Loading...
2004-09-22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ROY URRICO JAMES UNDERWOOD LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT PAUL HAYES ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES ABBATE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2004 SEQRA TYPE II JOHN & JUDY ROBBINS OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: SR-20 LOCATION: 13 GOLDFINCH ROAD, INSPIRATION PARK SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 670 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 92-669 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.6-2-53 SECTION: 179-4- 020 JOHN ROBBINS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-2004, John & Judy Robbins, Meeting Date: September 22, 2004 “Project Location: 13 Goldfinch Road, Inspiration Park Subdivision Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 670 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests 5 feet of side setback relief from the 10-foot minimum requirement, per the side setback requirements of the Inspiration Park subdivision (same as the current requirements for the SR-20 zone). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 92-669: 10/27/92, 1,017 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Staff comments: The applicant has provided a signed petition from five of his neighbors in favor of the relief being granted, including the neighbor to the side where the relief is required (Mary Matte, 11 Goldfinch Road).” 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Okay. State your name and add anything that you want to add. MR. ROBBINS-John Robbins, 13 Goldfinch Road, Queensbury, NY. I’d just like to say, I’d like the garage. I’ve got a couple of kids, and I’m going to be getting rid of an old storage shed that’s out back, in the yard, and just updated on bigger vehicles and need some room. MR. STONE-I have a question that I talked about. I mean, right now, you’re in compliance with the Homeowners Association, or with the covenants, which we will say many times we do not enforce as the Town. However, if we grant you relief, what is going to be, do you have any idea what’s going to be the response of the Homeowners Association? MR. ROBBINS-I really don’t think there’s going to be a big response. I get along. Everybody in the neighborhood’s great. They’re all in favor of it. I think it benefits the neighborhood, updating the house. I’m making it look better. MR. STONE-You haven’t gone to the Homeowners Association. Do you have a formal process? MR. ROBBINS-Yes. I actually was the President, at one time, of the Homeowners Association. MR. STONE-Well, I worry about that. MR. ROBBINS-And, yes, I’ve already talked to a couple of them that are on there, and none of them, they were all in favor, you know, they didn’t have a problem. MR. STONE-You haven’t had a formal vote, but your feeling is. MR. ROBBINS-No. I’ve talked to the Treasurer, who is the one that takes care of everything there, and he, you know, he had no qualms whatsoever. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions from anybody? MR. URRICO-Why do you need the relief? MR. ROBBINS-I’m supposed to have 10 foot on the side. MR. URRICO-No, but I mean as far as the size. MR. ROBBINS-Well, the size of the garage, well, the reason being is I don’t have enough room on the side of the roof right there, you know. I have like, I’ll have four foot, and I want to leave a little walk space between the porch and the garage. I’ll have about three foot left over. Then I’ll have five foot on Mary’s side. So that’s really why, I mean, I guess the swing set would look good there. MR. STONE-Bruce, can a garage be that close without being attached? MR. FRANK-It can be as close as six feet under New York State Building Code. MR. STONE-Six feet to the house. MR. FRANK-No closer. MR. STONE-And what is it here? MR. ROBBINS-Yes. I will be six feet away from the house. MR. STONE-Because you don’t have that dimension. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. ROBBINS-I will actually be. MR. FRANK-We did discuss this. I informed Mr. Robbins, when we had our pre-application meeting. He knows he wouldn’t be able to get a building permit without that separation distance. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ROBBINS-Yes. I’ll actually be like eight feet from the house, from the corner of the house, when it’s all said and done. MR. STONE-Okay. Because it looks, in your drawing, I know it’s your drawing, the five feet looks bigger than the eight feet you’re talking about, but as long as, that’s the burden on you, in terms of getting the building permit, if we grant it. Okay. Anybody else have anything? MR. RIGBY-Your neighbor, I guess it’s to the north, the other house we see on the right there, they had no objection to it? MR. ROBBINS-No, Mary, I get along great with her. MR. RIGBY-My only thinking is that if your neighbor were ever to ask for this same relief, those two garages would be very close to one another. MR. ROBBINS-Yes, and as a matter of fact I’ve talked to her about it, and I build houses, just to let you know, and she’s actually going to be building a garage, but it’s going to be attached, and she’ll have ten feet. She won’t even need a variance, because she’ll have 10 feet. MR. RIGBY-She is? Okay. MR. ROBBINS-Yes. I already talked to her about it, and I’ll be doing it for her. MR. RIGBY-She’s already applied? MR. ROBBINS-Hasn’t applied. We’ve just talked, because I told her I was building one and she mentioned she’d like to have one, and I told her how close I was going to be, and then she measured off from her house 24 foot, and she’ll actually have, she’s got enough room. She’ll have ten feet from her garage, and so I’d actually have 15 feet from my garage to her garage. MR. STONE-Can you assure us that this garage will not be used for your commercial purposes, your building? MR. ROBBINS-I guarantee. I can’t build a house and a garage. I really need the garage. I mean, I bought a newer vehicle, a bigger. Like I said, I have a couple of kids, and I plan on getting my wife an SUV vehicle, and, you know, I want to get rid of the old storage shed. I don’t know if you can see it in the picture back there, but it’s falling apart. It’s been there since we got there, and just starting to look bad. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on Area Variance No. 71-2004? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think that we have to keep in mind that these are SR-20 lots. They’re very narrow. They’re only 100 foot wide lots, and I would think this request is pretty reasonable. Just about everybody needs a garage, with the weather being what it is here in the wintertime. My suggestion also would be that, you know, since you guys are looking at some of the things you can tweak with the Code, that it would probably make sense on these lots that are 100 foot or narrower, you know, in future subdivisions in Town, I would think it would make sense to, instead of placing the houses directly centered in the lot, skew them to one side. I mean, you’ve got 26 feet on the other side, and if it were 13 feet closer or 10 feet over further off center, then when people went to put their garages on at some future date, or an addition on the house, it wouldn’t have to come in for a variance each time. MR. STONE-So you’re making a suggestion regarding subdivision. Okay. I hear you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I agree. Everyone does need a garage here, and since the neighbor next door doesn’t have any objections, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request. I would be in favor. MR. STONE-Leo? MR. RIGBY-Yes. As long as the other neighbor is doing what you said, and they have no objection to it, I’d be in favor of it as well. My only concern, again, is that, you know, when you put two garages with five feet of relief on either side, that’s a close proximity. MR. ROBBINS-I agree with you. MR. RIGBY-And, you know, as long as that doesn’t happen, I guess we’ll come across that if she needs it, when she applies for the application, but I agree with what Jim and Joyce said, and I think I’d be in favor of it as well. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think I’m in agreement with the rest of the Board. Looking at the test, I think that you would benefit from the granting of this Area Variance. There’s five criteria that we’re obligated to look at, in terms of granting the variance, weighing the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community. So that’s what I’m going to go down. The effect on the character of the neighborhood. Well, I think it’s a testimony that the neighbors who are the closest have shown no objection, and they’re the ones that would be affected the greatest in this case, especially in a tight knit, or a tight community, in terms of the proximity of the homes to each other. There are feasible alternatives. The amount of relief substantial. Well, it can be considered 50%, five feet where 10 is allowed, but in this case I think it’s okay, and as far as the variance having an adverse physical or environmental effect, I don’t think there is one. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, a couple of thoughts and points, I guess. We tend to say that everybody ought to have a garage in this neck of the woods, but that’s not true. A garage is not a right in a situation like this. I think it’s a privilege. Also, it strikes me that neighbors being in favor of a project is a good indicator, but it’s not the only thing we should be considering, because neighbors and even the applicant at some point may sell a house and move, and then somebody else is in that situation. So we’ve got to be thinking ahead a little bit, too, as to, you know, who’s going to be there in the future. However, having said that, I think,, in this particular situation, adding a garage here and visualizing another garage on the other side I don’t think is going to make this look extremely crowded. It is going to close in the open space a bit there, but I don’t think it’s as much of a detriment as it might be in a different situation. So, while I’ve got 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) some doubts and some reluctance at the same time, I see the benefit to the applicant, and I think in this case the benefit to the applicant is going to outweigh any detriment to the neighborhood. So I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Before I speak, I just want to apologize to you and the rest of the people that we only have six tonight. Unfortunately we have two members who had an important event in their community service life, another thing, and they couldn’t be here, and so our two alternates are both here, but we’re still missing one, and I do apologize for that. I think Mr. McNulty stated it very well, not that the others didn’t. This is a balancing test, a garage, and, you know, when you buy a house, and you recognize what you have, there is an obligation on the homeowner to recognize the limitations on that particular piece of property. We do have this balancing test to do, and I, too, agree that it comes down on the side of saying we should grant this variance, but I don’t want anybody to think, because we face this every meeting and every application we come to, we have to do this balancing test, and it’s more than the neighbors saying, we have no problem with it. One can get into a lot of reasons why a neighbor might say okay or not okay, but we do have this balancing test, and obviously one of the questions that we have to ask is there a feasible alternative, and, yes, there is, and that could be not building. That is always a possibility, and I just want to remind the applicant and others in the room, and the Board that this is something that we can do, but having said that, I think the balancing test in this case, obviously, the benefit to the applicant, the change to the neighborhood, the neighborhood has been going this way, if you drive through there, other garages, and there are pools, and we are crowding lots in that, but everybody seems to be happy with it, all the neighbors. So having said that, I would say yes. So I need a motion to approve this. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2004 JOHN & JUDY ROBBINS, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 13 Goldfinch Road, Inspiration Park Subdivision. The applicant proposes construction of a 670 square foot detached garage. In doing so, the applicant requests five feet of side setback relief from the 10 foot minimum requirement per the side setback requirements of the Inspiration Park subdivision, which is the same as the current requirements for the SR-20 zone. In requesting that we approve this application, I could go down the test. How would the applicant benefit from the granting of this variance, well, it would allow them to build a garage which he does not currently have, which we have said that’s not necessarily a right, but he has demonstrated that there is a need. As far as the impact of this variance on the character of the neighborhood, there is a definite possibility that this could crowd the neighborhood a little bit more, but the applicant has spoken about how the neighbors are in favor of it, and in fact would not crowd them because of any future plans they might have, in terms of adding their own garage on. There are feasible alternatives, as has been spoken of, and that is not to build it or build a smaller garage, and the relief is kind of substantial relative to the Ordinance, since it’s 50% of what is allowed, but in this case the five feet does not seem to create any unnecessary hardship on anybody else, and the variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district as well. Therefore, I move that we approve this variance. Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2004, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go, sir. MR. ROBBINS-Thank you very much. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2004 SEQRA TYPE II L. PAUL DAIGLE OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 58 JENKINSVILLE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 784 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE AND DETACHED 1,064 SQ. FT. STORAGE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. LOT SIZE: 6.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.19-1-18 SECTION: 179-5-020D MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 72-2004, L. Paul Daigle, Meeting Date: September 22, 2004 “Project Location: 58 Jenkinsville Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 3,358 sq. ft. single-family dwelling including a 784 sq. ft. attached garage and a 1,064 sq. ft. accessory structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 564 sq. ft. of relief from the 500 sq. ft. maximum size requirement for an accessory structure, per § 179-5-020(D). