, two, three lots in the back, all which comply. So, this is maybe an alternative with no variance that would be required. It doesn’t give you a nice cul de sac. It doesn’t, it really is not conducive to development. MR. HAYES-How many lots would that be, Mr. O’Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-Five, without variance, and I think Staff would just, and I’m not sure where they come up with the idea in their comments saying that we could have four compliant lots. We can have five compliant lots. MR. FRANK-I want to make a correction to that. When you consider the two one acre lots that are pre-existing, nonconforming, it would be five. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. If you look at the densities, you’ve got 18.67 acres in this group of parcels. We took out the .38 of acres for the sloping. We took out 5.28 acres for the wetlands, which is almost an entire parcel of 5.46. We took out .69 for the road, and that left us 12.32 acres developable, including the two one acre lots. So simple math, if you just did it by math, you left the two one acre lots as standalone lots and sold them as individual parcels, you’d have 10.32 acres to divide, and you’d have a density of, you’d have three, three acre lots and one 1.32 acre lot. So we’re asking for dimensional variances, five dimensional variances, but in essence, we’ve got one lot, we’ve got 1.32 acres left over and we’re creating a three acre lot with it, if you want to look at a total picture. The variance request, even though there are five items, is not substantial, and I’ve heard us talk before, and I’ve talked before myself, about simply making a mathematical calculation, and if you actually look at the definitions of substantial, you look upon the impacts as opposed to the relief that’s granted, and there are very, very little negative impacts by the relief that’s granted, as opposed to the positive impacts, having the no cut zones, having no access to Blind Rock Road, having everything come off the back end of it. Another additional thing that we’re also talking of doing, the map as submitted shows individual wells. That was before we got a letter saying that the Town was seeking to put a water line down through this line. We are going to bring, we’ve been told we can bring a water line, by easement, up this property line, or up one of the property lines, to the cul de sac. That’ll bring a hydrant right up in the midst of all those houses, which has some benefit, some community benefit. We’re told that the owner of this parcel would also like to hook in to that Town water, if it’s possible. So we’re going to bring water into the back of the parcel. Blackberry Lane, even though there is only six houses on it, is fully developed. I don’t know the likelihood of the other five people, as the water line goes by there, saying they want to come in, or they want to be involved with the water district. We have indicated to that particular person that when we do the construction, we would do the additional construction at cost. I don’t think that’s necessarily a condition, but it’s again it’s a community benefit as opposed to impacts. We’ve preserved the privacy of these people. We haven’t surprised anybody, you know, with a density that’s unrealistic, and we’ve kept it within what the neighborhood character is for the existing density. If you look at, again, even just the lot envelopes that we’re talking about, they are good sized lots. They’re .14, .133, and then all three and above. We will be able to have the standard building envelope. So whether you had six lots in there or not, the people that had those lots, they’d be entitled to build up to 30 feet of a side line. We can still maintain that 30 feet. If the front setback is 50 feet, we’d still be able to maintain that. So we’re not imposing our structures upon anybody, even though we’ve added one lot to the subdivision. You also look to see if there are any impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. I think everything that we’ve done is positive, and you might take a note of the County Planning Board’s approval. You sit through how many different variances, and the County Planning Board tries its best to simply send back a report saying no county impact. When we went through the no cut driveways on Blind Rock Road, and told them how we were going to keep 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) all the traffic internal, they thought it was positive enough that they approved it and in their resolution, which has been read by Mr. McNulty, they did approve it as opposed to simply saying no county impact. I think the positive environmental is that it maintains the rural character. It maintains the wooded character. Everything else that we’re talking about, drainage, septics, will be in full compliance. So there is no environmental down side of what we’re talking about. Is the hardship self-created? Yes and no. The present owner of the property owned this property before it became three acre zoning. I believe it was three quarter acre zoning when it was purchased, and you can see in the adjoining subdivisions how they enjoyed that three quarter acre zoning when they did those subdivisions. It’s new to Mr. Wild, but he has conditioned this upon being able to get approval of the six lots, having costed out everything that he will have to do to make the improvements to offer the mitigation that he’s going to offer. The houses that he’s talking about building in there will probably be 2400 square feet. They will have a sales price of approximately $300,000 or better. It’ll be a substantial conclave, if you will, that he’s trying to put together in there. He builds maybe two, three houses a year. He’s not a spec builder. He is a custom builder. The houses, one of the neighbors asked, will they be of different design, so that they aren’t all cookie cutter, and, yes, they will be of different design. They’re going to be custom homes. So we think that, in balancing everything, the Town is well served, the public is well served, particularly with safety, as opposed to having those driveways that are permitted, and being able to preserve the wooded character of those lots, and the setting that they set in. We do think that this is the minimum variance that’s necessary. I should, I’ll just go through these. This is the map that you have before you, and it shows the six lots. It shows the cul de sac. It shows the no cut. This is all the tax map, if you’ve got any questions on the tax map, all the owners, we’d be glad to answer them. This is a rendering which we’ve put together. It’s the same configuration, but it’s based upon the discussions with the neighbors last night as to what would please them as far as no cut zones, and as I’ve indicated, this 50 foot no cut zone can be wrapped around the entire property, except up here, by Povie. This is 50 in here. We can do a no cut zone around here, and I think, Mike, if you look where the house is set, you can do 50, and you can do 50 there. This has to go back to the Town Planning Board for Preliminary approval and Final approval. I think the minutes would fairly reflect that people look at this and say, you want five variances, can you do with less variances, but overall I think everybody favored the fact that you would have no further driveways on Blind Rock Road, which is really the big mitigation that’s being offered. Any questions? MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a few. I think that when we’re looking at the three acre zoning back there, it’s reflective of the post glacial topography that’s there with the steep slopes with the bog that’s back there, and also I would have you comment on, you know, when we’re talking about the lots out on Blind Rock Road there, I think that, you know, one of the things you might consider doing is, you know, the Planning Board has already suggested that possibly five lots would work better than six lots, but it’s almost like you’re trying to get an extra piece of pie with that Lot Number Six that you have on your drawing there. One thing I think that you could consider doing is swinging your access road around to the northwest a little bit which would create, in effect, larger lots of one, two, three, four, and five, you know, and it would make the lots five and four back there probably right around three acres in doing so. One of the reasons I think that you might consider doing that is the fact that, you know, you do have a significant habitat for wildlife back there. I know your own son hunts back there on a regular basis, and it’s full of deer and everything else, and by creating these narrow lots, you know, it’s going to preclude wildlife from moving through the area. I think that’s a consideration. At the same time, in considering what you’re proposing, when you say will attempt not to cut a whole lot of trees on the lot there, it is a wooded parcel, and if you travel up Blackberry Lane, I think most of the homeowners, not all of them, per se, have done a good job as far as, you know, minimizing the amount of cutting down around the houses, keeping the wooded nature of the parcels intact, per se, and I think that’s important to consider in the neighborhood there. I think that, as you suggested, your three acre larger lots towards the backside where the three acre zoning actually is, would in attempt, you know, keep that three acre zoning intact. I know Schermerhorn as a large parcel back behind there, too, and, you know, I think any attempt to try 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) and turn it into one acre zoning would be a disaster for anybody that proposed it. That’s just my suggestion. MR. HAYES-Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant? MR. ABBATE-Just questions and some comments as well. Good evening, Counsel, gentlemen. Counsel gave a rather lengthy but detailed presentation, and I wrote all over your map notes that were taken. My initial reaction to this thing, before the presentation this evening was, my goodness, this is an RR-3 Acre, and I said, looking for 1.6, but the presentation pointed out to me, and I hope I got this right, that the majority, if not all of these lots down here, are listed one acre. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And in addition to that, you’ve clarified the fact that, quite frankly, the 1.6 acres that you’re proposing really would not be out of character. I looked at the effects on the neighborhood and I really don’t see, unless I’m missing something, where the 1.6 acres would be out of character. I was delighted with the good will expressed by the Counsel and you gentlemen when you were talking about communicating with your neighbors. It appears to me that you’ve touched base with just about every living soul that’s up there, and if my notes are correct, you made statements such as, you’re going to be delighted to grant an easement to Niagara Mohawk. You plan on planting 20- 5 foot growth, something I missed, shrubs in another area, and you indicated that you would be delighted to make sure that there was a no cut zone, and you also indicated you would clear only when required and in an attempt to preserve the wooded character of the area, and based upon the presentation, which I thought was excellent, by the way, the only question I have, we’re going to have a long evening, would be this, would anybody explain to me what’s meant by hoops and bells? MR. O'CONNOR-Where do you see it? MR. ABBATE-In your documentation. I read everything. I think that was Counselor’s comment, wasn’t it? MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think so. MR. ABBATE-But anyway, just a little humor there. I have to admit, I was initially concerned, but that’s why we have these meetings, because we come with certain documentation, purportedly to be facts and what have you, and we listen to what folks have to say, the public and what the applicant has to say, and in many instances, it completely changes, in my mind, the image of what I initially had, and quite frankly, I like the presentation, it was quite lengthy, but I liked it. It was detailed, and there was a tremendous amount of communication with neighbors. I think that would off set anything in terms of any adverse effect on the area, and quite frankly I would be in support of the application. MR. HAYES-Before we do the poll, are there any questions? MR. URRICO-I have a question. I have some questions. The changes in the no cut lines, does that affect the sizes of lots one, two and three? Because you mentioned moving it to 60 feet and then moving. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The owner of the lot still owns the underlying parcel, or owns the parcel. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-He is just restricted by deed restriction from cutting within a particular area on the lot. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this particular time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of the application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARY LEE GOSLINE MRS. GOSLINE-Mary Lee Gosline, 25 Blind Rock Road. I do approve of the plan the way that he’s presenting it. I do like the idea that he’s preserving the character of Blind Rock Road, because it’s part of the beautification of Queensbury to keep the rural characteristics. I think it’s a much safer idea of having the cul de sac. By no means, though, I don’t think any of the neighbors are saying they approve one acre zoning, but this particular design, it has pre- surveyed lots already that are one acre, but we wouldn’t want to make it sound like we wanted to make the rest of the area one acre. MR. HAYES-This would not do that. MRS. GOSLINE-Okay. MR. HAYES-This is not the application. MRS. GOSLINE-That’s just, we want to clarify that, but I think Mike Wild has talked to all the neighbors. He’s taken great pains to satisfy everybody, and I think he’ll do a good job. MR. URRICO-Which house are you on that map over there? MRS. GOSLINE-I’m on 25 Blind Rock, so I’m next to Mrs. DelSignore. I’m the north of DelSignore. I have six acres. My daughter’s behind me, and she has three acres. So we’ve never strayed from the one acre, you know, we have six and three. MR. HAYES-Three acre, right. Okay. Thank you. MIKE SWAN MR. SWAN-My name is Mike Swan, and I’m the adjoining property owner in the rear. I’m kind of surrounded by this a little bit. I’m in favor of it, basically because the three acre zoning is still being held at what’s adjoining me in the rear. I’ve also talked to the developer, and there’s a big ravine that runs right down the middle of that property line and my concern was that it would be filled in, if there was any kind of major development with one acre or two acre lots in there. He has assured me that that will not happen, and the way the cul de sac pulls those houses down a little bit towards Blind Rock Road keeps them away from that ravine. So, you know, I use it to throw my leaves in there, and I hope that that’s what my new neighbors will do, and that’s about it. Other than that, I think it’s very well thought out. I think it reflects the use in the area, too, because it keeps the smaller lots along Blind Rock, and the larger lots back in the woods, basically, which is where we are now, what we’ve got. That’s it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application? LINDA DEL SIGNORE MRS. DEL SIGNORE-My name is Linda DelSignore, and my lot adjoins these, and I’d rather see the whole thing stay wooded of course, myself, but I understand that that’s not practical. My great concern is that it not be rezoned to one acre, as Mary Lee said, and it’s, Mr. O’Connor seemed confused as to what my mother-in-law had to say in her letter, and that was her concern, that it not be rezoned to one acre. That was her main concern, and I would like to say 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) that I appreciate the fact that they’re going to have a no cut zone, and I’d also like to say, on the whole parcel, no undue cutting of woodlands or hardwoods be undertaken. That’s my biggest concern. Other than that, I appreciate the attempts that they’ve made to speak with us and make sure our concerns are brought to the front. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else that wishes to speak in favor of the application? CHRIS POVIE MR. POVIE-Good evening. My name is Chris Povie, and as Mr. O’Connor stated, my wife and I currently own 8 Blackberry Lane, which is kind of at the end of the “T” of the existing Blackberry Lane on the left, which is currently surrounded by woods, and I guess, like Linda, you know, we bought the property about 10 months ago. We have two little boys under the age of three years old, and a big old dog, and kind of the attractiveness of the property was the fact that it’s surrounded by woods. Right now the “T” of the driveway basically serves as the end of our driveway. Our house is approximately 50 feet, actually our garage is approximately 50 feet away from where the road line would be. We’re in favor of Mr. Wild’s design. We like the fact that it, he’s going to keep it somewhat wooded. Our only concern, and Mr. O’Connor has stated that Mr. Wild spoke with my wife this afternoon which she did, and Mr. O’Connor indicated that my wife was in favor of the proposed development, and that is true with a big IF, and the if being I think the feeling that anybody in this room might have when you had a house that was at the end of a dead end, surrounded by trees, and you heard that there was going to be development and approximately 20 or 25 cars passing by, basically your driveway right now. I don’t know if any of you have been up there, but the way that Mrs. Little had designed the property, the existing driveway coming out of the garage, it’s very wide. It’s probably 50 feet wide. It’s wider than an average driveway, and this goes straight down into the left side of that “T”. We have proposed to Mr. Wild that that driveway, I mean, it needs to be regarded to meet the, through the easement to meet the road anyway. We had proposed that it be narrowed to give us a little bit more privacy from this road that would be put in, going up right by our house, and I just wanted to get on the record as saying that, you know, we would like to see that happen, see the driveway narrowed, and some trees, I guess he had indicated 10 trees be put in as screening from the opening, basically we just want to keep our kids safe, you know, from the traffic that will be generated from that. The other issue is the water line that was, my wife attended the meeting last night, and I’ve heard that, you know, it was found out that Town water could be brought in to this development. We currently have a well, with less than superb water. We put in approximately $3 or $4,000 worth of filtering equipment and are still getting yellow water. We’d love to see Town water, and I think there was some, at least my wife came home last night from the meeting and said that there would be a possibility of having that water, you know, we could hook up with that water, if this development occurred. Today when meeting with Mr. Wild, Mr. Wild brought up the fact that that might be able to be arranged, at cost to us, but we were kind of thinking perhaps that due to the problems that are inherent to having two, or maybe three houses per year developed with the resulting construction vehicles in and out, approximately 50 feet from our property, that that water line be brought to our house. If it’s going to be brought in for the development, it would kind of make sense that it would be brought in for the adjoining house that’s right near it. So, I just wanted to get it on the record that these things had been discussed with Mr. Wild, and we think it’s a good design. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in favor of the application? ED HORRIGAN MR. HORRIGAN-My name’s Ed Horrigan. I’m on 4 Blackberry Lane. The only, I approve of what’s going on, and pretty much everybody has said what we’ve agreed to. One of the things that I’m concerned about, from the Town’s perspective, is at the end of the “T” area, which would be the west side of my lot, where the road will be extended, is that there’s no additional unnecessary cutting done where the roadway isn’t going to be. It’s a 50 foot road, 22 or 25 feet paved, but there’s a lot of white birch in there that are 15 feet or so off the property, and it’s on 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) Town property, but if they’re cut, you know, for no reason other than just a 50 foot clear cut road, that doesn’t make sense to the area, at all, and I’m concerned about that, about 180 feet, where there’s no real need to cut that right of way, and that’s all I’ve got to say. If there’s any questions, I made a stipulation, down on Blind Rock, to let Niagara Mohawk have an easement, and the reason for that is the building that we’re in is served up off of Bay, and the line goes over almost to Country Club. Whenever any of those giant oaks come down in the storm or whatever, this building, the Community College, everybody up Bay, end up with no lights, sometimes for days, and what I’d like to have done is Niagara Mohawk to get rights where they can do some trimming in there, you know, within 10 foot of the poles, so that all these interruptions stop. We have many a year, and that’s about it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else here that’s in favor of the application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have a couple, three pieces of correspondence. First, a letter that Mr. O’Connor had the response to. This is the letter from Lucille DelSignore, and she’s saying, “Maintain zoning – Possible variance on one (1) lot. Have building project hold to plans presented. Actual construction should conform to plans as presented. I am totally against rezoning to one (1) acre per house. Respectfully, Lucille B. DelSignore 1 Blackberry Lane Queensbury, NY 12804” And also got a fax that came from Ken and Laura Mattson. They’re saying, “Thank you for granting us the opportunity to comment on proposed development in our neighborhood. Please submit our objections to the area variance for a proposed six lot subdivision at the west side of Blackberry Lane. The RR 3 acre zoning was created for the purpose of enhancing the rural open space character of the town and it should remain so. After reviewing the proposed plans, we see no compelling reasons to grant the variances requested other than to increase the number of lots available to the developer. Our zoning ordinance was prepared after a long and thorough planning process. It should not be compromised unless there are very strong overriding reasons to do so. We do not see any evidence of that in this case. We are also concerned about the increased traffic on Blind Rock Road which has more than doubled in the past few years due to the increased development in the east side of town. