The URL can be used to link to this page

2003-09-24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY NORMAN HIMES CHARLES ABBATE ROY URRICO PAUL HAYES JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. STONE-Before we get started, I have a couple of housekeeping things I want to do. One, I want to recognize the contributions of a Board member who is leaving us after this evening. Norman Himes has been an excellent member of the Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals, and we’re going to miss him, and our loss will be Florida’s gain. MR. HIMES-Thank you very much, Lew. MR. STONE-The other thing that I want to recognize is something I learned yesterday about ex parte communication. All of us have had the opportunity to go out looking at pieces of property, and sometimes we meet the applicant. Sometimes we meet a neighbor. Technically, we should try to avoid any conversations with anybody who has an interest in the particular application, and if we are, I don’t want to use the word “forced”, but if we find ourselves in conversation, obviously we can’t be rude. We should report that to the Board and the public when that application comes forward, and I’m not saying there’s been any problems, that anybody has done that, but I know I’ve gone out, and I get, find myself in conversation, and this was something that I just learned yesterday. For tonight’s agenda, Area Variance No. 78-2003 Kevin Ordway will not be heard tonight. He has requested a postponement. He was a very good friend of this Sergeant Kimmerly who was killed in Iraq, and he was at the funeral today and wanted to stay around. So he has asked to be moved to next month, and also, if you look at the application, Notice of Appeal No. 3-2003, Susan Salvo, she has another commitment this evening and has been asked to be moved to the November meeting, an October meeting. I’m sorry. Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II IAN ROWLANDSON AGENT: JAMES W. MOONEY OWNER: GORDON ROWLANDSON ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 42 SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 912 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,300 SQ. FT. SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING AS WELL AS REPLACING AND INSTALLING A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM ON THE PARCEL. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/10/03 TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-14 LOT SIZE: 0.258 ACRES SECTION: 179-4- 090 JAMES MOONEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Area Variance No. 77-2003, Ian Rowlandson, Meeting Date: September 24, 2003 “Project Location: 42 Seelye Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) construction of a 2300 sf Single Family Dwelling and seeks relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. Relief Required: Applicant seeks 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement per §179-4-090. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: The parcel appears to be serviced by an existing drive/right of way. An examination of the adequacy of accessibility of the private drive might be appropriate. The Building Department may require that the private road be named, (911 identifier) prior to Certificate of Occupancy.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 10, 2003 Project Name: Rowlandson, Ian Owner: Gordon Rowlandson ID Number: QBY-03-AV-77 County Project#: Sep03-31 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing demolition of existing 912 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and construction of a new 2,300 sq. ft. single-family dwelling as well as replacing and installing a new septic system on the parcel. Applicant seeks relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. Site Location: 42 Seelye Road Tax Map Number(s): 227.17-2-14 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling on the same property. The project site does not have physical road frontage so relief is requested from this requirement. The information submitted indicates the home will be about 46’ x 30’ and be two stories. The plans show the new home to meet all required setbacks and that a new septic system is to be installed. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll 9/12/03. MR. STONE-Sir. MR. MOONEY-My name is James Mooney. I’m the agent for Ian Rowlandson. He lives in Milwaukee and he can’t be here tonight. Basically, the house is going to be built within the requirements of the Town. They don’t require any variances for the setbacks or the septic at all. Just this 40 foot road frontage requirement. The fire company, I dropped a letter off to the Town today. The fire company has inspected the property. They felt that it was accessible by the fire company and the rescue squad, and they would like, there’s a row of cedar trees that runs along the south side of the property, and that have grown over a little bit on the road, and they’d like to have them trimmed back before a Certificate could be. MR. STONE-Do you have that letter? Do you have that letter, Craig? MR. MC NULTY-I think it’s in the file here. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-There are a couple of letters in here. MR. STONE-Then we’ll read it in when we get to. MR. MOONEY-And the Rowlandson’s have agreed to do that. MR. STONE-Any questions, anybody? Let me open the public hearing, then, if we have no questions. Anybody wish to speak in favor of? In favor of the application? Anybody opposed to the application? Come forward, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TODD MAHONEY 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. MAHONEY-My name is Todd Mahoney. I live at 87 Seelye Road. So we’re pretty much, we’re not just across the street. We’re really down stream, and the concern I have is when you go up and look at the property, I don’t understand the regulations for a 2300 square foot house, but a quarter of an acre seems kind of tight, to me, but on top of that, there’s a serious water issue on that piece of property. A culvert has just been put in there, or recently put in, that was never there before, and that has a, I never realized it was there until just today when we went up and took a look and saw what it’s doing downstream, because the culvert actually connects in to another culvert that was there before, then it runs under Seelye Road and then into a culvert that runs through our property, and I’ve been finding a lot of downstream issue all summer with muck getting caught. I have a catch basin, just before the water hits the lake, which I muck out, seasonally, and this year it’s been overwhelmed a lot, and I never understood why I was getting more muck. I thought it was just road runoff from the rain, but when you go up what you see is that that culvert’s been extended right across the property. So that property now has no open water in it, which it always has had, and I don’t know what impact it’s having. I can only see the impact that it’s having in Lake George, right off my beach, is that I’m getting more silt flowing through, and if you look at it, where it’s done is just pushed the problem to the other end of that piece of property, and done nothing to riprap or to do anything to stop the flow. So, from that perspective I’m very upset about what’s going on, and if you put a septic system in there, with the amount of water that comes off of that hill and down through that piece of property, I don’t know how that septic system can not get overwhelmed, and/or push these water problems on to other neighbors that are below. Because there’s three homes, I guess, that are just directly below it, and then ours is on the other side of the road. So I would have a very serious concern about a building of that size going in that on such a small piece of property, and on one that’s already been culverted. I don’t know if it needs a permit to do a culvert or whether it needs any engineering to do it, but basically now everything that is going into that hole above that property is going into the lake. There’s nothing to stop it, and there was no effort. MR. STONE-There’s no infiltration along the way that you’re aware of? MR. MAHONEY-There’s nothing that I can see. Actually, what they did is they raised it. So instead of going on a flow down the hill, they put it across their property line, put a right angled elbow in, a concrete one, which isn’t going to stop anything, it’s just turning it, and then letting it flow more aggressively than straight down the hill. MR. URRICO-Could you show us where that culvert is? MR. MAHONEY-Sure. MR. HAYES-Is this going to go to site plan, Craig? MR. STONE-We could ask it to go to site plan, can’t we, if we get to there. MR. MAHONEY-Actually, right there. Now it used to go underneath the road and then be open water until about here, got caught in a basin, come down. It’s kind of a, this has never really been right, the way it’s worked here, because it really just runs under the road. All the road, runs under the road right here. There’s sort of a halfway, or I wouldn’t even call it a catch basin. It’s when it overflows it stops right here, flows under Seelye and through a culvert on our property. That’s it, and it used to stop somewhere up in here, and now it’s been connected to here and to here, to open up this whole piece of property. So while it’s dried this out, it’s just taken all of this problem, because right here, is all wide open. It’s all mud, and there’s been no riprap, no hole, no nothing done to try to stop it up there, and at the end of my property, I put a small catch basin, and then I muck out, this year I’ve had to do it four times, and I never understood why, and it’s not meant to handle the whole hill. It was just meant to handle what I thought was going to be road runoff because I thought this was being normally filtered right up in here. So if that’s already been done. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. STONE-So you’re saying that stormwater, from his property, is not being contained on his property? MR. MAHONEY-It’s not touching his property. It’s passing directly through that property. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, he’s complaining about stormwater from a different piece of property, that perhaps used to be infiltrated on this piece, but now is not. MR. MAHONEY-Right. MR. MC NULTY-So it’s not stormwater from the subject property that’s the problem. MR. MAHONEY-That’s correct. We will still get stormwater from the subject property, just because gravity is what it is, and that will still come through, but what’s going on here is whatever’s coming down this hill is now being directed into a culvert and then forced right directly into the lake. So I’ve got a big concern about doing any construction here with that kind of a first step. It just shows where the priorities are. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mooney will have a chance to comment. Anybody else objecting? Please come forward. Before we get there, Craig, we can request site plan, if we have some concerns about the property. MR. BROWN-You can. Maybe just a quick response to that. This project is going to be a new single family dwelling. It’s in the Lake George watershed, the Lake George drainage basin. It’s going to be required to prepare a stormwater management plan to be submitted for our review. Any stormwater generated on this property from this project is going to be required to be handled on this site. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. BROWN-And, you know, I’ll let Mr. Mooney talk about the culvert, but if you ask me, it’s an improvement. If it’s an enclosed culvert, you don’t have the chance for more dirt to get in. MR. STONE-Question. This is a 2500 square foot home? MR. BROWN-Twenty-three. MR. STONE-Twenty-three, and the lot size is, how many thousand feet? It’s just about 22%, then. MR. BROWN-What would be allowable for a parcel this size is about 2472 square feet. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-This is 23, but the house itself is 2,000, and the deck is 300. MR. BROWN-Yes, and if it’s not a covered the deck, it doesn’t technically count. MR. STONE-Okay. State your name and go ahead. LINDA MC COLLISTER MRS. MC COLLISTER-My name is Linda McCollister. I live on 103 Seelye Road, which is not, kind of diagonally across from the property that we’re talking about on 42 Seelye, and I’ll just read my letter. “I have been a year-round resident on 103 Seelye Road for over 30 years and have seen many changes to our area over the years. I am writing this letter because I have some concerns regarding the Rolandson Property on Seelye Road. I know that Ian and Sandy will do a very good job building the home they are proposing but: MY CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) ARE: 1 – Is this proposed home too big for the .258 acres? It seems like a lot of square footage compared to the existing house. 