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2004-648: 08/24/04, 3,358 sq. ft. single-family dwelling including a 784 sq. ft. attached garage. Staff comments: The applicant desires an oversized storage structure in order to store and protect a boat, snowmobiles, ATV’s and equipment for maintaining the 6.69-acre parcel.” MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BORGOS-For the record, Michael Borgos for the applicant. I’m here with Joann and Paul Daigle. I’d like to briefly go over what their plans are. I see Bruce has some pictures up there. You’ll see that the parcel is in the one acre zone. It does have 6.69 acres to it. So it is much larger than what’s required there, and it is larger than what is presently existing in the neighborhood. If you drive down Jenkinsville Road, you’ll see that most of the structures are older, and they are clustered close to the road. This parcel has a driveway on the curve there that enters the parcel, and when you did your site visit, I’m sure you saw that off to the left is where the location for the storage building would be proposed, tucked in in that section there, and the house, if you look on the site plan that we gave you, is tucked in at the back left hand corner, just beyond where the arrow is pointing now, and from your site visit, you’ve probably noticed that there’s a field that opens up to the right to the east, toward the sunrise, that way. This is going to be their dream house. They’ve been searching for years for a piece of land that’s beautiful, and they’ve found it here in Queensbury, and they want to build this dream house. The garage that’s attached to the structure is for their personal vehicles, and that’s so they can access it in the wintertime, through the inside, without having to go out and clear the snow off of it. They feel that, through their years of experience, they’ve earned the right to do that. That’s what they want to build here. This storage building is going to be used for storing those pieces of equipment that are necessary for maintaining a parcel of this size, a large tractor. They’ve got the snowmobiles and the ATV’s and the other toys that you accumulate through the years as well. There’s a large boat with a trailer. So the structure was necessary to be this size to house all of them. You couldn’t put it on with the house. It wouldn’t fit with the design of the structure. One thing I noticed, from reviewing some of the past minutes for applications similar to this, I think Mr. Stone had mentioned it several times. His term was proportionality, and I thought that was a very good way to analyze the request for a variance like this, is the requested variance and the structure like this proportional to the residence being proposed. In this case, I think it clearly is. I think it matches very well, but of course the Code has been 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) drafted to protect the neighborhood and the other citizens in the Town, and to address that I can tell you that they’ve talked to the neighbors. This location is not visible from the neighbors homes. As I mentioned before, their homes are all clustered near the road, and this is set back almost behind their parcels, if you look at that other map that’s there. The adjoining parcels that are the bigger rectangulars are farm fields. There’s nobody living back there, and you wouldn’t even see it from there because of the hedgerows that have grown up over the years. To validate that, the Daigles went around and had their neighbors sign this petition, and I can give it to Mr. Stone. Now, we are not aware of any opposition whatsoever to this. We don’t think that there would be reasons there would be because it is not visible from the neighbors, and what they do plan to build is going to be consistent with the home that they’re building, and the alternatives to building a structure of this size would be to try to do a blue tarp over them to protect the equipment, and those are rather unsightly. I think everyone would agree that those things are not the best way to protect equipment. They blow off and it’s always encouraging animals or even children in the neighborhood to come and play on the equipment, and you don’t want any of that. One other thing I’d like to address is that some of you may know that Mr. Daigle is a contractor. We can assure you that he’s not going to use this for commercial purposes. He already has a separate facility to store that equipment. His wife would not permit any of that stuff on this site, being that the way the house is situated, if you look at the site plan, the rear of the house is going to be facing this structure. So it’s going to have to be very attractive. They’re going to put some shrubbery to shield it, I believe, but that’s why they chose the location for it as well, instead of putting it out, off to this side here, the open fields is where all the deer come out now and it’s a very scenic vista for them to the east with the sunrises, and they don’t want to have the disturbed by a storage building. So I think it really is the best location on the lot. It’s not going to affect any of the neighbors, and in sum, the benefit to the applicant clearly outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood that there might be. MR. STONE-I certainly thank you for your assurance that this would not be used as part of Mr. Daigle’s business. That’s an important point as far as I’m concerned. You do know that the land where the sun comes up could change? I mean, somebody might build in there. This is just a comment. It’s not a negative or a positive. MR. BORGOS-The way things are going in this Town, that’s a possibility. MR. STONE-When you start talking about farmland and changing. MR. BORGOS-That’s why you buy as much as you can. PAUL DAIGLE MR. DAIGLE-But even though, on both sides of the property. My name is L. Paul Daigle. I reside at 16 Reservoir Drive. Both sides of that property are two farmer’s fields, and there’s a thick hedgerow on both sides. MR. STONE-On your property? MR. DAIGLE-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. That helps. It helps you. MR. BORGOS-It gives them some buffer. MR. DAIGLE-Right. MR. STONE-Any questions, anybody? MR. MC NULTY-I have one. There’s mention on some of this material about a classic car. Where is that going to be stored? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. DAIGLE-This is a joke. When the day comes I can afford a classic car, I would find some housing for it. When my designer and architect drew up the plans, he volunteered to fill in the application for me, and he put in such as for instance. There was a scuttle but. I’ve got a brother that owns a beautiful restored classic car, but I do not believe he’s going to give it to me for Christmas. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. The only reason I ask is that you park that in the storage building, and then it’s a second garage instead of a storage building. MR. DAIGLE-I see. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, for the record, I did bring it up to the owner and he told me the same thing, and I concurred with what he said. I handled the pre-application meeting with his architect. MR. STONE-Okay. So this was a wish list and not a? MR. FRANK-A for instance. It wasn’t an accurate for instance from Mr. Daigle. MR. STONE-Just for the record, I want to state this. Having a lot of toys is not necessarily justification for granting a variance. It’s wonderful to have, as the old statement goes, he who dies with the most toys still dies. Anybody else have any questions? MR. RIGBY-The neighbors have all been contacted, the neighbor to the? MR. STONE-Yes. We’ve got a petition that we’ll read. MR. RIGBY-Okay. MR. BORGOS-Yes. That petition has every neighbor who’s immediately adjacent and some others I believe, with the exception of one who just purchased, and apparently she works too much to be contacted. That’s why we didn’t mail this in before. We were trying to reach her tonight even, but we don’t know of any opposition. MR. STONE-Okay. Can you point out the ones that signed, just so that we know? MR. DAIGLE-This one here has signed, which is the one that would be most affected by. Estella Redington. This one has signed, Mr. Smith. This one here used to be Mr. and Mrs. Stump. They have sold, and the lady that bought it has not been around. I think she’s away because her mailbox is full of newspapers. My luck she’ll be here in the morning, but I had spoken to her a couple of weeks ago and showed her the site plan, what I was going to do, and she was greatly in favor of it. This one has signed. This one has signed. This one has signed, Mr. and Mrs. Little, and they also own this parcel which they have a right of way through here. So they’d be the one most affected, Mr. and Mrs. Little that owns this and this. This one has signed. These two are across the street, have also signed, and Mrs. Bowman, which I’m not sure which one, one of these two, but I’m not sure. MR. STONE-Okay. I think what I propose to do, when we get to the public hearing, we will read that in, so that everybody at the table can hear exactly what it says. Any other questions? MR. URRICO-I don’t know if it’s a question or more of a statement. Mr. Borgos, you spoke about the portionality, and whereas the garage is 116 feet below the maximum, the accessory structure, or storage facility, is 864 feet greater than what is normally allowed in a single family residence area, and the Code does not account for proportionality. It doesn’t make any exceptions. It doesn’t say that depending on the size of the lot, that it should vary. It’s pretty strict. It says 200 square feet. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. BORGOS-I believe it’s 500. MR. URRICO-I’m sorry, I’m reading the wrong one. Five hundred square feet. All right. So still we’re still quite a bit above that. MR. BORGOS-I know I was here last summer and we talked about the concept of taking the 900 square feet allowable for the garage and the 500 for the accessory structure and putting them together, as far as the total storage, and I’ve heard this discussed among those people talking about revising the Code as well. Those are things that, in my mind, were devised for the prototypical one acre lot, or the wherever other lot size is in that particular zone. Here it just happens to be one acre. Here it’s almost seven times larger than that, and if it was a maximum build out situation with homes and garages, you’d have actually a lot more structure present. Here, we’re talking about just a change in the numbers. It wouldn’t make sense, with the house design, to go the full 900 square feet with the attached garage. The purpose for that would be just to shelter those two vehicles with the two bays. MR. URRICO-But your accessory structure is bigger than a normal garage might be. MR. BORGOS-Correct. Slightly larger because it’s just over 1,000 square feet. MR. URRICO-Even as a garage, you would be seeking a variance for that. MR. BORGOS-Correct. I recognize that, but here we’re talking about a large piece of land that has special needs. You can’t just use a push mower to cut the grass. You need a much larger piece of equipment, and it makes sense to keep those other large items under shelter as well. So people, historically, have created barns in these rural settings, and this is a rural setting, and that’s the other concept. MR. URRICO-It’s not zoned rural. It’s zoned SFR-1A. MR. BORGOS-Correct, one acre, correct, but that’s what the Zoning Board is here for, is to grant a variance, where the benefit to the applicant can outweigh any detriment to the neighborhood, and here I don’t see any detriment to the neighborhood. If anything, I think it’s going to be an enhancement, because it will protect the possibility of young children getting involved with climbing on a tractor or getting into the boat that has a canvas tarp over it. That sort of thing. So I think that is a slight benefit. MR. STONE-In that vein, only because you brought it up. I would never have brought it up, there is a piece of equipment sitting out there right now. Is that an attractive nuisance, Counselor, the bulldozer? You brought it up. MR. BORGOS-It’s during the construction of the home, of course, that’s a separate topic, though. If somebody gets hurt on it, it could be, it could very well be. MR. RIGBY-A question for you about access to the garage. I don’t see any driveways or anything going, from the storage area, I’m sorry, going from there to the road or any place. What’s the intent there? Are you going to have a gravel drive there. MR. DAIGLE-What I’m trying to do is keep it more so forever wild or green or maybe just gravel, not to put a definite defined driveway going to it. So if people realize that it’s not a, it’s a storage area in the middle of the field type thing, I don’t want it derived to make a definite driveway lit up for people to go to it, just want to define our residence, anybody comes in here, for whatever reason, to visit or whatever, that trying to make it so that it doesn’t stick out, trying to keep it, again, on the finish, we’re going to have green siding to blend in with the terrain and it’s cut down into using that elevation, because there’ll be four to five feet of it that will actually be in the ground, because it may take advantage of the elevation, the, as you can see on that right there, the floor elevation will be another foot lower than that grade right now. So you can tell by the mound there’ll be a concrete wall coming above the concrete floor about 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) four foot high. So if the neighbors would even go through the woods to see, they would only see partial of it, because the front of it that we will be looking at is where the highest elevation will be, and it’ll be forest green siding to try to blend in with the. MR. RIGBY-So your intent is not to have a gravel driveway or a paved driveway or anything going? MR. DAIGLE-Never a paved driveway, no. MR. STONE-These will be garage door type doors on it? MR. DAIGLE-Overhead doors, yes. MR. STONE-Yes, overhead doors. MR. DAIGLE-Yes. Again, they’ll be just normal standard overhead doors, which is the. MR. STONE-One might say garage doors, but I didn’t say that. MR. DAIGLE-Well, that’s what they refer to them as garage doors. MR. STONE-I know. Okay. Any other questions? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on Area Variance No. 72-2004? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PATRICIA WELLS MS. WELLS-I’m Patricia Wells. I live on 84 Jenkinsville Road. The L-Shaped cornfield on its side belongs to me, and the funny shaped little tiny piece right below it is my husband’s and mine house parcel, and I’m not against the garage. I did not sign the petition, but I do have a question. I want to know what the effect of the garage will be on the intermittent stream, from the pond which Mr. Redington created, probably 20 years ago, and that stream goes behind what was stumps, which now has been purchased, through Byron and Christine Little, through my property, through my cornfield, and across the road. So I want to know what the effect is of the garage on the brook. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. RIGBY-Where is that stream in relationship to the building? MS. WELLS-It’s not on the map. MR. URRICO-Can you show us where it would be if it was on the map? MR. STONE-Well, if you want to look at this drawing. MR. DAIGLE-There’s actually no stream on our property. MR. STONE-This is where they’re talking. MS. WELLS-Correct, there’s a pond here. MR. STONE-There’s a pond on their property. Is there a pond on your property? MS. DAIGLE-On our property. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MS. WELLS-Right, and from that pond there are springs, and the stream goes this way and all through here, and then back around (lost words). MR. STONE-So the spring goes north at that point. Okay. A valid question. We’ll get an answer. Anybody else wishing to speak on this Area Variance? So would you read that petition in, Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-I certainly will. This is the petition that we received tonight. It says, “Please accept this letter as verification of the support from the undersigned neighbors for the Area Variance requested by L. Paul Daigle and his wife Joann Daigle for the storage building they have proposed to accompany their new home on the parcel. We have had the opportunity to review the proposed plans for the storage building and its location on the property. We are of the opinion that it will not negatively affect our properties in any manner and it will not be materially visible from the majority of the adjoining properties. It is our opinion that the proposed structure would fit the character of the neighborhood and would benefit the health, safety and welfare of the community by providing secure storage of tools, equipment, and personal property that would otherwise have to be stored out in the elements and possibly in view of neighboring parcels. Therefore, the undersigned request that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the variance for the applicant with the support of the neighbors who’s names, addresses and signatures appear below.” And there are 11 signatures. MR. STONE-How many parcels? MR. MC NULTY-And I would say, let’s see, seven parcels. MR. STONE-Nothing else? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Would you comment on the comment about the stream and the pond? MR. DAIGLE-The stream and the pond which, on our property itself, there is no stream. There’s an area that’s wet and it drains on the surface. I have built a little trench right now so it drains the way it’s been draining, in the pond. When the construction is all done, and I have all the dewatering lines around my house, then that’s all going to be landscaped. The area where this proposed shed is to go is away from and higher than that area. The elevation will be like two feet than the wet area. So therefore that has no effect, no impact. MR. STONE-This is not a defined wetland, this pond, that you know of? MR. DAIGLE-No. MR. STONE-Do you agree, Mr. Frank? MR. FRANK-I believe the only wetland any place near there is across the road. MR. STONE-Okay, and you feel that you can assure a neighbor that you will not be adding anything to whatever this stream is that she’s aware of? MR. DAIGLE-I will not be disturbing anything whatsoever to change that, and of course the wet area where the water’s coming from, underground spring, is not even on my property. It’s on the neighbor property, which is Mr. Little, Mr. and Mrs. Little’s property. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Joyce. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MRS. HUNT-All right. First I have to say, I spoke to Mr. Daigle this afternoon and we talked about the weather and he showed me where the shed was going to be, and different parts of his property. My first reaction, before I went to the site visit, was that this was much, too much relief, that was requested, and I was very concerned about it being used for commercial purposes, but after visiting the property, I could see that it was well screened, and I couldn’t see anything, any other property through that hedgerow, and as long as Mr. Daigle has stated he will not store any kind of commercial equipment there, I would be in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Leo? MR. RIGBY-Yes. I was there at the property as well, and it is a large piece of property. There’s no question about that. My concern was commercial as well, you know, what’s the shed going to be used for, is it going to be used for commercial purposes. My initial thought is that, you know, we stipulate within the motion that it will not, absolutely will not be used for commercial purposes if we decide that we’re going to approve the request. The other side of that, too, is vehicles. Vehicles, of course, as you know, aren’t allowed in there, too. I think that we should probably stipulate that that should be part of the motion as well. Thinking about other cases that we’ve been through, there are cases where, you know, people ask us for an expansion of a garage past the allowed square footage and they have the ability to add another access shed. So we start thinking about, well, yes, maybe we’ll allow the expansion of that garage because they could put an accessory building on the lot, and rather than put an accessory building on the lot, maybe we’ll allow them the additional coverage to put a, to add to the garage. I kind of equate this to that type of situation, in a number of ways. One of it being that, you know, you have a garage with your home, and it’s not the maximum size. So, you know, you do have the right to put an accessory structure of 500 feet on the lot. You could expand the garage. So my thinking is leaning towards saying that, yes, I would be in favor of the request. I’m going to listen to the rest of the Board members first. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m afraid I’m going to come down on the negative side on this one. When I look at the benefit to the applicant, it very obviously you’ve demonstrated that to me. I am concerned that, in the application, you mentioned the classic car, and other vehicles, which to me strikes this as being a second garage. Maybe not in definite full definition, but in effect. In terms of the effect it would have on the character of the neighborhood, the test is what effect would the variance have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community, and in this case, we’re talking about the entire community. I see single family residences, and there’s no definition that determines where the line should be drawn. Should it be drawn at two acres, three acres, four acres, five acres, six? I don’t know. There’s no exception made for size. So I don’t see that as a positive, from where I’m sitting. There are feasible alternatives. There are options to build smaller. The amount of relief is substantial to the Ordinance. Even with the allowance for the garage which you’re under, you’re still going to be about 500 feet larger than what would be expected out of a garage and a storage shed, and the last question, the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, there is a question there, too, although I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one, but I would be against this application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, this is a tough one. There have been instances where we have allowed oversized storage structures, but I think I’m going to come down where Mr. Urrico is. It’s tough, but I think, as he has pointed out, this is zoned for Single Family Residential. It’s not zoned as farmland. It’s not rural zoning, and the rules say up to a 500 square foot storage building. There’s some opportunity to expand the garage on the house to provide some extra storage, and I guess where I’m coming at is don’t see the special circumstances that would justify this, and it’s striking me almost like some of the requests we’ve had in the last couple of months where we’ve started looking at it saying, well, maybe I could approve it if we specified 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) no commercial vehicles in the historic building, and if we specified that the wooded buffer area that’s behind the building, between that and the lot line, be maintained like that, and we’re ending up putting a lot of conditions on that may be difficult to enforce in the future, not necessarily for the current applicant, but perhaps for the person that buys the property from him at some time in the future. I guess I could be persuaded either way, but right now I’m leaning on a negative. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m not as much troubled by this. My only concern would be, you know, what your future plans are for the six acres there, whether you’re going to have a family compound on there at some point, you know, or just keep it all for yourself or nip it off, but that would have to go to subdivision review if you were going to do that I would think anyway. I think that the Code is designed for, you know, in the SR-1 zone is designed for those one acre lots and certainly we’ve had lots of requests for oversized accessory structures, and when they get up around 1,000 square feet, I think there’s a lot of concern on the Board for what the, weighing the benefits to the applicant with the detriment to the neighborhood, but in this instance I think when you have six plus acres of property there that’s pretty well wooded. It’s rural, in essence, and I really don’t think that you’re going to have any impact on your neighbors. I think there’s no appreciable, if any, neighborhood opposition to what you’re proposing here, and I think that it’s, you know, not out of, we’ve granted these before, Nelson Miller’s property up off of Gurney Lane. I don’t know, he’s got 30 acres up there, and he’s got a big extra place on his, and we granted permission for one on Ellsworth Road, at the end of Ellsworth Road last year also, and I think they had less than six acres of property on theirs also. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-So you’re saying yes? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Before I say what I’m going to say, because we’ve got a divided Board. I’m not saying it’s one way or the other. We’ve obviously got two people who are conflicted by the decision that they have to make. Is there any room for compromise? Is this 1,000, whatever the number is, 1,064, is there any way to put some upstairs storage in that you could put some of the equipment in and reduce the size to some degree? You’re asking for 100% relief, more than 100% relief, and that’s a number that sometimes begins to trouble us. Obviously it’s troubling a couple of people. Is there any? I’ll comment, or is there any willingness to offer something less? I can’t guarantee that that’s going to please anybody. MR. BORGOS-I understand your question. I’ll let Mr. Daigle speak in just a minute to that, but I think, we talked about this, because I prepared him for your questions and anticipated seeing them and hearing them tonight, and that was a question I asked of him, and as a builder for all these years, he looks to see what’s the most efficient way of building, and, you know, when you order trusses and you’re ordering lumber to build a structure, it’s efficient to build one of this size, and he also realizes that he’s never had a customer complain that they had too much space. So he wants to be able to get around these vehicles comfortably without having to climb over them. That’s how we came up with the numbers he’s got here. MR. DAIGLE-Mr. Borgos kind of took the wind out of my sail. Close to 40 years in business, remodeling custom homes, commercial work, I’ve had many complaints, but one complaint I’ve never heard is we built with too much storage. First of all. Secondly, this is our retirement home. My next birthday coming up shortly is 60 years old. Could we go up? Yes, we can keep the footprints much smaller, and go up two, three stories. This here, as I’ve said, I’ve used the terrain to its advantage, to keep it down, in the ground, which, making it more costly for me. I’ve got to go in with more concrete and whatever and try to keep it aesthetically, so it looks good, and for all the neighbors also, not just our own selfishness. Yes, I could put a much bigger garage on the house, but robbing from Peter to pay Paul. So right now I believe, what I was looking for is 448 feet more than what’s actually allotted by the garage size on the house. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. STONE-That’s a test that you’re doing that is not really in our arsenal to do, technically. You’re allowed 900, 900. If you give us back some doesn’t necessarily allow us to do anything else. MR. DAIGLE-Right. MR. BORGOS-His question was can you make it any smaller? Is it possible to do that? MR. STONE-If you want to say no, you have a perfect right to say no. MR. DAIGLE-I really can’t see where, like I said, with all the toys, the grandchildren’s sleds and ornaments for different decorations, I really can’t see going any smaller than that. MR. STONE-Fine. I recognize that. I asked the question, and it’s probably not going to have, help me or hurt me. I, too, share some of the concerns that I’ve heard. The only, the basic mitigating factor in this particular case, is that by any standards in the neighborhood this is a huge lot, and you are to be congratulated to find a lot of this size which is going to fulfill your dreams, your wishes, and that’s great. I certainly would prefer not to grant this much relief. Certainly it’s going to be to your benefit to have this larger building, to keep under roof a lot of the things that you have. I don’t really think it’s going to have a tremendous detriment to the community, as the community exists today, but one of the things that we have to keep in mind is that, forever is a long, long time, and our bible is the Zoning Code, and the Zoning Code says you’ve got to be 500 feet. Having said that, I am willing, because of the assurances that we will put into any approval motion, that there will be no commercial operation in this thing, and there was something else that I think Mr. Rigby said that I didn’t capture, I’m willing to say that I would reluctantly grant this variance as requested. Now, that means that we’ve still got some indecision, as I look at my straw poll here, and, nonetheless, I’m going to ask for a motion to approve with the conditions, you mentioned two of them, Leo, one was the commercial. MR. RIGBY-The other was the storage of vehicles. MR. STONE-And the storage of vehicles. Right, okay. So I’m going to ask for a motion to approve with those conditions, that it not be used for any kind of commercial storage at all, and that no vehicles will ever be stored in this building. Does anybody want to take a crack at the motion? MRS. HUNT-I will. MR. STONE-Go ahead, Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2004 L. PAUL DAIGLE, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 58 Jenkinsville Road. The applicant proposes to construct a 3,358 square foot single family dwelling, including a 784 square foot attached garage, with a 1,064 square foot accessory structure. The applicant requests 564 square feet of relief from the 500 square foot maximum size requirement for an accessory structure, per Section 179-5-020D. The stipulations are that no commercial storage equipment will be in this storage structure, and that no automobiles, vehicles will be stored there, and I would like to add that the vegetation would be maintained around the structure. Considering that, I move that we approve Area Variance No. 72-2004. Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2004, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. MR. DAIGLE-Thank you. MR. STONE-I’m sorry to put you through, but this is what we do. AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2004 SEQRA TYPE II JAMES & JODY FIORINI OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: SR-20 LOCATION: 28 FERRIS DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 672 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 92-669 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE: 6.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.19-1-18 SECTION 179-5-020D JAMES FIORINI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 73-2004, James & Jody Fiorini, Meeting Date: September 22, 2004 “Project Location: 28 Ferris Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 672 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests 5 feet of side setback relief from the 10-foot minimum requirement, per the side setback requirements of the Queensbury Forest subdivision (same as the current requirements for the SR-20 zone). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 93-495: 08/27/93, 1,484 sq. ft. single-family dwelling, including 2-car attached garage. BP 97-235: 05/15/97, septic alteration. BP 97-276: 06/04/97, 32’ x 16’ in-ground pool. BP 97-639: 11/06/97, 224 sq. ft. storage shed. BP 2004-149: 04/06/04, 400 sq. ft. residential alteration (conversion of the attached garage to living space). Staff comments: The applicant has provided a signed petition from four of their neighbors in favor of the relief being granted, including the neighbor to the side where the relief is required (Alfonse Fiorini, 30 Ferris Drive).” MR. MC NULTY-And no County. MR. STONE-Is that person a relative? MR. FIORINI-He’s my father, sir. MR. STONE-I just wanted to be sure. I kind of assumed that was the case. Okay. Anything you want to add? Just state who you are. MR. FIORINI-My name is James Fiorini and we’re requesting the variance. Our family was growing. So we converted our garage to a family room, and we would like the variance so we can build the garage so we can keep our cars out of the weather, as we discussed, and I really 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) don’t have, there’s not a lot of other places we can build it. On the other side of the home, the Town of Queensbury approached us for an easement to put a drainage pipe through, which we granted. So we can’t build over there onto that, over that section of land, and this is, the way our lot is is about the only place we could really build it so it’s going to, I feel, look like a nice structure could fit in with the area. MR. STONE-Did you put the pool in or have you owned the house that long? MR. FIORINI-Yes. We had the pool put in. MR. STONE-Did you ever consider putting the pool further away? You’ve got a lot of room behind you there. Just curious. MR. FIORINI-At that time, sir, no, I did not. Our family wasn’t as big as it is now. MR. STONE-Okay. You say you’ve got some neighbors. You have covenants in that subdivision? MR. FIORINI-No, sir. I don’t know of any. MR. STONE-What’s the setback requirements you quoted, Bruce? MR. FRANK-I think it’s a minimum of 10, sum of 30. MR. STONE-But is that a covenant? Is that in their deed? MR. FRANK-That’s Town Code. The approved Planning Board setbacks at the time that was approved, that subdivision, happens to be the current Code in that zone today. MR. STONE-Okay, but it was Town? MR. FRANK-That was a Planning Board approved subdivision. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody have any questions? MR. URRICO-You said the easement was Queensbury, or is it NiMo? MR. FIORINI-Queensbury. NiMo has power lines to the side of our house. However, the Town approached us and stated that there was a lot of paperwork, I guess, and hazard with the equipment for the high tension power lines to dig under there. So that’s why they asked to come on to our property. MR. STONE-So it is on your property? Just off their right of way? MR. FIORINI-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. RIGBY-The garage itself is going to be adjacent to where the extension of the home is, then? MR. FIORINI-Yes, it’s going to be six feet off per what was required from the structure of the house now. MR. RIGBY-And is it going to be even with the face of the house? MR. FIORINI-It’s going to be even with the back part of the house. MR. RIGBY-So the face of the garage would be even with that corner? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. FIORINI-Yes. MR. STONE-So it would be a straight drive in, down your driveway? MR. FIORINI-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Anybody else have any questions? Hearing none, let me open the public hearing for Area Variance No. 73-2004. Anybody wishing to speak on this Area Variance request? Any County? MR. MC NULTY-No County. No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions? If not, Leo, let’s start with you. MR. RIGBY-I guess, when I first looked at it I thought, you know, there had already been a garage there, it looked like there had already been a garage there and it was converted to living space. MR. FIORINI-That’s correct. MR. RIGBY-And when I looked at it, and I said, well, the house next door, when you had the other garage on, is going to be close. There’s going to be a close distance between the two, and then I looked at it, and I said, well, the house on the other side already has the garage. So they’re not going to ask for a variance to come out further towards your property. So the chances, getting to the point, the chances are that that’s going to be the last structure that’s going to be built there. So that’s as crowded as it would look. Getting back to our other variance that we granted earlier tonight, there’s a need for a garage, obviously, and that goes without question, I guess. The amount of relief really doesn’t seem to be that much, in my eyes, and I think, you know, as long as it’s done well, it’ll certainly fit in with the community. So I think overall I don’t think that I have a problem with the variance. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I don’t have a problem with it either. I think the contour of the land, you’ve sort of been penned in there by NiMo and the Town of Queensbury. So everything is sort of skewed toward one side of the property, but I don’t have a problem with it. I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, somebody’s got to be negative. I’ll agree that on one scale half the setback isn’t a humungous request, but I guess the things that I’m looking at is I think it is going to make that area look crowded, and I think that’s out of character with that neighborhood. There’s some neighborhoods that houses seem to be packed pretty close together anyway, and adding to that sometimes doesn’t make a big difference. I think in this case it is. I think it’s going to make it look crowded. Combining that with the fact that the applicant made a conscious decision to give up a garage that they had may have been good justification that they needed additional living space, but it still was a conscious decision, and they put the pool where they did, again, perhaps before they anticipated this need, but again, it was the applicant that did it. So it strikes me that this definitely is a self caused problem, and I think in this case the detriment to the overall community and neighborhood is going to outweigh the benefit to the applicant. So I’m going to be opposed. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would echo my sentiments that we had on the first one. It was very similar to this, and I think that it’s, you know, this type of housing in the community is very important. They’re very modest homes. The lots themselves kind of determine where the houses go on these odd shaped lots like this, and I think the fact that you have the swale, you know, that drainage in the front yard there, you know, precludes you from doing this. You’ve got the power line there also. No one wants to build any closer than they have to to that, and even though you’re asking for a lot of relief from the 10 foot, half of it, it’s not going to bother anybody, and I don’t it’s out of line with what anybody reasonable would request. So I’d go along with it. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. The only feasible alternative would be not to put in a garage, and I was looking at it. I don’t think that you could move the garage over. You said it’s six feet from the house, but you couldn’t move it over and then have the driveway pitch. No, I didn’t think so. While it’s substantial, I do think it’s acceptable, and I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. This is a typical balancing test that we, on the Zoning Board, do all the time, and I think it’s a wonderful part of the process quite frankly. I hear what Mr. McNulty is saying, and he has some very good points. However, I look at the open space to the left, and I think it is not crowded, because you’ve got the forever right of way from NiMo, and it’s always going to be open, and I think it skews it the other way, so to speak, and opens it up, even though it is going to be tight between your garage and the garage next door. I would have preferred that you had thought, seven years ago, that, gee, maybe we shouldn’t put the pool right there and maybe be able to stick it behind the house, but having said that, you didn’t, and that’s all right, but I think on balance, again, because the neighbors have certainly indicated willingness, even though there is, it’s not arms length, obviously, if it’s your father saying, I think my son ought to have what he wants, nevertheless, I think his reasoning is fine. So, having said that, I would vote yes. I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2004 JAMES & JODIE FIORINI, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Leo Rigby: 28 Ferris Drive. The applicant is proposing construction of a 672 square foot detached garage, and they’re asking for five feet of side setback relief from the 10 foot minimum requirement for the side setback requirements of Queensbury Forest subdivision, the same as the current requirements for the SR-20 zone. They would benefit from this variance by having a place to store their vehicles and things in the yard. As far as an effect on the neighborhood, although they’ll be building closer to the line, it is his father that lives on the lot adjacent, and there doesn’t seem to be any neighborhood opposition at this point in time. Are there feasible alternatives? Yes, I guess they could put in a smaller garage, or no garage, but it does seem reasonable what they’re requesting. So I would approve this. Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2004, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2004 SEQRA TYPE II JAMES FLOWER OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 30 SUNNYSIDE NORTH APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 529 SQ. FT. DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 04-444, DOCK; SP 20-96 WARREN 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE: 0.40 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.17-2-46 SECTION: 179-4-030 JAMES FLOWER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 74-2004, James Flower, Meeting Date: September 22, 2004 “Project Location: 30 Sunnyside North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 529 sq. ft. deck. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6.13 feet of side setback relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-444: 06/27/00, 48 sq. ft. dock. BP 96-298: 08/01/96, construction of a 960 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 480 sq. ft. attached garage. BP 96-329: 06/28/96, demolition of cabin. Staff comments: The applicant has constructed a 529 sq. ft. deck, which wraps around the dwelling on the east and partially on the south side. The applicant claims the changes to the deck were made in 1996 with the town approval. A review of the revised building permit plans (BP 96-298) reveal a deck on the east side and stairs 5 feet wide on the south side leading to the deck, all of which were proposed to be set back 23.5 to 25 feet from the side property line.” MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Mr. and Mrs. Flower, I assume? MR. FLOWER-Yes. I’m James Flower, 30 Sunnyside North in Queensbury. The reason it was done, in July of the year we were building, we had a real good thunderstorm, and the water that came off the roof landed about four feet from the foundation of the house. So it was beyond where that (lost word) deck area was. So in the wintertime it would have been covered with ice and snow, unless it was salted and shoveled constantly. Footings and everything else was inspected as it was built. It was all built as one unit. It was just afterthought as we got the front part done and we started to do the side and then the rainstorm came and we realized what was going to happen. So we moved the whole deck out. We put the walkway like five feet from the house. Then there’s a four foot stairway going up to the deck. MR. STONE-Did you get a modification of the building permit? MR. FLOWER-No, I didn’t think I needed one at the time. I was told at the time it wasn’t part of the footprint, is what I was told. Now I have nothing to verify that, and if it’s necessary for me to tear the deck apart, I will. I don’t see where. MR. STONE-I like your willingness, sir. Most people wouldn’t be that willing. Bruce, any comment on what happened in ’96. I know you weren’t here, but any research done? MR. FRANK-Well, according to what Mr. Flower had discussed with me and Craig Brown, he’s stating the same things now that he stated with us. The comment in the Staff notes is in reference to one of his answers. In Question One he answered change to deck was made in 1996 with Town approval. I didn’t want you guys to think that the Town approved this because of a 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) mistake with the building permit, which happens from time to time, and I believe you’re going to see that in an application later tonight. Do I believe what Mr. Flower is stating? I have no reason to doubt him. You know that the building inspectors, when they come out to check the footings, they are not checking setbacks, for one thing, because they don’t know where the property line runs. Are there ways around this? We’ve discussed this dozens and dozens of times. When you look at the property, there’s a lot of vegetation along this side. They probably didn’t think it was even a big deal. I mean, it wasn’t like it’s right up against somebody else’s dwelling where they might, you know, say, hey something’s not right here. That wasn’t the case. So I have no reason to doubt what Mr. Flower is saying, and I wanted to make that clear with his answer to question one, that there wasn’t a Town approval as far as what the building permit shows. That’s all I wanted to make clear. MR. STONE-Okay. How did this come to our attention? MR. FRANK-Well, I think there was a complaint by Mr. Flower against his neighbor had built a stockade fence right up to the shoreline, and it was a clear violation and we came out and while we were there, I was there with the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator, how he knew, I don’t know, but he said, was this deck supposed to be this way? And Mr. Flower said very plainly, well, this is what I did. You can review the building permit and he did so, and that’s how we brought it to his attention, and Mr. Flower said, well, then I’ll apply for an Area Variance. That’s what Craig directed him to do, and he did not hesitate to do so. He was very compliant. Cooperative. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. So, there is a neighbor problem, because a question I wrote down here, what does the neighbor to the south think, and that’s what I was curious about. We may hear before the evening is over. MR. FLOWER-I don’t know. The elevation there, there was a ridge there and I’ve cut like part of it away, put my walkway in. So the railing on my deck is actually below the elevation of his property. So he’s not even going to see the after portion, the easterly portion you will, is out in front of the house. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FLOWER-But then I don’t think it’s really across his boundary. I think it’s the guy next to him, yet. I don’t know where their boundary is definitely. So I can’t say. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Anybody? Hearing none, let me, well, first of all, let me just tell you, well, you know it, constructed is a word we don’t like to hear. The “ed” part of constructed is not something we look favorably on. Okay. Since hearing no questions, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to talk on Area Variance No. 74-2004? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-It appears we do have some correspondence. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-We have one letter from a David Brennan at 40 North Sunnyside. He says, “It was necessary recently for me to spend several hundred dollars for a survey to resolve a property line dispute. This survey, by Van Dusen and Steves revealed an incursion on my property by several feet due to an earthwork procedure by Mr. Flower. I am opposed to the requested relief and wish to see the violation corrected. Yours truly, David Brennan 9/22/04” And we have a letter from a Marvin Dobert. He says, “I am immediate neighbor to Mr. Flower. I am OPPOSED to the granting of a variance to the requested side yard setback requirement. To accommodate access to this illegal structure Mr. Flower has improved and mowed an area extending across his property line on to my property. Over the last several years, Mr. Flower 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) has violated the boundary between our properties several times. He has removed shrubbery from my property. He drives an ATV repeatedly on my land, and most recently, planted a tree on my access to North Sunnyside Road, which has the effect of denying my access to North Sunnyside Road. I request that Mr. Flower’s deck be reconfigured to reflect his original applied for plan, which complied with the required setback requirement. Respectfully Submitted, Marvin S. Dobert 9/22/04” And that’s it. MR. STONE-I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Would you, first of all, let me just comment on, at least the second letter. Most of that is not germane to our argument, to our discussion. It does affect the effect on the community, on the neighborhood, but not necessarily for the reasons cited in the letter. I just want that made clear to people. Any comment about the two letters you heard? MR. FLOWER-Well, it’s my opinion that Mr. Dobert’s conception of the right of way, he’s talking about, is the Town right of way for the road, and he got irate at me because I asked him one day, he had his trucked backed in my driveway up to the bank, which goes to the right of way which goes to his property to unload his lawnmower, I said I don’t mind you doing that, but I’d appreciate it if you’d ask first. That’s all I said to him. MR. STONE-Okay. Now, Brennan is the one on the top of this little hill? MR. FLOWER-Yes, and he owns the four units down below, on the right. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FLOWER-And the dispute over the property boundary there was because of the septic system that was put in on the unit, on the lot next door. They put in a pump up station. When Sweet put the pump in, he put it on my side of the property boundary. When my brother sold the property, his attorneys told him you better make an adjustment. So we measured out an eight by twelve box is what they figured it was taking up for the pump station. We were going to take it up by the road, where the marker was so you wouldn’t have to have a survey. We couldn’t do that because his leach field was there. The pump station was pumping up to it. So she took it down at the other boundary, which was the lakefront, and I’d like to make the comment that it took Van Dusen and Steves four trips up there to survey out an eight foot by twelve foot rectangular box. They had triangles and trapezoids and everything else. Every time they’d survey, I’d call the attorney and tell her to deal with them. MR. STONE-Okay, but we are talking, the relief is from the corrected boundary line, Mr. Frank? MR. FRANK-The opposite side. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FLOWER-This is on the south side. MR. STONE-Any further questions that anybody has? Any comments they want to make? MR. URRICO-I have one question. Those trees or shrubbery that are adjacent to the deck, were they put in there by you? That row of trees, is that original? MR. FLOWER-Those pine trees? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. FLOWER-No. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. URRICO-Those were there? MR. FLOWER-Yes. Those pine trees are about 30 inch in diameter. They run down the bank, and I’ve taken out the lower four trees down by the lake. I’ve got the site plan approval from the Town to do that. It happened I was on disability at the time, and a work crew decided, hey, let’s come in with a crane and take these trees out for you. So we would have gotten them all, but lightening took us out of work. MR. STONE-Okay. So your property goes from Sunnyside North all the way down to the lake, there’s nothing, these cottages are either side, one way or the other? MR. FLOWER-Right. No, they’re of me. The original subdivision of Charles Beers, I have lots number one and two, now, after we re-divided them after we owned them for a few years. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FLOWER-Then the other ones are three, four, five and six, but there’s now just two lots there because we took the six lots, when we owned them, we had it surveyed and found out that each one of the little cabins was a little bit off its lot. So we said the heck with this, let’s just make it three lots. My brother came through the Town and got all the approvals to do that. MR. STONE-It was back when times were simpler. MR. RIGBY-When was the deck originally built? MR. FLOWER-1996. It was built at the same time as the house. MR. RIGBY-And there hasn’t been any changes to it since 1996? MR. FLOWER-No. MR. RIGBY-It’s been that way. MR. FLOWER-Since Day One. MR. STONE-And no adjustments have been made to the lot line or anything on that side? MR. FLOWER-No. MR. STONE-So it’s been there for eight years? MR. FLOWER-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let’s talk about it. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Mr. Stone’s already given the speech about construction prior to, the two members of the Board that normally do it are not here tonight. Normally when we look at something like this, we’ll say, we’ll look at it in terms of, if you had come to us clean, in the beginning, what would we have done, and to me six feet, in this case, does not make a lot of difference. I think you have some protection there with the trees. I really don’t see much in terms of the relief, in terms of, we’ve already granted 50% relief twice tonight on 10 feet. This is 30% on 20 foot minimum side setback, and I really don’t have a problem with it. I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Chuck? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I don’t think this is a great deal of relief, and in many ways it’s ancient history. I think it’s been there. There really hasn’t been a problem. Granted we don’t like to see stuff already constructed, but this really isn’t that kind of a case here. It’s not something that the applicant did three months ago, ignoring a building permit or whatever, and then came in to get approval. It’s something that’s been there and the error has just recently been discovered or brought up. So, I’m going to be in favor, with the hope that the applicant, if he gets approval, doesn’t go back and thumb his nose at his neighbors, now. I don’t want to contribute to more neighborhood battles, but I don’t see any benefit in having the applicant modify this at this point in time, and I don’t think it’s really where it’s affecting any neighbors. So I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. If this had had an effect on the community or anybody else, they would have discovered it a long time ago in ’96 when it was constructed. So I think it’s water over the dam. I don’t see any reason that we would, you know, possibly even consider making them modify this, having been there for so long. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with the other Board members that it’s not a considerable amount of relief and it’s been around for quite a while, and it was nothing something that was done to sort of thumb their nose at the requirements of the Town. So I would be in favor. MR. STONE-Leo? MR. RIGBY-I’m in favor of it as well, you know, 1996, and here we are today in 2004. It’s very little relief. I have no problem with it, either. MR. STONE-This is definitely a case where, even though it’s constructed, in spite of my speech, because that’s a generic speech, it’s been sitting there for eight years. It hasn’t really bothered anybody, until recently, and then we can’t even get into why those things are going on. It certainly wasn’t done with malice aforethought. Your willingness to make a statement, even before being asked, that you guys want us to do it, we’ll take it off, I just think that the fact that it’s been existing for as long as it has, there’s just no reason to require any changes in this thing. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2004 JAMES FLOWER, Introduced by Leo Rigby who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 30 Sunnyside North. Applicant has constructed a 529 square foot deck. The relief required, applicant requests 6.13 feet of side setback relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement per Section 179-4-030, for the WR-1A zone. Looking at the balancing test and what the applicant has requested, there is definitely a benefit to the applicant, in that he gets to maintain the deck that he currently has, constructed in 1996. There’s really no undesirable change in the neighborhood. It’s minimum relief. It’s an existing deck. It’s been there, again, since 1996. Whether the request is substantial, it’s not a substantial request for relief in that it’s only 6.13 feet of relief. Whether it will have an adverse physical or environmental affect on the area, in my view it will not, and whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. It was self-created. However, the applicant has stated that he did go through the process of requesting permits and such in 1996. Therefore, I move that we approve Area Variance No. 74-2004. Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2004, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. STONE-There you go. MR. FLOWER-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II JAMIE WHITE OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: 48 SWEET ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 864 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 96-448, POOL; 96- 449, DECK AROUND POOL, AV 18-89 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE: 0.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-33 JAMIE WHITE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 75-2004, Jamie White, Meeting Date: September 22, 2004 “Project Location: 48 Sweet Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 864 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests 17 feet of side setback relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the SFR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 96-449: 07/24/96, 260 sq. ft. deck around pool. BP 96-448: 07/23/96, aboveground pool. BP 89-145: 04/12/89, 44’ x 26’ single-family dwelling with an attached garage. AV 18-1989: 02/28/89, side setback relief (5 foot setback for each side) for a single-family dwelling with an attached garage to replace a condemned mobile home (Ingraham). Staff comments: The applicant has provided a signed petition from two of their neighbors in favor of the relief being granted, including the neighbor to the side where the relief is required (Robert Whitmore, 42 Sweet Road). Should the board approve the relief being sought, the applicant will convert the small, attached garage to additional living space.” MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Go. MS. WHITE-Okay. My name is Jamie White. This is my partner, Gary Peacock, and we’re requesting the garage basically because the home does have a very small attached garage, but it’s under the home, and if you look at the picture, in order to get into it, you have to go down to the end of the driveway and make a very sharp left and I drive a very small car and I can’t get it in there. What we’re proposing is a garage at the end of the driveway, the existing paved area, and it would be behind the house. I think it’s about eight to ten feet. So it’s pretty far back on the property. There is no potential for commercial use for the building. It will just be for vehicles and maintenance, lawnmowers and kids toys and that kind of thing, and also in addition the current garage space will be transferred over. We’re going to change that into living area, family room. GARY PEACOCK 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. PEACOCK-There’s also an existing shed. It’s very hard to see. It’s where the cursor is right now. That’ll be relocated towards the rear of the property. MS. WHITE-It’s a very long, narrow lot. Unfortunately, we can’t move the garage to the left because that’s where the septic system is, and that’s why we’re requiring the relief from the setback. MR. STONE-The shed’s 10 by 12? MR. PEACOCK-I would say eight by ten. MR. STONE-I’m only looking at your drawing. It says 10 by 12. It’s supposed to be 100, isn’t it, Bruce? A shed, an auxiliary structure, 100? MR. FRANK-I don’t know how old the shed is. MR. STONE-They’re going to move it, though. MR. FRANK-Well, they propose to move it, and the location they propose to move it to is compliant. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-One hundred and twenty square feet needs to meet a five foot side and rear setback, and they more than have enough room. MR. STONE-Right. Okay. How high is this garage going to be? MR. PEACOCK-Well, we estimate 16 feet. MS. WHITE-So we’ll have storage room. MR. PEACOCK-There will be storage trusses to provide some storage space above, and probably ten foot walls to the garage itself. MR. STONE-Okay. I know your neighbors signed a petition. Do they realize how close you’re going to be to the line? MS. WHITE-Absolutely. MR. PEACOCK-We’ve staked it out. Both looked at it. MS. WHITE-A lot of discussion, because his garage, he’s proposed a garage for his up further on the property. So we’ve talked a lot about where the garages will be. MR. STONE-So you’re going to be offset? MS. WHITE-Offset. Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen, lady? All right. Hearing none, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on Area Variance No. 75-2004? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. URRICO-I do have one question. Not too long ago, we granted a variance to a garage on Sweet Road, and I can’t remember how close that is to this house. MR. MC NULTY-Forty-two Sweet Road. MR. FRANK-It’s right next door. MR. URRICO-Right next door? MR. FRANK-It’s the one most greatly affected. MR. URRICO-I thought so. MR. FRANK-I don’t know if that ran out, though. MS. WHITE-No. I know he’s just renewed his building permit and just going through the building process. MR. URRICO-So that’s the house that’s up the embankment there? MR. PEACOCK-Uphill. MS. WHITE-Correct. MR. URRICO-And he’s building on the other side. MS. WHITE-No. It will be on, right there where the cursor is. MR. STONE-But he’s offsetting it. So that they won’t be. MR. PEACOCK-His will be more forward to the street. MS. WHITE-My house is set much further back in the lot than his is. MR. STONE-How much relief did we grant on that one? MR. URRICO-Very similar. MR. FRANK-I don’t recall. It was an attached garage. It would be right in addition, extended of the existing structure. I don’t recall the relief. MR. URRICO-It seemed to me it was pretty substantial. MR. FRANK-That was a little over a year ago, it may have been almost two years ago. MR. MC NULTY-The date I’ve got is May 22, ’02. The record I found for approval. Now maybe it was renewed sometime when I wasn’t here. MR. FRANK-I think he applied for his building permit within the allowable time. Then he extended the building permit. I think that’s what she’s referring to. MR. STONE-So the odds are if we grant this, they will both be built where you want it and where he has permits for. Okay. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. MC NULTY-I’m a little puzzled about some of the setbacks, because our parcel history says that in ’89 there was an Area Variance granted for side setback relief, five feet on each side, and yet the applicant’s sketch and the indication on the setback requirement sheet don’t reflect that this house is five feet into the setbacks. MR. FRANK-Yes. I can clear that up. That was for the prior owner. There was a mobile home on there that was demoed and they got an Area Variance to put a modular home there and that was the proposal. It was going to be that wide that it would require relief on both sides, and they granted five feet of relief, well, what would have been proposed to be five feet from each side property line. Why they never did that, I don’t know, but that was not this owner. It was a previous owner. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. STONE-Yes, and that was not built. MR. FRANK-Yes. They’re last name was Ingraham. I did note that. It’s in parenths at the end of that Area Variance. MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. Chuck, are you ready to talk? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I’ll talk. I have, I’m making a guess at what this Board is going to do, which is dangerous, but I suspect that it’s going to come in your favor, I’m not sure, but likewise I don’t think something like this justifies a unanimous in favor. It’s going to make that area crowded. Now admittedly Sweet Road is crowded, but I think it’s going to make it more so, and three feet instead of twenty feet on a setback is significant, and that does bother me some. At the same time, I’d like to see you get permission to do what you’re proposing to do. So I’m gambling a little bit, but I think I’ve got to come down on the negative side. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have had other people comment to me about Sweet Road up at the top of the hill there because of the narrowness of those lots. I know that one house that we granted permission for recently, up at the very top of the hill there, people were just, you know, I had a couple of people that made comments to me about the narrowness of that lot, but I think that, nonetheless, these lots are pre-existing. They’re nonconforming lots, in the sense of them being one acre lots, they’re not even close, but I think there’s a willingness on the part of the neighbors to offset this garage, as opposed to the one that we had previously granted permission for, and even though they’re asking for relief, and these are going to look like wall to wall little houses up there, I don’t know what else you could possibly do, you know, legitimately with the lots. I guess you could say keep trying to make your move into the garage, you know, sliding it sideways in the snow and torking it into the hole in the wall, but it makes more sense to me to allow this to happen. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, thank you. I was concerned about the height, but then seeing, you know, the other property is so much higher, I guess it won’t be a big problem to those people, and I was also wondering if the garage could be put back further and then more centered, but then that would make quite a long driveway. So, you know, thinking about it, you know, I guess there really is no feasible alternative to putting a garage without the 17 foot of side setback relief. So I would be in favor. MR. STONE-Leo? MR. RIGBY-I had two thoughts when I saw the, when I drove by. One of them was that there’s already an existing garage under the house, and when you purchased the house, you purchased it with a garage. My other thought was that the home next door, if it ever were to build a 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) garage, and this garage were to, and I didn’t quite understand exactly where the garage was going to be positioned, but if the two were to be positioned close to one another, they were going to be very, very close, and then looking at Sweet Road and looking at the whole character, things are becoming very crowded on Sweet Road. Understanding now that the garage is set back, the neighbor is in the process of, or already gotten approval to build a garage, I guess, you know, a little bit more, and I’m not overly excited about the idea of granting the variance, but I think that, really, it is the only alternative that you have, if you’re going to have another garage on that property. The only other way to go would to be to say that, you know, no, you can’t build a garage, because I don’t see any other way for you to really do it. So, I guess, to summarize, I’d be in favor of it as well. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I remember the previous, your next door neighbor’s garage application, and it was fairly tight to the side setback, and I don’t remember exactly what the measurements were, but one of the selling points to me, at that time, was that the properties were uneven. It was offset, and I thought that improved the side setback, and I believe that’s the same case here, that even though it’s a short, it was a short distance to the side, the fact that it is offset, I think, makes a big difference in my mind. If they were close together, I don’t know if I would be in favor of it. I’d be challenged to support Mr. McNulty, but in this case I’m going to support your application. MR. STONE-Well, I’m going to belatedly ask a couple of questions. I’m looking at the picture which you’ve provided, the color shot. Why, and I notice over there there are some railroad ties holding back the hill a little bit. Why can’t you cut into that and make a little turning pavement to get underneath the house? MS. WHITE-That still would only allow for the storage of one car, when we currently have two cars parked in the garage. So that would mean the juggling of cars every time one person wanted to get in and out. MR. STONE-Okay, but you’ve never mentioned that before. You talked about your difficulty. MS. WHITE-No, I’m sorry. I just talked about my difficulties getting in, but actually I didn’t even attempt to get into that garage since I first purchased the home. That garage has been used for storage since the day I moved in. MR. STONE-Okay. One of my concerns is we’ve been talking about the amount of relief we’re granting, tonight, and here we’re granting 17 feet of relief on a 20 foot setback, and nobody seems to be concerned about it. I am. I just think it’s too much. I appreciate the fact that they’re going to be offset, and all of that, but I think it’s very dangerous to say, given, having a 20 foot setback, we’re going to let you use all but three feet of that. I just don’t think I, in good conscience, could vote for this, because of the amount of relief. I appreciate your concern. I appreciate it’s going to be offset. It’s certainly going to be a nice looking project when you get all done, and since you’ve got four votes, you’re going to get it, but you’ve got to listen to me anyway, but like Mr. McNulty says, in this particular, I just think it’s too much. So I would vote no, but having looked at the votes, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2004 JAMIE WHITE, Introduced by Leo Rigby who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 48 Sweet Road. The applicant proposes construction of an 864 square foot detached garage. The relief required, the applicant requests 17 feet of side setback relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement per Section 179-4-030, for the SFR-1A zone. Looking at the balancing test and weighing the effect on the community versus the benefit to the applicant, the benefit can’t really be achieved, well, there’s other possibilities to achieve the benefit, and that would basically be not to construct the garage. So the benefit really cannot be achieved by another means better feasible to the applicant. Whether an undesirable change in the neighborhood 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) character or nearby properties will occur, there’s been no adverse opinion from any of the neighbors, and it appears that the project is a good project and the design of the project will compliment the neighborhood. Whether the request is substantial. The request for relief is substantial, but there doesn’t really appear to be any other alternative to constructing the garage. Whether the request will have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the area. We don’t see any possible adverse physical or environmental effect, and whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, it is self-created. With the condition, if the variance is granted, the other garage is converted to living space. For those reasons, I’d like to make a motion to approve Area Variance No. 75-2004. Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2004, by the following vote: nd MR. STONE-The only question I have, Mr. Rigby, the fact that there’s a garage, an attached garage existing, doesn’t say it’s not self-created. There’s a garage already and they want to put another one up. So it’s still, putting the garage up is self-created. It’s not a fatal flaw, but it is self-created. I think. Do you have a problem with that? MR. RIGBY-I don’t have a problem with that. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Another point, right now there is a garage that exists in the house. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s what I’m saying. MR. RIGBY-That’s what Mr. Stone is saying. MR. FRANK-They propose to convert it, and they won’t be issued a building permit, it’ll be part of the building permit. MR. MC NULTY-Right. I was just wondering whether we should have a condition in there, because otherwise we’re approving a second garage. MR. STONE-That’s a good point. MR. RIGBY-Good point. MR. STONE-So the condition is, if we grant the variance, the condition is that the other garage is converted to living space. MR. RIGBY-Okay. MS. WHITE-I have a question on that. Does that need to be converted to living space prior to building? MR. FRANK-No. MS. WHITE-Okay, because that would be difficult to do it. MR. STONE-We’re not going to ask you to spend all your money, but it’s got to be in a logical progression. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, and blocking it off so you can’t drive a car in it, removing the overhead door or something like that counts as that. MS. WHITE-That I can do. MR. MC NULTY-It doesn’t mean you have to finish the walls inside. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. STONE-Right. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Rigby, Mrs. Hunt NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. MS. WHITE-Thank you. MR. PEACOCK-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-2004 SEQRA TYPE II DIAMOND PT. REALTY AGENT(S): JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: LANDLOCKED PARCEL BETWEEN ROUND POND RD. & OAKWOOD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 17.7-ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 LOTS WITH ACCESS TO FOUR OF THE LOTS PROVIDED FOR BY A PRIVATE DRIVE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR A LOT TO BE BUILT UPON FOR LOTS NUMBERS 2, 3, 4, AND 5. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 11-2004 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: N/A LOT SIZE: 17.72 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-090 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 76-2004, Diamond Pt. Realty, Meeting Date: September 22, 2004 “Project Location: Landlocked parcel between Round Pond Rd. & Oakwood Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 17.7-acre parcel into 5 lots with access to four of the lots provided for by a private drive. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the street frontage requirements for a lot to be built upon for lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 per § 179-4-090(A). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SB 11-2004: to be reviewed 9/28/04, subdivision of a 17.7-acre parcel into 5 lots. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 17.7-acre parcel into 5 lots with access to four of the lots provided for by a private drive. Lot 1 is proposed to front on Oakwood Drive. The private drive is proposed to cross the west end of Lot 1 and end with a cul-de-sac straddling the shared lot line of Lot 3 and Lot 4. The driveways for Lots 4 and 5 are proposed from the cul-de-sac. The private drive is proposed to be constructed to town standards, with the exception of the road width, which is proposed to be 16 feet wide. The town standard for road width is 28 feet (24-foot wide travel lane with 2-foot wide wing curbs on each side).” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 8, 2004 Project Name: Diamond Point Realty Owner: Diamond Point Realty ID Number: QBY-04-AV-76 County Project#: Sep04-22 Current Zoning: RR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a 5 lot residential subdivision. Site Location: New Subdivision north off Oakwood Drive (Overlook Drive). Tax Map Number(s): 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) 296.10-1-19 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a five-lot subdivision off of Oakwood Drive where four out of the five lots will not have frontage on a Town Road. The zoning requires all new lots to have frontage on a Town Road. The information submitted details the lot layout, private drive arrangement, contours, septic, and proposed house location. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 09/15/04. MR. STONE-Okay. If you’ll bear with me two seconds. I want the transcript to note that the Chairman of the Zoning Board is very, very, very unhappy with the condition of the mikes provided to us, in that the batteries run out at the most inopportune times, and we get this clicking, and we have complained on a number of occasions, and I will formally complain tomorrow, but I want it on the record now. Now, go ahead. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. Rick Meath of Diamond Point Realty. I think the application is clear. We’d like to subdivide a 17.7 acre parcel into five lots, with access off Oakwood Drive. We’re proposing a narrower than standard roadway, sixteen foot is proposed, in order to keep the character of the area a wooded, private, secluded area, and we feel it provides less impact to the neighborhood, less impact to the site. We feel they’re all positive benefits from this proposal. I think I’ll leave it there, other than one correction. This is not a landlocked parcel at this point. The Diamond Point Realty has purchased land to enable access to the site. It’s listed as landlocked on the application. I’m just correcting that. MR. RINGER-But it does come out onto Oakwood, I mean, that’s part where the road’s going to be. MR. JARRETT-It borders on Oakwood. Yes, it’s listed as landlocked. I’m not exactly sure why. MR. STONE-Very good. Thank you. Would you, for the purposes of everybody’s edification, talk about the process, because we have a very limited responsibility here and I’m certainly going to remind the public of that when we get to the public hearing. Can you tell us the process in which you’re involved at the moment and what you anticipate happening. MR. JARRETT-Okay. This is strictly a technical variance from the zoning requirements which require a 24 foot road with two foot shoulders for a total of 28 feet. This is normally subject to, and it is subject to Planning Board review all the technical standards on this subdivision, including the road character and location and width. However, this technical standard needs to be reviewed by this Board because it is a zoning requirement. MR. STONE-Yes, but what hoops are you going to have to go through? I’m trying to educate the people and me at the same time. What are you going to have to do to gain final approval of this subdivision? MR. JARRETT-We have been before the Planning Board for Sketch Plan approval in July, and the Board did grant Sketch Plan approvals, and next week we will be seeking Preliminary and Final approval of the subdivision. MR. STONE-Do you expect to have an EIS at all? Or what’s the SEQRA going to? MR. JARRETT-I believe SEQRA is listed as Type II here. MR. STONE-For us. MR. JARRETT-And I’m not sure what it’s listed. I don’t know if the SEQRA here is going to carry over to the Planning Board or not, and how they’re going to list it. We do not expect a major environmental impact to be declared that an Environmental Impact Statement would have to be prepared. We feel this project provides minimal environmental impact because 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) primarily we’re not impacting the slopes on the site. We’re impacting strictly the upper plateau, which is flat. MR. STONE-That’s what I was wondering. Okay. All right. Obviously we’re going to hear from the neighbors, but this land, do you have anything you want to add? This land is, where you want to build is buildable, you’re saying, there’s enough room for you to build. MR. JARRETT-Yes. As you can see from the plat that’s on the screen, the lots are all situated atop the ridge line. The green area is the plateau area at the top of the ridge. We did not color in the slope areas. We thought it showed the contrast between slopes and plateau purposely, and you can see that we have plenty of area to situation five houses atop that plateau. The site is zoned for three acre lots. The zoning nearby in the existing neighborhoods is primarily smaller. I’m going to say one acre nominally. So this is far less density than the existing neighborhoods present, and we feel it provides very minimal impact because of the number of lots and because we’re building on the top of the ridge. MR. STONE-Okay, and it’s your contention that you are helping, since the area is developable, by making a minimum sized road, you’re helping the overall? MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. That’s our argument. We feel it’s a positive environmental impact compared to what could be done otherwise. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-If that were built to Town standards and dedicated to the Town, then the area the road would take up would be subtracted from your lots. Am I correct? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-In which case Lots Two and Three would no longer be compliant. You’d take them down below three acres? MR. JARRETT-Well, we could adjust the lot lines to make them comply. MR. MC NULTY-But as they stand now. That’s correct. MR. STONE-But these lots are yet to be decided? MR. JARRETT-If you do not grant this relief tonight, then certainly we might have to go back to the drawing board and redesign the subdivision. That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-Can you tell me how this road compares to other roads in the vicinity, in terms of width? Are the other roads in this area below standard? Do you know? MR. JARRETT-I do not know that, as a matter of fact. I think they’re much closer to standard. They’re probably in the 20 to 22 foot width at least. I’m not sure I can state that they’re 24. MR. URRICO-Bruce, do you know? MR. FRANK-I don’t know. As far as the right of ways are concerned, I believe they’re all 50 foot right of ways. As far as the road bed, I think Tom may be accurate. I think they’re a little less in width, compared with today’s standards for Town width. MR. STONE-May I caution you, Mr. Frank, that we don’t use first names. I would ask that you not use first names. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. FRANK-My greatest apologies. MR. STONE-We all know Mr. Jarrett, but we prefer to use his title. Go ahead. MR. UNDERWOOD-How much clearing are you guys going to do on those lots up where the houses are? Are you going to try and keep it wooded like the other subdivisions are? MR. JARRETT-If you note the light green on the plat on the screen, that’s the disturbance limit that we’ve noted on the plat. The dark green is to remain wooded, and there’s a covenant stipulated in the subdivision that requires woodland to remain. RICK MEATH MR. MEATH-There’ll be some cutting of trees, but it’ll be primarily remain wooded. MR. STONE-When you go before the Planning Board, there will be a public hearing on this subdivision. MR. JARRETT-I believe it is scheduled. MR. STONE-As a public hearing? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. STONE-Because I want to be able to say to the people that. MR. JARRETT-They’ll have another chance to comment. MR. STONE-That’s what I want to say. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Let me open the public hearing, with the stipulation that one, you have five minutes to make whatever you want, that we’re dealing, as many cases before the Zoning Board with a very narrow issue. Should we grant relief for the width of this road and to allow. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, you’re not creating any relief for the width of the road. You’re granting relief for four lots that don’t have frontage on a Town road. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. I had to think back. Yes, for the four lots that would not be on a Town road. All right. Anybody wishing to speak on Area Variance No. 76-2004? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NANCY WILDER MS. WILDER-Good evening. MR. STONE-Good evening. MS. WILDER-My name is Nancy Wilder, and I’m a resident of Oakwood Drive. My concern with the granting of the variance hinges specifically on the width of placing a narrow road on a blind corner. Again, not looking at other issues of the subdivision, we’re only looking at, as you said, the variance to not have a Town road in this parcel. When I’ve studied the plans, I see a road that comes into Oakwood Drive that is not clearly visible from both directions of that road. MR. STONE-Okay. We’re getting in to a site plan issue. I understand what you’re saying. MS. WILDER-Right, but the difference is that a Town road would, of necessity, be much more visible simple because it’s wider. A site plan issue may be able to address this as well, but the first step is to say that the road as designed to create this variance creates an unsafe situation 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) when one is approaching from the Wincrest side down Oakwood. That’s the point that I would like to make. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me just ask you, and I don’t want to put you on the spot, but what if it were a Town road specs through the first lot, and then it became what they’re looking for? MS. WILDER-I would have to see it drawn out if it was visible, coming from that side of Oakwood Drive, then I would be happy with it. I like the idea that they are trying to minimize the environmental impact. I think everyone in the neighborhood likes to see as many trees left as possible, because that ridge gets a lot of natural storm damage, and we seem them, you know, come down in droves at times. So you really have to stay with as much as you can. I think we’re all environmentally conscious and like the fact that they’re proposing to minimize storm runoff and those kinds of things. My understanding of the neighborhood concern is just, you cannot see around that corner, and that if we cannot, you know, if we don’t start right now by saying that the road, because it is so much narrower, and I can speak, you don’t have to take this for gospel, but the road bed on Oakwood right now does only measure 21 feet. It is slightly under the Town standard. As he said, the right of ways and all are there, but the actual pavement measures 21 feet. So I think we have a pretty good idea of what a road that is 16 feet, including its own curves, is going to look like there. That’s all I have to say. Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? DAVE KELLY MR. KELLY-Thank you. My name’s Dave Kelly. My wife and I own the property on 30 Oakwood Drive, which is just the southern border of this proposed subdivision. First I’d like to state that I have met with the developers, and they’ve been very forthcoming with answers to my questions and I’ve been very happy with that, and I do applaud them because I think they truly appreciate the uniqueness of this piece of property, and I think that their vision for this private quaint neighborhood, small neighborhood is very nice, certainly welcomed over the alternative, trying to rezone this to many lots. However, as an immediate neighbor, I do have several concerns, which I’d like to air. It’s a little bit confusing what’s zoning and what’s planning here. In my mind they sort of all, one sort of hinges on the other. MR. STONE-They do, but we have to sort it out. That’s the only problem. MR. KELLY-Okay. So you’ll have to help me out here. My first concern is the safety concern of that corner, which we’ve just talked about. I won’t go into that much more, other than to say I think that can probably be addressed if there’s careful attention to the exact siting of that road entrance. There is a blind, it is blind coming from the south going north, and coming from the north going south, if you were to turn left into that development, with the cars coming north. MR. STONE-Now we’re to site plan. MR. KELLY-Having said that, I would favor a private road over a Town road because of the cutting that would be involved there. Secondly, I’m concerned about the amount of clearing that would happen in that lot. Again, this is probably more site plan review, but it comes into play with my third concern, which is the actual granting of a variance of a roadway that will feed five lots, or four extra lots that aren’t accessed by the road. MR. STONE-Now you’re into our territory. MR. KELLY-Now we’re in there I guess. If I can just refer to my notes here, the issue here in my mind is that, looking at this map here, you can see the non-shaded areas, the white areas, occupies probably greater than 50% of the acreage of that proposed development, and according to the Queensbury Subdivision code A183-22, the area occupied by slopes over 25% grade should be subtracted from the total acreage prior to determining the allowable building sites, and this is zoned three acre building residential deemed by people like yourself that have 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) more wisdom in determining zoning than I do, but for some reason this was zoned three acres. It is presently zoned three acres, and with those calculations, I estimate that more appropriately three houses would be sited on that lot, and that goes into plain, or that goes into my other concerns about the amount of clearing that could be done on that lot, and the negative impact that that would have on our neighborhood. I believe, particularly Lots Four and Five, when you get through with clearing for the roadway or the driveways at that point in time, the building lots and the septic fields, you’ve basically taken the plateau off and I’m concerned about the noise from Great Escape and the visual changes that would occur from the Country Club. I know in their previous site plan discussions they’ve talked about leaving 70 square basal feet of trees per acre, but I need some education there. I haven’t been able to feel comfortable with what that means and what that is. I’d like to know what the basal area of the existing property is now. So I have a reference. Thank you. MR. STONE-You’re welcome. Anybody else wishing to speak on this? DENNIS LUSIGNAN DR. LUSIGNAN-Well, thank you for this time. I’m Dennis Lusignan. I just want to ask one question and maybe it’s not pertinent. On this map, the top of the map is west, and I live to the west, as do many people, and this road along the top of the ridge as defined does not appear to have a buffer between it and the backyards of all the houses that are not on that map but are really there, and I’m not here to speak against the subdivision. I’m not here to speak against the road, but I would certainly like to see the site developed in such a way that all of those houses, of which there must be 10, would not have to have an open roadway in their backyards. Thank you. That’s it. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Come forward, please. DORIS HERWIG MS. HERWIG-Good evening. I’m Doris Herwig and I live on Oakwood Drive as well. I would just like to make the comment, regarding that corner that is in question regarding the road. In 1979, when I bought my property, Oakwood Drive was a country road. Senior strolled. Babies were pushed in their carriages. Dogs were walked. People jogged, and today it’s fast becoming a NASCAR speedway. That corner, I have seen with my own eyes people going around that very corner where this road comes in on two wheels just about. I’m exaggerating, but to get the point across. I would like to say that as you consider this project and this entrance, that it be constructed in such a way to minimize the danger. Younger people are moving into the area. You’ve got children, and I would hate to be the one to have to announce that somebody was hurt because of the traffic, not so much the numbers as the speed. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? By the way, the applicant will comment on your comments. That’s what they’re taking violent notes back there for. We will ask them. MARY ENHORNING MRS. ENHORNING-I’m here because I live on Oakwood Drive. My husband and I have lived there. I’m extremely nervous because I never do this. So anyway, we’ve lived there for 25 years, and it’s been a very nice street, and now this beautiful little patch of land is going to be developed like every other, you know, spare, take a ride around Twicwood, if you see a blank area, they’re going to develop it. My number one concern, I guess, is traffic around that bend, and my second concern is I would like to make this foolish request of the owner of this land. I would like them to do what the Post Star said in their editorial and turn it over to be a nature area, just a nature area. I know you don’t do that nowadays. You make money, but that’s what I would like, and that’s why I’m sitting here speaking, and I thank you. MR. STONE-You’re welcome. Anybody else? Let’s read whatever we’ve got, and if anybody else wants to speak when we get through reading, please do. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. MC NULTY-We’ve got a petition, which is signed by it looks like 41 people representing somewhere around 28 or 29 properties, and, having said that much, I’ll quickly read the one page of the petition that. It says, “We, the undersigned, are residents and neighboring property owners/residents of Oakwood Drive in Queensbury, New York wish to express our concerns regarding the proposed development (Diamond Pointe Realty’s subdivision of 17.7 acres into 5 residential lots, to be accessed from Oakwood Drive), scheduled on the agenda for the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board’s September 22, 2004 meeting. Aside from the potential loss of the aesthetic beauty that our street now possesses (as well as the loss of habitat for this area’s wildlife), and the potential increase of our property values – including our taxes – the issues of concern are: safety and traffic. The latter, traffic, would increase with the residential population, of course, but Oakwood Drive ALREADY has a traffic issue at present. It has been, and continues to be, used by vehicles like it is a shortcut, or unofficial thru-way, to major roads (e.g. between Country Club Road and Route 9). The existing traffic already supercedes the amount of traffic this street’s total houses could ever possibly output (even if all 35 residences housed more than 3 vehicles). Additionally, the speeds of the majority of vehicles here is way too fast for such a small neighborhood, and one with an extremely dangerous sharp (like an “elbow macaroni” – shape) curve, exactly where the wooded lands now exist and where the proposed site for the development is located. Which leads to the safety issue. With the increased traffic, which is already excessive not only in the amount but also in speed, the potential for accidents is also increased. Even in optimally fair weather, as on a summer day, negotiating around that sharp curve, where the proposed development would be, is already dangerous. In the winter, it can be most hazardous, especially when ice and snow are present. The snow banks alone make the limited visibility of this location even more treacherous. Additionally, the street now is borderline unsafe for the pedestrians, joggers, bicyclists and neighborhood children, who for safety concerns, really cannot play on their own front yards. The street already has too much traffic, and much of it at speeds that are too excessive for this road’s design as well as its existing population. Thank you in advance for allowing our concerns to be voiced with this petition.” MR. STONE-Okay. What else have you got? MR. MC NULTY-And that’s it. MR. STONE-Okay. I hope nobody feels that I’m cutting it off. This is a viable petition, and it certainly will be used before the Planning Board, and I certainly encourage you to do so, but our issue, again, is that they are seeking relief from the street frontage requirements for four lots. That’s really all we’re talking about. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-With the opportunity to re-open the public hearing if necessary. Mr. Jarrett, do you want to comment on some of the things you heard? Germane or not. MR. JARRETT-Well, maybe I’ll offer a couple of comments. I think we don’t need to belabor a lot of the technical issues that’ll be discussed next week, and I’m not going to dismiss any of them as inconsequential, as I understand the safety concerns they’re referring to and we’ll discuss those. With regard to the buffer to the west, that whole slope to the west of the road is to remain wooded, and there’s no reason for us to cut that at all. So that will remain. MR. STONE-How wide is it going to be? MR. JARRETT-You can see the entire white area, the top of the sheet to the property line. To the southern end it’s narrow and it gets wider to the north, and that’s all to remain wooded, along with, if you look at our design plan, you’ll note that our stormwater management is proposed to be situated along the road, but we’re even keeping trees along the road. We’re building our stormwater structures around the trees. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. STONE-Well, how close is it to the south, out of curiosity, the closest point over there? MR. JARRETT-That’s a Niagara Mohawk right of way right there, where the road borders on the property line, and the road itself is roughly, it’s less than 10 feet from the property line at that very southern extremity. MR. MEATH-And actually Niagara Mohawk owns the property immediately to the west of the subdivision. It’s not just a Niagara Mohawk right of way. They actually own. