Loading...
2003-02-26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES MC NULTY, ACTING CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, ACTING SECRETARY, ALTERNATE ALLAN BRYANT ROY URRICO CHARLES ABBATE JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE PAUL HAYES NORMAN HIMES MR. MC NULTY-Our first order of business tonight, since we’re missing both a Chairman and a Vice Chairman, is to select a temporary Chairman for this night’s meeting. Would anybody like to make a nomination? MR. ABBATE-I would, Mr. Secretary. I would like to nominate Mr. McNulty, who’s here this evening, as temporary Chairman for this evening. Okay. Do we have a second? MOTION TO NOMINATE CHARLES MC NULTY AS TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN FOR THE FEBRUARY 26, 2003 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 26 day of February, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Secretary? MR. ABBATE-I have a nomination. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I’d like to nominate Jim as temporary Secretary for this evening. MOTION TO NOMINATE JAMES UNDERWOOD AS TEMPORARY SECRETARY FOR THE FEBRUARY 26, 2003 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 26 day of February, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. MC NULTY-Okay. For the record, there’s a couple of changes to the agenda tonight. The item that is, at least on the old agendas that we had, the third item, the applicant, J & D Marina, that has been postponed until next month because of a problem getting the application to County and having County Planning review it. So we cannot act on that tonight. Also, we’re going to take the last item on the agenda, the Notice of Appeal 1-2003, from Kelly Carte, and deal with that first, since the Carte’s have asked that that item be tabled. I’d ask the Secretary to read in the Appeal request and then the letter from the Carte’s requesting the delay. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2003 APPELLANT: KELLY CARTE APPELLANT BELIEVES THE PROPOSED USE FOR THE FORMER ASHTON CEMENT PROPERTY IS A COMMERCIAL USE AND THAT RESIDENTIAL RENTAL UNITS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A COMMERCIAL USE RATHER THAN RESIDENTIAL. PROPERTY OWNER: WESTERN RESERVE, LLC (HAYES AND HAYES) TAX MAP NO. 300.00-1-19 LOT SIZE: 33.53 ACRES PAST ZONING YEAR 1967: R-3 PAST ZONING YEAR 2001: SR- 1A AND RR-3A CURRENT ZONING YEAR 2003: SR-1A MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want me to read his letter for tonight? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I think we ought to read the request for the tabling. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. This letter is dated 2/25/03, Mr. Lewis Stone, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury “Dear Mr. Stone: I would like to request that you table, for now, the appeal that I have on the agenda for Wednesday, February 26 ZBA meeting. We had hoped to have settled the Ethics Committee matter of Jaime Hayes sitting on your board by this time, but it appears that it will be more involved than it should be, and require more time for resolution. We would still like to appear on this matter at a later date, after the aforementioned is resolved. Thank you. Kelly Carte West Mountain Road Association 659 West Mountain Road, Queensbury, NY” And a letter from Jaime. MR. MC NULTY-I don’t know. Do we need to read the? MR. FRANK-I think it’s at your discretion, but he does address the situation. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I guess since the Carte letter mentioned Mr. Hayes, why don’t we read his letter, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. This letter is dated February 26, 2003, Mr. Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator, Town of Queensbury, Queensbury, NY “Dear Craig: Please let this letter serve as notice that I will not be attending tonight’s ZBA meeting. Although I am in town and have set aside the time, Mr. Carte (the appellant) has made my mere presence an issue in his appeal letter. While I do not agree in any way with the validity of such a contention, I would like to remove it as an unwarranted complication and have the issue resolved strictly on its merits. Therefore you can inform Mr. Carte that beyond properly recusing myself, I will literally not be in the building. Please have this letter read at the Zoning Board Meeting. Respectfully, Paul J. Hayes” MR. MC NULTY-Okay, at this point, I guess we’ll look for a motion to table. Actually, I guess I can make that motion. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I just want to say something for the record, relative to this, and Mr. Hayes’ letter, and I don’t understand this concept. I mean, Mr. Hayes is a resident of the Town, and regardless of the fact he should recuse himself, but regardless of the fact that he’s on the Board, he doesn’t have to vacate the building because there’s an appeal relative to one of his properties. So I just wanted to, you know, make my opinion, at least for the record, relative to that whole thing. Because I think Jaime should be here and when his appeal comes up he should recuse himself, end of story, and I think that’s sufficient, but, that’s all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. ABBATE-Can I add to that, Mr. Chairman, as well. There’s been a recent case, litigation, that made quite clear that while an individual should recuse himself under certain circumstances, they are under no obligation to vacate the room. MR. URRICO-I’d also like to add my opinion to that. I agree with both Mr. Bryant and Mr. Abbate on this matter, and I think Mr. Hayes should be at the very least allowed to be sitting in the building. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Any other comments? I, personally, can endorse what’s been said. I think both ways that obviously the only thing that really would be required of Mr. Hayes would be for him to recuse himself from sitting on this particular issue. It also bothers me that this has come up, because I think on this Board, I know there’s been some comments about Mr. Hayes unduly influencing the Board, and that doesn’t happen with this Board. We all have our own independent opinions, and we’re not afraid of voicing them, and we don’t get angry with the other members that go the other direction on an issue. So, I think it’s really a non-issue, but in any event, that’s for Mr. Hayes to decide the next time this issue comes up. MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2003 KELLY CARTE, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: At the applicant’s request, pending their resolving an issue before the Ethics Commission. Duly adopted this 26 day of February, 2003, by the following vote: th MR. MC NULTY-I don’t guess we need to put a time limit in, do we, Bruce, for this, or do we? MR. FRANK-I’m not exactly sure. I mean, I think you could give the 62 days that you normally do for other applications, and if, I can look into it afterwards if it can be extended. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Let me ask the Board what their opinion is. It strikes me that we’ve got a couple of options here with this motion. One is just to table. One is to table with the standard 62 days, and one would be to table for 62 days, with the understanding that if it was not brought back by then, that it was a dead issue. MR. URRICO-What is the reason for the tabling? MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Carte has, along with registering this appeal, has also filed, as I understand it, a complaint with the Ethics Commission regarding Mr. Hayes sitting on this Board, and I know nothing else about that appeal as far as what the basis is, or whatever, but that issue with the Ethics Commission apparently is taking longer than what Mr. Carte had hoped, and he wants to resolve that issue before he comes before us with this appeal. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think you’d have to give 62 days from when it’s done by the Ethics Committee. MR. BRYANT-In a way I disagree with that because this is not a normal variance application, and a citizen can bring an appeal. You could reactivate the appeal in the form of another appeal relative to the issue. So, I think it’s really a moot point, and you should just table it for the fact that they want it tabled, and not put a deadline on it. Because he can always re-appeal. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Are you saying you would like a deadline or not? MR. BRYANT-I would like not to have the 62 days, simply because he can issue another appeal. MR. MC NULTY-Right. He can always come back. Okay. AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to do Selkow next? MR. MC NULTY-We’ll do that one last, I think. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I guess that’s another item with the agenda which I did not mention is we have a tabled application that was carried over from our previous meeting, Area Variance 10-2003, Richard Selkow, and that we will stick on to the end of the agenda. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 9-2003 TYPE: WARREN TIRE SERVICE CENTER AGENT: JOHN W. PAYNE PROPERTY OWNER: SUNNYSIDE PROPERTIES, LLC ZONE: HC-INT LOCATION: 14 LAFAYETTE STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN EXISTING WALL SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED FOR A WALL SIGN. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/13/2003 TAX MAP NO. 302.06-1-58.21 LOT SIZE: 1.25 ACRES SECTION 140-6B2b JOHN PAYNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 9-2003, Warren Tire Service Center, Meeting Date: February 26, 2003 “Project Location: 14 Lafayette Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain existing wall sign (“Kelly Tires” portion of signage). Relief Required: Applicant requests 26 sq. ft. of relief from the 100 sq. ft. maximum allowed for a wall sign of the Sign Ordinance, per § 140-6(B2b1). Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to keep the additional “Kelly Tires” portion of the wall signage. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant could reposition the existing lettering on the front façade of the building in an area of 100 sq. ft., but the resulting signage might be interpreted as less aesthetically pleasing. Therefore, feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 26 sq. ft. of relief from the 100 sq. ft. maximum requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance (26%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Some of the difficulty might be attributed to the applicant’s misunderstanding of how the area is calculated for this type of signage. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sign Permit 2002-898: 01/24/03, 84.75 sq. ft. wall sign (initially submitted as a 96 sq. ft. wall sign, which was actually 126 sq. ft.). Sign Permit 2002-897: 10/31/02, 36 sq. ft. freestanding sign. BP 2002-483: 07/10/02, 6,313 sq. ft. Warren Tire store. SP 20-2002: 05/23/02, 6,313, sq. ft. Warren Tire store and related site work. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant claims he misunderstood how the signage area is calculated for lettering on the façade of a building. The applicant claims he did not realize the area for the spaces in between the sign’s lettering are included in the area for the sign. After the applicant was informed the existing signage was greater than that allowed, the applicant applied for a variance and the “Kelly Tires” portion of the signage was covered up. The applicant then reapplied for a wall sign permit, and a permit was issued for the uncovered portion of the signage. The total area for the lettering portion of the signage equals 81 sq. ft. (96 sq. ft. if the “Gemini” sign is included). The total area for the space portion of the signage is 45 sq. ft. (30 sq. ft. if the “Gemini” sign is included). SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 13, 2003 Project Name: Warren Tire Service Center Owner: Sunnyside Properties, 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) LLC ID#: QBY-03-SV-9 County Project#: Feb03-35 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to maintain existing wall sign. Relief requested from the square footage allowed for wall sign (26 sq. ft. of relief). Site Location: 14 Lafayette Street Tax Map Number(s): 302.06-1-58.21 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to maintain an existing signage unit for the Warren Tire facility on Lafayette Street. The applicant requests relief for 26 sq. ft. The sign unit contains wording for Warren Tire, Good Year Tires, and Kelly Tires. The applicant has indicated that did not know that the space between the units counted towards the overall sign size; exceed the 100 sq. ft. limit. The applicant was notified of the discrepancy and has the Kelly Sign covered at the moment until the issue is resolved. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve The County Planning Board recommends to approve the application.” Signed by Warren County Planning Board 2/20/03. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Applicant, introduce yourself. Is there anything else you’d like to add? MR. PAYNE-My name is John Payne. I’m the Vice President of Warren Tire. I think it was made clear why I’m here tonight. I’m seeking 26 square feet of relief from the Ordinance. I do want to make it clear to the Board that at no time were we trying to slide additional square footage under the Codes as they existed. We were not aware that the square footage in between the logos of Warren Tire and Kelly, it was a continuous sign, and we felt we were well within the limitations of the Ordinance. We put the sign up. We applied for the identification permit, which we received. Unfortunately, it wasn’t clearly looked at by both my sign vendor and also myself. So the sign was installed and permanent holes were drilled through the façade, which meant, at this point, to take it down would create some unsightly looking holes, and also an asymmetrical identification package for that location. I think, aesthetically, it’s a very nice looking building. We’re very proud of it, and we think it came out, it was an upgrade to that street. We’d like to have the Kelly portion maintained as that’s an important part of our business, as I stated in my letter, and also from an aesthetic standpoint, I think it’s a better alternative to removing what’s existing up there now, but I do want to make it clear that Warren Tire was not trying, in any way, to gain one up on anybody by installing or putting the cart in front of the horse. It was an oversight on both my part and also the sign vendor. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I think it’s a plus in your favor that you did cover up the offending part of the sign as soon as you knew about the problem. MR. PAYNE-It took me approximately 24 hours to do that. I had to have a vinyl cover up made specifically to that size, but we did it immediately upon notification that it was over the limit. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Any questions? MR. URRICO-Was the original intention to put that Kelly Tires sign on the façade? Where was it headed for originally? MR. PAYNE-Exactly where it’s now located. Yes. MR. URRICO-Do you have any plans to put any additional signage over the bays? MR. PAYNE-No. There was a Gemini, which is an automotive repair awareness campaign that Goodyear has nationwide. That was on the original plan and it was my intent to put that up, but now that I realize we’re over the square footage, and I’m asking for the additional relief, we’d be willing to forego that sign. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. BRYANT-I want to understand how the square footage figure was actually arrived at. Is this considered all one wall sign? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. FRANK-Yes. The Zoning Administrator interprets any façade, I know this has a bump out here, but if you look at it as I have it up on the photo, he’s considering that one façade. So any signage, if you want to spread it out, that’s your choice, but then you have to draw a rectangular box around that, and all the area encompassed in that rectangular box is what actually is included in the signage square footage. That’s how the Zoning Administrator interprets it. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So when you look at this, that the applicant provided, as part of his application, and he calculates the square footage, he’s calculating these as individual signs. Is that what he’s doing? MR. FRANK-That’s correct, and so if you were to break it down, probably each one of the signs he has the actual signage, square footage. There’s a mistake in one of them. That’s why it’s a little deceiving. The Kelly Tires portion, they have 1.5 feet times 14 feet equals 14 square feet. It should read 21 square feet. So if you added those up, it would total to 96 square feet. MR. BRYANT-Okay, but I’m just trying to understand, from my own mind, as it sits right now, and you add this altogether, this whole façade is deemed one wall sign, then you have to include all the area in between. That’s correct? MR. FRANK-That’s how it’s interpreted. That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So in this documentation where he’s asking for 26 square feet of relief, is that included, all that dead space? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. If you were to draw a box all the way around, from the Warren Tire end to the Kelly Tires end, that would be 126 square feet, including the space in between. I broke it down in Staff notes to show you how much was included in the signage and what was for the space in between. MR. BRYANT-But you’ve got two feet high, so the building is only 50 feet long? MR. PAYNE-No. It’s actually 18 inches high, that is what the current lettering is now. MR. ABBATE-How many square feet are allowed, Bruce? MR. FRANK-One hundred square feet. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and then if you total his up under his proposal it would end up with 96 square feet? MR. FRANK-If you total up every bit of signage they initially had requested, including the Gemini portion, just looking at the signage itself, not the spaces in between, that equals 96 square feet, and that’s what Mr. Payne thought he was applying for. MR. ABBATE-So he’s well within the 100 square feet allowed then. MR. FRANK-If you only look at the signage, not the spaces in between, you can see where he’s got the “eq” for equidistant, so that space in between, that by Code has to be included in the signage as it’s interpreted by the ZA. MR. PAYNE-I will say this, that we have 16 locations, and several, two in the Town of Queensbury, but the other 14 in any other town it’s not included. So I automatically thought that it would be the same and I didn’t know the specifics. I do now. MR. MC NULTY-No other questions? Okay. Let’s move on, then, to the public hearing portion. I’d like to open the public hearing. Is there anybody here that would like to speak in favor of 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) this application? In favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to it? Is there any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I don’t see anything. I don’t see any correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC NULTY-And we’ll see where the Board stands. Let’s start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Okay. I’m going to try to look at this as if it was coming to us brand new, rather than as an afterthought. Judging by the criteria that we’re considering for a Sign Variance, I think certainly you would benefit from leaving the sign where it is, the Kelly Tire portion. Feasible alternatives I think, yes, we can move it perhaps, but I really think where it’s located is the best place for it. As far as it’s relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, 26% or 26 feet out of 100 square feet, isn’t overwhelming. I look at some of the relief that we’ve granted to similar variances that have been requested by automotive businesses in the Town, and I think we’ve answered some leeway on this, in terms of letting them put signage over the bays, additional signage that represents some brands that they carry. So I’m not bothered by this either. As far as effects on the neighborhood or community, I really don’t think it’s going to affect that particular neighborhood. The building looks great, and as far as the other automotive businesses, I think we’ve already, if you’ll pardon the pun, we’ve gone down this road already, and I think we’ve allowed some leeway in the guidance on this. The only thing I can say on the negative side is I think this was created, the problem was created by Warren Tire, but I don’t think that’s enough for me to vote against it. I would be in favor of it. I think it was an honest mistake, but I think the sign looks good where it is, and it should stay. MR. PAYNE-Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would be in agreement with Roy, too. I think if you drive around Town and you look at the Firestone store. You look at Monroe just down the road from where you are, too, there’s certainly a lot more signage on those buildings and I think that, you know, the Sign Code has been engineered to minimize the amount of signage, and we’ve certainly got it way down on this building, and to remove the Kelly sign kind of limits you to a minimal amount of advertising on the building, and the addition of that 26 square feet is not really going to be a grand sum and total, it’s not going to amount to that much to me, and I think that we can, you know, with the absence of the Gemini sign up there, it’s going to be reasonable to grant you the relief you need. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I want to ask a question before I actually respond. This application with the 26 feet of relief, that does not include the Gemini sign? MR. PAYNE-Well, according to the way this was written, if we were to be approved, in actuality the Gemini sign would then be allowed as well because we’re counting all that space in between, but I’m telling you that, if it were approved, we would be more than willing to forego the Gemini sign, because, as I said, this was a mistake. It wasn’t something we were trying to get additional signage for. So I would, you know, would forego that without any question. MR. BRYANT-The Gemini sign is two feet high, according to this, your own diagram, I believe it’s two feet high? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. PAYNE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-For Staff, the question, would that then make the overall height of the entire sign two feet, or would it only be eighteen inches in some area or two feet in another? MR. FRANK-The area would be slightly larger by. MR. BRYANT-By the Gemini, and not to include the overall size of the sign, as you said? MR. FRANK-If you were to include that in the 126 square feet, I think that would bump it up by like half of 7.5. So, 3.7 something square feet, above 126, and I don’t know if Mr. Payne has mentioned it or not, but he told me initially that he would have put that Gemini sign up also, but it came late for some reason, because he was being honest. He thought he was within what was allowed, and the only reason why he didn’t put the Gemini sign up was because it had arrived after the fact and when he knew that he was applying for a variance, he said he wasn’t about to drill anymore holes in to put that up there, plus he didn’t want to complicate the matter. So, initially he did request, you know, could I include that in the signage, and I said, well, you can, but it’s up to the Board, and then he offered, well, if they were to grant this variance, then I would offer, well, I don’t have to put up that sign, but if you wanted to include that, it would be slightly more than 126 square feet, by half of 7.5. I’ve got a calculator. I could figure it out. MR. URRICO-3.25. MR. BRYANT-Now I’ll tell you what I think, okay. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. BRYANT-I’m going to disagree with Mr. Underwood and Mr. Urrico. If memory serves me correctly, recently in the last few months, we rejected another application similar to this, signage that was already existing. I think in one case it was a deli, and another case it was another service station type of operation, and if memory serves me correct on one of your locations, the one on Quaker Road, where you came before us with a sign request, that was denied also. As a Board, we are very cognizant of signage in the Town, and we try to keep it within the guidelines of the Code, and although 26 feet is not a lot, it’s still 25%, 26% of what’s allowable. So, frankly, it doesn’t seem like a lot, but I’m going to come down opposed to the application. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to just add something. MR. BRYANT-Is to my opinion you’re adding? MR. FRANK-No, no. I’m sure Mr. Payne with either concur with me or correct me, but when they, they did not appear for a Sign Variance. It was Sandri that represents Sunco. It wasn’t Warren Tire. Am I correct, Mr. Payne? MR. PAYNE-That’s correct, and you might be also, well, you might be referring to, I came before the Board last year. We, on Aviation Road, have actually two buildings, and one of them was a sublet building to a different, noncompeting business, and when they moved out, we took that building over, and I was looking to identify it, simply because it was identified under a contractor’s name, and when he left, we took his name off of that building, and I just asked if we could identify it, but it was, that was the only request that was from the last time. Again, we weren’t look to over identify anything or grotesquely impact the neighborhood. I just was simply looking to identify that building which I was denied, and we haven’t put any signage on it. MR. BRYANT-I understand. I was just recalling from my memory. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. PAYNE-You’re right. MR. BRYANT-But there have been other applicants, not necessarily in the same business. I think one was an oil change place, and then there was a deli was the same situation, and it wasn’t a question of over identification. It was exceeding the prescribed Code, and that’s where we came down, as I recall. Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thanks a lot. All of the Board members have made an excellent point, and I’ve listened to what they’ve all had to say. I’ve listened to what Allan had to say. Allan has an excellent point. I look at the application, after hearing what has been said in your appeal, and I try and take what a reasonable person approach, so to speak, to your application. While I agree with Allan in that we do have been Sign Variances, and there have been other applications that have been denied, I think in this instance, Mr. Payne, I don’t think there was an agenda, on the part of Warren Tire Service Center, to slip in or to override any of the local ordinances. I think from a reasonable person approach, it appears as if it was an honest mistake, and there are mistakes that are made, and sometimes we forgive and grant absolution, and other times we don’t. So there is an inconsistency, at times, but in this case here, I think on balance, I would support your application. MR. PAYNE-Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thanks. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I’ve listened to the arguments, too, and I feel that it really is a minimal request, and I would be willing to go for it, to vote yes. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I think I’m in favor, too, with the condition that the Gemini sign not be put up. Looking at the way the signage is configured now, I’ll agree that I think it’s symmetrical, and to do something different would make the building look funny, but my reaction is, given that there’s a lot of empty space between the different signs, for me that’s part of what makes it look reasonable, and if we were to include the Gemini sign, then it almost becomes another continuous sign and that would bother me. So, with that condition, I’d be in favor, also. It looks to me like we’ve got more in favor than against. So I’ll ask for a motion to approve. MOTION THAT WE’VE REVIEWED THE SHORT FORM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM AND HAVE DETERMINED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AS A RESULT OF THIS ACTION, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 26 day of February, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 9-2003 WARREN TIRE SERVICE CENTER, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 14 Lafayette Street. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing wall sign which consists of the Kelly Tire’s portion of the signage. This relief requires 26 feet of relief from the 100 square foot maximum allowed for a wall sign of the Sign Ordinance per 140-6B2b1. The benefit to the 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) applicant is that he would be allowed to maintain the Kelly Tire’s portion of the wall signage, and to do so he will be able to maintain the existing signage where it’s located. This is going to grant him 26 feet of relief from the 100 square foot maximum and we anticipate no minimal effects on the neighborhood. As well it might be noted that we considered this action to perhaps have been self-created, but through a mistake. In addition, we’d like to make this motion contingent on the Gemini portion of the signage not being included as part of this action, and that this would be the only signage permitted at this time. Duly adopted this 26 day of February, 2003, by the following vote: th MR. BRYANT-I have a question relative to the motion. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. BRYANT-Does that mean, when you approve this motion, that the applicant can then put whatever other sign they want in between those letters, Michelin tires is going to go between Goodyear and the next one, and another kind of tire, Toyo tire, you know, because legally, they’re going to be able to fill in 126 square feet of signage. MR. PAYNE-No other signage would be installed. MR. MC NULTY-Good point. MR. BRYANT-Okay, but, legally, you’re still going to be permitted to do it, and I just want to question. MR. URRICO-I guess I’d like to add, to make this contingent that this would be the only signage permitted at this time. MR. BRYANT-Can you do that? MR. FRANK-Sure. Because he’s going to have to apply for a sign permit if this approval comes through. It’ll be noted on the sign permit. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, just a point of order, I probably should have mentioned this earlier, but it is on the record, Mr. Payne, that you have no intention of putting up another sign. That, contingent upon the stipulations here, that there would be no other signs placed on that. It’s on the record. MR. PAYNE-I will not be applying for another sign. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. PAYNE-Thank you for your consideration. AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2003 TYPE II CATHLEEN L. DALY PROPERTY OWNER: CATHLEEN L. DALY ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 56 CAROLINE STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 318 SQ. FT. DECK ONTO THE FRONT OF THE 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE 3O-FOOT MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF. BP 2002-966 TAX MAP NO. 309.15-1-59 LOT SIZE: 0.64 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030 CATHLEEN DALY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 11-2003, Cathleen L. Daly, Meeting Date: February 26, 2003 “Project Location: 56 Caroline Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 318 sq. ft. deck onto the front of a single-family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement of the SR-1A Zone, 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant could construct a compliant deck onto the front of the dwelling. However, the size would be approximately 30% less than that desired, and the shape would be irregular. Therefore, feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 10 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance (33.3%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Some of the difficulty might be attributed to the placement of the dwelling on the lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-966: never issued due to front setback problem, 463.75 sq. ft. deck. BP 98-405: 07/13/98; construction of an 864 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Staff comments: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Even though the proposed setback is 20 feet, the deck will be 50 feet away from the road should this application be approved. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-And I don’t think there’s anything from the County. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Would you introduce yourself and tell us anything else you’d like us to know. MS. DALY-Yes. My name is Cathy Daly, and I’ve taken the plans to both of my neighbors and both approve the plans and have no problem with the deck. They’re actually, we’re trying to make the houses appear unique, even though they’re, as you can tell, they’re all identical, and this with the little sitting area out in the front, which would have a built in bench so people could just come over and sit on the front porch, they’re in favor of it, and we’ve all been making improvements. I wasn’t aware that all the front property wasn’t mine until I applied for the permit and then they called me up to let me know. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Have we got questions? MR. BRYANT-Yes. Just a question on the design of the deck. If you took that little octagon bubble out, you would just about meet Code, wouldn’t you? I mean, you wouldn’t need to be here. Is that correct? MS. DALY-Yes, if you took the little octagon off it, it would still need a couple of feet, but not ten. I think you’d need six or something. The octagon thing is only five feet. So I’d still probably need about five or six feet, without having the little seating area on the corner. MR. BRYANT-How big is the octagon, five feet? MS. DALY-I believe it’s five feet. MR. FRANK-I had scaled to the corner of the deck, if you were to eliminate that octagon shape, and it would be about 25 feet setback, scaled. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. BRYANT-You’d still need five feet. MR. FRANK-You still would need five feet of relief. MR. BRYANT-And is the placement of the deck because of the front door? In other words, if you moved the deck over, so that you could still achieve the 30 foot? MS. DALY-Yes. It’s right at the edge of front door, because there’s a water nozzle right to the other side. So we put, the handrail of the deck is going to be right at the frame of the front door. So when you open the front door, it would go against the first rail. It’s not over at all. There’s really no room to move it to the side. MR. BRYANT-So just to conclude this question, really, because of the position of the front door, even if you were to chop up the deck to make the 30 feet, you still couldn’t, because it would only be a five foot, is that it, is that how it is? MR. FRANK-There’s the setback line, that pencil line. MR. ABBATE-This right here? MR. FRANK-Yes. MR. ABBATE-I see. MR. FRANK-So if you chopped off that end, this, you would have this deck, and there’s the doorway. MR. BRYANT-Yes. It’s because of the door, that’s the problem. Okay. That’s what I thought. That’s all. Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Any other questions? Okay. I guess we’ll open the public hearing, then. Is there anybody here wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to it? Is there any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, I think the applicant had some correspondence. MS. DALY-The first one is from Rian and Lydia Danahy. They live to the right of my house, and “This is to inform you that we do not have any objections to Cathy Daly’s proposed deck construction. We have seen the plans and feel it would be fine for her to put the deck on her house. Thank you. Lydia Danahy Rian Danahy” The neighbor to my left, William Twist and Kelly Twist, “This is to inform you that we have no objections to Cathleen L. Daly’s proposed deck construction. As next door neighbors, we feel that the proposed construction would add to the character of the neighborhood. Please give this proposal the careful consideration that it deserves. Thank you. Sincerely, William F. Twist Kelly A. Twist” MR. BRYANT-Is that the next door neighbor on the left that barely has a handrail going to the front door? Because probably the next step is that they’re going to want to build a deck just like yours. MS. DALY-They’re talking about putting on a small porch, but they’re talking a regular porch. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully request that those letters be entered into the record? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. MC NULTY-That was my next thing was if you could give those to the acting Secretary. Okay. Is that it? Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC NULTY-And I guess we’ll talk about it. Let’s start this time with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to be in agreement with the applicant on this one. I think that the addition of a deck out on the front would be, make the house more appealing, more livable. It would give you a place to sit, as you mentioned. I think that the Code setback is basically formulated for us to consider more busy streets than Caroline Street is, and I think certainly you don’t get a whole lot of traffic down there, other than you people that live there, and I think that, as you’ve said, also, the cookie cutter approach to the neighborhood is not something that we want to emphasize, and having a little individuality built into it does make for a better neighborhood, and I’d be all for your octagon shaped thing. I think that gives it more character. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, frankly, it looks like a simple project, but I really don’t know, and I’ll tell you why I don’t know. As I look at your house, you’ve got a little porch on the back already, but if you look at the neighborhood, nobody else has a front porch anywhere near you. MS. DALY-Both neighbors. Both neighbors to my left have porches on already. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but it’s a couple of houses down. It’s not. MS. DALY-No. You’re seeing the corner of the one house right there. They have a porch that they put on last season. MR. BRYANT-In the very, very front like yours? MS. DALY-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Because I only saw one in the whole neighborhood. MS. DALY-I only have three steps. Well, you’re seeing two of us there. There’s two houses to this side, both of those houses have porches. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but small porches compared to this. MS. DALY-Yes, well, they’re not decks, yes. MR. BRYANT-And I think the other houses that are just like yours, in the neighborhood, are closer to the street, and they’re going to have more difficulty building porches. I mean, you’ve got a couple of houses that have landings, but they don’t have large porches in the front. MS. DALY-No, they have a standard porch. MR. BRYANT-I think you have to go a couple of blocks away before you have one right on the corner that’s got a giant porch in the front, but my only concern is somewhere down the road, your neighbors that, their property is not really apportioned like yours. They’re going to be requesting that size, or a lot more relief to build similar porches, you know, to kind of look alike. So I really don’t know, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Chuck? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. This is a dwelling. We’re basically talking about, at least you’re talking about, and I interpret you’re talking this way, that you’re talking about lifestyle. You’re talking about comfort. I think the porch would make a positive impact on the area. It is a place in which you reside. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask that an additional, an addition to your property, a small addition, which would provide you a sense of sociability, people can visit back and forth, is unreasonable. I think it’s a fair request and I would support your application. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I agree with the last speaker. It seems like a reasonable request, and it’s not something overwhelming on the front of the house, and I would be in favor of it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with the majority of the Board. I think the position of the house, in relation to the road, even though it is, there is setback relief needed, I think that weighs in favor of it, and also in similar situations recently, we’ve granted less relief, in houses not too far from this location, and I would be in favor of it as presented. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I guess that leaves me. I have kind of mixed feelings, like Allan does. On the one hand you’ve got more distance to the road than the neighbors. So it’s more reasonable to grant this kind of relief for your house. We aren’t going to be able to grant similar relief to all the houses in that area, if for no other reason than if we did that we’d be changing the zoning, and I recall our denying similar requests to a house, I believe, in Hidden Hills, a while ago. So I’m kind of torn both ways. However, I think the thing that sways me maybe here is the fact that you do have more distance to the road, even though you don’t own all that distance, which gives you a little more of a cushion. So I guess probably I’m going to be reluctantly in favor. Having said that, it looks like we are leaning on the approval side, so could I have a motion to approve? MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’d be happy to do it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2003 CATHLEEN L. DALY, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 56 Caroline Street. Ms. Daly proposes construction of a 318 square foot deck onto the front of a single family dwelling. Relief required. She requests relief of 10 feet from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the SR-1A zone, Section 179-4-030. The applicant will be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location, in addition to her testimony this evening, in terms of comfortability, sociability, etc. Feasible alternatives. She could construct a compliant deck onto the front of the dwelling. However, the size would be approximately 30% less than that desired, and the shape would be irregular. Therefore, feasible alternatives seem to be limited. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 10 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance, 33.3%. Effects on the neighborhood or community. Mr. Chairman, it’s my opinion that approval of this request would make a positive effect on the community, and in addition to that, Staff notes that only minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Is this difficulty self-created? Some of the difficulty may be attributed to the placement of the dwelling on the lot, and in spite of this, Mr. Chairman and fellow Board members, I move that we approve Area Variance No. 11-2003. Duly adopted this 26 day of February, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Himes MR. MC NULTY-Okay. You’re all set. MS. DALY-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to do Castaway next? MR. MC NULTY-Castaway is off the agenda. MR. UNDERWOOD-Completely? We don’t need to read that letter from the County or anything? MR. FRANK-I don’t think it’s necessary. It’s going to be resubmitted at the County, and then you’ll see it next month. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2003 TYPE II STEVEN N. MILES PROPERTY OWNER: STEVEN N. MILES, NORMAN M. & PAULINE A. MILES ZONE: SR-30 (YEAR 1982 ZONING); SFR-1A SUBD. REVISION 1995 LOCATION: 21 MC DONALD DRIVE, SOUTHERN EXPOSURE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 3,210 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON A CORNER LOT AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2002-153 W/TEMP. C/O TAX MAP NO. 308.18-2-65 LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030 STEVEN MILES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2003, Steven N. Miles, Meeting Date: February 26, 2003 “Project Location: 21 McDonald Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 3,210 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 2.1 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement and 1.4 feet of relief from the 20- foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Southern Exposure subdivision (SFR-1A subdivision revised 1995). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to keep the desired structure in the present location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 2.1 feet of relief from the 30- foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal relative to the Ordinance (7%). 1.4 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal relative to the Ordinance (7%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-153: 03/18/02, 2562 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 3-car attached garage. Staff comments: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. However, Staff wonders how the mistake occurred, and what measures will be taken in the future to prevent the mistake from happening again. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Right off the bat, I’ve got a question for Staff. In the parcel history, it indicates the building permit was issued for a 2,562 square foot dwelling, and the description of the proposed project, it says that the applicant’s constructed a 3,210 square foot building. Does one include the garage area and the other not, or? MR. FRANK-I’m not sure if that’s a typo or not. This information is provided to me by our support staff, and it’s pretty much taken right out of our software system. So, either it was entered incorrectly at the time. I could check the building permit to see which is more accurate. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. ABBATE-I think the Chairman has an excellent point. I don’t think how we could even review this thing, because if in effect the point the Chairman made was that the building permit was for 2,562 square foot single family dwelling, and we’re talking about the applicant has already constructed a 3,210 square foot dwelling, I think it’s imperative that we find out just where it’s at before we do anything. My opinion only. MR. MC NULTY-The Site Development Data says 2,562. MR. FRANK-Would the applicant like to offer something? MR. MILES-I’d have to do the numbers, but it’s right by the blueprint that was submitted. It was built right exactly to the blueprint. I’d have to look it up myself. It’s around a 3,000 square foot home. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is it possibly that living space over the garage? MR. MILES-It’s possible the living space over the garage is not included. That’s very likely. MR. FRANK-I could pull the file if you’d like. I could run down and get it. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We show 648 square feet of covered or enclosed porches on the Area Variance Floor Area worksheet. MR. ABBATE-Yes, and see that’s exactly the difference between the 2562 and the 3210, 648 square feet. MR. MILES-That’s the covered porch? MR. URRICO-The figure on the Area Variance shows the existing floor area to be 3,210 feet. That seems to be the number that’s being used here. MR. UNDERWOOD-They include covered porches. MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Would a building permit normally include the square footage of the porch area? MR. FRANK-I think all, I’m not 100% sure. MR. MILES-I don’t believe there’s even a portion on it when we do the building (lost word) for the covered porch. That’s just square foot of living space per floor. MR. ABBATE-The 648 square feet difference between 25 and 32, is that the living, is that the porch? MR. MILES-That should be the porch. MR. ABBATE-That would be the porch? MR. MILES-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Is that on the original plans? MR. MILES-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Was that in the original calculation when you? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. MILES-No. It’s not part of the square footage of the house. The porch isn’t considered living space. MR. MC NULTY-Well, that’s probably the difference is that porch area, then. That would explain it. That would alleviate my concern. I was just wondering whether the applicant had built a larger house than what he had applied for as a building permit. MR. FRANK-Actually, the Floor Area Ratio worksheet, which he attached to his application, wasn’t needed, but covered or enclosed porches are included in the Floor Area. So, that could very well be the difference. MR. MC NULTY-Right. It could have just been a mistake on the. MR. URRICO-So should the project description be changed? MR. FRANK-Yes. I think that can be offered. I mean, it’s not really relative to the relief that he’s seeking. I mean, the building permit was approved for the size of the house. It’s not affecting any additional relief. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I think that’s the main thing, and the building permit was for what was proposed. It’s just the figure picked up the actual Floor Area rather than including the porches. So that the description of the proposed project on the Staff notes is probably accurate, including, for our purposes, for including the porch, but as Staff points out it doesn’t affect, really, the relief that’s being requested, then, as long as the applicant hasn’t deliberately built a larger house than what he had approval for. Okay. Let’s go on to the applicant, then, and see, do you want to add anything or tell us anything more about this? Mr. MILES-It’s my own personal residence, and I basically built it, as we do every home over there in Hudson Pointe. We don’t even have a deed until the first draw is done and when we do the buildings, we do a five foot over dig all the way around, and it ended up, by no intention of my own, being off by a foot and a half, or 1.4 feet on one side, and two feet on the front corner. There was also a discrepancy between the tax map and my deed, my final deed. We were under the impression that the back corner was 58 and a half feet wide where it pies down in to that narrow point, and I talked with Mr. Hatin about it and he says three or four times a year this does happen, but I’ve never seen it before. So my deed is actually only 46 feet wide there where I thought it was 58 and a half feet, where we lined everything up. So it was an honest mistake, and had we know ahead of time exactly, we had a deed and everything, we could have gone right there, and that’s what we’ll do in the future is we’ll request an actual survey before we even dig it. It’s the only way to avoid it. MR. MC NULTY-Right. It’s not good to rely on tax maps. Because they are not accurate. MR. MILES-No, I found that out the hard way. MR. MC NULTY-They’re approximate. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Miles, there was a (lost words) confused, bothered and bewildered, and that’s exactly what I am with this application. You had the option here to submit additional information to help clear this up, and I looked for additional sheets, and I didn’t find it, and I understand that you are a contractor by trade. MR. MILES-Yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-And if you were to make the same mistake on every house that you built, I think we’d be in an awful lot of trouble, and if counselor came before the Board with information that 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) was inaccurate, he’d be rather embarrassed and request probably to leave. I am really bothered with the fact that this is your profession, contracting, and you relied on documents which should never have been relied upon, and it would seem to me that your experience in the contracting field should have at least taught you that prior to any construction that you look for surveys, etc., etc. You know more in that area than I do, but if we were to go on in any profession, stating our case based upon unreliable information, we would be in an awful lot of trouble, all of us. I have a problem with this, and I have to really be convinced, Mr. Chairman, as to what area I’m going to be going in, and my problem, basically, is, being perfectly honest, you should have known better. Thank you. MR. MILES-Okay. Thanks. MR. BRYANT-The question I have is, might actually be for Staff. When they apply for their building permit, I mean, especially, you have a new house going up in an empty lot, there’s got to be some kind of survey done. Is that part of the application process? MR. FRANK-New construction has to provide an as-built survey. MR. BRYANT-And that’s how you found this, apparently. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay, but when they actually made the application for the building permit, they must have provided a survey of the property. MR. FRANK-Well, there may well have been a copy of the tax map with the. MR. MILES-That’s what you put on your plot plan, is a copy of the tax map. MR. ABBATE-Is construction based upon the site map? Is all construction in the Town of Queensbury based upon that document you have there? MR. MILES-Just a copy of the tax map and your plot plan. MR. FRANK-It’s something the Town accepts for the building permit, knowing that the applicant is going to have to provide an as-built survey. If it’s an addition, it’s a different story. You have to prove the location of your house to show that you meet the setbacks. MR. ABBATE-When was the as-built survey taken, prior to construction or after? It was taken after the house was constructed, correct? MR. BRYANT-I’m not understanding the thing. So when an applicant comes, if I were going to build a house on an empty lot, if I gave you a copy of a tax map with a little drawing on it, that’s sufficient for a building permit? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. If you’ve got it scaled correctly and you have it located and you show that you meet the setbacks, and we know it’s a buildable lot because we can check our records, if it’s a pre-existing. MR. BRYANT-But the construction, the configuration, in this plan that you’ve got here, doesn’t seem to me that anywhere they put it on the lot is going to work. MR. MILES-If I had moved the garage over, it would have, two feet. MR. BRYANT-If you actually changed the configuration, the whole way the thing is changed, but I mean, as it’s shaped right now, you know, even turning it sideways, moving it up and down, you’re still going to have a problem. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. MILES-All I had to do was move it over two feet. MR. BRYANT-So the problem, then, in my mind, and you know I have a mind that doesn’t work correctly all the time, would be in the application process, because it would seem to me that if you’re going to build a house on a lot, on a vacant lot, that somebody, and if I were a builder, building a house, I would take a survey of the lot so I’d know where the line is, where I can build, what I can do, and all that other stuff. Did you design the house? MR. MILES-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So I think that would be paramount even to the designer to take a survey to know exactly what they have to work with, and then of course submit that to the Town. MR. FRANK-They could. That would mean the applicant would have to incur additional cost to hire a survey crew to come out there, initially, and then come out again for the as-built. There’s been talk about that. There’s been talk having the survey crew come out there once the foundation is in, but that means you may have to wait six to eight weeks before the applicant could continue with the construction of the rest of his home, and if you saw how many building permits we had submitted last year, and we’re only predicting way more this year. MR. ABBATE-So at the present time, an individual could dig up and pour a foundation and since the Town isn’t monitoring it that close, they could be in violation, 20, 30, 40, 50 feet, theoretically. Is that not true? MR. FRANK-Well, I think something like that would stand out like a sore thumb, because the building inspectors continually come to the construction site to monitor and inspect. MR. ABBATE-Did the building inspectors go to that construction site? MR. FRANK-Definitely, to check the footings. MR. BRYANT-But he didn’t have a survey. MR. FRANK-And plus the building inspectors, they can’t tell a two foot difference, relatively speaking to construction site? MR. FRANK-Definitely, to check the footings. MR. BRYANT-But he didn’t have a survey. MR. FRANK-And plus the building inspectors, they can’t tell a two foot difference, relatively speaking to them, it looks like it’s where they have proposed to put it. MR. BRYANT-He didn’t have a survey. He probably didn’t have some kind of iron pipe or something to go from to actually check this thing. So how would he know? The building inspector wouldn’t know on that, on that basis, unless it was properly marked and surveyed. MR. FRANK-That’s correct, and it’s not their job, either, to check on that. I’m not going to try to. MR. ABBATE-But would you agree that the burden of responsibility for accurate records and construction falls squarely on the shoulders of the applicant? MR. FRANK-Well, in this case I would say, yes. I mean. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. FRANK-If he wanted to incur the additional expense to have a survey crew come out there to, you know, I hear this time and time again. I’m sure Mr. Miles will be able to tell you better than me, that if you want a survey done, you’re going to wait a while in the Town of Queensbury. MR. ABBATE-But then if he hadn’t done it, he wouldn’t be before us this evening. MR. MILES-I can assure you I will be doing it from now on. MR. ABBATE-This is not personal, I hope you understand that. MR. MILES-100%. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Because I have about 40 more questions. MR. URRICO-Mr. Miles, can you explain what you mean by an over dig? MR. MILES-When we dig for a foundation, we do five foot over dig, which basically means five foot either side of where you plan on putting the house. That gives the mason allowance a foot or two either way. Because when we draw that, basically we paint the ground, and when they go to dig that, obviously their equipment doesn’t dig a perfectly square hole all the time, and the mason will have to massage that to get everything square to lay it out. So that’ll sometimes force you to go one foot or two foot either way, just to get it in the hole the way it’s dug, and there’s huge variances depending on which excavators you use. MR. ABBATE-Maybe we could contingently approve this thing based upon a contingency that in the future you have surveys before you can, no, that’s all right. That might be perceived as unreasonable, but that’s okay. MR. BRYANT-Well, I just want to comment on that, because as ludicrous as it sounds, in reality, when you think about it, when you have to pay a counselor to come and sit with you at a meeting like this, you could have already paid for the survey. MR. ABBATE-Sure. MR. BRYANT-I mean, this is not your fault if it’s not part of the process, you know, and I think, and I’m not complaining. MR. ABBATE-Yes, you are. MR. BRYANT-No, I’m not, but I think that these kinds of things, for the Town. I mean, they could eliminate the addition cost of having these hearings and having this discussion, and having you involved, because if they had a survey with the original application, it would clearly, then, be the builder’s fault, and we could say, yes, it’s the builder’s fault because he didn’t take the survey, but he wasn’t required to take the survey. MR. FRANK-That’s a good point. It’s well taken. This needs to be discussed further, I think, maybe in a different forum. MR. ABBATE-And see, Mr. Miles, what we’re doing here is called displaced aggression. Since we can’t take it out on your, we’re trying to get to the Town. So it’s nothing to do with you. So just bear with us, okay. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I think it is part of the process, you know, what’s implied, I think, with this current process, is it’s incumbent upon the builder to get it right. MR. ABBATE-Sure. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. MC NULTY-But that probably is not emphasized when he gets the building permit. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. MC NULTY-And that may be still the answer. The trouble is it ends up here after the fact, and then we’re faced with this question of do we say yes or no on the variance. MR. BRYANT-But, you know, if you look at it correctly, the builder did get it right, according to the tax map, but that is not the instrument that (lost words). MR. MC NULTY-But that’s the thing, and as we mentioned before, that bothers me too is anybody that’s had any experience with tax maps knows they are not accurate. You can’t depend on them. Sometimes they’re off a little. Sometimes they’re off a lot, but they’re not a survey by any stretch of the imagination. One thing, would you tell us a little bit about what happens if we don’t approve this variance. What choices do you have? Do you shave a corner of the house off? Do you jack it up and move it? What are the options? None pretty I’m sure. MR. MILES-None pretty. Shave a corner of the garage and a front corner of the porch off, which would be not very pleasing to the applicant, and I don’t know how long that front corner of the porch, given the two feet for the angle of the property, would have to be shaved back. MR. MC NULTY-Okay, but if you had to, you could modify the porch and probably screw the garage up if you had to put a diagonal on it, but, it could be done. MR. MILES-Yes. That’s right where the back service door is. MR. BRYANT-It depends on how the roof is. I mean, it might not be convenient. How convenient is it to shave a corner of the garage off? MR. MC NULTY-Any other questions? MR. ABBATE-No. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Then let’s open the public hearing. Is there anybody here wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-None. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC NULTY-And see what people think about it. Allan, let’s start with you. MR. BRYANT-Well, I have already made my comments directed to the Town, but I think this is just one of these cases that we have to look at as we do when some of these things are built and then they come before us realizing that they made an error. We’ve got to look at it to see if we would actually approve it if you had come to us prior to building the structure asking for this kind of relief, and as I look at the relief, the overall relief, even if you look at all of the three points individually or collectively, it’s really not a lot of relief, okay, but I want to also pick up where Mr. Abbate was saying, ultimately it’s your responsibility, and there have been times when people have built structures that we’ve denied their relief, which has caused major hardships for them, but this is not one of those conditions, but you’re a builder, and for future reference, I hope we never see you again, unless the building s not built, but as far as the application goes, if I looked at it prior to the structure going up, I would say that the relief is minimal and I’d approve it. So I’m in favor of the application. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thanks. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. I, too, have made my statement to the Town. I hope you understand that’s what it was, and if I were to deal with the standard of fairness in your application. The relief that you’re requesting is not that large, and had you come before us prior to construction and requested this relief, in all probability I would have said it’s reasonable, and I still think it’s reasonable. I said what I had to say. You listened. Your attorney just smiled, and I would support the application, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I agree with Mr. Bryant and Mr. Abbate. In fact, I think any kind of adjustment would be more, have a worse effect on the neighborhood than leaving it as it is, and I think it’s too bad that it happened, but I would grant the variance. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think we’ve sufficient lashed Mr. Miles, but I think when you look at the bottom line, it’s 2.1 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback and 1.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback , and that really does, to quote one of my favorite movies, it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. I think, taking it to the test, there’s definitely a benefit to the applicant. Feasible alternatives would not be, would be limited to probably cutting off sections of what’s been already built. I’ve already spoken to the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, and I don’t think there would be any effects on the neighborhood or community, and we all agree that this difficulty has been self-created, and probably won’t be created again. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would agree with everyone else, too. I think there was never any intent to gain a foot or two here or there, and most of these cases that come before us it’s the same thing. You dig the hole, and you’re not using a laser guided telemetry to burn a hole in the ground exactly where it has to be, and it’s ridiculous for us to assume that everybody’s going to do a perfect job every time. So I think the two and a half, 2.1 feet of relief on the front and the 1.4 on the back is minimal and doesn’t really have any effect on anybody. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. If I were looking at this before it was built, I think probably my answer would be, no, I wouldn’t approve this. I’d say move the house around and make it fit, but the house is built. There’s some things that bother me about it, the reliance on tax maps, I think it was a mistake that could have been avoided with some care, and at some point I think we have got to put our foot down more than we have in the past with these kinds of mistakes and say, sorry, saw off a corner here, saw off a corner there, or move the house, which has happened before. I live in a house that got moved 19 feet before I bought it because the guy built it too close to the road, and he had it up. He had a house mover come in and move it. So it has been done in Queensbury. Nevertheless I think in this case, using the balancing act that we’re supposed to on Area Variances, versus benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community, I don’t think anybody looking at that house is going to know that it’s a foot or two one way or another from the setback. Unless you’ve got the survey, there’s no way you’re going to know. So I don’t think it’s going to be a detriment to the neighborhood. Certainly having to modify it would be a detriment to the applicant. So for that reason I’d also be in favor. That means we need another motion for approval. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2003 STEVEN N. MILES, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 21 McDonald Drive, Southern Exposure subdivision. The applicant has constructed a 3,210 square foot single family dwelling and the applicant requests 2.1 feet of relief from the 30 foot 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) minimum front setback and 1.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback, and that’s required of the Southern Exposure subdivision, SFR-1A, subdivision revised 1995. The benefit to the applicant is that he would be able to keep the structure where it is in its present location. We’ve discussed feasible alternatives and they seem to be limited. The relief relative to the Ordinance is minimal. We don’t anticipate any effects on the neighborhood or community, and we’ve agreed that this difficulty is self-created. I move that we approve this variance. Duly adopted this 26 day of February, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. MC NULTY-Okay. There you go. MR. MILES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2003 TYPE II RICHARD SELKOW AGENT: FRANK DE NARDO PROPERTY OWNER: RICHARD SELKOW ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 158 LAKE PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING 926 SQ. FT. SUNDECK AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 926 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE 20-FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND THE 14-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF. SPR 11-2003 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/13/2003 TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.35 ACRES SECTION 179-5-050(A6) FRANK DE NARDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2003, Richard Selkow, Meeting Date: February 26, 2003 “Project Location: 160 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish existing 926 sq. ft. sundeck and construct a new 926 sq. ft. sundeck. Relief Required: Applicant requests 12 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement and 2 feet of relief from the 14-foot maximum height requirement of the Docks and Moorings Regulations, § 179-5-050 (A6, A10). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to replace the existing structure with a similar one in the existing location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited for the relief from the side setback requirement. Feasible alternatives for the height relief may include building the new structure to a compliant height. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 12 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance (60%), and 2 feet of relief from the 14-foot maximum height requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance (14.3%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action being the new structure will be the same as the existing. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the deteriorating condition of the existing structure due to its old age (structure was built in 1902). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 10-2003: 02/19/03, tabled until 02/26/03 because of no representation by the applicant’s agent (public hearing left open). SP 11-2003: to be reviewed 02/25/03, pending this application. BP 98-437: 07/17/98, septic alteration. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed setback is the same as the existing setback, and the proposed height of the covered portion of the sundeck is 11 inches lower than the existing structure. However, it doesn’t appear that limiting the new structure to a compliant height of 14 feet would greatly impair the benefit sought by the applicant. SEQR Status: Type II” 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 13, 2003 Project Name: Selkow, Richard Owner: Richard Selkow ID Number: QBY- 03-AV-10 County Project#: Feb03-33 Current Zoning: WR-1A, CEA Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to demolish existing 926 sq. ft. sundeck and construct a new 926 sq. ft. sundeck. Relief requested from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement. Side yard setback requirement is 20’: 8’ is proposed. Site Location: 158 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point Tax Map Number(s): 226.15-1-5 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 926 sq. ft. sundeck and to construct a new 926 sq. ft. sundeck. The applicant proposes to rebuild in the same location where 20’ is required where 8’ is proposed. The applicant also proposes to maintain the height at 16’ where 14’ is required. The applicant has indicated that the new structure will have minimal to disturbance to the shoreline if allowed to remain in the same location and it will be safer to use due to the deterioration of the existing one. Staff recommends discussion in regards to the height issues. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact The applicant provided the requested information in regards to the height issues. The County Planning Board recommends No County Impact.” And it’s not signed. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Do you want to introduce yourself and tell us anything else you’d like us to know. MR. DE NARDO-Yes. My name is Frank DeNardo, with Elite Docks, representing Richard Selkow. Basically what we want to do is rip the structure down that’s existing right now. Over the years it’s been repaired and repaired and repaired. It has, I don’t know if you can see it too clearly on the picture, there are three decks on top of, well, you can see the white trim, and there’s three decks that are literally on top of each other. Of course what they did is they just kept adding on top, instead of replacing it the right way. It’s gotten to the point that it’s not safe anymore. He wants to keep it aesthetically exactly the way it is, to match his house. The house, he’s spent many years now, since he’s been there, restoring the house. It’s an old Victorian. I don’t know if anybody’s familiar with the house there, and he’s done a beautiful job to that. This particular dock is on a couple of the brochures in Lake George, in the tourism thing for Lake George, and he wants to keep that because it’s like one of his favorite pictures, if you see, I believe you have a picture of it in there. Basically just want to lower it, too. Once we take the decks off, we’re going to lose 11 inches off the height of it. The top part that we’re really talking about is that little sun arbor, the proper name for it we haven’t come up with yet. It’s actually just for shade, while being up there. It’s not a large area, and other than that, the rest of it all is, well, the side setback, of course, it was built there in 1902. It’s one of the oldest docks on Assembly Point, and oldest house. Actually, it’s one of the oldest houses that are left on Assembly Point, and he’s planning on keeping it exactly the way it is. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So the top height is that upper shady structure? MR. DE NARDO-That’s all it is, it’s that little shade, it’s like a little shade area for the grandchildren, as he says. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Questions? MR. ABBATE-Just for the record, the applicant proposes not only to demolish the existing 926 square foot, but it’s not going to exceed 926 square foot either. MR. DE NARDO-Exactly the same as what it is. MR. ABBATE-Just wanted to make sure that it’s on the record. MR. DE NARDO-Exactly. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. BRYANT-You say it’s exactly the same, but the height is different. MR. DE NARDO-The height is not exact. The height is going to be lower. MR. BRYANT-Okay. When you’re looking for the two feet of relief, is that because of that little doo hicky on the top? MR. DE NARDO-Just that little shade thing up there. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Is there any way to, in other words, the relief that you’re requesting relative to the side setback and all that other, that’s an existing dock. You’re going to go exactly in the existing place, okay. So that’s already in the existing condition. My question is, is there any way to alter the height so that you’re not requesting the height relief? I know that it’s down lower now. MR. DE NARDO-Well, right now, the bottom part of it is just at six feet, and it’s like 6’2” when you walk underneath it, where you see that little, you can see the little arches in there. Where it touches there it’s about 6’2”, 6’3” maybe, walking under it, a tall man has to walk underneath and actually duck under it. If we lower it down to two feet, it’s going to be, of course. MR. BRYANT-But, for example, there’s a fascia there on that thing that’s got to be a foot or so, you know. MR. DE NARDO-This structure here is actually two decks here. There’s a third deck right in the back here. MR. BRYANT-So that’s where you gain the 11 inches? MR. DE NARDO-We’re removing this deck here, this deck here and bringing it down here. Now to support the structure, to make the structure strong, this will have to stay there. It’s going to be lowered down a little bit. So, this portion here will be equal to this all the way around. It would look like one piece all the way around. One deck. MR. BRYANT-What about the fascia on the little sun porch on the top? MR. DE NARDO-This here? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. DE NARDO-We’re already lowering this down four inches over here, I believe. MR. BRYANT-But my question is, does it have to be so wide? MR. FRANK-Your plans show it to be more narrow. Don’t they? MR. DE NARDO-Yes, it would be narrow there. MR. FRANK-If you look at the elevation drawings, I mean, I could scale it for you, but it definitely looks much narrower. MR. DE NARDO-Much narrower. We’re (lost word) the ten inch piece on top, bringing down to like a two by six across the top. We also have to handle some snow load up there, too. So, being a flat roof. MR. ABBATE-That raises another question. What is the real purpose of that portion on top of there? I mean, really, what function does it play? What role? MR. DE NARDO-It’s for shade. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. ABBATE-Why not an umbrella? MR. DE NARDO-Well, like I said, they want to keep it the way it’s been since back when it was built, and all the pictures, and everybody in the neighborhood absolutely loves it. It’s like a marker on the Pointe. Everybody goes by and they see and they go, ooh, and they stop. They take pictures. It’s like the Morse house. MR. ABBATE-So he wouldn’t consider, as a stipulation, that that be removed? That would be drastic, wouldn’t it? MR. DE NARDO-Yes. It would be too drastic. He really doesn’t want to do it because it really matches the house, I mean, all of that up on top matches the house and the railings. MR. ABBATE-To me it looks like a sandbox. Maybe I’m aesthetically astute. MR. DE NARDO-That’s because of that big white part of it on top. So that’s why we’re reducing the size of the white up on top. MR. UNDERWOOD-When was that structure added? MR. DE NARDO-The structure was re-built, I believe it’s in the notes here. It was cut and turned. It used to be a single slip boathouse, and the original dock is the north pier that goes along and out. There used to be a U-shaped dock going out, and it was cut and turned, I believe, in the late 70’s, early 80’s, and then this was all added on afterwards, and when he bought the house, this is the way it’s been, and he and his wife, I mean, that’s one of the main reasons they bought the place. It’s one of the few places on Assembly Point that are staying. I mean, you know what’s going on up on that Pointe right now. I mean, everything’s a tear down and just, I mean, they’re putting up soap boxes. I mean, it’s just. MR. ABBATE-It’s always nice, you know, I’m sure they believe it’s aesthetically interesting, etc., etc., and that may very well be true, but you’re talking about 60% of the Ordinance, which is quite substantial in my opinion, but anyway, that’s only me. MR. FRANK-That 60% is for the side setback. For the height it’s only 14.3% relief. MR. ABBATE-I know, but if we were to consider all of it, we’re talking about 74.3%, is what he’s requesting, if you really want to push the spoon somewhat. MR. FRANK-No, I thought you were just, you thought that 60 was relative to the height and. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. MC NULTY-Any other questions? Okay. The public hearing was left open from last week. I’ll ask, even though it’s obvious what the answer’s going to be, is there anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? Anybody opposed? Is there any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. There’s one commentary letter here. This is dated November 22, 2002, “To Whom It May Concern: We were nearby neighbors of the Selkow property on Assembly Point during the 1970 – 2001 years. Our residence was 134 Lake Parkway. To the best of my recollection, all of the work of turning and rebuilding of the dock and the upper structure of their dock was done at the same time in the very early 1980 years. Lillian B. Adamson 122 Equinox Drive Lake George, NY 12845” That’s it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. If nothing else, then I will close the public hearing. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC NULTY-And let’s talk about it. Chuck, I guess you’re up first this time. MR. ABBATE-Okay. To be perfectly honest, I’m going to have to be influenced by other members of the Board, because it’s subjective in terms of aesthetically beautiful, etc., etc., and what I consider to be aesthetically beautiful may be considered ugly by some people, and vice versa. So I am open to what’s in the best interest of everyone concerned on a win/win situation, and I think I’d rather hold off to hear what my fellow Board members who have more expertise in this area than I do have to say. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Joyce, I guess you’re next. MRS. HUNT-Well, I have no problem with the 20 foot minimum setback, but I do agree that that bothers me, the sunroof. I don’t know how it could be changed, but it does seem to be, that seems a problem to me. I really don’t know how I would go at this point. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I think we should just keep passing it down until we get to Chuck again and then force him to say something. I’ll take a shot at it. There are some things, I think, that are worth preserving, and it think this is one of them. The structure has withstood time. It’s recognized for its uniqueness, and you’re not asking to change that, except to lower it. What it looks like will remain the same, and that, to me, weighs a lot in favor of the application. We’ve seen the landscaping change along, not only along Assembly Point, but along the shoreline of Lake George, and most cases it’s taking down an old dock and putting up a new structure with a sunroof on top of it, but this here is different, I think. This is something that, this is like preserving an old house by reconstructing it, restoring it. So that, to me, weighs a lot in favor of it. Taking it through the test, I certainly think the benefit to the applicant would also extend to the benefit of the community, to have something like that stay around longer, and I wouldn’t want to be the one to ask you to change the way it looks. Feasible alternatives might include lowering the height of that sun, what did you call it, a sun arbor? MR. DE NARDO-A sun arbor. MR. URRICO-It’s as good a name as any, but again, I think you’ve made a good case for keeping it the way it is. The relief is significant, it’s moderate, in terms of the 60%, which is 12 feet of the 20 foot minimum side setback and 2 feet of the 14 foot maximum height requirement, but again, looking, how it’s changed from what it looks like now, and I know we’re trying to change, make the zoning more feasible and more aesthetic, aesthetically pleasing, and as Mr. Abbate says, what’s pretty to somebody may not be pretty to others, but I think this particular structure is recognized for what it represents, and I think, again, I think in this case it may be substantial, but there is a case to be made. The effects on the neighborhood or community, the only neighbor that wrote in basically talked to the historical value of it, and again, that’s the point I’m making, and as far as it being self-created, well, it was self-created in 1902, and I think it deserves to stay the way it is. I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thanks. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I basically would be in agreement. I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think we certainly, over the years, approved a lot of damn ugly boathouses up around that lake that are deserving of night exercises by the U.S. Navy Seals, but this one, I think, does attempt to preserve that Turn of the Century look, and as you alluded to with the applicant, you know, restoring his Victorian type home, there aren’t a whole lot of them left up there, and it’s nice to keep a little bit of the past up on the lake and not turn it all into hokey Long Island looking like it is at the present time. So I think that the amount of relief requested, I mean, obviously it’s because of where it was originally constructed. As far as the height of it goes, you made a good point, you know, as far as having to duck under. People get taller as the 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) years go by, and certainly they’re taller than people were in 1902, so I think that we can grant relief in both respects. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Frankly I don’t know what’s wrong with the Long Island look. It’s not a bad look, but I was trying to analyze the application, and I think what Mr. Urrico said opened my eyes. It really boggles the mind why someone would go to the expense to build such an elegant, beautiful deck and then build a little room on top for shade. The purpose of a deck is to get sun. If you want shade, you go underneath the deck, but the whole thing boggles the mind. MR. DE NARDO-It’s also the view, too. I mean, if you’re up there, you can get a beautiful view. When you’re sitting up there, you can look north there’s Speaker Hank and up into the lake. It’s just another spot for them to be. MR. ABBATE-You can climb on the top of that thing? MR. DE NARDO-No, up on the deck itself. MR. ABBATE-No, I’m talking about the sandbox that you have up there. MR. DE NARDO-No, no, not at all. MR. BRYANT-I think, in reality, whether it was built in the 1900’s, or whenever it was built, it was built to attract attention to itself so that people could identify that dock from every other dock that’s on the lake that looks exactly like that dock except for the little sandbox on the top, as Mr. Abbate affectionately calls it. I don’t have any problem, really, with the side setback because it’s an existing dock that you’re taking down, and really I shouldn’t have any problem with the height factor, since you are reducing the height by 11 inches from what it is now, and so I should be in favor of the application, but there’s just something about the height that bothers me, and there’s nobody else to listen to but I’ll listen to McNulty and see where everybody’s going with it, but the height I have a problem with. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I am about where Allan’s at. The side setback, I guess I’ve got two thoughts with side setback. One is it’s going in the same spot it was and it certainly makes sense not to move the whole dock just to bring the thing into compliance when what you’re dealing with is the sundeck, and at the same time putting a new sundeck in there just perpetuates the side setback problem, but that I think I can go along with. The height does bother me. I listened a lot to what Roy said about the uniqueness of this, and that leaves me kind of in between, too, but I would like to see something more done with the height. So I think where I’m at at this point is, as presented, I’m going to be in opposition because of the height. Has anybody else got any comments or thoughts? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Let me take the position now, since I didn’t earlier, I appreciated the historical review by some of my fellow Board members. History is my weak area, but I have to, in this instance, agree with Mr. McNulty and with what Allan had to say. It’s a beautiful project, and just because something may have been constructed in the Year 1700 whatever it is, and we should preserve it, doesn’t necessarily mean that’s true in all cases. I’m concerned with the height, particularly, I jokingly called it a sandbox, but I am also concerned with the height, and I think at this point, unless there were concessions, I would not be in favor of the application. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. That leaves us kind of ambivalent on the, what way we’d go. I’m not sure how this vote’s going to come out. MR. BRYANT-Well, I’ll clarify my position, then, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC NULTY-Go ahead. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. BRYANT-I am agreeing with Mr. Abbate and you. I’m okay with the side setback but opposed to the height. MR. MC NULTY-Three. Joyce, do you know how you’re going to go yet? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I’m opposed to the height, actually. MR. MC NULTY-You’re opposed to the height. Okay. So it looks like, then, at the moment, there’s four opposed to the height and two in favor. MR. DE NARDO-Well, how could we alleviate that problem? MR. MC NULTY-Well, that’s the question. MR. URRICO-Can you bring it down? MR. DE NARDO-I’ve already brought it down, and, I mean, it’s either that or we’re going to leave it as is, and if we leave it as is, it’s just going to get repaired in place, a piece at a time. We’re looking to do this the most feasible way, to replace it and make it sound. I mean, right now it’s just an infested thing with ants and, I mean, it’s not safe for the kids. It’s not safe, the railings aren’t even safe, and, I mean, they’re just looking for the shade up there. I mean, the Mrs., she’s not a sun worshiper, but she wants to see the lake, all right, and when you’re on top of the deck, I mean, there are areas you can sit in the sun, and there’s areas where you can shade. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but Mr. Abbate made a good point, and that is, I mean, you do have seating up there. You could put an umbrella up there. MR. DE NARDO-Well, they’re just trying to keep it just the way it is in the brochures and stuff. If you saw what he’s done to the house over the years, I mean, he spent a fortune on putting the little eyeglass window back in place up there, and he wants to keep it just like it is. MR. ABBATE-See, the problem, and I understand it, too, he’s looking at it from a sentimental point of view. We have to look at it from a factual point of view, and we’re not allowed to bring any kind of, we shouldn’t bring any kind of emotions into this thing. MR. DE NARDO-Well, it’s not an emotional thing. I don’t believe it’s emotional. I think it’s just keep it. MR. ABBATE-Well, then she should be able to take that down. MR. DE NARDO-The aesthetics of it, I mean, just the way it is. I mean, you have an umbrella. I mean, you’ve sat under an umbrella. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I use an umbrella on my property. I don’t feel offended. MR. DE NARDO-Now, when you get 10 or 15 people up there, you’re not going to put 15 umbrellas up there or 10 umbrellas. MR. ABBATE-Maybe you should only have five. MR. BRYANT-You’re not going to get 15 people under the sandbox, either. MR. ABBATE-You’re not going to put 15 people up there under the condition you state that it’s in right now, otherwise it’s a liability. MR. DE NARDO-Exactly, and that’s why he wants to repair it. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, it appears at this point if we vote, it’s going to be a negative vote. There’s, I guess, two options. One, we can vote and see where the vote comes out. The only other option, as far as in front of this Board, is we could table this if you think they would be inclined to go back and look at their design and see if they can lower it any more. MR. URRICO-He can also table it until we have a full Board. MR. MC NULTY-True, that’s the other option, and it gives you a delay because it’s going to kick you into at least next month, but we’ve got six people here now. Next month we may well have the full seven, and it may be a slightly different mix. So it’s a gamble, but you might find a different mix. MR. UNDERWOOD-My other suggestion would be this. I don’t think there’s a problem with this, as far as the actual replacement of the decking thing. The hang up is that structure up top. MR. ABBATE-Right, that’s correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I see no reason that they couldn’t replace, grant relief for the side setbacks, if it’s the height thing that we’re not granting. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-And then leave that up to the option of the applicant. MR. MC NULTY-Right. That’s the other thing. We could propose a motion that would approve the side setbacks, but not the height requested. MR. ABBATE-Right. I would go along with that as well. MR. BRYANT-I would, too. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-But that doesn’t help you with your height. That still leaves you with a problem with complying with. MR. URRICO-Mr. DeNardo, is there any way to lower the structure, the whole structure itself? MR. DE NARDO- I may be able to get another six inches out of it, but I don’t think I’ll get much more without you hitting your head walking on the dock. I mean, you already have the bottom structure down low enough. MR. ABBATE-You see, and I sense, a complete resistance to doing anything with that sandbox up there, and I can’t rationalize it in my own mind. MR. DE NARDO-Well, personally, my own point of view, I don’t like the looks of the sandbox up there. MR. ABBATE-Well, thank you. MR. DE NARDO-Okay, but this is my customer. MR. ABBATE-I understand that. No, I understand that. Well, I’m relieved that you at least will be able to proceed with the way. MR. DE NARDO-And his wife, he and his wife are. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. ABBATE-No, we all have to make sacrifices in life, in some cases when we want something bad enough, we have to sacrifice. That’s ending up with a win/win situation, and in many instances, when we want something bad enough and we’re not going to sacrifice, guess what, you don’t get it! Or we don’t get it, in life, you know. MR. DE NARDO-I understand. Now, if he was to rebuild the deck, and not touch the upper structure. MR. ABBATE-Well, I agree with the rest of the folks. I don’t mind the setbacks. I have no problem with that, but that sandbox bugs me. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think, then, you would have to go back to the applicant and see what they want to do. I mean, I think that we could either table this or grant relief for the side setback and then leave what you want to do with the height, you know, whether they want to re-apply or substantially different than what you have here, but. MR. BRYANT-I just want to clarify. You’re asking the question what if we granted the relief for the side setback and you rebuilt the deck and just didn’t do anything to the top or we’re not going to go for that? MR. ABBATE-No. MR. BRYANT-We basically, you can rebuild the deck, but keep it to the proposed, the allowable height, and if that means eliminating the sandbox, that’s what it means, but we’re not saying rebuild the deck and just don’t touch the top and it’ll be okay. We’re not saying that. We’re saying, you can build your deck, but we just won’t approve the height. MR. DE NARDO-Okay, because I’ve been on other projects on the lake right around the area, and they’ve got height reliefs, major height reliefs, case in point, Cantanucci, down on Brayton Lane there. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but we’re not here to discuss, you know, so that should not even be an issue. MR. DE NARDO-I understand. I know. Me being a dock builder, I’ve seen major reliefs, and I didn’t think that was asking for a lot. MR. BRYANT-Not from me. MR. ABBATE-Not from me, either, I can assure you. MR. BRYANT-I don’t know. See this goes back to the discussion of precedent. You see where an applicant will use precedent as the sole argument for their application, and we’re not supposed to look at precedent when we vote. MR. ABBATE-That’s a good point. MR. URRICO-Yes. To be fair, I don’t think Mr. DeNardo’s using that as his only argument. MR. BRYANT-No, no. I’m relating to the whole precedent issue. MR. DE NARDO-By no means am I trying to set precedent by any means. I’m just using an example over the years. I mean, I’ve been a dock builder on the lake for quite a few years, and I’ve seen major jobs that blow this right out of the water, and just recently up around the lake. MR. ABBATE-See, but the final analysis is that, in many instances, it may be a four to three vote, four for and three against, and the majority always rules. So while there may be concessions, there’s nothing to guarantee that it was a majority concession or everybody said, yes, yes, yes, yes. In most instances, it’s pretty close. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. DE NARDO-Now, if I can keep that height, if I can keep that sandbox up there at 14. MR. ABBATE-You’ve got to talk to the Chairman. MR. DE NARDO-If I can keep that at 14, will that pass? MR. MC NULTY-If he keeps the sandbox to 14, then he’s within requirements. Is he not? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. MC NULTY-Then he would not need a variance. MR. FRANK-He would not need any height relief. MR. MC NULTY-Right. He would just need the side. MR. FRANK-If you approve just the setback, and he accepts that, and then he comes back again, trying to get the additional so called sandbox, he would need side setback relief again, because of where it’s positioned. MR. ABBATE-No, there would be a stipulation. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would make the suggestion, too, I think that you could preserve the, you could probably get it down to 14 and preserve that gingerbread part of that structure, and then go to some kind of a, you know, put up in the summertime with metal rods and canvas top on there and probably be able to. MR. DE NARDO-I could probably do that with that structure right there, drop it down to two feet, eliminating that top two by ten, or whatever it is. I can do that, can keep it to 14. MR. ABBATE-That’s a good idea. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because, you know, then you could use metal piping or something and just put canvas up in the summertime. That’s probably going to be acceptable to the applicant. MR. DE NARDO-I can go with that. If the Board will go with that, I can go with that. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Then what we need is a motion to approve a side setback with no height variance. MR. DE NARDO-And have to be keeping it at 14. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. Right. You’re restricted to what the requirement is. We had two that were in support. We had two more that indicated they were okay with the side setback, at least two more that were okay with the side setback, but not with the height. MR. ABBATE-Correct. MR. MC NULTY-So I think we’ve got a reasonable opportunity for an approval on the side setback, if somebody would like to make that motion. MR. URRICO-I’ll take it, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2003 RICHARD SELKOW, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) 158 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 926 square foot sundeck and construct replacement of 926 square feet. The relief requested is 12 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback and two feet of relief from the fourteen foot maximum height requirement of the Docks and Moorings regulation 179-5-050(A6)(A10). This motion is for approval only of the 12 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback. To get to this point, the applicant would be permitted to replace the existing structure with a similar one in the existing location. We’ve discussed feasible alternatives, and they seem to be limited for the relief from the side setback. We’ve discussed height restrictions, and it should be made clear that the applicant is to stay within the height requirements as currently permitted. The relief, in terms of side setback, is 60%, which has been interpreted as moderate, but no more so than is currently being used. Effects on the neighborhood or community appear to be minimal, and the difficulty is attributed to the deteriorating condition of the existing structure. I move that we approve this variance, this approval of the side setback, 12 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback only. Duly adopted this 26 day of February, 2003, by the following vote: th MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Does everybody understand the motion? MR. ABBATE-No, not entirely. Is the motion clear in that there would be a maximum of 14 foot in height? Is it clear? If it’s clear to the other Board members, it’s clear to me. MR. MC NULTY-I believe so. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-I don’t think he said 14 feet, but what he’s saying is we’re granting no height relief. MR. ABBATE-So the applicant’s going to have to take some action, then. MR. MC NULTY-Right. If he does something different, he’s going to have to come back to us. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good. Great. Yes. I understand it. AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. DE NARDO-Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. ABBATE-You’ve got it. MR. DE NARDO-And hopefully we will remove that sandbox. MR. ABBATE-Put it down on the beach. MR. DE NARDO-I would like to thank you for your patience on last week, my not being here. MR. ABBATE-No problem. These things happen. You’ll find that the Board is quite fair. MR. DE NARDO-It was a bad week last week. That snow storm took a toll. MR. ABBATE-It was a bad week for all of us, I can assure you. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/26/03) MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have to go back and re-visit the Sign because we did not do the Environmental Assessment Form on that? MR. MC NULTY-We did a motion on that saying that we had reviewed the thing. We did the typical one that Lew used to do, just saying we approved it. So we’re okay on that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. FRANK-We had a discussion on that. Cathi obviously does not attend the Zoning Board meetings on a regular basis, and she wasn’t aware of how you had proceeded in the past. Lew made it very clear that when he makes that motion it’s contingent upon the fact that all the Board members have reviewed the Environmental Short Form that was supplied as part of the application. So, when you go to approve, that you’re concurring that yes I have read it. There’s no environmental impacts. So, I mean, the procedure, that was discussed before my time on the Board, and Lew or someone had proposed that to save some time. So just because we did it a little differently last week, doesn’t mean the way you had been doing it before was incorrect. As long as that second page of that form gets filled out and signed, and I think Mr. McNulty, when he’s acting as Secretary, takes care of that, that that’s all for our permanent record. It’s all legal and neat. MR. BRYANT-I just want to commend Mr. McNulty, and of course Mr. Underwood, for their undertakings tonight. MR. ABBATE-Nice job. MR. BRYANT-And I just want to point out it’s only nine o’clock. Our agenda is already clear. I’m voting for you next time around. MR. ABBATE-And I would like to say that perhaps we don’t need those other folks. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. If there’s no other business, we will adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles McNulty, Acting Chairman 34