2 – Possible overcrowding of homes? The immediate area already has 3 other properties on approximately 1 acre of land. 3 – Will the proposed septic system be satisfactory for this size lot and proposed home? Would a pump-out system be better for the protection of this small parcel of land and also better protection for the waters of Lake George? 4- There is a drainage ditch” and Mr. Mahoney went into that, and I had a concern about that, “on this property and even with the updating that has been done, will it be sufficient to prevent future flooding when we get a lot of run off? So often around the Lake in the past years, we have seen over-development of the land that can and has led to problems with the waters of Lake George. I would hope that the Zoning Board would evaluate this proposed project carefully. Sincerely, Linda McCollister” Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? MARTHA SCHMULBACH MRS. SCHMULBACH-My name is Martha Schmulbach and I live at 96 Seelye Road, and my property is directly, we’re one of the three little houses that’s directly below the proposed property change, and I have nothing to say that hasn’t already been said. I just want to voice my concerns with the drainage, the septic system, and that’s primarily it. Now I will say that in 1991 there was a stoppage in the culvert, at the mouth of the culvert, and the water came down that road which you’re talking about and flooded the whole acre of land there, and the basements and whatever, that was there at the time. So it is a possibility, if that culvert is stopped up, that not only is it a problem for the lake, but it’s a problem for the road for the whole piece of property. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? DAUREEN KEATING CAIAZZO MRS. KEATING CAIZZAO-I’m Daureen Keating Caiazzo, and we live directly in front of the Rowlandson’s up at the lake. We have a place right directly in front of them, and our concern is I’m in complete agreement with Linda McCollister. I think the square footage for that piece of property is much too large that they want to build. I know that they’ll build something very nice, but I just think that’s a little bit too big. Cleverdale is getting extremely crowded, you know. I think you people up here have a green space committee, but there’s certainly no green space left in Cleverdale, much, and I don’t think things need to be any more crowded than they already are. Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak before Mr. Mahoney comes back? Okay. MR. MAHONEY-I just want to understand one thing that you had said. When you talk about doing an environmental impact on the property, does that take into account that recently it has been restructured with the culvert so that the problem of the water has just been moved just off of the property? Do you look at that, or do you just look at the property as it is now and with that culvert that’s been added? MR. BROWN-I was talking about a stormwater management permit, not really an environmental assessment of the property. Just something to deal with the stormwater. What we look at within the stormwater management permit is how are you going to deal with the new impervious area you’re going to create on the property, the new buildings, and any structure where the water can’t get into the ground. So we need to make sure that this new project, this new house, any water that comes off that is maintained on the site and back into the ground on the site and not directed off of the site. MR. MAHONEY-But what about the water that’s now been moved off of it by the culvert? Does that get evaluated? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. BROWN-Well, no, it does not. MR. MAHONEY-Okay. Because then culvert has just been, if your evaluation was done without that culvert having just been put in prior to this, I guess, application, then that would probably give you a different perspective than it would having just put a culvert in there to redirect the water off of the property. MR. BROWN-And I don’t disagree with you. I just don’t think, it doesn’t, from my position, it doesn’t play into the stormwater management from the new building. What you have is an existing condition. MR. MAHONEY-But it does impact what’s going on downstream, and the management of the water in the area. All it did was move that issue off the property so they don’t have to deal with it. MR. BROWN-It didn’t move it off the property. It moved it off to the side of the property. It’s still on the property. MR. MAHONEY-Right, but basically now it’ll be everybody else’s problem, if it overflows or doesn’t handle. MR. BROWN-Well, I don’t think it increased it or decreased it. It just relocated it. MR. STONE-What Mr. Brown is saying, basically, our concern is you’re going to put a certain amount of roofage, a certain amount of impervious construction on this land, which, right now, is open land. Any stormwater increase, because of the fact of the water hitting the roof, for example, is not going to go directly into the ground, must be taken up on the property. That’s the basic. MR. MAHONEY-Right, and I think I understand that, but still, there’s an issue of wet water, wet water, of course, coming down, and now being moved to the side, that I still have to deal with down below, because it’s forcing that muck right into the lake. MR. STONE-I understand that, and that is a legitimate concern, but not for this Board. I mean, that’s basically, I’m not passing the buck, but I am passing the buck, unless we take it as we’re concerned, and that any increase in putting more water on, we doubt that any stormwater plan can control the new stormwater. MR. BROWN-Yes, I would think if you, and I haven’t looked at this for hours and hours, but if you don’t have an open trench where you have the potential for this new stormwater to get into this open ditch and get into the system and maybe increase the runoff at your location, now you’ve got a closed system. The only water that gets in there is the water that comes from off of this site, enters into this closed system, runs through the site and back into the system where it was before. MR. MAHONEY-Right, but there’s no filtering there, either. This acted, the property had a filtering capacity to it, before it went in, and we just moved it. MR. STONE-But the water that hit the upper end of this drainage ditch, coming from another piece of property, has that been increased? MR. MAHONEY-No, but it’s not being filtered as it’s been filtered before, as part of the property’s filtering. MR. STONE-You mean because of the closed ditch? MR. MAHONEY-Correct. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. STONE-When you say closed, you mean there’s a pipe there that didn’t used to be? MR. MAHONEY-Yes. There’s a pipe there that didn’t used to be. It used to be, it would, there was a small pipe that ran under the road, and then it was open for about the width of that property, and then went in to a hole, a culvert, so that there was a filtering process that went on there that’s now been taken away, and you can just see where the muck on the other end comes right into the hole, and nothing’s done. MR. STONE-Who’s jurisdiction would that be, Craig? If somebody closed the culvert up. MR. BROWN-Boy, I don’t know. It’s not going to be a classified stream. So the DEC or the Park Agency is not going to have any interest in it. Maybe the Lake George Park Commission may have some interest because of the discharge into the lake, but, I don’t know. It’s not something that requires a Town permit. We’re not generating stuff and dumping it off site. You’ve just basically relocated it. MR. MAHONEY-To my yard, and the lake. Thanks. MR. BROWN-Is that where it was before, or did this new piping (lost words) your property? MR. MAHONEY-This culvert wasn’t there before. MR. BROWN-No, but did this new piping direct the water to your property, or was it always running there? MR. MAHONEY-No, no, no. The piping comes from my property up the hill, and there was a patch that was the width of this property that was open land, that would do some filtering before it would get to the pipe to go in, and that’s just been removed. MR. STONE-By filtering, or do you mean it would actually settle into the ground? MR. MAHONEY-Settling, right. MR. STONE-It would be infiltrated into the ground. MR. MAHONEY-To some degree, yes. MR. STONE-I mean, there is civil action, I suppose. MR. BROWN-Well, I don’t think there’s any, and this isn’t legal advice, I’m not an attorney, but I don’t think there’s any onus on this property owner to clean up the water for the next person. Certainly they can’t dirty the water and send it off their site, but because it’s happened that way before, I don’t think they’re charged with keeping it that way. MR. STONE-But if they closed the culvert that was open, and allowing some infiltration on the way by the property, there might be, again, we don’t give legal advice either. MR. MAHONEY-But this isn’t something that you can address here? MR. STONE-Not really. I mean, it may get into, when we start to discuss it, it may be something that is of concern to individual members, and if we can word it in such a way, maybe we could find something, but basically the only requirement on the homeowner is to make sure that any new impermeable surface, the water that would hit that has to be contained on the property itself. In other words, the roof doesn’t, you don’t infiltrate water. Water comes off, and it can’t leave the property, and the plan will be prepared by the builder, the architect, whoever is doing that, to ensure that that’ll be taken care of, whether it’s drainage around the house going into a sump or something like that, but it can’t leave the property. The fact that 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) what’s going on now is of concern to any of us, but the point is it’s not the purview of this particular application, unfortunately. MR. MAHONEY-Okay. Then I still remain very opposed. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak? MICHELLE WILLIAMS MRS. WILLIAMS-My name’s Michelle Williams, and I reside at 80 Seelye Road. My concerns, in listening to what is being said here, the fact that this area is basically a quarter of an acre piece of property. The whole circumference of that area within that Association is basically one acre. Now, I understood that, and I may be wrong, but you only allow so much square footage per acre. You’re allowing the 2300. Are you taking into consideration the other homes that were previously there, and, if I was one of the homeowners within that parcel of property, that circumference, that one acre, and I decide that I would like to put a 2300 square foot, and my neighbor decides I’d like to put another 2300 square foot, and so on. So you’re going to have four houses, now, that are all going to be around about, say even if it was 200 square foot. Would that be something that this Town would approve? That’s my one question? How is that going to be taken into consideration for that one acre, basic, parcel of property? MR. STONE-Well, let me try to explain after I get an answer to a question. When was this land subdivided? AUDIENCE MEMBER MEMBER-Early 50’s. MR. STONE-Early 50’s. So these lots pre-date the one acre zoning. Okay. Having said that, the only rule that applies to a pre-existing nonconforming lot in this particular case, and, Craig, if I’m misspeaking, is the Floor Area Ratio rule, which says that you can have no more than 22% of Floor Area, and that includes first floor, second floor, covered porches, and garages, and that’s 22%. In this case, 22% of approximately 10,500, but, I mean, a quarter of an acre is 10,000. So it’s a little more than a quarter of an acre. So this house, according to our current zoning, and the fact that these are pre-existing, nonconforming small lots, that house can, in fact, be built, and if there are three other quarter acre lots, they, too can. The question before us is a very technical one. Can we allow a house to be built that doesn’t. MRS. WILLIAMS-Conform? MR. STONE-No, not conform, that isn’t on a Town road. That’s the only issue that’s before us. I mean, I think we’re all sympathetic to what you’re saying, but the only part of the Code that applies here, I think as Mr. Mooney said, they do conform to the zoning for that lot. Except that it’s not on a Town road. MRS. WILLIAMS-Does the corners of the building comply with what the setback from each corner of that property? MR. STONE-I assume so. I assume Staff has determined that. MR. BROWN-Yes, based on this proposed plan that they’ve submitted, it looks like the house can fit in there with no setback relief. MRS. WILLIAMS-As well as being able to allow the well and the septic and what have you? We’ve lived on 80 Seelye Road for 18 years. That area, from what I had understood, and I could be very wrong, was considered at one time wetland. That whole area between the Rowlandson’s house and the house that is north floods, every single spring, to probably 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) possibly maybe a foot to two feet of water. It’s a huge issue, or a concern, I would say, for everyone around. MR. STONE-Okay. There is a difference between a wetlands and wet land, unfortunately, that’s the way it is. MRS. WILLIAMS-Yes, I understand that. MR. STONE-A wetland has to be designated by DEC, in most cases, or the Federal government, and that means a land that is normally wet, and, Craig, is that a reasonable definition? MR. BROWN-Pretty close. MR. STONE-It’s normally wet. It’s normally got freestanding water on it. It doesn’t come and go. It’s not, because we’ve had five inches of rain and there’s standing water. MRS. WILLIAMS-It doesn’t seem to have ever been impacted, whether we had a lot of rain or not. It doesn’t seem to be the issue. MR. STONE-Okay, but I’m assuming Staff has determined this is not a designated wetland. MR. BROWN-I have not found any information that it is. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I have a question for you. Did I hear you right, or maybe I didn’t, and I apologize if I didn’t. Did you say that this is an association? MRS. WILLIAMS-Yes. MR. ABBATE-An association has rules, do they not? MRS. WILLIAMS-Yes, I realize that. Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MRS. WILLIAMS-We’re trying to educate ourselves, and I think that you all are here to help us to understand, if I was to the correct understanding. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what we’re trying to do. MRS. WILLIAMS-I understand that. MR. ABBATE-If you have an association, no matter what we say, basically, an example, if an association said there’s no pools to be dug, even if we approve a pool to be dug, the pool will not be dug. MRS. WILLIAMS-Certainly. Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-So if you have an association, closed case. MR. STONE-Who is the association there, just these four lots? MRS. WILLIAMS-I don’t know. AUDIENCE MEMBER (unable to tell who spoke since person was not at microphone!!!) MEMBER-Eight people, the Holiday Point Association. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. STONE-It is the Holiday Point Association. MEMBER-It’s five small cabins in that area that we’re discussing. MR. STONE-There is lakeside property, too, in this? MEMBER-Yes, that actually have access down to the lake (lost words). MR. ABBATE-Okay, and you put these issues to a vote, am I correct? MEMBER-I think you got off the track there, sir. MR. STONE-Well, sir, if you want to question, answer, you can come up, since you have gotten into this discussion. Would you come forward? I mean, if you’re in support of this application, that’s fine. JACK KEATING MR. KEATING-No, I can’t say I’m in support of it. My name is Jack Keating, and we own the property at 88 Seelye Road, myself and my sister who spoke earlier. We’re directly in front of the house in question. MR. STONE-You’re to the north of Seelye Road. MR. KEATING-I would say, this house is behind our house. We’re directly on Seelye Road. We’re east, I would say, of the Rowlandson property. It had nothing to do with the Association, to answer your question. I mean, I think Mrs. Williams was trying to point out that that particular, especially where our house is, that’s always flooded in the spring and had nothing to do with the Association, whether they were going to put in a pool or anything. I understand, before our house was there, the kids used to ice skate there, in the wintertime, because there was always water standing there, but the concern, I guess, is the same as Mr. Mahoney, that the runoff is a problem, always has been. It ends up in the lake. The people who owned the property before Mr. Mahoney had quite a problem with it, too, but again, that’s not your concern, I suppose. MR. STONE-But would you say you’re opposed to this? MR. KEATING-Yes, I’d have to say I’m opposed to the size of the house, I suppose, that they’re trying to build. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen, for Mr. Keating? Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? Let’s read what we’ve got into the record. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Let’s start with the note from the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Department. It was addressed to Craig Brown, signed by Dan Davies. He’s saying, “I’m writing in regards to access into the Ian Rowlandson residence on the private right of way off Seelye Road. We have done an inspection of the site on September 5, 2003 and determined th that both fire and ambulance access to the site will be possible if the cedar trees on the South side of the property are trimmed. If you have any questions or need any additional information please feel free to give me a call. Thank you. Dan Daniel Davies 1 Assistant Chief North st Queensbury Fire Company” And we have a note signed by Ian Rowlandson, saying, “I will trim the cedar trees along the right of way to the satisfaction of the Town of Queensbury and the North Queensbury Fire and Rescue Departments.” And then we have a letter from Christopher Navitsky, the Lake George Water Keeper, and he says, “I have reviewed the application for the variance request for the above referenced project and would like to offer the following comments for the record: 1. The proposed project will bring the site into compliance with the required setbacks. However, there is concern about the ability of the lot to handle the 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) proposed larger structure and provide adequate wastewater management. The size of the proposed structure limits the location of the proposed absorption field. The proposed absorption field will be located over the old stream bed and deep test information should be provided to determine elevation of the existing groundwater which would be the stream elevation. In addition, the proposed absorption field will be located over the existing cobble stone driveway which could have limited capacity due to compaction and alteration of the soil structure. 2. The existing stream is proposed to be relocated and piped to accommodate the proposed structure. However, there is no provision to address site drainage, i.e. where will site runoff be directed. The proposed concrete basin should be designed as a catch basin and the site should be graded to direct runoff to the catch basin. The current design will result in ponding and surface runoff across adjoining properties. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Water Keeper” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-No, that’s it. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak? All right. Let me close the public hearing for the moment. I can always re-open it. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Mr. Mooney, would you care to comment on anything you’ve heard? MR. MOONEY-Well, yes, I do. Number One, I think we’re here, as you said, Mr. Stone, for the variance for the road frontage, not for drainage, side setback, septic, whatever it is. If they comply with all the rules of the Town of Queensbury, that’s a different situation down the road, okay. So that’s Number One. Number Two, I do have an older map, before that was done, to show you where the stream, and what it is, it’s a stream that comes off the mountain in back of them, in the springtime, and it runs in the springtime. It usually gets very dry in the summer. There’s nothing. The reason why they did this is so they would have more use of their property. It’s still on their property. It just flows into a pipe, and we have had, and I understand Mr. Mahoney’s concerns. We’ve had a lot of rain this summer, and it’s been abnormally wet everywhere. So, this thing has been running more than it usually does. It only usually, what I’ve seen in the last couple of years, it usually stops about the 15 of May, for the th whole summer. So wherever he’s getting his water from may be from some other place. The culvert was always there from the Rowlandson property under Seelye Road, and I don’t know what happens to it after it goes under Seelye Road, but it’s always been there from the edge of their property down to the road. Across the property was an open ditch the width of this table, very shallow like this. It wasn’t deep, and it just, it was a runoff thing for the springtime, and they just basically moved it. Now, we just recently, the property is being engineered by an architect and by North Country Engineering for a septic system. They just dug down eight feet, right next to the pipe, and there’s not a drop of water. For a half an hour. You wait a half an hour to see if it comes in, nothing. So that’s their job to take care of that, the engineers. Not for me to explain that, but I think, and also, the other issue is that the size of the house, I guess, is an issue also. The current footprint of the house is 900 and some odd feet. It’s a one story home. The new footprint is going to be 1300 square feet, a two story home which makes it 2300. So as far as the size of the house on the property, it’s not really changing by, I mean, yes, it’s going from 980 to 1100, something like that. MR. STONE-What you’re saying is well and good, but I am disturbed by something you said. That it only enters the lake when there’s runoff in the winter. The lake is there year round, and the lake is affected year round. MR. MOONEY-I agree with you, but what they did to the property didn’t change that runoff. It’s still going to happen. It’s got to go somewhere. Just now it’s in a pipe instead of going across the ground. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. STONE-But as one might argue, at least if it ran across the ground, the flow was reduced by what the ground may have accepted. MR. MOONEY-I think that’s for somebody else to decide. MR. STONE-I won’t argue that, but it’s a concern that I certainly could have. I can’t speak for the rest of the Board. MR. MOONEY-Right. MR. STONE-Anything else you want to say? MR. MOONEY-I guess that’s all. MR. STONE-Okay. So basically what you’re seeking is a variance for building a home that meets all other requirements, and will meet requirements of handling increased flow, not current flow, but increased flow caused by the increase in non-permeable surface. MR. MOONEY-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Norm. Since you’re about to leave us, Norm, we’ll let you go first. MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I think that we all understand, now, probably, that the sizeable square footage, in terms of impermeability, and floor area ratio, you know, the runoff, roof size is what I’m driving at, a lot of the addition is going up. So the roof isn’t becoming that dimensionally much bigger in surface area that it was before, is my understanding, but the point, as I see it here, is that we’re really confined to one problem that we’re to look at, and that’s relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement. Because he’s not on a public road, and on the basis of the communication we got from the fire department and emergency squad that serves his area, they feel that this is not a problem, and so I don’t feel, especially since there’s been a domicile there for years, using this, that I would deny the application. So, I mean, I can sympathize with all that’s been said. It’s not in our purview to get into those things, and I don’t see them as influencing me to the extent to say no, on the technicality of the road frontage, when it’s been currently in use for many years. So I would support the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Would you comment, and I’ll ask all of you to comment, on should we consider asking for site plan review by the Planning Board, in light of the number of neighbors who have raised the issue. MR. HIMES-I would certainly say, yes, not that I want to give the Planning Board any more work than it already has, but I think in this instance, in fairness to all concerned, it would be a good idea. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. I would echo what Norm has to say. We only address what you’re requesting, and that’s relief from the 40 foot frontage requirement. My major concern was the fire protection, and you have, or your client has agreed to trim the trees, and based upon what the Chief of a particular fire department has stated, trimming the trees would allow them access to the property. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t find your request unreasonable, and based upon what I’ve heard this evening, I am in favor of supporting your request. MR. MOONEY-Thank you. MR. STONE-Any comment about site plan? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. ABBATE-I, quite frankly, don’t feel any reason for that. I think it should be the initiative of the Planning Board to determine that, not the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, they don’t see it if we don’t tell them. MR. ABBATE-No, my answer is, no, I don’t feel it should be reviewed. MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I feel a lot of sympathy for the homeowners who are affected, but if you look at it, I guess it’s not going to be that much more water, but I would request a site plan review, because I think some of the things that have been done may have exacerbated the problems, but if we just have to look at the 40 foot frontage, I would have to say I would vote for that, with the stipulation that the Planning Board have a site plan review. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m afraid I’m going to have to come down on the negative side, and my reasoning is that, in many cases, when we get these 40 foot reliefs from the minimum road frontage it’s to get to some place. Because there is, it’s the only way they have to their property, and I’m not sure this is the solution. I think we’re trying to get around things here rather than go to something. When I look at it, I see some changes that have been made to the house that may cause changes to the property, and as a result, it’s not the same house. It’s a bigger house, and it may have some adverse effect on the neighborhood. It may have some adverse effect on the surrounding properties, and that’s two of the criteria that we have to look at, and I think one of the questions we have is whether there will be an undesirable change to the neighborhood, and that possibility exists, and there’s whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant. Maybe not. I’m not sure. As far as the requested Area Variance being substantial, these are normally substantial variances which we approve, I would say, almost always, basically, like I said earlier, because it’s the only way to something, and this one seems to be going around something, and I’m not comfortable with it, and then we have to think about the adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and with just the flow of the water, has the potential to have that detrimental effect, and by allowing the road to the back, we’re basically giving the okay to that, and I think the difficulty is self-created. So I’m going to be negative on it. I would not approve this. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I’m in favor of the variance. I think Norm pointed out quite well that our charge, under the Town Code, is a very specific one, and it’s an application of this test, based on, in this particular case, one piece of relief, and that relief is not having the 40 feet of road frontage that’s required by the Code, and what, you know, applying the test to that. I think the letter from the services that are charged with servicing this property, the fire and ambulance, that they’re satisfied, or even a request was made for some tree modifications there. To me, that falls heavily in favor of the applicant, to the extent that now there’s a service to this road. I also would comment that I think we’re treading in dangerous water, as a Board, when a home that complies with the laws that are set forth, as far as floor area ratio setback, sewage, all these things, if that’s legal on this parcel, then it’s legal, and I think that the floor area ratio, I think most people associated with planning, or attorneys in Town, would tell you that that’s an aggressive plan, a good plan, that we control the square footage that’s developed on small parcels with the law, and we’ve enforced that very thoroughly here, with this Board, historically, but this particular piece of property, this plan, complies with that as well, and, to me, I understand why the neighbors don’t want it, and I even understand why they’re upset a little bit, but I think it’s dangerous to get outside of the test of what we’re really supposed to be examining, and that’s the 40 foot dimensional relief in this particular case. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. ABBATE-Well said, Jaime. MR. HAYES-So, I’m in favor of the application. I am in favor of site plan review, to the benefit of the neighbors, to have the stormwater and all those important aspects of this plan studied and perfected so that nothing improper happens with that stormwater, and that the infiltration that’s required on this site actually happens. I think that we don’t refer a lot of things to the Planning Board, and we’re certainly not interested in packing their agenda, but maybe this is one of those cases where it needs to be done. It could be a service to the property owner and the neighbors, and to me that’s enough of a reason to do it, but strictly on the test that’s before us, the one piece of relief, I find the test, I think it falls strongly in favor of the applicant. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, Part A, I guess, is looking at the narrow issue that we’re being asked to look at, whether or not to grant the variance for the 40 foot frontage. I think I’m in favor of granting it. I don’t see any detriment to the neighborhood, as far as that particular thing. As has already been said, regarding the floor area ratio, I’m inclined to agree. As the applicant’s pointed out, the footprint, if you will, is not a lot greater than what’s already there. It’s just that there’s going to be a second story, but it still falls within the criteria for the floor area ratio, and the floor area ratio was enacted deliberately to control the size of homes on small lots, and this home meets the requirement. So I don’t see where we can object to that, unless any of these items could be construed to seriously affect the character of the neighborhood. I’m a little torn on the issue of the water and the runoff, because it sounds as though perhaps the applicant has exacerbated the situation a little bit by piping the water through, and I suppose you could argue that he’s supposed to take care of any water that comes on to his property and not let it run off, but that’s a little extreme. It’s one thing to take care of what rain falls, and another thing to take care of what stream comes in to his property. As far as referring it for site plan review, I guess I wouldn’t object, but I’m not sure that it’s really fair, because this is, again, I think, trying to put the burden back on this particular property owner to solve the problem that really is created by properties upstream from where he is, and it strikes me that perhaps a more appropriate solution would be for the Association, if it covers the number of properties from this area, to get together with Soil and Conservation service and see if they can’t come up with some kind of a plan for them that would solve this problem covering several properties. I don’t think it should fall just on this property owner, but all that being said, I’d be in favor of the variance. MR. STONE-I basically concur with the Board members. The issue before us, and I know it’s sometimes hard for the public, who has a concern and who see a problem, to accept the narrowness of what we have to do, and certainly in terms of the 40 foot right of way, with the consideration by the property owner or with the statement by the property owner, that he will, in fact, trim the trees to make it acceptable to the fire and rescue companies is sufficient reason for me to say, go ahead. Obviously, this is a small lot, but it’s a pre-existing, nonconforming lot, and putting a house on that conforms to the law, in terms of its size, there’s nothing we can do about it. However, having said that, I certainly will vote for the variance, but I also encourage the motion to ask for site plan review. I think there’s enough concern by the neighbors, there’s enough uncertainty, if you will, of how this came about, whether or not the amount of water coming off the property is more than it was before this thing was built. Certainly, we know that the new building will take care of any new water. I mean, that’s a given. That’s according to our Code. We also know that the septic, an acceptable approved septic system will be put in. We don’t have to know what it is and how it’s going to be done, but it’s certainly going to have to meet the Queensbury Code and the approval of our Building Department, but I do think the stormwater concerns raised by the public, and it is always of interest to me, personally, when so many people come out to say, I’m concerned that things aren’t the way they were. I’m concerned about, is there an increased impact upon the lake. I happen to be, obviously, a very strong believer in Lake George, very strong supporter and defender of Lake George, and there’s no secret to that, and that was one of the reasons I was concerned, when you say, well, it only happens in the winter. The lake doesn’t know whether it’s winter or summer. If you’re putting stuff in the lake that shouldn’t be there, then that’s not good, but, so I would ask for a motion, therefore, to approve Area Variance No. 77-2003, with a request that this be submitted to the 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) Planning Board for site plan review, and that the motion should also indicate the owner’s willingness and agreement to trimming back the cedar line. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2003 IAN ROWLANDSON, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 42 Seelye Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 2300 square foot single-family dwelling and seeks relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. The relief requested, the applicant seeks 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum road frontage requirement per Section 179-4-090. The reasons in support of this approval are that there does not appear that there would be any undesirable change in the neighborhood as a result of approving this application, in that the pathway presently used to access the structure that is there now and has been there for a number of years, and hasn’t been in use for a very long time, and isn’t being changed in any way, with the exception of some tree stuff which I’ll get to in a moment, and is there a feasible alternative that the applicant might pursue that might not require relief, and it doesn’t appear to me that there is. There’s only one way, there’s some mention in the files about another right of way, but limited as this one is to less than 40 feet. So there’s no other practical, or even possible, feasible alternative to the problem the applicant has, and the Area Variance is substantial, but only in terms of that part of the Code that’s involved, and that is the 40 foot requirement, and the existing driveway, so to speak, is somewhat less than that. So maybe it’s moderate, I would say, and this variance itself is not going to have any negative impact on the neighborhood in general, or the Town, again, focusing on just what this variance is. In addition to these, we’d like to have, we request that the Planning Board do a site plan review on this application because of, I’d like to refer to the Chairman’s comments and the substantial interest on the neighborhood in connection with some matters involving water, water runoff and so forth that has been evidently altered in some way and is not in our capacity to analyze and review that condition or what might be done about it or what impact it may have on the approval of the project overall, and additionally, we would have a condition that the trees referred to that run along the driveway be trimmed back to the extent satisfactory to the local fire department and rescue squad, so that their vehicles can come and go, unobstructed, and unless there are other comments that might be added by Board members, I feel that’s it, and I would move again, that we approve the application as submitted. Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Urrico MR. STONE-There you go, sir. MR. MOONEY-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II PETER DEMBOSKI AGENT: JAMES MOONEY OWNER: PETER DEMBOSKI ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 64 RUSSELL HARRIS RD., CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 240 SQ. FT. DOCK AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/10/03 TAX MAP NO. 240.05-1-11 LOT SIZE: 0.22 ACRES SECTION: 179-5-50 PETER DEMBOSKI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 79-2003, Peter Demboski, Meeting Date: September 24, 2003 “Project Location: 64 Russell Harris Rd., Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of a 240+ sf “L” dock and replacement with a 240 sf straight dock. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) Relief Required: Applicant seeks 20 feet of relief on both sides from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement per §179-5-020. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 23-95 res. 05/25/95 Sundeck Staff comments: It is unclear from the plot plan submitted as to exactly where the property lines are to be extended for purposes of determining setbacks. Staff position is that the 47.41 ft line shall be the determinative southerly boundary line. When this line is extended it crosses an extension of the northerly line resulting in no viable area for compliant construction. The proposed dock construction/re-alignment appears to be a reasonable alternative to the existing conditions.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 10, 2003 Project Name: Demboski, Peter Owner: Peter Demboski ID Number: QBY-03-AV-79 County Project#: Sep03-27 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 240 sq. ft. dock and seeks relief from the minimum setback requirements. Site Location: 64 Russell Harris Road, Cleverdale Tax Map Number(s): 240.05-1-11 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to remove an existing 240 sq. ft. dock and to construct a 40’ x 6’ dock in a different location. The new dock will be 14’ from the west side and 10’ from the east side where 20’ is required on either side. The information submitted indicates the applicant would like to make the dock more compliant. The plans show the new and existing location of the dock and the property layout. The plans also show an existing boathouse on the property. Staff is concerned with the vessel movement interference between dock use and boat house use. Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact The County Planning Board recommends No County Impact.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 9/12/03. MR. STONE-Gentlemen. MR. DEMBOSKI-Hi. My name is Peter Demboski. I’m here on behalf of my myself and my wife, and the co-owners of the property, Cyrus and Sally Dixon. I’m basically here to confirm the plans that Jim Mooney has drawn, in regards to me seeking relief of the current dock situation that I have. It’s my understanding that the dock that I’m dealing with now is in total disrepair. It is, basically the dock that was built when the camp was originally built back in the 1930’s. I’m seeking relief in regards to having the dock moved. That’ll allow me to have access to both sides of the dock, for boating purposes, and also a larger, safer shallow swimming area for our children, and I think it’s important also to note that I believe that this proposal brings an improvement to the neighborhood, to the neighbors, and to the lake. Thank you. JAMES MOONEY MR. MOONEY-Basically Peter said I guess what he’s looking for is for improvement of the dock. The dock was built back in the 30’s when Howard Mason built the docks, and the reason why he put the dock at that angle, I believe, is because, we’ve been down looking at it, there’s a rock under it, at the end of it, and he didn’t want to move the rock. So he put the dock over it, you know, that’s what they did years ago. They didn’t have the equipment to do things that we have today, but that’s my feeling of what, I don’t know if you people have been up there and looked at this. I know Craig has, you know, it’s just weird the way it was built. It doesn’t follow any property line. MR. STONE-Would you comment about the property lines? I will admit, per my original comment, that I did have communication with the property owner to the north who saw me when I was looking at the property, and raised some questions in my mind that I have attempted to get Staff to understand. I don’t understand the property lines, and I’m concerned, and I’ll just give you my concern, that if we were to allow this dock to be built, that we might be actually on somebody else’s property, because these lines, the way they come together and this 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) right of way in here, obviously, it has a property line, and I just would like you to comment on it. MR. MOONEY-You’ve got the map in front of you? MR. STONE-I’ve got this survey. MR. MOONEY-Okay. Well, your north line is basically pretty obvious. MR. STONE-No problem with the north line. I mean, the dock is encroaching on the other man’s property. MR. MOONEY-Exactly, and if you look at the one with the southern lines, what I did, I took one line, and puts it way off their property, which it doesn’t make sense, and what I did do is go perpendicular to the shoreline, and that’s where I came up with the 10 feet from the new dock. I figured that that was a good happy medium to come to, as to trying to figure out, this is such an odd shaped lot, there was no other way to try to figure out, you took the best shot you could. MR. STONE-Okay. I was going to ask Staff a question, but get confirmation first. He kind of refers to 47.41, and that’s the line that on one end says 86.0900 west. MR. MOONEY-No. MR. STONE-Which is the 47 latitude line? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. That’s the line that I would determine at the southern. MR. STONE-The line that goes right toward the boathouse? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-With the two dots near the boathouse. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-So if that’s the line, I mean, the boathouse seems to be on somebody else’s property, and both docks do. I mean, I’m concerned, we can’t give relief on somebody else’s property, and I have no problem, I mean, I understand what we’re trying to do, if there’s a dock, but I’ve got to be concerned that we’re doing something illegal. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, may I make a point of order, please? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. ABBATE-At the beginning of the meeting, you made it clear, you were quite right that we shouldn’t be talking to neighbors, yet you just mentioned that you spoke to a neighbor, and as a result, it raised questions in your mind. This means, then, that no evidence should be received. No witnesses should be heard, and no decision taken except at a meeting open to the public. In that case, if it raised questions in your mind, I suggest you recuse yourself. MR. STONE-I’m perfectly willing to do that, if you think. MR. ABBATE-I really wish you would. MR. STONE-Fine. I will recuse myself. Jim, I have been asked to recuse myself, and I shall. Would you come and sit in this seat. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. MC NULTY-In the meantime, I’d like to make a comment on this whole topic. I realize that it was an attorney that made this point, but I think that it’s kind of case of, in a sense it’s saying, boy, don’t confuse us with any information or facts. Let us shut our ears, shut our eyes and make a decision blindly. I think there is a place to talk to neighbors, to talk to the applicant when you’re out there. It should not be a secret conversation. It should be reported, but I don’t think it’s a bad thing. Our job is to make a decision on the best information possible. That means we have to have information, and it should be reported when we get it, but I think I’d take an issue with the legal opinion, if that’s what it was. MR. ABBATE-And I agree with you 100%, Chuck. MR. BROWN-If I could just follow up and clarify what I understand the position of any conversation you have when you’re out on an inspection of a property, you can certainly talk to a property owner. You can talk to a neighbor. I think what the Chairman was trying to say is, if you do that, you should make that a point at the meeting to tell everybody that you did that. I don’t think he was trying to say don’t do it. He was trying to say, if you do it, make it a point that when you come to the meeting, let everybody know so you avoid the, you know, the possible implication of, hey, I saw you out talking to the neighbor, but you didn’t tell everybody at the meeting you talked to him. What we were you talking about? Be right up front at the meeting. Tell everybody you had a conversation with the neighbor or the applicant and then it’s no longer ex parte communication. It’s a part of the public record. I think that’s where he was going with this. MR. ABBATE-Well, this is true, but if you say you spoke to an individual, and as a result of the conversation you gathered evidence which raised questions in your mind, that almost is like a pre-positioning, if you will. That’s not fair to the applicant. MR. URRICO-I guess also, just to weigh in on this point, I don’t understand the difference between having a letter read, having a neighbor appear in front of us, and actually seeing somebody on site. I mean, to me, it’s all part of the information gathering process. If it helps us make a decision, it shouldn’t have an impact on anything. MR. ABBATE-Agreed, Roy. MR. BROWN-I don’t disagree with you, and again, this is not legal advice. This is my understanding of it, but if you do that, if you go to the site and you talk to somebody and you make a decision based on that information that you don’t share with everybody, I don’t think that’s a good idea, and if you’re going to make that decision based on the information you got from this person, that’s fine. Let everybody else know what that information is. Don’t keep it to yourself, and I think that’s what the Chairman was trying to say. If you have these conversations, make it public knowledge that you had them. That’s it. MRS. HUNT-But is that a reason to recuse yourself? MR. ABBATE-Right. She’s absolutely right. MR. BROWN-That’s up to the individual. I wouldn’t say so. If I go to a property and I ask a question, and I don’t know the answer to it, and it makes me think of another question, hey, that’s more questions to be answered. It’s up to the individual. MR. URRICO-It sounds like the Chairman shared that information with us, and therefore does not need to recuse himself. MR. BROWN-It’s the individual’s opportunity to do that. MR. ABBATE-If you want him to come back, be my guest. I’m not going to object. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. BROWN-But if I could just answer, I think there was a question about which property line to use. My position is, and the Town Staff position is, the line that’s denoted on the map, 47.41 feet long, where that intersects the smaller line segment that’s labeled L-1, I think at that point where L-1 and the 47 foot line intersect, I think that’s the point where the shoreline is. So, from L-1, L-2, L-3, all the way over to the other side of the concrete, the northern side of where that small concrete dock is, that’s their shore frontage. So I think this dock, and this boathouse is firmly located on their property. Again, it’s unclear from the map, and certainly an updated survey would be helpful to clarify it, but I think the 47.41 foot line is the southerly line. MR. HAYES-Can we proceed? Okay. All right. Are there any questions for the applicant? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you, Jaime. How many boats do you have in use? How many boats do you dock there? MR. DEMBOSKI-Two. MR. HIMES-Two. So you do, the other side of the dock, are you planning on additional boat usage, or you’re saying that you want to free up something so you can get at the other side of the dock? MR. DEMBOSKI-I’m basically looking for, to have access to both sides of my dock, and for the record, I have no intention of renting that space. So are you all clear with that? It’s nice to have the opportunity that if I have a family member or friend that’s going to come over to visit by boat, that they have a place to put their boat. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. MR. DEMBOSKI-And that’s strictly my intention. MR. ABBATE-You indicated earlier that this was built in the 1930’s. Obviously, it’s quite old, and one of the pillars, post, supports are on a rock. MR. MOONEY-The cribbing, on the end of it. MR. ABBATE-And what do you folks propose to do? MR. MOONEY-Put it in the new position on the map and removing that rock. It’s not that big. I mean, it was just an easier way to do it, I guess, back then. I don’t know what they did back then. MR. ABBATE-So what construction you’re going to be taking, then, really would be more of a, would include a safety factor as well. MR. MOONEY-We’re just replacing what’s there. It is an “L” now. It’s not going to be an “L” any more. It’s going to be a straight pier, and just placing it in a safer environment. He has little kids that swim on the right side of the dock. It’s sandy over there, and it’s very dangerous, it really is, in the way it’s situated right now. MR. ABBATE-Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth. What I was going to say is this. Would I be accurate in assessing it this way, because I took a look. That based on the age of the dock, and based on the fact that it’s being supported by a rock, which could always move, that the situation is potentially dangerous. MR. MOONEY-Right, which I tried to repair it this summer. I could not. It was impossible. It fell apart as I took it apart. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. MOONEY-You’re welcome. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DONNA MITCHELL MRS. MITCHELL-My name is Donna Mitchell, and my property is at 66 Russell Harris Road. MR. HAYES-Is that north or south? MRS. MITCHELL-Well, I’m trying to picture the sun setting whatever. MR. HAYES-Well, according to the map that was submitted, are you above or below? MRS. MITCHELL-Below, but I don’t have lake frontage, my property is behind the property that we’re talking about, and I have dock rights to the side of the boathouse that is below. MR. HAYES-Okay. MRS. MITCHELL-So we keep our kayaks there, and our neighbors don’t use that and don’t put, don’t have that available to themselves to put a boat there, and I feel like what they’re proposing is going to be an improvement. There’s some debris out there, in front of the boathouse, from an ancient dock, with rusty pieces of metal sticking up, and we hesitate to swim because of that, and they said that, as part of this thing, they’re going to be trying to shake loose some of that metal and get that out of there. So it’s only going to be an improvement for us, so that we can feel comfortable swimming off of our side of that boathouse. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MRS. MITCHELL-You’re welcome. MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that wishes to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We do have a couple of pieces of correspondence. One is from James and Nancy White. They show an address of 52 and a half Russell Harris Road, and they say, “Because we are unable to attend the Wednesday, September 24 public hearing, we are faxing th our approval of Mr. Demboski’s new dock. We feel that this quality project will improve upon not only the Demboski property but also the neighboring properties. We already contacted Mr. Mooney and are satisfied with the details of this project”. And we have a record of a phone conversation came in to the Planning Department on September 22 from Mary Brownell who nd also shows a 52 and a half Russell Harris Road address, and says Mary is in favor of the application and supports Peter Demboski and the construction of his dock. MR. HAYES-Thank you. If that’s the end of the correspondence, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. DEMBOSKI-I just feel that it’s important for me to note to you that I believe the conversation that Mr. Stone had with my neighbor to the north was Mr. Spath, who was here tonight, and left just before our meeting started, and it’s my belief, based on our proposal that our proposal is in favor for him also. It’s giving him more space to part of his property. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Okay. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, before we go on, regarding the question of the property line and where it should be drawn, looking at Section 179-5-50, Docks and Moorings, Number Six, it says every dock or wharf constructed shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the adjacent property line, extended into the lake on the same axis as the property line runs on shore, where it meets the lake, which is what Mr. Brown was talking about, or at a right angle to the mean high water mark, whichever results in the greater setback. Now I’m not sure what that means. I think this is another case where it would have been nice to have had the attorney here. Because I don’t know whether greater setback means wider or narrower. MR. HAYES-Craig, could you answer that? MR. BROWN-I could certainly answer that for you. What it means is whatever setback is most restrictive to the subject property is the one you use. So in this case you use an extension of the line, which would result in a greater setback for the neighbors. MR. ABBATE-The most restrictive. Okay. Thank you. MR. BROWN-I guess, has everybody had their questions answered satisfactorily? All right. We’ll talk about it according to my instructions. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Again, I always, I attempt, I don’t always succeed, but I attempt to place my position in that of when the appellate comes before the Board and has an appeal. Now, would I do, what the individual is requesting, and the answer probably is, yes, I would. Based on the information that I received this evening, and what I’ve seen, it’s obvious that it’s an old structure. It’s been confirmed that it was built somewhere around the 1930’s, something like that, and it’s on a rock, one of the foundation’s is on a rock, and if I had young children or a guest, I would be quite concerned about litigation. I would be concerned about a safety factor, and it would seem to me that the amount of funds, which I don’t know and I don’t care, going in to rebuilding this thing is going to cost a considerable amount of money. I think, in the final analysis, Mr. Demboski’s project would probably increase and probably improve the area, in terms of the neighborhood, and based on the information this evening, I would support your application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I generally agree with what’s been said. I do have a question, though. The boathouse, is that on the property? MR. MOONEY-Yes, it is. MRS. HUNT-It is. MR. MOONEY-As an extension of the one line. There’s many lines to extend on this thing. It goes so in and out that, but it is on the property. MRS. HUNT-Okay. Thank you. MR. MOONEY-It’s on the water . Really. MRS. HUNT-Yes. Then I would have no problems with this applicant’s request. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with my Board members. I think this would be an improvement to that area, and neighbors seem to concur. So I would be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I, too, would be in agreement. I think that, you know, you’re going to increase the setbacks from what they are at the present time and also, you know, do the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood is a concern, and by removing the old structures under the water, that’s going to improve things also. So, I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m in favor with, I guess, improving what the applicant’s requesting. As the Chairman mentioned before he recused himself, I think there may be a technical question here, because if we follow the instructions that’s in the Town Ordinance, then according to the Town, not even the boathouse is on this person’s property. So whether we can legally grant relief or not, I’m not sure, but if we can, I’m certainly in favor of doing it. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Brown may be able to answer that question. MR. BROWN-Well, yes, I don’t think there’s any concern over whether the boathouse or even the dock is on the property. What happens is when you extend those property lines beyond the shoreline, or beyond the mean high or mean low, whichever, you know, philosophy you subscribe to, when you extend those lines for the purposes of setbacks, they cross, but the line, the amount of shoreline between one side and the other is owned by the applicant, and anything connected to that is on the property. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I guess that, then, raises the question of how we might word the variance. MR. HIMES-What did you just say, Craig, about the? MR. BROWN-What’s your question? MR. HIMES-In terms of the boathouse, you were saying in spite of the fact, I thought I heard in spite of the fact that you continue this line referred to, 47.41, right along and it’s zigzagging, it’s going right through the middle of the boathouse. MR. BROWN-I guess what I would say is where this line comes down, and hits the shore right here, that’s the site of the property line. All this shoreline in here, over to this point, goes through this property line. It’s just unique that there’s a little (lost words) behind the boathouse, and the boathouse doesn’t actually connect to the shore. MR. HIMES-But this would continue? MR. BROWN-For the purposes of determining a setback, you’d continue this line out right here. So they don’t really have a compliant place to build it. MR. HIMES-Yes, but I wonder about another survey. As you said, if, you know. MR. BROWN-It might clarify the shoreline. Yes. MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. HAYES-The one question I had is he’s showing, on this map here, he’s showing 10 feet and 14 feet of setback of the dock, versus the axis’s of the property lines there. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. HAYES-But he says the applicant is seeking 20 feet of relief on both sides, which is really full relief, no setback. I mean, should that be six and ten feet of relief or is that because those axis’s cross eventually? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. BROWN-They cross actually behind where this dock is proposed. Closer to the shore. So if you grant full relief, then they’re all set. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Whatever number you grant, it’s based on this plan. So if it’s constructed according to this plan, if there’s any confusion, it has to match this plan. If you grant full relief, that doesn’t mean they can move it over to the property line. They have to comply with this plan. MR. ABBATE-So 20 foot of relief would be acceptable? MR. HAYES-Well, he’s saying it’s the only thing that really would work. MR. BROWN-Yes. I mean, because the lines cross, actually, up on land. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. HAYES-All right. Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I’m kind of sympathetic with what the Chairman said, as stated by Chuck. I agree with his comments that I also, in the Staff comments when they say it’s unclear from the plot plan submitted as to exactly where the property lines are to be, and so on, it is unclear to me, too. A lot of times they are, not necessarily just this application, but I’m wondering if a current survey might help a little bit in determining exactly what the setback requirements, what is happening here, I guess. MR. MOONEY-Could I comment on that? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. MOONEY-It was just re-surveyed, and the points are where they are. Nothing has changed. We just had it re-surveyed, and nothing has changed at all. I mean, there’s no mistakes on this map. MR. ABBATE-What’s the date of the survey? Just for the record? MR. DEMBOSKI-It was done within the last two weeks. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So it was done in the month of September 2003? MR. MOONEY-Yes, and nothing has changed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. No, I just wanted to get it on the record, that’s all. MR. BROWN-Mr. Abbate, is your question what’s the date of the survey they submitted? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. BROWN-What’s the date of the survey you submitted? MR. MOONEY-I don’t know. It’s March 14, 1992. MR. DEMBOSKI-That was the survey we had (lost words) property. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and you had another survey done this month? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. MOONEY-Yes, and nothing has changed. MR. ABBATE-Okay, but have you submitted that to the Zoning Administrator? MR. MOONEY-No, because we just wanted it re-pinned to see where the pins, we thought they were, according to this map are there, and they really are there, I mean, this map’s not going to change. MR. ABBATE-May I respectfully submit that it would have completed your package, had you submitted that survey to the, to be included in here. MR. MOONEY-Maybe I should have gotten a letter from Steve say that nothing has, there’s no sense of doing it. MR. ABBATE-Some documentation. MR. MOONEY-Because he says nothing’s changed. Why do another map. So I said, okay. Don’t do another map. MR. ABBATE-May I suggest that one be submitted to the Zoning Administrator, please? MR. MOONEY-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. HIMES-Well, anyway, to continue, I don’t feel confident on voting one way or the other on this application because it doesn’t show where the lines cross. I mean, Staff is unclear about it. I’ll go along that it’s unclear to me, too, and I don’t know what could be done to clarify it, but it just looks, to me, like everything on here is nonconforming, and so, what can be done about that, in terms of some mitigation or some compromises, possibly, I don’t know. I don’t have anybody, I might say at this point, too, that I did have a short conversation with the same gentleman that the Chairman did. It was unavoidable. I usually try to avoid conversations with the applicant or neighbors, and he said a few things to me, none of which I really remember. He was talking about the past history and all, and basically said that he was, you know, not really affected by the change at all, on his side, but was concerned that we’d be just moving a problem from him to someone else, further encroaching on someone else. Well, whatever that means, for the record, I’ve said that I did talk to the neighbor, as our new rules require. So I’m just going to say that I feel that the information presented to me is a little bit incomplete, or I don’t understand it. So I’m going to pass. I probably will abstain if it comes down to it. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. I guess it’s my turn. I think I feel similarly to most of the Board, in that certainly this regulation and the extension of property lines out into the lake can certainly cause some confusion, but at times it does work to perfect property rights and docks. In this particular case, taken to an extreme because of a little bit of an unclear boundary line. It certainly adds to more confusion, but, compelling to me in this particular matter is the fact that any way to slice it in this particular case the dock, as it exists now, is in a state of disrepair and is on, clearly encroaching on somebody else’s property line, which to me amounts to a negative setback, and when we have a chance to remedy a negative setback, and improve a structure, and, as Jim pointed out, possibly remove some potential hazards in the lake, I think that, you know, the balance of the test would fall in favor of the applicant. I don’t see any negative impact on the neighborhood of allowing this applicant to take care of some business here that arguably needs to be taken care of. I don’t think the relief, while the relief is certainly substantial, based on the nature of the property line, as Staff, correctly, pointed out, there isn’t a plan out there that wouldn’t require substantial relief. So I don’t think this difficulty is self-created. I think it’s the nature of the existing piece and how the property lines protrude out into the lake. I don’t think, and I’m not sure if there’s any feasible method out there to improve this dock or to get access to both sides of it, as the applicant desires, which is a perfectly natural thing to do on the lake. So, 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) on balance, I think I’m in favor of the application. I will call for a motion, in a second but I’d like just to clarify what we talked about with Craig, in that we, because of the way the lines transverse in this particular case, we’ll need to approve it, or disapprove it, based on 20 feet of relief on both sides, and there needs to be a specific reference to completion as depicted in the applicant’s submission, and that will give us grounds for adequate enforcement of what’s being contemplated here in this proposal. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion? MR. ABBATE-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-2003 PETER DEMBOSKI, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 64 Russell Harris Rd., Cleverdale. Mr. Demboski proposes removal of a 240 square foot L dock and replace it with a 240 square foot straight dock. The relief required. The applicant seeks 20 feet of relief on both sides of the 20 foot minimum side setback relief per Section 179-5-020, and at this point I think it’s important to emphasize that 20 foot of relief on both sides is basically what we’re stating, and the parcel history, construction site plan sundeck was made in 1995. Now, relief required. The individual is seeking 20 feet of relief, and as I indicated, that we are making the point to state that 20 feet of relief on both sides. The benefit to the applicant, based on the testimony this evening, it appears that there are several benefits to the applicant. Number One, the structure was constructed in the 1930’s and may pose a security hazard for guests as well as children and family, and the new construction would improve the environment. Feasible alternatives, based upon the nature of the existing environment, etc., I don’t know that there are any feasible alternatives. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? It is substantial. However, as I indicated, and I believe the Chairman indicated, too, that the nature that exists in the environment goes back a number of years, and no matter what you do, there would be substantial relief required. Effects on the neighborhood, I didn’t hear anybody object that it would have any adverse effects. In my opinion it would improve the neighborhood. As a matter of fact one of the representatives of the applicant indicated that the neighbor was here this evening and didn’t decide to stay, but one of the Board members did speak to him and he indicated that he had no problems with this project. So, is this difficulty self-created? That’s a tough one. I don’t think I’d like to walk on a dock that was built in the 1930’s, supported by a rock and a lake. I guess if you could call this self-created, okay, I’d have to say yes. However, based on the information this evening there is a safety factor involved, and I think that may mitigate the self-creation. It’s also important that we mention that the applicant does meet the same access or knee high watermark as indicated to us by the Zoning Administrator, and apparently he does, and based upon that, Mr. Chairman, I move that the application be approved. As a stipulation of approval, the project must be completed in strict compliance with the plan submitted, and the applicant also agrees to submit to the Zoning Administrator an updated survey taken in September of 2003. Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Himes MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. MOONEY-Thank you. MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. MR. STONE-We have a couple of things that we have to do. We’ve got to do minutes, but we also have a request that, this is a request from Jonathan Lapper, to Chairman, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, in reference to George and Marilyn Stark’s Comfort 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) Suites Hotel. He is requesting the following. I think you all have copies. Let me just read it, though. “On behalf of the applicants, I am hereby requesting that the ZBA reconsider its resolution of last Wednesday, and instead pass a resolution at your September 24 meeting th consenting to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for the SEQRA review of this project. After further discussions with the Town Zoning Administrator, we now feel that in light of the additional archeological issues that have been raised, it would be more efficient and timely to have a coordinated SEQRA review with respect to the project. Since the Planning Board is most familiar with SEQRA, it makes practical sense for the Planning Board to act as Lead Agency. Once the Planning Board makes the SEQRA determination, we would then be back to the Zoning Board, hopefully at the second meeting in November, for review of a variance application. Thank you for your consideration, Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper” Anybody wish to comment on the request? MR. ABBATE-Yes. I’d like to, if I may, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Surely. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. BROWN-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I guess just one quick question before we go too far into this. MR. ABBATE-Sure. MR. BROWN-There may be somebody here for the Susan Salvo application that came in late. I don’t know if they got the message that they weren’t going to hear it tonight. MR. STONE-We’re not going to hear it. She requested a delay until next month, an adjournment. She couldn’t be here tonight. MR. HAYES-We did announce it, though. MR. STONE-Yes, we did announce it at the beginning. Sorry. MR. BROWN-She’s requested October 15. That’s what we’ve got her scheduled for right now. th MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Nothing’s changed. She just couldn’t make it tonight, and usually the agendas are posted on the website, too, and it’s pretty easy to access. It’s always helpful to call, too. MR. STONE-I’m sorry for your inconvenience, but she requested it. It wasn’t us. Thank you, Craig. Go ahead, Chuck. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. At the last meeting in which we heard the application, I think the minutes of the meeting would make quite clear that I asked them very substantial questions, some very sharp questions. However, having said that, I don’t believe that we should be, and this is only a personal opinion, I don’t believe that we should be seen as an adversarial body. I truly don’t. I believe that every applicant has a right to be heard. The applicant in this case is requesting the ZBA to reconsider its resolution, and, as I recall, I think the Zoning Administrator suggested that perhaps this should be, do, what was the term that you used? MR. BROWN-A coordinated review. MR. ABBATE-A coordinated SEQRA. There’s no doubt that the Planning Board is a Lead Agency. No question about that at all, and at that time I said, no, I don’t think we should have a coordinated. I said, I think that we should have our own, but I have done a lot of research on this thing, and quite frankly, I would be delighted to pass this SEQRA on to the Planning Board, 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) and/or have a coordinated one. So I would look favorably on the request from Mr. Lapper to reconsider our resolution and pass this on to the Planning Board to act as the Lead Agency. Thank you. MR. STONE-Mr. Brown, would you define coordinated review, please? MR. BROWN-Is this a SEQRA test? Any time you have an action that requires an approval, any type of discretionary approval from whatever agency, a permit to be issued, a license to be issued, if each individual in one of those agencies is required to do that, they’re each required to perform a SEQRA review. OR, in the case where there’s multiple agencies, you can do what’s called a coordinated review, everybody get together, decide that one review should be done, pick a Lead Agency, and that Lead Agency does that review, at the consent of the other agencies who are involved, and involved means the issuance of a permit or an approval. So with coordinated review, pick a Lead Agency, that agency does the SEQRA determination, and all the other agencies that are involved in the action are subject to that determination because they’ve basically granted that Lead Agency the permission to do the review. MR. STONE-Okay. Then it doesn’t mean, I thank you. That’s very clear. That doesn’t mean that we would be part of their review. It’s not coordinated in that sense. MR. BROWN-No. MR. STONE-I mean, that’s what coordinated means to me. MR. ABBATE-You know what, maybe I can help on this. Let me re-phrase this. Let me say that I suggest that we reconsider our resolution and that the SEQRA review be completed by the Planning Board, and I’m basing that on the fact that based on my research, they have more expertise than I do. MR. STONE-Okay. I know what you’re saying. I just want to be sure that it means that if we say we’ll let them be, we ask them to be Lead Agency, or relinquish Lead Agency, they will do the review and we will not be involved at all. MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Chairman, that’s what I’m proposing. MR. STONE-Okay. I know you’re proposing that. MR. ABBATE-I just wanted to make it clear, because, you know, this is very delicate all the way around. MR. STONE-No, it’s not really. We’re saying we will let them be Lead Agency and the applicant has said he would like them to, recognizing they’re expertise, and recognizing the complexity of the information that is going to be put forth by the applicant. MR. ABBATE-And of course, I hope they understand that this is no indication of how I’m going to vote on this thing. MR. STONE-Not at all. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got a comment, first. It bothers me a little bit. I would like to follow the terms, rather than what Mr. Brown has explained. I can’t think of specific instances right now, but I know there’s been a couple in the recent past where the Planning Board has taken action on a SEQRA action and said no impact, and when I read it, I don’t agree. I think there was impact, and that worries me about this. It would bother me to just see a flat, no impact, out of 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) this. Now, maybe it still would turn out not to be a big significant impact, so that the result is the same, but to me, Lead Agency means they lead the discussion, not that they do the whole thing, and a coordinated review suggests to me that there’s coordination there. Now, if that can happen, if the Planning Board can take the lead but we get some feedback before they make their decision, or we have an opportunity to sit down with them and review the information, I’d be comfortable with it. I’m not comfortable with turning the whole job over to the Planning Board saying just I’ll abide by whatever they decide. MR. URRICO-Would it be appropriate to. MR. STONE-Let Craig respond. MR. BROWN-I was going to say, typically what happens when this process starts, and the determination of Lead Agency is made, somebody, one of the agencies involved, asserts that wish, I wish to be Lead Agency, the Planning Board will say. They’ll send that notification out to all the other agencies that are involved, and in turn, those involved agencies would respond back, giving them consent to do that, and that response also gives you the opportunity to say, our Board’s concerned with this or our agency is concerned with that. Please take this into account when you do the review, or, you know we’re going to give you consent, but we’d like to be kept in the loop. I think it opens the door for you to provide comment to that Lead Agency with any concerns that you might have. You might not know them all until they get in to the review process, and the Lead Agency, whoever it may be, can certainly request any information or comment from any of the other involved agencies along the process, but the actual determination is made by one party rather than the three different agencies, in this case, that are involved doing their own SEQRA review. It’s just a poor process to do it that way. MR. STONE-Okay, but if they neg dec it, and say there is no significant, that’s a tough word, I know we’re all struggling with that word, no significant negative impacts on any aspect of the environment, including the community character, which is one of the things that we can look at, we have to accept that? MR. HAYES-Not as it applies to our test. MR. ABBATE-No, not as it applies to us. We can include in our motion that if that are any impacts, even though they may not be regarded as significant, they be reduced to writing and brought to our attention. Is that what you had in mind, Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-That would work for me. If it’s brought to our attention before they make a decision, so we have a chance to get back to them and say, hey, we don’t agree. MR. ABBATE-Right. No significant means that they are insignificant, but to them it’s not significant. MR. MC NULTY-Right. MR. ABBATE-Well, it may be to us significant. It’s bad wording, I think. MR. STONE-Go ahead, Roy. MR. URRICO-Would it be appropriate to, if Mr. Abbate agrees, to submit the questions that he’s very diligently written out? I think they’re very appropriate questions, and maybe these are questions that we’d like to have answered, at least to start with. MR. ABBATE-Did the Planning Board get this, my memo that I sent to you, did the Planning Board get that? MR. BROWN-Yes, they got a copy of that. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. ABBATE-They did. Okay. So we could do it that way, and that would satisfy Chuck’s, in other words, we want to know everything. We don’t want a blanket statement, there are no significant. We want to know even any insignificant adverse. MR. STONE-Well, what you’re saying, I think, is we would like to see their results before they vote on them. MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s fair enough. MR. BROWN-I don’t know if that’s that easy. If you acknowledge a certain agency to be the Lead Agency and do the SEQRA determination, you put the onus on them to make that determination and make those findings. If they ask you for information you can certainly give them comment. I don’t think there’s any onus on them to get it from you before they decide. They’ve got your permission to make the decision and make the determination about any impacts, but they’re not required to call you up and say, we’re going to do this, is that okay. MR. ABBATE-No, but we can request a copy, can we not? MR. BROWN-You can request it. MR. ABBATE-We’ll use FOIL if we have to. MR. BROWN-I’m not sure if they’re going to be bound. MR. ABBATE-If they refuse to give it to us. MR. STONE-Well, we get the minutes. MR. HAYES-Plus, additionally, though, by granting them Lead Agency, we’re not granting them the ability to make a variance. MR. STONE-They can’t make a variance. MR. HAYES-There’s several variance requests, you still apply the test and you’re going to have a chance to apply your own thought process at that level. MR. BROWN-But once a Lead Agency determination has been made, or a determination has been made by the Lead Agency, there’s no, you know, second bite at the apple unless the project changes. They make a decision, you can’t say, well, I don’t like that SEQRA determination, let’s do our own now. It’s done. MR. STONE-That’s what I want everybody to understand. MR. ABBATE-See, that’s the problem. I’m not comfortable with that. MR. STONE-I didn’t think you were. MR. ABBATE-No. Because that’s not fair to the applicant, quite frankly, because it’s not fair to us, either, because we don’t have all the facts at our fingertips. Chuck said it right, he wants information. MR. HAYES-Well, the applicant thinks it’s fair to them because they requested it. MR. ABBATE-Then I don’t, who am I to, if the applicant feels that it’s, if it’s fair to them, you know what, I won’t object. MR. STONE-Okay, but the only thing, and I have no, really, opinion one way or the other. I mean, normally, what we have done is say, we relinquish it or we invite you to be Lead Agency. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) I think the concern that came from the last resolution that we saw last week on a different subject, there was apparently some unhappiness, on the part of the Board members, at least that was my interpretation. Because they did say there was no significant negative impact, and a number of you questioned, well, what does that mean, and I’m not happy with it. MR. ABBATE-I’ll tell you what. Maybe we should put it to a vote, and I’ll phrase it however the majority of the vote goes, and I will phrase it to meet the requirements. MR. HAYES-Make a motion to do it, and it either carries or it doesn’t. MR. STONE-Unless you guys want to discuss it individually like we do. MR. ABBATE-Let me make a motion then. Okay. Here we go. Mr. Chairman and Board Members, I move that we reconsider our resolution of the last meeting concerning the George and Marilyn Stark Comfort Suites Hotel, and approve a motion to request that the Planning Board be the Lead Agency, with the stipulation that any information, significant or insignificant, adversely impacting the environment be brought to our attention immediately. MR. MC NULTY-How about prior to their making a decision? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Prior to the Planning Board making a final decision. MR. STONE-Is that a legitimate motion, Mr. Brown? MR. HAYES-I don’t think it is. MR. ABBATE-Probably not. They can do whatever they want. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think that defeats the purpose of a coordinated review. MR. ABBATE-All right. There’s the motion, guys, chop it up, go ahead. MR. STONE-Either we say we rescind our motion of last week and ask the Planning Board to be Lead Agency in this matter. MR. BROWN-Yes, I guess the technical side of it is you’re really going to get another crack at giving that determination to the Planning Board. They haven’t filed a site plan application. The Planning Board hasn’t asked to be Lead Agency yet. So this giving them permission is kind of premature, but I think what the applicant’s position is is a request to reconsider your desire to be Lead Agency and to do your own, or not Lead Agency, but to do your own SEQRA review, and to go along with the Planning Board when they ask. MR. STONE-Why don’t we just rescind our motion of last week that we be Lead Agency, period. MR. ABBATE-And that covers everything. Keep it simple. That means nothing was done. MR. STONE-Right. MR. ABBATE-Everything we’ve said is erased. Keep it as simple as that. MR. BROWN-Well, I think the motion you made last week was a tabling motion requesting them to come back with additional information. MR. ABBATE-We did. MR. STONE-But we also indicate, I believe, that we wanted to do our own SEQRA. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes, we did that too. MR. STONE-We did say that. So if we just say, we rescind our desire to be the Lead Agency in the SEQRA determination. MR. HAYES-Not even Lead Agency, just to do our own SEQRA. MR. STONE-Yes, to do our own SEQRA. Yes. MR. HAYES-Yes, we’re not requesting to be the Lead Agency. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STONE-No, but we did. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-We were going to do our own. MR. ABBATE-Do you want me to modify it? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Chairman and Board members, I move that we rescind the decision to do our own SEQRA on the George and Marilyn Stark, Comfort Suites Hotel, at the last meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and also, I might add, we withdraw our request to conduct our own SEQRA. MR. STONE-The only thing I would think about adding is that we assume that the Planning Board will ask to be Lead Agency. Is that reasonable? MR. HAYES-No, if they request, I guess we could deal with that issue now, too. Right? MR. STONE-If they decide to be, they’re going to have to ask us. We can shortcut that by saying, if asked, we will. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-I think we’re all right if you just say what we’ve been saying. Say it again. MOTION THAT WE RESCIND OUR DECISION TO DO OUR OWN SEQRA AND THAT THE SEQRA BE CONDUCTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE GEORGE AND MARILYN STARK COMFORT SUITES HOTEL, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-Okay. So, we now leave it in the lap of the Lapper and Stark gods. MR. ABBATE-And let Jon Lapper breath a little easier. Okay. Now we have some minutes to approve. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) CORRECTION OF MINUTES May 21, 2003: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE MAY 21, 2003 MEETING, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE May 28, 2003: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2003 FOR THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Hunt June 18, 2003: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST MEETING JUNE 18, 2003 MINUTES, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stone June 25, 2003: Page 65, Line 42, line starts “were reduced by three”, something Mr. McNulty was saying, and that should read, instead of reduced by three, should be reduced to three. Change “by” to “to”. MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 25, 2003 WITH THE CORRECTION MADE BY MR. MC NULTY, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Hunt 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/24/03) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 33