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Ken and Laura Mattson” And we have a note from Jim McLaughlin and Brenda Griffin at 3 Blackberry Lane. They say, “We are totally against Lot 1 & Lot 6. We just purchased 3 Blackberry Lane because of the dead end neighborhood. We move in January 15, 2004. Thank you, Jim McLaughlin & Brenda Griffin 3 Blackberry Lane Queensbury, NY 12804” And that’s all. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions for the applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would also point out that on your Lot Number Six, you have it listed as 7.06 acres, and you’re not allowed to account for the undevelopable property, the 5.46 acres in the back. So that would substantially make that lot substandard in the three acre zoning. MR. ABBATE-Jim, could you say that one more time for me, please? MR. UNDERWOOD-Lot Number Six is listed as 7.06 acres, and that’s including the 5.46 back here which is the bog and the wetland in the back. You’re not allowed to count that. You’re only allowed to count the developable property, which is, you know, where those lots are. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Would you like to respond to that? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if I agree with that. I know that you can’t count that land in your overall density calculation, but I don’t know that any particular lot has to have the amount of acreage for the zone that has to be developable. I’ve never run into that before. If that’s the case, then we would probably have to come back for a variance for that particular lot, but I have not run into that interpretation before. MR. FRANK-I’m not 100% sure, but I really would have to look into it. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. If that’s the case, I would understand that we would come back for that particular lot, but the density requirements come out of the Subdivision Regulations. The lot sizes come out of the zoning regulations, and I’ve never run into that. We’ve always taken out the non countable property, if you will, but not looked at each lot to see if each lot was compliant as far as what was countable. You’d never be able to, this is kind of like a cluster type application. I don’t know if you’d ever able to do that, but I don’t know the answer as I sit here. I understand what you said to me, okay. Do you want me to respond to the comments? MR. HAYES-His question? Well, I guess if there’s no more questions for you, are there anymore questions for the applicant? Okay. All right. Is there anything else you’d like to add? MR. O'CONNOR-I would respond briefly to Mr. Underwood’s first comments, that the soils are glacial, and that was the idea of trying to put the three acre lots back in the back part of it to keep the house as far away from that wetland that’s back there as possible. Everybody’s had, you know, on site septic that has been able to function without any great problem there. I don’t anticipate any real difficulty. It’s the same, that same soil runs all the way into Glen Lake. The only one that’s going to have problems is the guy that tries to dig it out because it’s all rock. Mr. Horrigan made the correct comment. We will grant whatever easement that Niagara Mohawk wants for the portion of the line that runs across the front of our property, so that they can do cutting. Mr. Povie, I think, I was there, my understanding in what we said is that water would be available. We didn’t talk about cost, and I think Mike did talk about cost this afternoon. There are two conditions to that. Our intention is, and Tom might be better to answer this than I am, but the intention is to bring water up this boundary line, with an easement to the Town, and there’ll be a six inch main, and I’m not sure if the hydrant will go on this side or on that side, but we will have to have a hydrant at the end of it, and if they can hook into it by private line, we would probably be amenable to do an easement to them, so that they don’t have to do a municipal line down the Town road. It’s not an idea that the water’s going to come in and go back out Blackberry Lane, because Blackberry Lane has already been developed, and if they require somebody to go from this point to that point with another hydrant, you’ve got to have a hydrant at the dead end of the line, we would do that, but we would do it at cost. We would not have any mark up on it. There are costs for doing it. Just so there’s no misunderstanding on that. I would just point out to you, I’m not sure if you understand. Mr. and Mrs. Mattson own this parcel down here. It’s not really impacted at all by the size of these lots up here, and again, at most you’re talking about one house additional, and I don’t know what the stats now show, but I think it’s 1.6 trips, at peak hours, from a private residence, if you did an actual traffic study on it, but that’s their property there. Just for reference points. MR. HAYES-All right. I’m going to poll the Board members, and for expediency’s sake, I’ll ask you not to, we’ll just finish, and then if you have any comments after that, you can address them, because in a way you’ve already addressed two people’s comments, questions, but I guess it’s time to start with Joyce. I started with Roy before. Joyce, you’re first on this one. MRS. HUNT-All right. Well, I think you’ve done a wonderful job explaining and designing this. It’s certainly, in my mind, is better than having two more curb cuts on Blind Rock Road, and I don’t really have any questions or any comments. I think you’ve really answered everything very concisely, very well. I’ll be in favor. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Chuck? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Well, I’ve already basically said what I had to say. The only thing now, there’s a question in my mind that Jim has raised, and if, in fact, Jim is correct, then a variance would have to be required, Mr. Chairman, and I don’t know where that puts the application at this time. I honestly don’t. MR. HAYES-For Lot Six? MR. ABBATE-Yes, for Lot Six. I don’t know whether, if he’s accurate, and I have no way of determining because I honestly don’t know, does Lot Six then come out of here? MR. O'CONNOR-No, we would ask for a variance for that because there’s a buildable site on it, and just say the same as the other. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. HAYES-Similar Area Variance for lot size. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. HAYES-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I am still going to stick to what I said before. I think that Lot Number One and Lot Number Six are negotiable. I think that if you lowered it down to five lots and you rotated things around in there, you could easily fit five more compliant lots onto there, they might not be three acres, the largest ones anymore, but it would increase the size. It would also move Lot One, Lot Two, and Lot Three around in a clockwise manner, and therefore it would increase the setbacks for those neighbors that already are along Blackberry Lane that also requested greater setbacks and a greater band of woods between their property and the next ones to be created there. So I would not be in favor of it unless there’d be some significant changes. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, several thoughts. I’d prefer not to see the small lots on Blind Rock Road, and as I think I’ve said before, the pre-existing, nonconforming lots in any area doesn’t justify more nonconforming lots, simply because they’re there. Obviously whoever zoned this area thought that three acres was appropriate. However, having said that, any of these variances are always a balancing act to balancing the benefit to the community, the benefit to the applicant, against whatever detriments that are there. Detriments I see are the three small lots. However, positive, I like the idea of the no cut zone along Blind Rock Road and the office where some width of a no cut zone along the other property boundaries. I certainly like the overall design of the cul de sac coming off of Blackberry, rather than having entrances off the Blind Rock Road, and as a former public involvement professional, I appreciate what the applicants have done in communicating with the neighborhood, identifying problems and coming up with some solutions that obviously, for the most part, have been accepted by the neighbors, and that says that it was a successful involvement effort that has been made. Given all that balancing, and my aversion to tinkering with the design that somebody’s come up with, I think, on balance what’s been proposed is positive. It’s keeping the larger lots in the area where there are larger lots. So, that being the case, I’m willing to give a little bit on the smaller lots. Balancing, I’m in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Overall I think it’s a great plan. I’m really impressed with the amount of work done on it and the effort to minimize any real impact on the environment and the 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) neighborhood. The one thing that sticks out with my right now is this Lot Number Six, and if, in fact, the back 40, so to speak, is eliminated, that would make that Lot Number Six 1.6 acres, and whereas the lots on Blind Rock Road, I can live with, because I think they’re sort of in character with the neighborhood. That Lot Six is getting into the area where I think the three acre zoning is really necessary, and to me, it’s the one question that prevents me from saying yes or no at this point. I just can’t make a ruling or give an opinion on that, based on current information, unless I’m sure that that lot, unless we know what that lot variance is going to be. So, that’s where I stand right now. MR. HAYES-Do we have, I guess that’s growing in importance here, as far as in people’s minds. So do we have an answer to that question? MR. FRANK-Part of the Subdivision Reg’s, Section 183-24, Layout of Lots, the very first part of the Sub Section A, it says, “The size, width, depth, and shape, and orientation and the minimum building setback lines shall be appropriate for the location of the subdivision and for the type of development and use contemplated. B. All lots shown on the subdivision plat shall at least comply with the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as to area and dimensions for the zone in which the subdivision is located.” Without looking at it further, I mean. MR. O'CONNOR-It does comply with the area. MR. MC NULTY-Logic says that the whole area would be counted for lot size, because he’s going to be taxed on the whole lot. If he can’t count the whole lot for lot size, there would be basis to change the taxation. While it, obviously for the density calculations, you would subtract lakes, marshes, whatever. MR. URRICO-All right. Then I’m in favor of the application as submitted, and if there is a problem I’m sure you’ll hear about it and you’ll have to come forward for a variance for that lot. MR. O'CONNOR-I presume so. MR. HAYES-Well, I think I essentially agree with the rest of the Board. I’ll abbreviate my remarks based on our rather full agenda. It certainly appears to me that an effort has been made, an overall balancing effort, if you will, to improve the layout, as far as the end result to the Town and the greater community. The applicant is, I guess, ending up with one more lot than they could have had by right, but I think that’s what we’re here for, as a Board, to entertain, the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the overall neighborhood or community, and I don’t, based on the neighborhood support, which was largely for the project, I think that there appears to be some evidence that there’s an overall feeling that this is going to be an improvement to a design that featured driveways on to Blind Rock Road, and additional curb cuts thereof. So right now I have it five to one. If somebody would like to make a motion to approve. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, can I state what I understand my stipulations are? Would that help you? MR. HAYES-Well, I think that would be good, because I think that that was part of everybody’s calculations, the clear cut, no cut zones. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The developer will execute an easement to Niagara Mohawk to allow them to cut along their line, on the portion that adjoins Blind Rock Road. There will be a no cut zone of 60 feet from the boundary line, Blind Rock Road, along the DelSignore property, and Ed Horrigan’s property and the Povie property there will be a 25 no cut zone. There will be installed by the developer on the Horrigan property 20, 5 foot arborvitae, or some similar tree to it that Mr. Horrigan deems acceptable. We had offered white pines, and he’s allergic to them. So we want to make sure that he’s not allergic to the arborvitae. There will be 10 white pine, or 10 arborvitae, five feet tall, installed at the direction of Mr. and Mrs. Povie, as part of the redesign of their driveway attaching to the road extension. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. HAYES-There’s a no cut zone along Blind Rock Road? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, 60 foot no cut along Blind Rock Road. That 50 foot no cut will be extended along the property of Michael Hayes, back to the east end of Lot Four and it will run across the, or west end of Lot Four, and it will run across Lots Four and Five, the back line of those. We will make available at cost a water hook up for Mr. and Mrs. Povie if they desire it. In fact, we would run a second, or an extension of the line, if it’s approved by the Water Department, with a hydrant if it’s necessary, even if it goes to a six inch line, so that more than just those folks could tie in if they wanted to. The ravines on the back of Lot Five, there’s no intention, those ravines, specifically, will not be filled in. There’s no intention to fill in any of the ravines that are on the property. MR. HAYES-You’re prepared to stipulate those, that those would be part of the motion, and a stipulation for approval? MR. O'CONNOR-We understand that our application includes those stipulations and we would be bound by them. MR. HAYES-Okay. Would anybody like to make the motion, with an extension of those? MR. ABBATE-I’ll give it a go. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-2003 MICHAEL & YVONNE WILD, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: West side of Blackberry Lane. The applicant proposes development and subdivision of 18.67 acres of land, (12.32 acres of which are subdividable), to include the reconfiguration of existing lot boundaries to create a six lot subdivision. The relief requested by the applicant. One, the applicant is requesting 1.6 acres of relief from the three-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot Number One. Two, 1.6 acres of relief from the three acre minimum lot size requirements for Lot Number Two. Three, 1.67 acre of relief from the three-acre minimum lot size requirements for Lot Number Three. Four, 50 feet of relief from the 200-foot minimum lot width requirement for Lot Number One. Five, 27 feet of relief from the 200-foot minimum lot width requirement for Lot Number Three. All relief per 179-4-030 for the RR-3A zone. The Area Variance are based on a number of considerations. One is the relief required. Based on the testimony this evening, the documentation submitted to this Board, the public comments, favorable public comments by members of the area that will be immediately affected, it seems to me that the request would not produce an undesirable change to the neighborhood or be a detriment to any of the nearby properties. The benefit to the applicant. The benefit to the applicant, to me, is achievable and feasible. Are there feasible alternatives? Perhaps so, but I do believe, based upon what was submitted, and documentation, and what we heard in testimony, both from the applicant’s Counsel and the neighbors immediately affected, it seems to me that the application is realistic and would add, in a positive manner, to that area. The relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Relief substantial, substantial has a rather strong connotation. In my opinion, the relief really is not substantial, based on the applicant’s request. I believe that the applicant’s request is more nominal, if we’re going to use a term, than substantial. What are the effects on the neighborhood? Based upon what I have heard this evening, what documentation has been presented, I do not believe that there appears to be any kind of adverse effect or impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the neighborhood, nor in my opinion does it appear to be any detriment to the health, safety, good welfare of the neighborhood. Is this difficulty self-created? In most instances, most of the individuals appearing before this Board, it would be fair to say these probably are self-created. However, based on the information contained in the documentation, again, and submitted to us, again, and the verbal testimony, in my opinion, it does not appear that the alleged difficulty goes beyond being self-created. On balance, it is my opinion, that on balance the application has merit. I would also like to add, that as stated by Counsel, Mr. O’Connor, all of the stipulations, based upon his statement, will be based upon approve this evening. That includes an easement to Niagara Mohawk. That includes 10 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) arborvitae, five foot tall, and all the other miscellaneous statements that he made this evening, the developer will execute an easement to Niagara Mohawk to allow them to cut along their line on the portion that adjoins Blind Rock Road. There will be a no cut zone of 60 feet from the boundary line on Blind Rock Road. Along the Delsignore property, and Ed Horrigan’s property and the Povie property there will be a 25 no cut zone. There will be, installed by the developer on the Horrigan property, 25 foot arborvitae or some similar tree to it that Mr. Horrigan deems acceptable. There will be 10 arborvitae, five feet tall, installed at the direction of Mr. and Mrs. Povie, as part of the redesign of their driveway attaching to the road extension. That 60 foot no cut will be extended along the property of Michael Hayes, back to the west end of Lot Four, and it will run across Lots Four and Five, the back line of those. We will make available at cost a water hook up for Mr. and Mrs. Povie, if they desire it, in fact, we would run an extension of the line, if it’s approved by the Water Department, and with a hydrant if it’s necessary, even if it goes to a six inch line, so that more than just those folks could tie in if they wanted to. The ravines on the back of Lot Five, those ravines specifically will not be filled in. There is no intention to fill in any of the ravines that are on the property. The applicant understands that their application includes those stipulations, and they would be bound by them, and based upon what was stated by Counsel and my statements, I move that we approve Area Variance No. 90-2003. The stipulations as part of this motion are ones that Mr. O’Connor identified in that, when asked to, not his miscellaneous statements. Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2003, by the following vote: th MR. HAYES-Essentially we’re going to add to this that if what you believe to be true about Lot Number Six is incorrect, which you’ve already identified if you’re not correct, you’d have to come back, but we’re going to put that on the record, that if you’re. Our Staff has now indicated that they think that there’s some question there. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I would come back, and I would have to come back in any event, but I do not agree to having it be a condition of the approval, and I’ve thought about that a little bit since you spoke. Mr. Wild, and I don’t know whether I was with him or he was by himself, went through a pre-application meeting with Staff, and they outlined at that time any and all variances that they thought were necessary. They did not raise that issue, and basically made a zoning determination at that time as to what variances are required. If, you know, they come back to us, certainly we’re going to come back here, but I need to go to the Planning Board and start the process with them, and if it’s a conditional approval, which it sounds like, then I don’t start that wheel turning. I’m not trying to beat the system. There is a developable site on that property, even if you have to discount. If you swing the other lots, you pick up maybe another six tenths of an acre, if that’s a real concern, you know, we give credit, and I gave credit to Mike Swan have 4.8 acres over there, a good 4.8 acres may very well be wetland, the same thing with the back parcel that the Williams’ own. Part of their back parcel, I’m giving you the figures that they take off the tax, I guess that’s unrelated, but I understand what the question that was raised. I disagree, in my opinion, would disagree with your Board member. I think Staff, to this point, when they did their pre-application review, did not raise it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would say that it may very well have been an oversight, but I know that you cannot count undevelopable land as developable land in your calculations. That’s not a possibility. Whether it’s a subdivision or any other lot in Town, you can’t count swamp land into your calculations which you did there. You can’t count the 5.46 acres. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know that. MR. UNDERWOOD-You show me one commercial subdivision that’s ever done that, you know, it’s not possible. MR. HAYES-Maybe, Bruce, I guess the essence here is that if he’s wrong, okay, the Town is going to have to say that he doesn’t have the proper variances in the end, right? I mean, that’s where? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. FRANK-I think that’s the determination the Zoning Administrator will make. MR. HAYES-So I’m not sure that we have, even though I understand where Jim’s coming from, and I think it’s certainly a valid point, I’m not sure we have to complicate the motion with it, because it’s going to be taken into effect anyway. MR. MC NULTY-Correct. We’re giving him permission to develop six lots. MR. ABBATE-Correct. MR. MC NULTY-We’re giving him the relief that we specified. We’re giving relief for the small lots on Blind Rock Road. MR. HAYES-And if he needs more relief than that, he’ll have to come back. MR. MC NULTY-Right. MR. ABBATE-Exactly right. MR. URRICO-That relief is not on the table, so we’re not granting any variance for that particular lot. MR. O'CONNOR-No, I think that’s a correct statement. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. ABBATE-Right. So I think, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, we should go with the approval because I think it would, at this stage. MR. HAYES-We’re just granting the relief that’s been requested, and if there needs to be additional relief, we don’t need to make a stipulation about the possibility of more relief. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. HAYES-Anyway, we have a motion on the table right now with some stipulations by the applicant as far as, that don’t have to do with Lot Six, that have to do with clear cut zones, etc., that were put forward. Does everyone understand that motion as it was made? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. HAYES-Do we have a second? MRS. HUNT-Second. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes NOES: Mr. Underwood MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you for your patience, and Leo, ask the Counsel on that, whether you have to recuse yourself. I don’t think you do. AREA VARIANCE NO. 92-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II ED ZIBRO OWNER: ED ZIBRO ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 8 SEELYE ROAD NORTH APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 12 FT. BY 16 FT. STORAGE SHED AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: 2000-614 ADDITION TO GARAGE; BP 2003-328 DECK & PORCH WARREN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 12/10/03 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY LOT SIZE: 0.94 ACRES TAX MAP NO.: 227.17-1-24 SECTION 179-4-30 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) ED ZIBRO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 92-2003, Ed Zibro, Meeting Date: December 17, 2003 “Project Location: 8 Seelye Road North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has placed a prefabricated 12-foot by 16-foot storage shed on his property. Relief Required: The applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 25-foot minimum rear setback requirement, per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2003-328: 09/12/03, 192 sq. ft. screened-in porch and 210 sq. ft. deck. BP 2000-614: 10/23/00, 189 sq. ft. attached garage addition. SP 71-2000: 10/17/00, 189 sq. ft. attached garage addition. AV 77-2000: 09/20/00, setback relief for 189 sq. ft. garage addition. SP 63-98: 11/24/98, 189 sq. ft. attached garage addition (approval expired). AV 83-98: 11/18/98, setback relief for 189 sq. ft. attached garage addition (approval expired). Staff comments: Even though there appears to be compliant locations to place the shed, the applicant claims those areas relatively close to the dwelling are occupied by the septic leach field or are not suitable because of a stormwater retention problem.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 10, 2003 Project Name: Zibro, Ed Owner: Ed Zibro ID Number: QBY-AV-03-92 County Project#: Dec03-24 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has constructed a 12 ft. by 16 ft. storage shed and seeks relief from the minimum rear yard setback requirements. Site Location: 8 Seelye Road North Tax Map Number(s): 227.17-1-24 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant requests that an existing 12 x 16 storage shed remain in the existing location. The shed is located 5 ft. from the property line where 25 ft. is required. The plans submitted shows the location of the shed and surrounding buildings. The information submitted indicates the property is just under one acre. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll 12/17/03. MR. HAYES-Mr. Zibro, is there anything you’d like to add to your application? MR. ZIBRO-Mr. Chairman, Board Members, I’m Ed Zibro. Outside of the fact that the place is about as convenient as I could to my walking conditions, and I have had a hip replacement, in addition to the spinal stenosis. I do have limited walking. Some days I’m good. Some days I’m bad, but I’ve tried to place it where I could so that I can give myself the greatest accessibility without getting in to where I have the water problem on the property. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant by the Board? Anyone at all? MR. ABBATE-Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. Mr. Zibro, I do have a question. You have already placed a prefabricated 12 by 16 foot storage shed on your property. MR. ZIBRO-Yes, I did. MR. ABBATE-And, Mr. Zibro, did you do this without an Area Variance? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. ZIBRO-Yes, I did. When I bought it at Garden Time they said I didn’t need anything, like I went to three different places, and when I talked to Dave Hatin he said where did you get it, Garden Time, and Craig Brown was a while because I guess that’s where it comes down all the time and I didn’t realize it would be a problem, because it’s a freestanding shed. It’s not like a permanent structure. MR. ABBATE-I know what it looks like. MR. ZIBRO-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone that wishes to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STEPHANIE DI LALLO BITTER & TOM JARRETT MRS. DI LALLO BITTER-Good evening, Chairman, fellow Board members. My name is Stephanie DiLallo Bitter. I’m here with Tom Jarrett on behalf of the Ends who are adjacent landowners. As was already mentioned, no approval was sought for this variance prior to the construction of the shed. As was mentioned in the history of this parcel, there’s multiple Area Variances that were sought. So it wasn’t something that the applicant wasn’t familiar with at least. It’s our position, as representatives for the Ends, that the area in which this shed was constructed has resulted in serious drainage problems. The stormwater now, which Mr. Jarrett will explain further, now drains between the End’s guest cottage and their house. This picture was actually taken a couple of years ago, but it at least shows you the End’s property and structures. Our clients are definitely not in favor of any variances being provided for this structure, due to the serious drainage problems that have resulted, and their position. Due to this diversion of drainage, they’re identifying that they’re now having water in their basement, and we definitely want to see site plan review applied, if a variance was provided to Mr. Zibro. MR. JARRETT-Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Martin Engineers. I was asked to take a look at this situation, specifically the drainage conditions surrounding this shed, and the picture that’s being passed around was taken by my office several years ago, and you may recall the Ends were the subject of a variance request before this Board for a septic system a couple of years ago, and relocating the garage. We took this picture at that time. I visited the site last week, during and following heavy rains, and I noted that the field area in which the shed sits, and is to the left of Waters Edge, in your photo, to the west of Waters Edge, geographically, was flooded with at least eight to nine inches of ponded water, and it was flowing across Waters Edge to the east and between the End’s driveway and their guest cottage, which is the rear gray building in the picture. I do not know what the drainage conditions were prior to construction of the shed. We never specifically looked at that, but we’ve received reports that the drainage on the End’s property has been aggravated after construction of the shed, and based on my review of the site, it’s plausible and it’s reasonable to assume that the gravel apron in front of the shed has aggravated drainage conditions by diverting water that did flow to the north, now causing it to pond further and overflow the road and flow to the east, through the Ends. Can’t stand here and, sit here and say absolutely that’s the case, but it’s plausible that that is what is occurring and that’s what’s causing the aggravated drainage that the Ends are experiencing. MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for Mr. Jarrett? MR. ABBATE-Mr. Jarrett, you’re an engineer? MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. ABBATE-Have you submitted your findings in writing to this Board? MR. JARRETT-No, I have not. MR. ABBATE-I would prefer you do that, because it’s very difficult to digest it, since I’m not an engineer. MR. JARRETT-I’d be glad to put that in writing. MR. ABBATE-Because in effect what you’re doing, you’re stating testimony, and we have no documentation to back, I have no question that you’re qualified, but I’d prefer, I don’t know about the rest of the Board members, but I would prefer your expertise be reduced to writing and submitted to the Board, because you’re making certain claims. MR. HAYES-Right, but at times we do accept verbal expert testimony in these matters. I mean, you can certainly request it in writing, but I think we’re okay to proceed. We can accept, you know, judge like we always do the veracity of that, but are there any other questions for the public speaking parties? MRS. HUNT-I wonder if you could show me on this, where that property is you’re talking about. MR. JARRETT-I will try. MRS. HUNT-It’s kind of hard to visualize. All right. MR. JARRETT-Just the property or the specifics regarding the property? MRS. HUNT-The property impacted by the water. MR. HAYES-The Ends. MR. JARRETT-Where the pointer on the screen is. MR. HAYES-Can you point where the shed is, though, I mean, as far as Mr. Zibro’s property? MR. JARRETT-Well, maybe Mr. Zibro can point it out better than I, but the Ends are here, the resident that we represent. The shed is approximately here. The shed is five foot off that top green square, five foot to the south. MR. HAYES-Okay. Is there anything else that you’d like to add? MRS. DI LALLO BITTER-Not at this time. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thanks. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak in opposition to the application? Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have two pieces of correspondence. I have one note from, looks like Joan Donnelly, and she says, “Ed Zibro has erected a large shed on top of at least 8 inches of gravel on the edge of Waters Edge Rd. This has directly caused the water that already accumulated on his property to be dammed up, redirecting it across Waters Edge Rd. between End’s property and ours. (This run off comes from the mountain, to Seelye Rd. and accumulates mainly in the Zibro yard). All the property owners on this road would benefit greatly if the town would address and solve this problem. But in the meantime this structure has directly caused a water problem for the Ends and us. We are fearful as the ground freezes and the snow thaws we will have major problems with our driveway and eventually flooding in our kitchen. Therefore, I will have to vote against variance 92-2003. Possibly the Zibro’s would consider moving this structure to the other side of their property. Please see enclosed 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) photographs. Sincerely, Joan F. Donnelly 12/17/03” And we also have a note from J. Phillip Monahan, and he says, “As a neighbor, I am strongly opposed to the recent driveway and storage shed that h as been installed by Mr. Zibro. Mr. Bruce Frank, an employee of the Town of Queensbury, has informed me this action was done without any proper notification or paperwork. Please have this structure and driveway removed from its present illegal location. Flow of surface water has been drastically altered. It also appears Mr. Zibro is operating a winter storage marina on this property. There are a number of boats stored on the subject property and these boats in addition to the illegal shed completely block the view to Seelye Rd. Please have some positive action taken to correct this situation! Kindly send me a copy of 12/17/03 minutes of the meeting for my records. J. Phillip Monahan” And that’s it. MR. HAYES-All right. Thank you. Mr. Zibro, would you like to comment briefly? MR. ZIBRO-Yes, sure. Bruce, can you put those pictures back up you had up there? First of all, I’ve always had water on this property since we bought it, and it comes down off Seelye Road, which the map you have, because when the people built the houses, that took away the berm alongside of the road where water used to go over and go out through a drain, I can show you where the drain is on that corner of the property between Ends and DiLappas, and somebody over there plugged the drain line with concrete. Bob came up from Queensbury a week ago and blasted out the concrete out of the culvert that went under the roadway, which seems to have helped the water flow because what was happening, it was coming off the hill from Kirkpatrick’s, right down across my property, and it has always drained over here and over into the End’s house, which used to be owned by Mooney’s, the basement was always flooded, Walter Mooney used to own it, that’s my son-in-law’s father. The water now, what I’ve done is I’ve dug out right here, Mike Donnelly saw me do it, and so did Bob End, They were right there when I shoveled it out. I took the stone out here, per their request, so the water would continue going where it always did, and it always goes down and does flood Monahan’s driveway. It ponds there. I’m after the Town about doing something with the road to take the water somewhere else. This road happens to be on my property. So Waters Edge Road is basically my property, as Bruce had seen where the stakes are. Over into here is about where the property lines are. So that I haven’t done anything to change the water. We have had a lot of extraordinary rain. Chris Crandall, when he was doing the septic system for End’s, saw the water shedding down the hill, coming down the road like a waterfall right across my property, right on down through End’s driveway, before I put the gravel. This is so I could access the land, climb up here, and I keep my lawnmower, right now motorcycle’s in there, I’ve got a trike, and my son’s bike. Bruce has seen the property, and the water, it’s very wet through here. Because the water comes off the hill, and I don’t know what else to do with the water. I did, per Mike Donnelly’s request as well as Bob End’s, dig this out, so the water now continues down through. When Bruce was up and saw the pictures, I put the gravel here just so we can drive on it, because it was so soft the car would sink right in it, or any vehicle would sink right in it. So that I haven’t created any problem. What has happened since End’s did put their septic system in, the roadway, is where you see where Waters Edge Road comes in, now the water used to go over it towards the lakeside, now it flows down the road and does come over my property and then goes back over in their property. So it’s a situation with their new septic system that has been put in up there. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. MR. ZIBRO-So I don’t know what else I can tell you. As far as the boats, one boat is mine, the other two boats are my son’s. They’re in the water in the summertime. They’re on the land in the wintertime, and I think it’s my privilege to store my own boats on my own property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Zibro, I have a question. Is where you placed the storage shed, is that essentially where you were going to put the garage also when we granted you relief? MR. ZIBRO-No, the front of the house is where the garage was. The garage was only 20 foot deep and 24 foot wide. I couldn’t put a car, a suburban or a truck in there. So I put an extension on the front of the house which is out here. That’s where the garage was. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Zibro, question. How long have you been residing there? MR. ZIBRO-Since ’98. MR. ABBATE-Since 1998? MR. ZIBRO-Yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-Since 1998, obviously we’ve had rains. Has this been a constant problem? MR. ZIBRO-Yes, it has. It has when the Mooney’s used to own the property which was the Ends, and they had constant flooding of their basement, and when Ends did place a septic system between the two garages, this is a garage and this, that’s marked as a garage is not a garage. They’ve converted that into a living quarters. That is a house. So they put a septic system right here. A big raised, looks like a big ball, a five foot ball, and what happens, the water now comes down, down the roadway, that used to go up both sides of the road onto the lawn. Now it flows down the road and it comes down into their driveway. MR. ABBATE-Since you put up this pre-fabricated 12 by 16 foot, has it aggravated the situation, the drainage situation, or has it remained the same? MR. ZIBRO-It’s the same. All we’ve had is we’ve had three occasions of three or four inches of rain at a time when we never had as much rain as we’ve had this past two months ago, October and November, and what happens is, I did take the crushed stone away from there because they said to me that was what was making the water come over in their driveway. I said I’ll take the crushed stone away, but the water’s still going to go down Waters Edge Road, and it’s going to be in Phil Monahan’s driveway, which is where it does go, which it always has gone. MR. ABBATE-Is it your position that, even after the construction, it had nothing to do with increasing the problem of drainage? MR. ZIBRO-Not at all, because that’s crushed stone. That’s crushed stone and I dug it out as, when Bruce took those pictures, I took pictures also, which the Board has. Per Mike Donnelly’s request, I took a shovel, Bob End was right there and saw me do it. We made about a foot deep, two foot width swath right along where the grass is, so the roadway still has, the water still has its way of going right down there now. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. ZIBRO-You’re welcome, sir. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I will poll the Board. I believe it’s time to start with Chuck. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Well, I must say that I’m not happy that Mr. Zibro has constructed a 12 by 16 foot storage shed without a variance, but however on the other hand, we have two schools of thought. We have an individual, engineer who has, and a neighbor who indicates that, as a result of this construction there has been an increased problem in drainage. Mr. Zibro has indicated that the drainage has been consistent since 1998. So we have two points of view. I have no documentation, no technical data to indicate to me that because of the pre-fabricated 12 by 16 foot storage shed that has been built it has caused an increase of the historical water problem as it is now, and that’s my position, Mr. Chairman. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Jim? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m basically in agreement with Chuck. I think that we have a longstanding record of the past year with many of the applications out on Seelye Road and in that area that have requested the Town come in and do some kind of remediation due to the amount of runoff that’s come across people’s lawns and in the ditches there, and eventually into the lake. I think that it would be very hard, it would be a stretch of the imagination to imagine that a 12 by 16 foot building would completely alter the whole neighborhood’s water shed, and, you know, cause flooding of the people’s basements. I think it’s more a reflection of all the large precipitation events that we’ve had during this past year. Although the request is for 20 feet of relief from the 25 foot requirement, I still think that the shed is placed in a logical area. I mean, you could put these things out in the middle of everybody’s yard to meet the setbacks on these small lots, but it would be pretty ridiculous, and take away from your use of your yard and your property, and I don’t think it’s any real, since it’s lined up with the other garages along the road there, and other storage structures, I think that it really doesn’t present itself as a major constraint on the neighborhood. So I’d be in favor of giving relief. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to come down on the other side. Certainly, the question of whether or not the shed and the associated driveway and fill are increasing the flooding problem or not is a consideration, because if it is, that’s certainly a detriment to the community. I’ll agree that it would appear that this flooding problem is more than just Mr. Zibro’s, he’s not the cause of it, per se. It looks like it’s a Town problem that needs a solution from the Town, but I think at issue here is not whether or not this shed is causing flooding. It’s a question of whether or not there’s justification for putting it five feet from the lot line instead of 25 where it belongs, and I understand that moving it might give him a longer distance to walk, but I’m also looking at the fact that a variance goes with the land, and not with the person. So, while I’ll give a need that he’s expressed some weight, I can’t give it total weight. Also, I guess I would invoke my swimming pool comments. Just like there’s some lots that maybe aren’t intended to have a swimming pool on them and there’s certainly no inherent right to have a swimming pool on your lot, I think the same thing applies to a storage shed. If you don’t have a compliant location that will work for a storage shed, then maybe you’ve got a lot that should not have a storage shed on it. I haven’t heard enough justification of benefit to the owner for placing this storage shed here, versus the detriment to the community of putting more buildings next to a lot line. Add that to the possibility that this is exacerbating the flooding problem, I’m going to come down on the negative side. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Leo? MR. RIGBY-I’m going to come down on the negative side, too, given the complaints from the neighbors, the letters from the neighbors, the testimony of the engineer, I’m in agreement that I think that a variance probably should have been tried to have been obtained early on, and since it wasn’t, I’m going to come down on the side of not approving it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m also going to be on the negative side. I think that when we look at the balancing test, we have a question of whether the benefit can be obtained by other means feasible to the applicant, and obviously it can be. There are other locations to place the shed, and I just want to back up for a second. If you had come to us with clean hands, if this was a brand new application, I’d be going through the same process, and I would be going through the same criteria, and that’s why I’m looking at it. As far as an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties, I think when you place a shed close to the property line, and you can be in a compliant location, and you do it without getting a variance at that point, you are affecting the nearby properties and the character of the neighborhood. I think the request is substantial. As far as the adverse physical or environmental effects, we’ve heard from some neighbors where it may be causing it, it may not be causing it. So I’m not saying that that’s the case here, but definitely the difficulty is self-created, and I think there are places to move the shed in a compliant location. So I would be against this variance. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I agree with the first two Board members, and I’m looking at this map and there are two sheds on, right on the property line, so I don’t think asking for five feet is out of line with what’s in the neighborhood. So I would be in favor of it, the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you, Joyce. Well, I think I’m going to have to agree, on this particular case, with Roy and the Board members to the left of me. I certainly agree with Jim, in the sense that I think it may be a stretch to say that the installation of this shed caused massive flooding in somebody’s basement on Lake George that didn’t happen before. I’m not sure that that would be a conclusion that I would arrive at myself. I do, however, there is however testimony from a professional engineer that indicates that the installation of this shed has changed some of the drainage patterns of this neighborhood, for the worse, and that certainly is a consideration in our balancing test. I think in this particular case we’ve approved sheds before, with some relief, but we’ve mainly done it when there was no impact on the neighbors or no objection from the neighbors, in that sense, and in this case there seems to be both, in that that is telling to me, in this particular case. I also agree with Roy, in the sense that, with the neighborhood objection, it’s hard not to arrive at the fact that this is a self-created difficulty, in the fact that there is compliant locations. I understand Mr. Zibro’s desire to limit the amount of walking that he does, based on some existing medical conditions, but in this particular case, we have an ordinance, and it requires 25 feet setback, and this is only 5. To me that’s substantial relief, and I would need, the fact that it’s self-created and there is neighborhood objections and it’s substantial relief together, makes me feel like the balancing test falls against this application. Side note, as has already been brought up by the other Board members, too, that this shed was placed in the non compliant location without seeking a variance, which is not a preferred course of action by this Board. So I’m against this variance as it stands now. Having said that, I have four votes for denial and three votes for approval. So I would need a motion to deny Area Variance 92-2003, if someone would like to make it. MR. ZIBRO-Can I say something before you do that, or is that out of order? MR. HAYES-No, Mr. Zibro. Sure. MR. ZIBRO-If you look at the map I gave you, you’ll see where the guide wires or the poles come down, so I can’t move the shed over 20 feet, in other words, there’s a guide wire that comes over this way. There’s also a guide wire that goes over that way, and if you look at the map here, I’ve got them marked where the guide wires are. So if I was to move that shed, I’d have to bring it up to the bottom where this picture is now, which puts it out here in this lot, which is right where all the water is concentrated all the time right in here. I’ve got two guide wires, which Bruce, I think, has pictures of, pictures I gave to the Board that shows the guide wire going the other way also. I think I’m about six foot, the guide wire this size maybe seven foot from the shed, and property line’s five foot from the shed the other way. So I kind of placed it in between because of the guide wires, and I honestly didn’t know I had to get a variance for a freestanding shed when I went and bought it from Garden Time. MR. HAYES-No, I think the Board believes that. MR. ZIBRO-In fact, you know, it’s weird, but that’s where it’s at, and I guess Craig will confirm that statement also, because I guess he runs into this quite often with Garden Time, as well as Adversa Tile down in Saratoga. They said I didn’t need one. The guy down on Dix Avenue said I didn’t need one. It’s freestanding, put it where you want it. MR. HAYES-I don’t think anybody’s questioning your intent, Mr. Zibro. MR. ZIBRO-But to move it, like Roy says, I really have a Catch 22 because it would be back up here on, if you had those other pictures you took, Bruce, and those boats that you see in the 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) picture are not my boats. The one of the boats belongs to Phil Monahan. They complain about boats. MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess my suggestion to you, Mr. Zibro, I can talk it over with the rest of the Board, I think there’s two things that need to happen here. One, you need to find a more compliant location, okay, and apply for a variance, and/or you need to provide some sort of testimony that indicates that this is not altering the water pattern, because right now there’s only one professional engineer. MR. ZIBRO-Okay, and I also wanted to make, Bruce can come up and verify with pictures that I dug out the roadway so that the water can drain through. MR. HAYES-If you’d like us, I mean, I guess MR. ZIBRO-We can table it or something, or whatever? MR. HAYES-I’ll talk to the rest of the Board, but I’m personally, I’m not opposed to tabling this if you’re going to apply for a different location. I don’t know, how does everybody else feel about that? MR. ZIBRO-Well, I really don’t have another location. I can’t put it on the other side of the garage because I’m too close to the property line that way. I don’t own the right of way over here. MR. HAYES-Well, I guess if you’re not proposing any changes, then we have to go forward as we’ve determined. MR. ZIBRO-Well, I can get an engineer to give me a comment about this water that I’m being blamed for that I have no control over. That does, Mike is working on with the fellow from Warren County Soil about doing something, about all the water that is shedding down off the hill coming down on the property at present, and the road is aggravated because Chris Crandall did bring in fill and raised up the south end of the road against my wishes, I said don’t touch the road because I actually own that property. MR. HAYES-Okay. Let me just ask the Board now, in terms of, how does everybody feel that they want to proceed on this? Obviously we should probably ask the people that are voting no, it’s not going to change your vote, obviously. MR. URRICO-My vote wasn’t based on the. MR. HAYES-The water situation, that’s not going to change? MR. MC NULTY-It’s not mine, either. MR. HAYES-Okay. Then I think we’re going to have to proceed. We have a motion, does everyone understand the motion as it was made? MR. MC NULTY-Did we make a motion? MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. Was somebody going to make a motion for denial? Chuck, do you want to take it? MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I’ll do it. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 92-2003 ED ZIBRO, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) 8 Seelye Road North. The applicant has placed a pre-fabricated 12 by 16 foot storage shed on his property and he’s requesting 20 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum rear setback requirement per Section 179-4-30, for the WR-1A zone. In considering this request, I do not believe that we have sufficient justification to show a benefit to the applicant that outweighs the detriment to the community in placing this shed five feet from the lot line. I think the precedent of simply putting sheds like this close to the lot line is a detriment to the community. I also believe that while the applicant’s indicated there’s some benefit to him, in terms of walking distance from the house to the shed, granting this variance would mean that the variance would travel with the land, and I do not believe that there is sufficient justification of benefit to the applicant to support the variance. Therefore, I’m making a motion to deny the variance. Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt MR. HAYES-I’m sorry, Mr. Zibro, the application is denied. AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK AGENT: FRANK DE SANTIS OWNER: GLENS FALLS NAT. BANK ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 696 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BANKING FACILITY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT AS WELL AS TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2001-299 ADDITION (ATM ENCL.) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 12/10/03 LOT SIZE: 1.30 ACRES TAX MAP NO.: 302.07- 1-21 SECTION: 179-13-010, 179-4-030, 179-4-060 FRANK DE SANTIS & CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 91-2003, Glens Falls National Bank, Meeting Date: December 17, 2003 “Project Location: 696 Upper Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 900 sq. ft. addition to the existing banking facility. Relief Required: 1) 25.62 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement for the State Route 9 frontage. 2) 30 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement for the LaFayette Street frontage. 3) 50.62 feet of relief from the 75-foot minimum Travel Corridor Overlay Zone setback requirement for State Route 9. All relief per §179-4-030 for the HC-Int Zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 51-2003: to be reviewed 12/23/03 pending this application. BP 2001-229: 06/20/01, 70 sq. ft. ATM enclosure. SP 9-2001: 03/27/01, 70 sq. ft. ATM enclosure and improved site lighting. Staff comments: The relief required for the proposed addition is 4.67 feet more than that of the existing structure for the State Route 9 frontage, and approximately 3.5 feet more than that for the LaFayette Street 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) frontage. Might the improved aesthetics of the new façade and the elimination of the LaFayette Street curb cut at the intersection with State Route 9 offset the additional relief required?” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 10, 2003 Project Name: Glens Falls National Bank Owner: Glens Falls National Bank ID Number: QBY-AV-03-91 County Project#: Dec03-16 Current Zoning: HC-Int Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 900 sq. ft. addition to the existing banking facility. Relief requested from front yard setback requirement as well as travel corridor setback requirements. Site Location: 696 Upper Glen Street Tax Map Number(s): 302.07-1-21 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a 188 sq. ft. canopy and a 712 sq. ft. frontage addition to the existing Glens Falls National bank on Upper Glen St. The Canopy is to be located 33.05 ft. from Glens St. where 75’ is required for travel corridor and 50’ is required for front setback. The plans also indicate an addition to the building fronting on Glen St. where the existing building is 33.16 ft. from the front setback where 75’ is required for travel corridor and 50’ is required for front setback. The information is submitted indicates a drive through area is to be removed and replaced with grass and a new architectural front is to be constructed. Staff encourages businesses to enhance an existing site. Staff recommends approval. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve County Planning Board recommends Approval encouraging businesses to enhance an existing site.” Signed Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 12/17/03. MR. HAYES-Mr. DeSantis? MR. DE SANTIS-Yes. Good evening. For the record, my name is Frank DeSantis. I’m here on behalf of Adirondack Construction, who are the design builders for this project. With me is Curt Dybas from Crandall Associates, the designer, and we’re here on behalf of the Bank, Glens Falls National. The Area Variances before you that we need are all results of the Travel Corridor Overlays and the setbacks. The numbers are very impressive when you first read them, but the existing building is a nonconforming building which was there when these setbacks were created by subsequent zoning ordinances, and the actual relief was what was read in the Staff notes in their last paragraph. It’s something less than five feet from Glen Street, and something less than four feet from Lafayette Street. The reason for the addition is to primarily accomplish two factors. The Bank desires to dramatically improve the appearance of the building. You have in your packages some elevations. Essentially the goal is to evoke the appearance of the main office which is down on Glen Street in Glens Falls, also to eliminate the former drive through curb cut which now serves a night deposit box off Lafayette Street, relocating the night deposit box to the interior of the lot, underneath the canopy that you see on your plans. This requires for us to raise, and Mr. Dybas can describe this in more detail, but we need to move out the foundation wall in order to accomplish this façade change. This is the current building you’re looking at, and there’s an overhang, and we’re moving out, from underneath the overhang, an additional four feet from that top overhang, and also we’re creating an elevator inside the building which will allow handicapped access to the second floor. The current tenant of the second floor of the building is United Way and there currently really isn’t a handicapped access to the second floor. So we need the three variances, and from our position we’re improving the architectural appearance of the building a great deal. We’re providing handicapped access. We’re making a tremendous improvement in the traffic flow and safety because we’re eliminating the entire circular drive that currently exists right on the corner of Lafayette and Glen Street. Formerly, that was an ATM location. They’ve been moved to the back of the lot, and it currently is a night deposit location. The blacktop will be removed. The permeable area will be increased. All of the miscellaneous signage that’s currently there, that says one way, do not enter, all the various signage will go away. There’s some light poles that’ll disappear, and what you will have is a landscaped corner. Also, we’re going to decrease the total amount of site lighting because of that, because Mr. Dybas has designed it so that the canopy will now contain the lighting that the night deposit box requires, rather than having it be a wall pack on the side of the building, and as I said, we’re going to increase the green space at the corner. If you’ve got any questions about what we want to do, I’d ask that you look at the, we don’t have a large picture of it, but I know you’ve got an elevation of what we intend to have the building look like when we’re finished, in your packages. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. HAYES-Is that it? MR. DE SANTIS-That’s it. MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for Mr. Dybas or Mr. DeSantis? MR. URRICO-You said the night deposit box is being moved to where the canopy is? MR. DE SANTIS-Yes. Currently the night deposit box, drop box, is on what I’ll term to be the north side of the building, and it’s being moved. MR. DYBAS-Well, right now, if anyone’s been to that bank, what is now perceived as the main entrance, you come in right from the parking lot, which is the south side of that photograph, we’re creating a new covered canopy at that entrance, and the night deposit will be integrated into the wall underneath that canopy. MR. URRICO-But it won’t be a drive thru? MR. DYBAS-It will not be a drive thru. The people will pull into the parking places that exist and get out of their car and go in and make the deposit. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of the application? Opposed? Correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Gentlemen, you can come right back up. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, before you poll the Board, I want to make some corrections to these Staff notes. MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. FRANK-I had requested from Mr. DeSantis that they resubmit the survey showing the setbacks existing and proposed to more accurately reflect what was needed. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. FRANK-They did so. The permanent file has that new survey. The Staff notes didn’t get changed to reflect the relief they actually need. I have it here, but it’s actually less than what they initially had requested. MR. HAYES-Could you give us those, for our considerations? MR. FRANK-And I will do that right now. MR. HAYES-Okay. So that’s one, two, and three, then. One, two, three. MR. FRANK-Correct. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. HAYES-I’ll read and then give this actual to the secretary. All right. The relief requested from Part 1 is going to be 25.75 feet. So that’s slightly more, right? Yes. The relief on Number Two is actually 29.32, which is slightly less, and the relief for the Corridor Overlay Zone is going to be 50.75, which is roughly the same, or slightly more. Those are minor changes, I guess. Really not consequential. If you’d add that to the file, Chuck. Can he add that to the file? Okay. I guess we’ll go back to the. Was there any further questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll poll the Board. It appears to be a relatively straightforward application. I guess I’m going to start with Jim Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think this building has been here for a long time, and, you know, the attempt to upgrade the façade in there is going to be an improvement, especially if it looks like Downtown, which fits in well with the community, and gives it a little more flavor than that 1960’s vintage construction there. I think that the amount of relief requested is pretty minimal to begin with. It’s basically going to be an improvement. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree with what Jim has said. While the numbers sound scary when you read them, if you look at change versus what currently exists, it’s a relatively minor encroachment into the Travel Corridor Overlay and into the front setbacks, and I think as Staff has pointed out in the notes that we need to balance that against the overall improvement to the building, as well as the benefit to the applicant, and I think those two things are going to say that there’s certainly a definite benefit to the applicant and there’s going to be definite benefit to the community in the appearance of the building. So I’ll be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Leo? MR. RIGBY-Yes. Just to keep it simple, I think it’s a major improvement. I’d be in favor of it as well. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-The other day I pulled in to the ATM there, facing out towards Lafayette Street, and somebody was trying to enter from the other side, to the same ATM machine, I don’t know if they had long arms or they were going to be able to fit, or reach across, I’d be in favor of it. I think it’s a straightforward application. It’s certainly going to be an improvement on a very busy location. I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I would be in favor of it. I think the new façade is certainly going to be a plus, and I’ve gone past there with that curb cut at Lafayette and it’s been a problem, people trying to get out, so I think it’s a big plus. I would be in favor. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-This is, in my opinion, a reasonable request as well, in my opinion, a good plan. I think what you’re requesting to do will certainly improve the area, and I just want to add, as an aside, the word “proposes” always brings a smile to my face, rather than has already constructed. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Yes, sometimes timing is everything, but I agree with the rest of the Board members. I think, when I saw this plan I said, wow, this is really nice, and it certainly is a benefit to the neighborhood and community on Route 9, the architecture, everything seems to be something that would be very desirable for anybody in the community and for the neighbors. Most of this relief has to do with Travel Corridor Overlay Zone and front setbacks, but I’m not particularly troubled by that, in the sense that those things are designed to protect, you know, future road improvements, and if that happens, then virtually everything north of 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) this property would have to be torn down. So I just don’t think that that’s possible, in this particular case. So I’m in favor of the application. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion to approve? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’ll do it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-2003 GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 696 State Route 9. The applicant proposes construction of a 900 square foot addition to the existing banking facility. In doing so, they’re requiring relief of 25.75 feet from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement for the State Route 9 frontage, 29.32 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement for the Lafayette Street frontage, and 50.75 feet from the 75-foot minimum Travel Corridor Overlay zone setback requirement per State Route 9. All relief is per 179-4-030 for the HC-Int. zone. Judging this against the criteria, the benefit probably cannot be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. Rather than an undesirable change in the neighborhood, this will be a positive change in the neighborhood character, as well as to nearby properties in that it’s a long standing location and this design will certainly improve the appearance of it and make it an asset to the community. The request is substantial in statistics and numbers, but in reality it’s only a little bit different than what they had there prior to this and we don’t anticipate any adverse physical or environmental affects, and, yes, the difficulty is self-created, but only because they’d need more space. I move that we approve this Area Variance. Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming. MR. DE SANTIS-Thank you very much. MR. DYBAS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II MICHAEL & JUDITH MC MAHON AGENT: WILLIAM MASON, JONATHAN LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER: MICHAEL & JUDITH MC MAHON ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 30 CAYUGA DRIVE, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE EXISTING 768 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 1,536 SQ. FT. 2-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FROM THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 12/10/03 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY LOT SIZE: 0.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO.: 239.8-1-41 SECTION: 179-4-30 JON LAPPER & BILL MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 94-2003, Michael & Judith McMahon, Meeting Date: December 17, 2003 “Project Location: 30 Cayuga Drive, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of the existing 768 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and construction of a 1536 sq. ft. two-story, single-family dwelling in a more compliant location. Relief Required: 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) 1) 2 feet of relief from the 12-foot minimum front setback requirement. 2) 2 feet of relief from the 12-foot minimum side setback requirement (north side). 3) 2 feet of relief from the 12-foot minimum side setback requirement (south side). 4) 2 feet of relief from the 12-foot minimum rear setback requirement. 5) 45.1% of relief from the 22% Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement (33.5% existing FAR; 67.1% proposed FAR Relief 1-5 per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone. 6) Relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, per §179-13-010 (Continuation). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Subject Property (239.8-1-41): SP 53-2003: to be reviewed 12/23/03 pending this application; replacement of a 768 sq. ft. residence with a two-story 1536 sq. ft. residence. Takundewide (240.5-1-13): SP 49-2003: 10/28/03, 768 sq. ft. second story addition and construction of a foundation/basement beneath the existing structure (Nizolek). AV 64-2001: 10/15/03, setback relief, FAR relief, and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure for a 768 sq. ft. second story addition and construction of a foundation/basement beneath the existing structure (Nizolek). BP 2003-948: 11/23/03, interior alterations on the first floor (768 sq. ft.) and construction of a new addition for a second floor (768 sq. ft.). Staff comments: Although it is the opinion of staff that, procedurally, the common area shall not be considered when calculating Floor Area Ratio, recognition of the existing lot sizes might be noted. Upon this recognition, it may be reasonable to acknowledge an acceptable FAR, somewhat above the allowable 22%, for these sites.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 10, 2003 Project Name: McMahon, Michael & Judith Owner: Michael & Judith McMahon ID Number: QBY-AV-03-94 County Project#: Dec03-18 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to replace existing 768 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 1,536 sq. ft. 2-story single-family dwelling. Relief requested from side and rear setback requirements and from the maximum floor area ratio requirements as well as for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: 30 Cayuga Drive, Cleverdale Tax Map Number(s): 239.8-1-41 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing dwelling with 2 bedrooms to construct a 2 story structure with three bedrooms. The home is located in Takundewide where the building footprint is the lot owned. The applicant proposes to alter the location of the dwelling moving it farther away from two adjacent homes. Relief is requested from side and rear setback requirements and from the maximum floor area ratio. Information submitted indicates the homeowners association is in favor of the relocation of the building. The application also indicates that there is adequate room for expansion of the septic system if needed. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll 12/17/03. I have one question before I forget it, more for the Staff, but we apparently are talking about total demolition of a structure, and building a new structure. Therefore, why do we need relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, since that structure will no longer exist? MR. FRANK-That’s a very good question. I had the same question, and I can’t remember what, I think the Zoning Administrator can answer that for you. I had the same question. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. BROWN-If it’s a new structure, then there’s no need for that relief. You can just cross it off the list. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thanks. Okay. Please introduce yourself for the record. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Bill Mason. As the Board is aware and will recall, we were here last time for the Nizolek application, and at that point you instructed us to go to the Planning Board, and we went through probably a year and a half process to come up with the detailed Master Plan for any expansion at Takundewide, which I have in front of me, and what we’re proposing to do now is completely in keeping with our agreement with the Planning Board for the Master Plan, in terms of stormwater, in terms of septic system, and the main difference with this application, between this and the Nizoleks, is that here it is beneficial to the two neighbors to, instead of just adding the second story, to move this over a little bit because it moves it farther from the neighbors. So it makes the neighbors happier, and that’s the main reason for relocating, and it’s a very small relocation, but in general this is in keeping with the protocol that Takundewide has agreed to in the signed agreement Memorandum of Agreement, with the Planning Board. So we’re hoping that you’ll view this the same way that you did the last one that we would be subject to Site Plan Review at the Planning Board because we agreed to that as a condition as well. We see that there’s a very simple engineering letter from the Town Engineers. They have no problem with stormwater and they’re asking the normal questions on the septic, and we would just say that that would be something that we would agree to as a condition, but it would be reviewed by the Planning Board at site plan, that we would have that, the engineer, the project engineer address that before the Planning Board at site plan. We’ve already agreed, as a condition, that we will make sure that the septic system complies. Bill? MR. MASON-I don’t know if there’s anything that I should add. Maybe for the benefit of the members who haven’t been here before, when we looked at the survey map, before, I thought that showed very well the relationship of all of the common property at Takundewide, the 18.7, I think it’s 18 plus/minus acres of common property that are associated with this, these homes, and the configuration of the lots is what makes the floor area ratio worksheet work the way it does, because all of the homes are on only three acres. So I just wanted to bring that up, and I’d be happy to talk about that or discuss that if we have to, but that was basically what we were dealing with when we negotiated the Master Plan. MR. HAYES-Is everyone, there’s some new members, does everyone understand basically what happened with our recommendation and then the Planning Board’s action? Is everybody comfortable with that? You are? Okay. I just wanted to make sure, because if you didn’t, it’s an important part of this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-The only comment I would make would be on your map. Because when I saw it, it looked to me like you were putting three houses on each plot, and I thought it was going to be like Monopoly that then you were going to come back and ask us for hotels on top. MR. MASON-The maps at the end? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, this one it shows with all the. MR. MASON-The new locations and such? Yes. It’s difficult, with all of those lines, to make it look clear. The picture actually looks a lot more clear. There’s only three homes in all of that area. MR. HAYES-There’s some of us that have zoning nightmares, and this is. Okay. MR. URRICO-I’m just curious, where is this in relation to the Nizolek house? MR. MASON-The Nizoleks, actually if you looked at this map, that’s in, well, Nizoleks is 25, right on this one. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. URRICO-Okay. I couldn’t remember. MR. MASON-The Nizoleks is there. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MASON-And this one is here. MR. HAYES-Okay. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant at this time? MR. RIGBY-When the Nizoleks variance was granted, that was not for a complete demolition, was it? MR. HAYES-That’s true, a second story addition. MR. LAPPER-A second story. MR. RIGBY-Okay. MR. HAYES-Are we safe to assume that the design is going to be similar, I guess? MR. MASON-Yes, the elevations which I showed in the back, they’re very similar. I mean, it’s the same, double shed dormer, both sides. The windows change a little bit. The size and location does just a little bit because they’re interior changes a little bit, but it’s pretty much the same look. MR. HAYES-Okay. I just want that on the record, because I guess that’s important. It’s not going to be significantly taller? MR. MASON-No, it’s actually the same elevation, the same brick, because the Homeowners Association, in the Master Plan, we outlined all of the things, the white, eight inch clapboard siding, the brick fireplace, the gray shingles, green shutters with a pine tree in them. It’s all very strict as to what they have to have. So it will conform with the existing homes. MR. HAYES-Okay. So if there’s no questions for the applicant, I’ll open this up for the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Anyone opposed to this application? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And I’ll poll the Board members. I believe it is time to start with Chuck McNulty. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I think given the overall review that we’ve gotten from the Association on the last issue, a lot of questions have been answered. It seems like a reasonable request based on that overall plan. It strikes me that there’s not going to be a great deal gained by relocating this the little bit that’s proposed, but that’s not a problem for me. I think with it staying basically in the same footprint size, it’s not going to change the character of the neighborhood that much. So I guess sum total, I think there’s benefit to the applicant. I don’t see a detriment to the community, I’ll be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Leo? 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. RIGBY-Can I ask a question? MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. RIGBY-Has the community been notified of this? MR. MASON-The community of homeowners, yes. MR. RIGBY-Okay. So everyone’s aware that, and there’s been no? MR. MASON-Yes. In fact, there’s a newsletter that just went out telling everybody on the progress of, the board publishes a newsletter to the members on a quarterly, more or less quarterly basis, and the one that just went out tells them of the progress that’s being made on the Nizolek plan because people like to know, even with the weather, they like to laugh at what a rotten time the Nizoleks are having right now, construction not being the way it should be, but they got a report on that, and they get a report on this. MR. RIGBY-Okay. Generally, you know, looking at what’s been proposed here and looking at the design of the new home, I mean, it looks like it’s definitely an improvement to the area, and given no community negative comments on it, I would be in favor of it, too. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m thumbs up on it also. I think it’s a nice plan. It’s comparable to the last one you presented. I think definitely this is a feasible design. I think it’s according to the neighborhood, the code that you establish, would that be the right word for it, the neighborhood blueprint that you’ve put together. MR. HAYES-Protocol. MR. URRICO-Protocol. The request seems substantial, but this is kind of a different animal here, and we’ve gone down this route, and I think this is not substantial, when you consider where it’s being placed. I think there won’t be any adverse effects on the neighborhood, environmentally or physically, and again, this difficulty is self-created, like my noble compatriot here mentioned earlier, most applications are self-created. I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, looking at the balancing test, the benefit to the applicant, of course, is obvious, but I don’t think there’s any detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the community, and I would be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you, Joyce. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. It’s a good plan. It’s evident that the applicant was willing to work not only with this Board but with the Town, this is twice you came before us, and I think the new plan that you’ve submitted is a reasonable, and I think it will work well within the Town, and I will be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. My only question for you would be, I would think that, you know, on some of your places you could make them conforming, if you only need the two feet more, you know, just by spreading them out a little bit further. I mean, it will take away somewhat from your community space that you have there, but at the same time. Is that a possibility? 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. MASON-Not really. What they would have to do is buy larger lots. That’s really all that it is. Because in this case, even though we spread it a little further, it doesn’t change the setback. They’re going to trade a little bit of land and they’re still going to have that same 10 foot setback around it, and unless we go that route, which is an option. We’ve thought about it, but just by spreading them and doing what we’re doing here doesn’t help. What we really need to do is subdivide differently, and we sort of thought that would open up a larger can of worms. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, probably, but what about, will you still stay on the same old septic systems that are on each one of them? Or are you going to upgrade all of those? MR. MASON-No. It’s still got, this is one with a 1,000 gallon concrete tank and a PVC drain field, and we’ll go through the exact same with the engineer, with mapping out exactly what it is and then talking to the Building Department and bringing it up to Code. So if we can expand what we’ve got and use parts of what we’ve got, we will. Fall back position is put in a new system. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. MASON-And it would go in the location mapped in the Master Plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it makes more sense to do this. I think it’s logical. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, tonight one might think that this is getting kind of a cursory review, but in reality it’s been quite the opposite. So we had a great deal of considerations go toward these type of expansions at Takundewide because of the unique property, even recommended that you go through a substantial review with the Planning Board to come up with a way to cope with this in the future, and this, from my understanding and according to Staff, this complies with that, and that’s, to me, a positive result of what we’ve done so far. So we should continue with the same logic, if you will. So, I’m in favor. I think that, again, it’s been determined that there’s no real detriment to the neighborhood by these expansions, and that the benefit to the applicant is a larger home and improved septic systems, and these type of things, and I think I’m in favor. So, having said that, would someone like to make a motion? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. HAYES-Okay, Joyce, great. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-2003 MICHAEL & JUDITH MC MAHON, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 30 Cayuga Drive, Cleverdale. The applicant proposes demolition of the existing 768 square foot single-family dwelling and construction of a 1,536 square foot two story single family dwelling in a more compliant location. Relief required: 1) 2-feet of relief from the 12-foot minimum front setback requirement. 2) 2-feet of relief from the 12-foot minimum side setback requirement, north side. 3) 2-feet of relief from the 12-foot minimum side setback requirement, south side. 4) 2-feet of relief from the 12-foot minimum rear setback requirement. 5) 45.1% of relief from the 22% Floor Area Ratio requirement, 33.5% existing FAR and 67.1% proposed FAR. Parcel History: Subject Property SP 53-2003, to be reviewed 12/23/03 pending this application; replacement of a 768 square foot residence with a two-story 1536 square foot residence. It seems that the benefits really could not be met by any other means, considering the layout of this property. Change to the neighborhood character of the nearby properties will not be undesirable. The request, considering the common property that they share, is not substantial. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects, and the alleged difficulty may be self-created, but it seems warranted. This conforms with the overall Master Plan that was formulated by the Planning Committee for Takundewide development. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-2003 APPLICANT: JOSEPH RIITANO AGENT FOR PROJECT:N/A PROPERTY OWNER: JOSEPH RIITANO PROPERTY LOCATION:16 SUNSET LANE TAX MAP ID: 226.19-1-9 SEQRA TYPE: II ZONING: WR-1A PARCEL SIZE: 0.17 ACRES SECTION OF ORDINANCE: 179-4-30, 179-13-10 CROSS REF. RECORDS: BP 2002-866 ADDITION, BP 2002-442 SEPTIC ALT. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY REFERRRAL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING REFERRAL 12/10/03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED PORCH AND DECK ADDITIONS AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND RELIEF FROM THE PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. JOSEPH RIITANO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 89-2003, Joseph Riitano, Meeting Date: December 17, 2003 “Project Location: 16 Sunset Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 556 sq. ft. porch and deck addition. Relief Required: 1) 5.36 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement. 2) 10.38 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement (east side). 3) 7.43 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement (west side). 4) 10.6% of relief from the 22% maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement. Note: the applicant has requested 3.03% of relief from the FAR requirement, but failed to include the areas in the basement (approximately 570 sq. ft.) that are accessed by two garage doors, which are required to be included as garage space. 5) 16.3% of relief from the 65% minimum permeability requirement. Relief 1-5 per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone. 6) Relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, per §179-13-010 (Continuation). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-866: 10/25/02, construction of a 319 sq. ft. residential addition. AV 56-2002: withdrawn 07/24/02, front and side setback relief, relief from the FAR requirements, and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure for the construction of a 1293 sq. ft. second story addition. BP 2002-442: 06/11/02, septic alteration. Staff comments: The home currently existing on the site differs significantly from the original plans submitted for BP2002-866. Specifically, the entire roof system, front porch and back patio area were not envisioned in the original plans. Revised plans were submitted to this office only after the building changes had been constructed. While not identical, the constructed home appears to require similar reliefs as those requested in AV56-2002, which was presented to the Board, and withdrawn by the applicant.” 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 10, 2003 Project Name: Riitano, Joseph Owner: Joseph Riitano ID Number: QBY- 03-AV-89 County Project#: Dec03-21 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has constructed porch and deck additions and seeks relief from the minimum front and side setback requirements. Also, relief is requested from the maximum floor area ratio requirements as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: 226.19-1-9 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a covered porch addition to an existing home. The porch is to be 24.66 ft. from the front setback where 30 ft. is required. In addition the applicant requests relief from the floor area ratio requirement where the applicant has 1,632 sq. ft. existing then with the porch will have 1868 sq. ft. where 1641.86 is allowed. The home is located on a pre-existing non conforming parcel where the home currently does not meet the zoning requirements. The information submitted indicates the porch will be built into the existing home with some overhang. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, 12/17/03” MR. HAYES-All right. Before you begin, Mr. Riitano, I just want to make a couple of points, and then I have a question for Craig. What we are going to do on this application is take all the time we need to do to make a good and the best decision that we can. What we’re not going to do is derivate into a neighborhood dispute, and I was part of the hearing of this original application, and that is a little bit of what happened, and I’m just letting everybody know that we’re not, you know, we’re here to entertain the application, under certain parameters. So we’re going to do some things and not do others. The question, I’d also like to remind everyone that intends to testify, outside of you, Mr. Riitano, is that there’s a five minute limitation to your presentation, and that’s enough time to make the points that are necessary, I believe. So, the question I have for Craig, which is pretty well set forth in the Staff comments, but I’d just like to have you maybe set us on the right course is, how does what’s constructed differ from what we approved? That outlines that pretty well, but, I mean. MR. BROWN-Well, actually this Board hasn’t approved anything yet for the property. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BROWN-The previous Area Variance was presented to the Board, met with some pretty stiff opposition, I guess it’s fair to say, and the application was withdrawn by the applicant. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BROWN-Ultimately, Mr. Riitano presented a building permit application, that basically originally presented some, you know, modifications to the existing building, pick it up, put a foundation under it, use the same first floor, put a new roof on, revitalize, I guess, a pretty tired structure. What’s happened since then is some pretty significant changes to that original plans. The roofs, you know, pitches have changed, floor areas have changed, total size of the building, I guess, is different than that first plan. Almost to the extent where it’s very similar reliefs that were sought in that original Area Variance application that was withdrawn. So it’s here for relief right now. So I don’t want to take away from the presentation, but that’s where we are. MR. HAYES-No, no. We just want to get everybody on the same page, at least the beginning of your application. Mr. Riitano, fire away. MR. RIITANO-Well, like Craig said, the first one was withdrawn because I was not aware of the conditions, and then I went back to Craig with my engineering and we changed the plans back and forth to try to show my need, because the h house was in very bad shape, which actually I want to tear down and start all over again, and they said, well, you can’t because if you change footprints you’ve got to go for this variance, this variance, and then when we decided to raze the house, put all new foundation in, and the rest of the house put all new foundation in, put all new roof, replacing, because it was all like two by fours, very weak structure, you know, to put 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) everything new, bring it up to Code, you know, and put a whole new foundation, and then when we get the permit, when we started building, the engineer made one mistake where the contractor caught, and they said, Joe, you better change it now. He said the roof the way it is is not right. You better go straight, like you see, because before it was like a peaked roof, you know, like different angles, and said it’s better to do it straight, it’s a lot easier and better to do it, and the building inspector, I asked them and they said give me a print. We went, we got a print for the roof and they approved it, and after a while Craig had come up and said, well, you’re increasing the porch, you’re extending, you see where the orange poles are, like in between the first and second (lost words) was the first original porch. I extended it from there to there to make a straight line on a roof, (lost words), I’d like to extend the roof up. MR. HAYES-What did your plans indicate, you know, that you submitted to the Town? MR. RIITANO-The first set of plans or the second set of plans? Because they both got approved. They both got stamped. MR. HAYES-Right, but the set of plans that were with your building permit. Did they show that extension over the porch? MR. RIITANO-Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. RIITANO-And then when they said, well, now when you did that, you increased your floor area ratio, because they said the front porch is floor ratio. Now I’m over the 22%, and they say I need a variance for, I think for. MR. HAYES-For 3.03%. MR. RIITANO-Yes, percent, and they said, well, you’ve got to go to the Board to apply for a variance. All right. What I did was we met with Craig, and I see the paperwork was a little bit more complicated for me, and I hired Matt Steves to fill out the paperwork for the variance, and that’s why we’re here now. MR. HAYES-So it’s actually 10.6 feet of relief, percent of relief, when you count the basement. Is that where that rises to? MR. RIITANO-I had a garage before that. It’s the same footprints. I didn’t change the footprint. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. RIITANO-I raised the cellar up, and there’s two garage doors, one is a garage, another one is a storage, because it’s not long enough to be a garage. MR. HAYES-All right. Does the floor area ratio change. Is it finished down there? I guess, was there two garages there before, or? MR. BROWN-I guess I can’t answer your question, were there two garages there before. I don’t think there was a garage underneath the porch addition in the back. I remember that structure basically being on piers. MR. RIITANO-Yes. MR. BROWN-So there was no second garage door. I do remember, I don’t know if there was a garage door there or not. My earliest recollection of the site was that portion of the foundation had been removed to be repaired. I remember a hole in that section of the foundation, but I don’t know if was a garage door. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. RIITANO-Yes. That was barn doors. MR. BROWN-It could have been. I just don’t remember that. MR. RIITANO-Right there was a barn door. MR. HAYES-Okay. So, the second garage area is new. MR. RIITANO-That right there, that used to be on piers, and that used to have a door going to, a small door going in to the cellar. Right there, if you remember, and there used to be a door, right there, on the side, a small door. MR. HAYES-But he says piers, that doesn’t seem to be like enclosed, to me, like that is. MR. RIITANO-Well, right here was, where the white door is, on this side here, there were some piers on the end, was like open, there was a wall there, and there was a door going in to there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Question for Craig, what do you count the width of the door to be a garage door or just a storage door? MR. RIITANO-It used to be a door, like a barn door. There used to be another door, another small door, used to be a small door right here, okay, and then there’s a wall, and then it was piers around this end holding the end of the porch, like three piers, out of blocks. This is where it originally was. Now, what we did is we took the piers off, and they sent a print of what was approved, we put all new footings underneath here, all concrete, and the print, this is where the print, the blueprints which the Town approved, (lost words) this original, never changed. If you look at the original print, which they stamped, they approved that. MR. HAYES-The 319 square foot residential addition, that is in your building permit for 2002, what is that, where was that? It says 319 square feet residential addition that you got a building permit for? MR. RIITANO-(Lost words) it was a small porch, a little bit bigger. MR. HAYES-That’s the porch with the three windows? MR. RIITANO-Right, where the three windows are. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. RIITANO-That’s where the addition. This was the addition, and you can see, the way the roof was before, was not really that great, and then the contractor said, you know, you’ve got to make it straight, it was more fancy the way the engineer designed it, but it was not that feasible. (Lost words) MR. HAYES-So you’re saying that this building is in the same exact footprint as before? MR. RIITANO-Yes. MR. HAYES-Is Staff agreeing with that, or disagreeing with that? MR. BROWN-I guess I would probably disagree somewhat with that. I think the majority of the house is basically the same footprint, with a couple of exceptions. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BROWN-First of all the front porch has been extended beyond what it was. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. HAYES-He’s acknowledging that. MR. RIITANO-Yes. MR. BROWN-The concrete patio area to the northwest portion of the back of the house wasn’t there. It wasn’t part of the original construction, and likewise, the actual back porch addition is larger. If you compare the original site plan, the original survey that was submitted, compared to the current site plan, that addition on the back of the house is larger with the new building. MR. RIITANO-If you look at the print, you measure, the back porch is exactly what the print says. I think it’s a 23 by 15, you know, it’s the same thing as the blueprints are. MR. HAYES-Does anybody have a calculator? What does that equal, 23 times 15? 345? So that’s bigger than your building plan. Your building permit was for 319 square feet. So that’s bigger than that. Even by your calculations. MR. RIITANO-Yes. Roughly this is what it was. I gave the print to the building inspector which they approved, with the stamp. It’s the same thing. I did not change. What the print is, that’s where the house is. The footprint, in the (lost words). They have the blueprints stamped from them, and you can go back and measure on the house, it’s exactly the same amount. MR. HAYES-Well, I guess the problem we’re running into is the fact that your building permit is stamped, or your prints are stamped, doesn’t mean that it’s in the right spot or it’s not bigger than it was. Do you understand what I’m saying? That’s, those two things don’t exclude each other, essentially. MR. RIITANO-It’s close where that is, when we did it, because, you know, we did the footings in the winter. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. RIITANO-We tried to go by the, as close as we could with the print. I thought we did a pretty good job in the same. MR. HAYES-Also, I mean, so, is that, the setback problems that he has, they’re three dimensional pieces of relief? Does that generally have to do with that patio? Is that where we’re coming from on that? MR. BROWN-The front porch, both the Sunset Lane setback is a front, and the east side setback to the Sullivan property, those are two setback reliefs, and then the relief for the concrete patio on the northwest that I talked about is going to be a side setback relief. MR. HAYES-Okay, and the last piece of relief that we haven’t talked about here is the minimum permeability. That’s going to have to do with crushed stone. MR. RIITANO-I took care of that. I took the stones out, all through this side, I don’t know if you want to see it. I took all the sod and I put topsoil and grass on this side here where the arrow is, is all, you know, it’s not driveway. It’s all grass. MR. HAYES-The thing is, have you done the calculations of what’s remaining to see if that complies? MR. RIITANO-Yes. The gentleman I hired, he told me, I think they did it with Craig, they did a calculation. They told me that what I was supposed to do with, and they said, he told me to do from the house, you can see right there where I did, I put the grass right there, and see, I’m putting the sod all the way through the back. MR. HAYES-Did you remove the crushed stone? 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. RIITANO-Yes. I removed the crushed stone and put sod, and topsoil. MR. HAYES-Okay. A question for Staff. Now, were you, part of those calculations are of what that amount? MR. BROWN-Well, not part of his calculations. We, obviously, did some of our own calculations, and find that, even with the plan that you have in front of you that’s dated with a revision date of 11/14 on it, with a note that says crushed stone to be removed, even if all that stuff comes out, there’s still an increase from the original site condition, as far as the permeability goes. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BROWN-There’s still some relief there. It’s obviously better than if it was all crushed stone, but there’s still some relief required. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BROWN-And that’s reflected in the relief requested. MR. HAYES-Is that largely because of the, so this is the updated numbers? MR. BROWN-The numbers in the Staff notes are if that crushed stone, the area that’s now been converted to whatever, soil, topsoil. MR. HAYES-Permeable. MR. BROWN-Permeable, with that, whatever’s left on this plan that’s to be crushed stone, that still constitutes some sort of an increase, over the existing conditions. MR. URRICO-Has that grass been placed over the crushed stone? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. RIITANO-Yes. I put sand on the bottom and then I put sod over (lost words), it’s more expensive to go this way. MR. BROWN-I guess to answer your question, what it looks like in that photo, it looks like crushed stone, soil, and then sod’s been placed over the top of it. It doesn’t look like the crush stone’s been removed. You can see, you know, the little furrows that have been created where the water’s drained off. You can see the crushed stone is still there. MR. URRICO-So does that remove the problem? Does that remove the nonpermeable? MR. BROWN-Well, I guess my position would be it’s not going to be a driveway. So it’s not going to be compacted. If you put blue stone down for your driveway and you drive on it and compact it, now it’s impermeable. MR. URRICO-Right. Okay. MR. BROWN-Just because it’s underneath some sod and some topsoil and there’s crushed stone there, doesn’t mean that it’s impermeable. I think this would constitute as permeable, with this topsoil and the sod on top of it. MR. HAYES-Because sometimes blue stone is used for fill. MR. BROWN-Sure. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. RIITANO-See, the crushed stone is only maybe a half inch, an inch. I was not even aware of this, because (lost words) it’s only fine. You can move it with your feet and you get the stones out. That’s why I scraped everything I could with the machine. MR. HAYES-Okay. I think we’re past that, all right. The increase in the 16.3 that still remains, are we attributing that to the expansion of the structure or the cement pad in the back or both? MR. BROWN-A combination of the structure, the cement pad in the back, and the, I guess the southwest corner where it says crushed stone to remain, that’s been newly placed there, which wasn’t always there. So the combination of new crushed stone areas expanded buildings bring the impermeable numbers higher than what was originally there, and that change from what was originally there to what’s there now, and what’s proposed to stay, that’s what needs the relief. MR. HAYES-So I guess, a question that comes to mind immediately, and anybody else has any questions, please ask, but how does he intend to get to the garage? MR. RIITANO-Right through here. MR. BROWN-To the east side, that driveway will stay. Crushed stone into that concrete area in the back. MR. HAYES-Okay. In your opinion that was there before as well? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. HAYES-That was a compacted surface. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-All right. So the circular nature of things is what’s changed here. MR. BROWN-Well, that’s what’s shown on here, but it says to be removed, and you can see that it’s started in these photos, but if that’s all removed, and I don’t want to use the word, term “removed” because it doesn’t look like it’s been removed, if it’s all been remedied, there’s still a need for some relief. MR. HAYES-Okay. We’ll have to stick with the definitions of the Code because as you say, it’s either permeable or it’s not, and that’s what we’re concerned with. MR. BROWN-All right, so that it’s going to be three things that’s going to cause that increase in impermeable. This area of crushed stone to remain, the increase in the size of the house to whatever extent that that has happened, and the concrete pad in the back. MR. BROWN-Yes, I mean, that goes along with the driveway, concrete, yes, the concrete patio to the northwest, yes. That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. RIITANO-I’m a little bit confused, because Matt told me if I do this, take this off, put grass to here, I meet the Code. Now if you say that’s not enough, what else do you want me to take? Where else do you want me to put grass? Do you see any other place I can put grass on? MR. HAYES-Well, I guess that’s up for you to decide, or you can request the relief for the 16., of permeability, but obviously the number of variances, the least number of variances you have, the better. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. RIITANO-Right. If I take this here, where it says crushed stone to remain, if I remove this crushed stone out of here, and put grass here, that would comply? MR. HAYES-Is there any way to do that calculation? MR. BROWN-Well, I think, you know, I don’t want to do that calculation. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BROWN-I mean, it’s not for us to do. I think it’s for the applicant to do that, have that calculation prepared and give them to us for review. MR. HAYES-I agree. So, you can keep it as is and ask for the relief, or come up with a number and figure out what you need to remove to bring it into a compliant state. MR. HAYES-Do you understand what he said? MR. RIITANO-Yes. MR. HAYES-And I agree with that. Okay. Are there any other questions? MR. ABBATE-I do, if you don’t mind. Mr. Riitano, I’m trying to determine the significance of some of the Staff comments. Do you have a copy of the Staff comments there? MR. RIITANO-I just saw this today. MR. ABBATE-Well, then if you have it there, maybe you can follow me. MR. RIITANO-Okay. MR. ABBATE-On the very bottom it says Staff comments, do you see that? MR. RIITANO-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Basically what the Staff is saying is that your home currently exists on a site, and this is important, differs significantly from the original plans that you submitted to the Town. Do you see that? MR. RIITANO-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Is that an accurate statement? Yes or no? MR. RIITANO-No. It’s not accurate. MR. ABBATE-It’s not. In other words, you’re challenging that statement? Okay. That’s okay. That’s your right to challenge it. Okay. Now, did you construct an entire roof system that was not included in the original plans, yes or no? MR. RIITANO-Yes. MR. ABBATE-You did? MR. RIITANO-Yes, I did. MR. ABBATE-So you’re challenging that statement, too. MR. RIITANO-No, no. I’m not challenging that statement. You’re right. I agree with you. 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. ABBATE-Was it included in the original plans? MR. RIITANO-The roof now? No. MR. ABBATE-So the answer to that question is no. MR. RIITANO-Yes, I agree with you. Yes. MR. ABBATE-You agree with me. I’ve got you. Okay. Now, did you, in fact, construct a 556 square foot porch and deck addition that was not included in the original plans? Do you want me to say it another way to make it easier for you? MR. RIITANO-No, no. The porch you’re talking about on the upper stairs? MR. ABBATE-Well, you have a 556 square foot porch, correct? MR. RIITANO-The front porch. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Was that front porch and that deck addition, was that included in the original plans that you submitted to the Town? Yes or no? MR. RIITANO-No. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Now, did you include in your original plans that you submitted to the Town, the areas in the basement which are approximately 570 square feet? Yes or no? MR. RIITANO-I didn’t submit anything. I wasn’t even aware of the cellar. MR. ABBATE-That’s okay. So no to that one as well. MR. FRANK-He did submit plans that showed the basement. MR. ABBATE-He did? MR. FRANK-Yes, with his building permit plans. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fair enough. Now, where you reside, it’s at 1600 Sunset Lane. Correct? MR. RIITANO-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. RIITANO-No, Lot 16. MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry. I meant 16, 16, okay, Sunset Lane. Is that a nonconforming structure? You don’t know the answer to that? MR. RIITANO-A nonconforming structure? Yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. Now, does 16 Sunset Lane have a zone classification of Waterfront property WR-1? Yes or no? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Well, okay. So the answer to that is yes as well. Okay. Now, have you read any of the Town of Queensbury zoning, and in particular Section 179-030? If you haven’t, I’ll give you a copy right now. 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. RIITANO-I didn’t read it. I didn’t read that one. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me briefly tell you what it says, and I’ll be happy to hand it to you. It basically says that you have to comply with all the provisions in that Chapter, relating to zoning district, and as well as the land use in which the land or water, the site or structure is located, and you must be in conformity with the permit. Now do you understand what that means? In other words, if you go to the Town, and the Town issues you a permit, you must comply. You must stay within the parameters of that permit. Do you understand that? MR. RIITANO-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Have you done that? MR. RIITANO-I guess not, no. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So the answer is no. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That ends my questions, for now. MR. HAYES-I have a question for Mr. Riitano. Mr. Kelly provided us with some documentation, or at least some of his views on this particular matter. As I reviewed them and looked at the house, I did have a question for you about the pitch of the roof and the possibility of a second story there. I guess we’re trying to determine, you know, how much actually with this Floor Area Ratio, you know, the accuracy of these calculations, is that living space in the second story? MR. RIITANO-No, it’s not living space. MR. HAYES-So it’s all? MR. RIITANO-It’s all barren. There’s nothing there. It’s open space, just the roof, two windows for air, and that’s it, two by four, that’s it. MR. HAYES-Truss system, or whatever, I guess. I mean, what is the truss, is that what you were going to ask? The truss system that’s used in that roof, is it open trusses, so that it can be finished off at some point, or is it? MR. RIITANO-It’s difficult. You’re going to have a small, you’re going to have six feet height, and you’re going to have five feet wide. It’s not worth it. Because it’s pitched like this. You won’t have that much room, you know, if you’re heading down this way. I know what you’re trying to say, it’s not up high enough, you know, you’ve got to walk in the center, because you can’t walk on the side, because the pitch, you can see the pitch, you see how high steep the pitch is? And the house is only 22 feet wide. MR. HAYES-Yes, I understand what you’re saying, but my question to you is the access to that area that’s in question. Is it like a pull down set of steps or is it a dedicated walkway? MR. RIITANO-No, I’ve got regular stairways. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. RIITANO-That’s what’s in the blueprints that was approved by the building inspector. MR. HAYES-I’m not saying that, you know, as far as evidence of what’s going to happen there over time, you know. MR. RIITANO-Yes, I see your point. No, it’s just regular. 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. HAYES-There’s a door right up to it now? MR. RIITANO-Yes, there’s a door shut, you know, you can only use it for storage. That’s it. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. RIITANO-And the building inspector was over there, everybody was there, checking. Everything was approved by the, you know, the blueprints they have, they stamped for and they approved for. MR. HAYES-Well, you have to understand, Mr. Riitano, that can’t totally be true or else we wouldn’t be here tonight. Do you understand? MR. RIITANO-Yes. I thought we were here tonight for the porch. MR. HAYES-No, we’re here tonight because basically what you constructed differs substantially from what you applied for with the Town. MR. RIITANO-Because the roof change they stamped for, they gave the approval for the roof. Because it was construction, I hired the engineer, and I gave the print to the Town and they stamped and approved the print. MR. BROWN-If I could just clarify that just a little bit. That’s kind of true. The original building permit that was issued, I think everybody’s seen, was for basically a much shallower roof pitch. During the construction, as Mr. Riitano has testified, they decided to change the pitch of the roof, increase the height. After it was constructed, during the building permit inspection process, the building inspectors noted, hey, this building doesn’t match the plans you have. You need to get some revised plans in here that correspond to the construction that you’ve performed. When those plans were submitted, the Building Department reviewed those plans, found them to be in conformance with the building code requirements, then the plans were ultimately forwarded to me to see if they complied with the zoning requirements. At that point I informed Mr. Riitano that these plans don’t conform to the zoning code requirements, based on the floor area ratio numbers, the increased size of the porch on the front and other issues, but, so did he have a set of stamped plans? Yes, from the Building Department, but, no, not a complete set of stamped plans MR. HAYES-Right. Those are two different things. MR. BROWN-Two different things. MR. BROWN-So they were reviewed and approved for building code requirements, but not for zoning requirements. MR. HAYES-So the roof would be like, as far as engineering and that type of stuff, by the, for Building Code. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. HAYES-That type of thing. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-A question for you, Craig, refresh our memories, because I don’t recall, how does the end product we have now compare to what was originally proposed when he came in for a variance? MR. RIITANO-I thought I really did a pretty good job. When (lost words) and the Building Inspector said, you know, get a new print, revised print. I did it. I brought it over to the 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) Building Inspector. He looked at it, you know, with an engineer’s stamp, and he approved it and everything’s all set. Three months later, he came in and they said, well, you know, I have to look at it, too, and I said, well, you know, you were right there in the office, you guys stamped it, and approved it. Why didn’t you tell me then, before I even finished the roof? MR. HAYES-Well, unfortunately that’s not their responsibility. MR. BROWN-If you notice here, the pitch of the roof is relatively steeper. The original plans that came in had a much shallower roof pitch, which was very consistent with the original construction of the building. The plan was basically to lift the building up, put a foundation underneath and then put the same building back down on top, and this roof pitch changed. So that’s, I guess, the answer to your question, that’s the real major change, in addition to the addition on the back and this new concrete area here. MR. HAYES-Is it the Town’s contention that the addition on the back is slightly larger than what was there before? MR. BROWN-Compared to the original survey map that was submitted with the first variance, compare that with the current plan, this porch scales 15 feet wide on the original plan. The porch now scales 22 or 23 feet wide. So it’s definitely wider, and it looks somewhat deeper too. I haven’t scaled it, but, visually, it’s just bigger. MR. URRICO-Do you know what the height is? MR. BROWN-We did measure the height and it was right at 28 feet, and that was before the driveway had been constructed, so it’s probably in the neighborhood of 27, 27 and a half feet at this point. MR. HAYES-That’s not an issue, then. MR. BROWN-It’s not an issue with me. It’s a physical measurement that I personally made with Mr. Riitano. MR. HAYES-Right, but I mean the height thing is not on the table. MR. BROWN-Not on the table. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment here, because I’m having pains of guilt here. Mr. Riitano, I had come prepared this evening, but it would be unfair of me to make the kinds of statements that I am prepared to make without benefit of an attorney and what have you. I think you’re somewhat confused, and I would suggest you seek expert advice on this. I’m not going to make the statements because they deal on a lot of legal issues here, because I don’t think you’re prepared to answer them, and I don’t think it would be fair to you, so I won’t make them, but I suggest you’re confused. MR. RIITANO-Well, yes. I hired a gentleman that’s supposed to be representing me, and he said he could not be here tonight, you know, who did the print. MR. HAYES-Okay. If there’s no more questions for Mr. Riitano, to benefit the people that are here to speak on this matter, we can proceed to the public segment of this application. I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHAEL KELLY 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. KELLY-Good evening. My name’s Michael Kelly, and I’m here with representative John Caffry. I’ll let John go first and then I just have a couple of real quick comments. MR. HAYES-Okay. JOHN CAFFRY MR. CAFFRY-I have a couple of handouts I’d like to give the Board. I’m John Caffry. I’m an attorney in Glens Falls representing Mr. Kelly. I think you all have Mr. Kelly’s package that he sent in December 2, which is quite detailed and covers all the factual issues in great depth, as nd well as some of the legal issues. I’m almost not quite sure why he hired me, but I would like to make some, a few points, and cover a few things. As you know, Mr. Riitano came in here a year ago for a variance to build a second floor on this building, and the Board was unanimous in its statements from the minutes that they were going to deny it, and the Board allowed him the opportunity to withdraw the application before you formally voted to deny it, and the main reason for opposition was a floor area ratio issue, that the variance required would have just been enormous and the Board wasn’t prepared to go that far. I think one Board member said something like the biggest variance we’ve ever granted on that is two, three percent, and this is just way over that. So then he came in for a building permit for a different addition, and that’s one of the handouts I gave you there. That’s the larger document, and if you look at it, I don’t know how it was prepared. I’m not quite sure how this happened. We just got this from your files under the Freedom of Information, and it shows he applied for a first floor and a second floor, and then it was changed, and the second floor was withdrawn from the application, and then lo and behold when he actually built the building, there was a second floor on the building. I don’t know how that happened. He tried to explain that to you, and then when he came in for now, he’s come back in for a variance and asked you to approve this, and has been pointed out, he’s built other things for the, without conformance to his permit. If he had stuck with what’s in his permit, I don’t think Mr. Kelly would have had any problems with the changes to the building, although the drainage work is a separate issue that’s caused him some significant problems. I think there’s another issue that hasn’t been addressed, and I’m not sure where this fits in the Town’s process, but under Code Section 179-13-10F, when expanding a nonconforming structure in a critical environmental area, it appears to me that you need site plan review from the Planning Board also. I don’t know if this one’s been referred to the Planning Board yet, but this is within 500 feet of Lake George, which is a critical environmental area created by the Lake George Park Commission. If this ever gets through the variance process, then it seems to me it would have to go to the Planning Board also. It also would seem to me that that would invalidate the 2002 building permit because it never went through site plan review. MR. HAYES-He wasn’t expanding the structure at that time, was he? MR. BROWN-No, not at that time, but I think Mr. Caffry’s point is that if the variance is granted, then you’d need the site plan review, and I don’t disagree with that. MR. CAFFRY-I think Mr. Kelly addressed the impermeability issue pretty well in his written submission, and you discussed it with Mr. Riitano, but I think it would be our position that putting a little bit of dirt over the rock does not make it permeable all of a sudden. What will happen is that the soil that’s been on top will filter in to the holes in the rock and it’ll fill in the cracks, and it’s not going to be permeable, and the rock will work its way back to the surface probably, too, give it a winter or two. We think it all has to be removed. There’s also a real problem with the drainage coming off this property, on to Mr. Kelly’s property. He’s got pictures that shows like a waterfall coming off of the retaining wall that’s visible in some of those pictures there, and we think this is going to require professional engineering to resolve this situation. Even if this variance is turned down and the building’s restored, something has to be done about the property. I think your stormwater review process is the appropriate way to go, to have Mr. Riitano hire an engineer who’s qualified in that field to come in and prepare some plans and restore the stormwater drainage situation. What I’d really like to talk about, though, is the floor area ratio issue. I think that the application, as filed with you on that 58 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) question is misleading. I also think it’s incorrect. It says the existing area is 1,632 square feet. I’ll take that number at face value for now. Before the addition was put on, before the building permit was issued, it was around 1,293, according to some numbers I’ve seen elsewhere, but at 1,632, it’s right at the 22% that’s allowed. The porch is shown on the application as an existing area. Well, it physically exists, but legally it doesn’t exist. That is what he’s asking for the variance for. That should really be in the proposed area column. That adds at least another three percent of floor area that has to be covered. On top of that, we think that the second floor has to be counted, that the fact that it doesn’t have sheetrock or it’s not yet improved doesn’t take it out of the floor area question. As he said, and as the plans show, it’s got stairs. You can walk up there. It’s usable. Yes, some of it may have a low ceiling. I have a whole apartment in my office building with low ceilings like that in half the place, and people will use that kind of thing for living space. It’s full enclosed. It’s got nice windows on the end. We think it fits within your definition of building floor area, which includes all floors of the primary structure, and this seems to be a floor, and it also includes a lot of areas that aren’t living space, so to speak, covered porches garages, storage buildings, sheds, even parts of certain docks are all considered in the floor area ratio. The only place where you look at whether or not it qualifies as living space is in the basement, and the Staff has apparently determined a part of the basement qualifies, too. What I’ve prepared for you is the second handout, and to make sure nobody confused it with the applicant’s materials, I’ve stamped my name down on the top of it, is an additional floor area calculation counting the second floor. If you take the second floor at 1293 square feet, that gives you a total of 3,161, and he’s asking for a floor area ratio of 42%, which is almost double what’s allowed. That doesn’t even include the additional 500 and something square feet in the basement. You’ll see I had that there with a question mark because I hadn’t been in the basement. I couldn’t tell from the plans what it looks like, but apparently there’s several hundred square feet down there. So at this point you’re definitely more than asking for double the square footage on floor area ratio that’s allowed there. So I think that, in and of itself, gets us back to where you were last July when you were all prepared to vote against the variance application at the time. MR. HAYES-Mr. Caffry, I urge you to summarize now, because you’re over your time. MR. CAFFRY-Okay. We think there’s, as to the variance criteria, we don’t see any benefit to the applicant, he wants a porch. Well, that’s nice, but there’s no God given right to have a porch. The alternatives were, he could have stuck with the plan that he got a building permit for last October. That would have been real simple, if he had just agreed to live within his permit. It’s very substantial relief. The permeable area is way over the limit. The setback he’s asking for are at least 50% variance on that. He’s essentially doubled the floor area of the building. The effects on the neighborhood, on the neighbors, Mr. Kelly’s outlined very well in his written submission, we’re concerned about this floor area situation because the septic, according to some of the documents I’ve read, is sized for four bedrooms, which he has on the first floor. If he starts using the second floor as living space, then you’re going to be overtaxing your septic. We’re also concerned about the precedent this would set for other variances in the neighborhood, which is mostly small cottages right now, and it was obviously self-created, and I think what you have here is someone who couldn’t get what he needed from the Board, and he’s done something that unfortunately happens a lot around the lake, that people build first and hope they don’t get caught, or they build something and figure they can convert it later when nobody’s looking, and I hope the Board isn’t going to reward that kind of thing, and it’s going to deny these variances. I think what they need to, what the Board should make him do is remove that roof, put it down to the originally approved roof size, and also to have him come to the Town with an engineered stormwater plan to address all these runoff problems he’s caused. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY-Mr. Chairman, I know we’re over the time limit. Please allow me just to make one more point that’s a matter of public health, and I’ll need to give a couple of pictures out, if that’s okay? 59 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. HAYES-Yes, if you really make it brief. MR. KELLY-Very brief, yes. I guess I’ll have to breeze through the beginning of the stuff, because of lack of time, and I would like to say that, because this is so multifaceted, that I appreciate the Board’s indulging me in this. If you’ll go to the page I’ve numbered five, this depicts the current runoff problem, which has been created by the applicant’s re-grading and filling and application of impermeable gravel which the Zoning Administrator informed the applicant was impermeable without the condition that it had been or would be driven upon. The waterfall that Mr. Caffry had mentioned is in the almost left dead center of the bottom picture, and that’s just a bunch of snow and ice and water and everything, and you can kind of see how that feeds into my very wet yard, and I’m not trying to make a point here that all of my water problem is from the applicant’s property, because historically this whole area has been wet, although my experience with this has only been that I’ve had standing water in the spring time when we’ve had snow melt, and I’ve had it all summer and I’ll admit to the fact that, you know, we’ve had a lot of rain this the summer. The thing that is of a health concern here is that there is a catch basin, pretty much where the three fences that you see converge, just below the red house in the picture, and that catch basin is part of a big drainage system for many of the yards, and it continues on through a culvert underneath my yard and Joe’s to behind where this picture is. I had the water in that catch basin tested by the Queensbury Water Department, and the result of that test is shown. MR. HAYES-E-coli positive? MR. KELLY-Yes, and I’m not going to attempt to describe where that, you know, I mean, that could come from a multitude of things, a multitude of locations, the catch basin in particular has inputs from a culvert beyond it, over towards the red house, and a couple of pipes from the applicant’s property, but I’m not looking to find out or appraise where this stuff is coming from, but my point is that this drainage system is frequently at capacity, especially on days like today where you have a lot of snow, you have a lot of rain, and everything’s trying to run into this. Well, my fear is that everything’s trying to run into this and you’re overflowing this basin and this drainage system which has contaminants in it which would then overflow onto the properties, probably into my yard, and possibly contaminant groundwater and everything else. I don’t know how big of a factor that is, but to me it’s very important. Thank you very much. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to oppose this application? If not, any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-We’ve got lots of correspondence. MR. HAYES-All right. I guess, for expediency’s sake, why don’t you summarize those. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. HAYES-You don’t need to read each letter, because if they’re in opposition to the application. MR. MC NULTY-I can breeze through, the first one is the submission that we all received from Mr. Kelly, so that we’re familiar with that one. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-We have a letter from Anita Sullivan, she’s on Honeysuckle Lane. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, every one of those submittals I’ve posted on this arc view image here, with their names, their location, they’re all against, except for Mr. Diehl, if you want it summarized. MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. 60 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. FRANK-If you want to read Mr. Diehl’s, he’s the only one that’s actually in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-All right. Well, I don’t want to, on an evidentiary basis, I guess if we’re summarizing their against, we’ll summarize that Mr. Diehl was in favor. That seems fair. Okay. Do we have a total on that. Roughly eight or nine to one, right? MR. MC NULTY-Yes, a lot of these in the lower part are back from Mr. Kelly, various correspondences. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-So there’s probably. MR. HAYES-Six or seven to one, then. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, something like that. MR. HAYES-Okay. Does everyone understand that, that we’re stipulating that? Okay. Then having entered those into the record, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions for Mr. Riitano at this point? MR. URRICO-Just for the record, living space, is there a door that goes up to the second floor? MR. HAYES-He said so, yes. MR. URRICO-There is? MR. RIITANO-It’s the attic. It’s not second floor. It’s attic. It’s not second floor. I want to make sure you guys understand. MR. URRICO-Is there a door that goes to it? MR. RIITANO-Yes, there is a door. The building inspector was there. The print was stamped from the building inspector, the roof is stamped with that. I thought the only thing we were coming here for was the porch, and the (lost word) for the porch, because the grass, I thought everything, you know, between Craig and the other gentleman, they told me what to do. I did it, and now if you need more grass the only other one I’ve got is more driveway. That means I’m not going to have any driveway. I had a driveway before I did this work. MR. URRICO-Craig or Bruce, living space is defined as a window and a door? In order for something to be defined as living space. I thought we referenced that once before here as something that has a window and a door access. MR. BROWN-I don’t remember that specific reference. It’s defined, well, it depends on where you look. It’s defined in the New York State Building Code. I don’t have that definition in front of me, but it relates to a place where, you know, I’ll paraphrase, you know, where living activities take place, whether it’s bathroom or a bedroom or a kitchen. It’s where you habitat. MR. RIITANO-The window there, the two by four on the floor, the windows lower, you can see it’s only for ventilation. It’s not even, you can’t live there, and there’s nothing up there. MR. HAYES-There’s a window on both ends up there? 61 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. RIITANO-Just for the air, one on each side, and I put the arch on the top to match on the other side to make it look nice because I spent a lot of money to fix the house, because this, if you had the original print, that is exactly where it used to be the original before I even tore the house down. The footprint is there, the same. The only thing we changed was the roof was the four corner roof, what do you call it, hip roof, and we’d put a straight roof, you know, I hired the engineer to do that. That’s the only thing we changed. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, it’s time to poll the Board. We’ve closed the public hearing, so it’s time to poll the Board on this application. I guess it’s time to start back with, actually, it’s time to start with Leo. MR. RIGBY-There’s a lot to take in here, a lot to digest I guess, but looking at some of the information that Mr. Kelly put together, and looking at the picture of the previous home, and looking at, you know, the history of requesting a variance which was withdrawn on October 24, 2002, which pretty much would have renovated the home to a place where it kind of looks like it is now, and then looking at the fact that there was a building permit issued, but the building permit seems to have only been issued for a 319 square feet residential addition, and looking at what the home looks like now, I just don’t see where we came to be where we are now, based upon that building permit, is just doesn’t make any sense to me. Looking at all the relief that’s been requested, after the fact, as opposed to before the fact, and hearing, you know, what the neighbors seem to have said, and all the different situations that seem to have arisen over a period of time here, I have a tendency just to say that I can’t support the request for the relief that’s required. I’ll just leave it at that. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Our Chairman that’s not here today has a phrase where he says if you had come to us with clean hands, what would we have done, and in this case, you came to us with the six areas of relief you’re asking for, and in fact you did come to us with clean hands at one time, and I think we’ve pretty much indicated to you, I was here at that time, that it wasn’t going to fly, and now a year and a half later we have basically a very similar application and the work’s already been done. So now we have a problem, and how do we deal with this problem? Right in front of me is six areas of relief. Of those six areas I would say there’s only one that I might approve, had it been presented to me. The rest of them I would definitely be against. So, where I stand right now is against this application, and I’m not really sure where we go from here, but I would not approve this application. MR. RIITANO-Would you mind if I answer him? MR. HAYES-No. We’re going to wait until we’re done, and then we. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I have to agree with the two Board members before. I find it really appalling that someone would get a building permit and then not follow what they had asked for. I would be definitely against this. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thanks. Mine’s going to be a little longer dissertation. In fairness to Mr. Riitano, I’m going to soften my tone, because I really truly believe that you’re ill-prepared to answer my more serious concerns. In my opinion, when data reveals that an applicant goes through a cycle of requests, withdraws the application, based on the apparent lack of support from this Board, and afterwards, with total disregard for his own regulations, the applicant attempts to outfox the Zoning Board of Appeals by constructing, without authorization, an entire roof system, a front porch, and a back patio area, all of which were not included in the original plan submitted to the Town. I started to say that being a little cynical here, I believe you attempted to outfox the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tonight this evening you are requesting forgiveness for the unauthorized construction of an entire roof system. Initially, when you came to this Board, it was listed, if I’m not mistaken, as 22.4 feet, now it’s 28 feet. You’re 62 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) requesting pardon for the illicit construction of a front porch, a release from the improper construction of a back patio, liberation from the minimum front of the illegitimate construction, a reprieve from the side setbacks of the illegitimate construction, a relief from the maximum floor area ratio of the illegitimate construction, emancipation from the expansion of a nonconforming structure of illegitimate construction, relief from permeability, relief from permeability requirements. Surely it would be appropriate for a reasonable person to hoist a flag, a red flag, and query the motives and intent of the applicant, and based upon that and softening of my tone, Mr. Riitano, I will not support the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would have to be in agreement with everyone else here tonight. I think that, you know, the latest thing here which included the original ideas of what the Shore Colony was supposed to be all about says that, you know, it was consisting of a limited number of sensibly restricted lots designed for modest but permanent summer homes, and although people have upgraded their properties over the years, I think the vast majority of people that live up in the Shore Colony have stuck to that original plan. There’ve been some modest increases in the homes, but certainly when you came before us last summer and presented us with your initial plans, we informed you, and I think that you understood that, you know, it was something that was much larger than what we’ve considered to be reasonable, and I think in coming back and submitting plans and not sticking to those plans, obviously you’ve constructed the building as you had hoped to construct it, and I think that sense of fairness has to come into play here, because, you know, we expect our citizenry in this country, when there’s rules and regulations, that you attempt to follow those rules and regulations, and if you flaunt the rules, then, you know, you have to incur the wrath of the Boards, and things like that. I don’t know what the recourse is here, at this point in time, you know, it’s something to consider, but certainly the height of the building was overdone from the original one, and I think that, you know, your permeability definitely has to be dealt with on the property, you know, with the amount of runoff coming through. As mentioned it’s not all coming from your property, but certainly it’s been exacerbated by what you’ve done here. So I would not be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I basically can echo what’s been said. Certainly what’s been built is a beautiful house, you know, I think it’s a very good job of doing a quality job on house design and all of that. Unfortunately, it’s too big a house for the lot that it’s on. I guess that’s Point One. Point Two is the, what’s already been said. This is something that there should have been fair warning that what is there now was not viewed favorably by this Board a year and a half ago. It’s been built, and I don’t see how we can possibly endorse it by granting a variance at this point. As far as what the next step is, I guess we’ll leave that to the Town Code Enforcement and what not, but regardless of whether it’s easy or difficult, I’d see no way of approving this, at least from my point of view. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. HAYES-Essentially, the chain of events is is that without the variances, there’s no CO. I mean, that’s, they’re wondering what the chain of events will be if this variance is denied. I believe that’s accurate, right? MR. BROWN-Well, yes, that’s one possibly course of action, that’s correct. I don’t know if you want me to respond. I don’t know if you wanted to follow up? MR. HAYES-Yes. I guess I’ll be brief, based on the time. I guess I would agree with the rest of the Board members. I think it’s very clear that this is not something that we would have approved, particularly to the fact that we indicated earlier that we wouldn’t approve this. It’s not even one that we could speculate about that. I think that that almost is a fact. I think Mr. Caffry’s point is well taken, in that I certainly, personally, would be more sympathetic if somehow this was a mistake in the building permit, you know, your building plans and permits were wrong, and they were approved, you know, and that was exactly what you built, but my 63 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) understanding is that’s not the case. The engineering was approved, you know, your roof was okay, and all this other stuff, but it appears to me that the porch was, in fact, expanded. I mean, even by your own numbers that you’ve submitted to the Board, I think that there’s some evidence that things were exceeded, versus what were represented, which that troubles me greatly. I think it troubles the rest of the Board. So I guess there’s no doubt in my mind that there is a significant or potentially significant detriment to the community if we allow this type of thing to happen by, as Chuck said, sanctioning this or endorsing this after it’s been built. I mean, it certainly is tougher once they’re built, but I mean it’s setting a precedent in a long term detriment to that area, that I couldn’t support and I don’t think would be a good idea. So, that’s all I really have to say. I’m against the application. I guess maybe before we make a motion here, Craig can outline what’s possible, but I don’t see, I don’t see not denying this. So, no matter what that is, I want to say that in advance of that. MR. BROWN-Right. Thanks. I think the applicant’s probably going to be faced with a couple of courses of action. First of all, I guess they could always ask that you consider a tabling of the application to allow them to come back with a different plan. Is that possible that they could come up with a different plan? I don’t know. It doesn’t look like it from what I have, but it’s an option that’s out there I suppose. The other one is deal with a denial of the variance, and then it becomes an enforcement action that we have to pursue, which basically says the structure that’s there has not been granted the relief everything that’s outside the requirements has to be modified, and if that means reconstruction of the building, whatever that, the case may be, there’s no variance for the construction, it has to be altered. I would, you know, based on what I’ve heard, just offer a recommendation and a reminder of any findings that you make, if it’s a denial, that it’s based on the criteria, and it’s not a punitive finding that, hey, you did this, this is wrong, we’re not going to give it to you, if it’s going to be based on the findings of the proper criteria. That’s all, but if it’s denied, it’s an enforcement action that we follow up with, and then we work with it that way, and I can’t give you anymore answers than that, because I don’t know where it’s going to go after that. MR. HAYES-Well, I think we should, as a Board we should discuss what is the best way to do that, I guess, because based on what you’re saying, we have an existing building. If we deny it, the only thing that’ll remedy that is to come into complete compliance, essentially. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Okay, and if he has to come into complete compliance, then he may be back here with something that’s less than complete compliance, you know, with another application, but it would have to be substantially different, and that’s where we’re at if we deny it. Because otherwise, if we deny it as it is now, he’s got to make everything comply, the floor area ratio, permeability, those type of things, completely. MR. BROWN-Without coming back before the Board, that’s correct. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. URRICO-But if we table it, then he can make some concessions. MR. HAYES-Right. I’m just wondering if that. MR. ABBATE-We’re all human beings, okay, and none of us on the Board get any particular kick out of drawing blood, if you will, but there are rules and regulations. You have to understand that, Mr. Riitano, and I still believe you’re confused. Craig’s point was made, and I’m prepared to do a denial motion, based not on punitive, but on administrative. I mean, I hate to do that. It bothers me and I probably won’t sleep tonight. I don’t know how else we remedy this. If we allow it to go by, what’s to stop this individual or this individual? 64 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) MR. HAYES-I think you’re right, okay, but I don’t think anybody here is even proposing that we allow it to go by. It’s just a question of what’s the best course of action, whenever you have what essential amounts to a semi-tear down situation, as we call them. MR. ABBATE-Yes, nobody wants that. MR. RIITANO-Do you mind if I say something? I’d like to clear a couple of things up here, because (lost words) this is not a two story house. The permit is for one story, and the square feet living area, which Craig told me was the porch, everything was approved, I have the blueprints stamped from what the things, and the same footprint from where the house was before. I did not put two floors up. I did not do the same thing when I came here the first time, because the first time the first application there was a two story with a (lost word). MR. HAYES-But even with your pictures, Mr. Riitano, the porch looks bigger than it was and stuff. MR. RIITANO-Yes, this is what Craig said, the front porch, this is what he told me to come for. MR. HAYES-Yes, but even the back porch. MR. RIITANO-The back porch is concrete, just concrete, because (lost words) because if not, we’ll get the water going in the cellar. MR. HAYES-We’re getting off track here. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Riitano, we’re getting off track here. Whatever we decide tonight, if we decide to table, I would strongly recommend you bring along an attorney who has expertise, because you’re way out of your league on this. MR. RIITANO-Yes. I didn’t think it was difficult, the way Craig told me. That’s why I didn’t have an attorney here. MR. ABBATE-Well, you can’t, you know. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that tabling this suggests that a minor alteration would satisfy us. I don’t think that’s the case. It’s certainly not the case for me. I think it’s going to have to be a substantial difference, whether it’s figuring out how to take that porch off the front and the deck off the back or whatever. Therefore, I think the way I would like to see it go is I would like to proceed with a denial, and that doesn’t preclude the applicant from coming back with something substantially different, and requesting a, you know, another variance. MR. HAYES-Well, it’s a democratic process. I mean, I represent the Board. So if that’s how everybody feels, then that’s what we’re going to do. So, would somebody like to make a motion? MR. ABBATE-I’ll make a motion, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-2003 JOSEPH RIITANO, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 16 Sunset Lane. That this be disapproved based on the information contained in documentation submitted, and the verbal testimony. It appears that the alleged difficulty was self-created as a result of Mr. Riitano’s failure to follow appropriate administrative procedures for an Area Variance. One of the considerations when we consider approving or denying an Area Variance, is the effect on the neighborhood. Based upon what has already been constructed as opposed to what was submitted, it is my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that there would be an adverse effect and impact on the physical as well as possible environmental conditions of the neighborhood. It appears also that, and this is not my area of expertise, but there may very well be some 65 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) detriment to the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood as well, and based upon that, Mr. Chairman, I move that Area Variance No. 89-2003 be disapproved. The other question I would like to add is, is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is, and to give you one specific example, the roof as it was originally submitted, I believe was 22.4 feet high, and based upon my calculations, I do believe the pitch of the roof height now is 28. That is merely one example. The applicant is also requesting 5.36 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement, which I think, in my opinion, is substantial based upon lot size. The applicant’s requesting 10.38 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement on the east side, which is a little over 50%. The applicant is requesting 7.43 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement on the west side, which is approximately a little over 33 and 1/3, perhaps, percent. The applicant is also requesting 10.6% of relief from the 22% maximum Floor Area Ratio requirement, and also it should be noted that the applicant failed to include in the areas in the basement approximately 570 square feet. The applicant, Mr. Chairman, is also requesting 16.3% of relief from the 65% minimum permeability requirement, although he has addressed that issue this evening. I will concede that, but then again, Mr. Chairman, we’re dealing with a nonconforming structure with a WR-1A classification. Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE MR. HAYES-I’m sorry, Mr. Riitano. Being the late hour, I will postpone the administrative stuff, the minutes and everything. MR. FRANK-One additional, there was a request by Sipowicz. MR. HAYES-For a table, to postpone that? MR. MC NULTY-Right. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thanks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2003 LAWRENCE & KRISTINE SIPOWICZ, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Glen Lake. Tabled until at the latest the second meeting in February (year 2004). Duly adopted this 17 day of December, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE MR. HAYES-Thank you. The meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman 66 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/17/03) 67