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. JARRETT-As we travel to the north it gets wider. It diverges away from that Niagara Mohawk property. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else you want to add to what you heard? MR. JARRETT-We heard mostly about the traffic and safety, I believe. An issue was brought up regarding slopes. Again, it’s not an issue for this Board. However, the Planning Board did grant us Sketch Plan approval, and specifically addressed that issue when they granted the approval, and acknowledged that they were comfortable with our design, with regard to the Town standard. MR. STONE-How about the comment, only because we don’t get too many chances to listen to site plan things, but what about the unbuildable acreage? Does that come into play on this land? MR. JARRETT-Specifically what the Planning Board addressed, and they were fine with our five lot proposal. MR. STONE-They were? Okay. MR. JARRETT-I reviewed the minutes today on purpose, because I thought that question might come up, and the Board was fine with our proposal. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. MEATH-I think it’s mostly Planning Board issues really. MR. STONE-Yes, it definitely is. Any other questions on the part of the Board? MR. URRICO-Yes. I do. If these houses, these residences are not fronting a public road, does that mean that you’re responsible for clearing the road? MR. MEATH-There will be a homeowners association which will be responsible for taking care of, clearing and maintaining, the road. MR. URRICO-And during emergencies? MR. MEATH-Yes. MR. URRICO-I mean, some of the residents spoke of trees coming down frequently in that area during storms. Who would be responsible for getting the trees out of the road? MR. MEATH-Well, primarily it would be the homeowners association. If it’s a tree that’s partially on someone’s lot, I would assume that the lot owner would want to get it taken care of, also. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. URRICO-What about across the road? MR. MEATH-That would be the homeowners association. MR. URRICO-So, I always worry about emergencies, and, you know, ambulances being needed in there, and they would be responsible for removing the, for clearing the road and making sure there’s access by emergency vehicles? MR. MEATH-Yes. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. STONE-Has the fire department seen? MR. JARRETT-They have reviewed our plan, and they are fine with it. They would not give us anything directly in writing. They would give it to Staff, and there’s nothing in the record that you’ve seen so far with any concerns from the fire company? MR. FRANK-I have not. If there was, it would be in the permanent file. MR. MC NULTY-I haven’t seen anything. MR. STONE-Okay. So, I mean, obviously, if we were to grant, it would be on the basis of getting approval from the Fire Marshal. MR. JARRETT-And the Planning Board will bring that issue up as well. MR. STONE-Yes, well, we can still put it into our motion, just to be sure, if that’s where we are. Okay. Are you happy if we discuss it? MR. JARRETT-Not unhappy. MR. STONE-Well, let’s start. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we have to, you know, keep the focus on what our domain, and that is that we’re talking about street frontage requirements, and I think that the only place that I could come up with that had similar characteristics was Lakewood Estates up on Pilot Knob. My brother lives up there, and I know that’s a 16 foot wide road there. Leading up into those individual house sites up on the hill. I think that what they’re trying to do here is pretty minimalist. I would call into question I think that, you know, I’ve used the excuse before, I don’t think that undevelopable property should be counted into the arrangement, and I would somewhat back that up, but I think that you have to look at the size of these lots as they’re being suggested to be built. I mean, they’re all over three acres, which would make it, I think that they are set back substantially, especially in the case of the latter lots further out on the end of that road there from the western neighbors who are the most concerned. I think that the long individual roadways leading in to those initial ones, the one and two there especially are going to substantially set those away from the west. The only neighbor that would be affected would be the one that did speak, the one that is living to the south side there, but I think that the, it makes more sense to me to keep it a 16 foot wide road. It has been done in the Town, and it’s worked out before, and I think that the amount of cutting that’s been suggested, no cutting on those steeps slopes and keeping the trees on the tops of the hill, does minimize the impact on the neighbors up there. It would be nice to keep it green space. I would have to agree with the neighbors, but that’s the price of progress with commodity housing in this community. So I guess I would be in favor of. MR. STONE-You’re in favor of creating, allowing five lots, four lots to be created that are not on a Town road? 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. UNDERWOOD-Correct. MR. STONE-Width is not, again, part of our, as I understand, Bruce, right? We’re only allowing five lots to be sort of created not on a Town road? MR. FRANK-Four lots. You’re granting relief for Lots Two through Five. MR. STONE-Two through Five. MR. FRANK-To not front on a Town road. MR. STONE-That’s right. That’s really all. Jim, you’re happy with that? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think, you’re suggestion of maybe making it full width when you get out to the corner there, I mean, the natural curve of the road there I think does, is a concern to the neighborhood. I drive through there on a regular basis, and people do forget that there’s two tight turns, one and then another one, as you come up the hill on Wincrest, and I think that that is a concern, but, you know, that’s a driver problem. It’s not a neighborhood problem. The neighbors are aware of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I agree with Mr. Underwood. I think it would be less damage to the property to put the narrower road, not have them on the Town road. A Town road all the way through there would be a lot more of an impact. So I would be in favor of subdividing this with four lots accessed by a private drive. MR. STONE-Leo? MR. RIGBY-Yes. I think that the 16 foot of road frontage is good for the community overall, too. From what the neighbors have said tonight, though, I think there is a safety concern here, too, and I don’t know if that fits into the scope of our motion here or not. Maybe we can make it part of our motion. The concern seems to be the connection with Oakwood Drive, and to be sure that that connection’s made well. The 16 foot of frontage I think also ties into that connection with Oakwood Drive. So there may be a wider requirement for the road at the point where it meets Oakwood Drive. I’m not sure whether that’s a Planning Board issue or whether that’s a Zoning Board issue or if that’s part of our motion, but overall, I think it’s a good proposal, and if that can be addressed, I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Bruce, just again for the record, if this was one lot. If Lots Two, Three, Four and Five didn’t exist, what would be the requirement for Lot One to be on the road. MR. FRANK-It has greater than 40 feet of frontage on a Town road. So it more than exceeds. MR. STONE-More than exceeds that? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-And the opening, the curb cut is fine? MR. FRANK-It’s not something that really would be discussed. MR. STONE-Okay. I just want to get it clear that it wouldn’t. We hear the safety aspects, and I think Leo touched on it, and we can talk about it. MR. FRANK-Let me back up a little bit. I think when you request for a curb cut, that the Superintendent of Highways has to approve it. So what does he look at? I don’t know. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I guess I’m going to be the odd man out at this point. I’m not comfortable with this, and I’ll give you my reasons. There’s no doubt you would benefit from this, but I think when we talk about the effect this variance would have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare as well, I’m not, if it was one lot, we’ve granted that before, but we’re talking about four different lots granting relief without road frontage. It’s four lots, and I think there’s a health safety issue there that I’m not quite comfortable with. As far as feasible alternatives, even Mr. Jarrett mentioned that there are feasible alternatives, should he not get approval tonight. So I think there are some alternatives that need to be explored before we go ahead with this. I do believe the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance. The Ordinance is for one lot we’re looking at granting four lots relief from the road frontage. So I think that’s pretty substantial, and as far as the adverse effect, as far as the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or community, I think that’s a toss up at this point, too. So I’m not comfortable with it, and I would be against the motion at this stage. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m inclined to like the proposal of the private road. Several thoughts bounced around in my head, but one is, I compare this to a lot of the roads and properties up around the lake and there’s lots of situations that are far worse than what this is proposing. The people cope with and they get emergency vehicles in and so on. I do hear what the neighbors are saying about safety concerns, and I think that is valid. Certainly there are cars whipping through that neighborhood now that are going faster than they should, but the narrower road, providing that the entrance onto Oakwood is designed carefully, may be an advantage because I think it’s going to tend to make at least the residents in this development drive a bit more slowly because it’s going to be more like they’re on a driveway than on a Town road. I would encourage the residents to show up at the Planning Board meeting and make the rest of their comments because a lot of what’s been mentioned is Planning Board considerations, and another thing that you might want to throw in when you get there is some consideration about construction vehicles, because you’re going to have construction vehicles going in and out of there, and if something isn’t done, they’re going to be tracking all kinds of mud onto the road, and there’s probably some things that can be done to minimize that, but having said all that, I think for the issue that we’re looking at of whether or not we should approve four lots not fronting on a Town road, presuming that the intention of that requirement is to provide adequate safety access and access for fire and police, I think it’s going to be provided here, and therefore I think the benefit to the applicant is clear, and I think in the long run, as far as the road is concerned, there’s not going to be much of a detriment to the neighborhood. So, I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Well, I agree with the majority. I think there are a lot of concerns, and they have been alluded to by the people who have spoken, and I’m sure that they will make them even clearer and broader when the Planning Board has a public hearing, but it seems to me, and I think Mr. Urrico makes a very good argument, except that a Town road could be put in there. Certainly it could be widened to be a Town road, and there would be no reason for the Town not to accept it, I wouldn’t think, and that would disturb the land to a larger extent than the applicant wants to do, and I think it’s a plus to the community, and we’ve all mentioned the safety concerns, and I think they will be adequately taken care of, and certainly I would ask that the motion that we make to approve would say that we need to get the opinion of the Fire Marshal and the rescue squads and everything, that they’re comfortable with the safety aspects of this road, and I know we’re going to get, Planning Board will certainly insist upon those, but I would just put it in the motion. The front, that remains to be taken care of by the Planning Board. That’s a pure site plan issue. It’s not our issue. So, having said that, I think, on balance, that this is a reasonable request, and I think if the project is subjected to all of the examination by the Planning Board, I think it’ll come out to be a good project, and I think it will preserve as much of the flora and fauna as possible to do. Having said that, I need a motion to approve. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-2004 DIAMOND PT. REALTY, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Oakwood Drive, between 28 & 30. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 17.7 acre parcel into five lots with access to four of the lots provided by a private drive. The applicant is requesting relief from the street frontage requirements for a lot to be built upon for Lots Two, Three, Four & Five per Section 179-4-090, Subsection A. There seems to be agreement from the Board at this point in time that this subdivision, as proposed, would be better off in not having the full width road, but that would be subject to Planning Board review. At the present time, it’s a 16-foot road that’s being proposed on site to access the further four parcels back from the original first lot. Whether this road should be constructed to Town standards is up to the Planning Board, as far as we’re concerned. As far as the effect on the neighborhood, there are concerns expressed by the neighbors, but it’s our feeling that a narrower road would probably make people more likely to drive at a slower speed and stop as they’re coming out onto that dangerous corner. As far as feasible alternatives, there really don’t appear to be any, other than not creating those lots further back in at this point in time. It’s our opinion that the variance is not substantial, in that the private road, as proposed to be constructed, would be in the interests of the residents who would live there, and it would not have a negative effect on the residents already living in the area, and this road would probably have no adverse effect on those neighbors or the immediate neighborhood. It should be reviewed by the Fire Marshal, and other safety organizations, as to the adequacy of the 16 foot wide road as proposed, and as per my discussion, I think that I used Lakewood Estates, up on Pilot Knob, as an example of a similar type occurrence. Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2004, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen. I do want to congratulate the public for understanding, I think, the narrowness of the issue. I think they understand they haven’t exhausted their possibilities, their opportunities to talk on this issue at the Planning Board, and as Mr. McNulty said, I encourage you to do so. Planning Board is subject to as much help as you can give them, in terms of your concerns, and nobody wants to ramrod anything down anybody’s throat. They want it to be a good project. A project that everybody can buy into and I thank you for your patience, and there you go, gentlemen. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. MEATH-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II WINTER D. HORTON AGENT(S): JUDY AND/OR CB DEWEY OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 8 HICKOK LANE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 795 SQ. FT. WRAP AROUND DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH SIDES. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2002-497, AV 39-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.18-1- 19 SECTION: 179-4-30 C.B. DEWEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 77-2004, Winter D. Horton, Meeting Date: September 22, 2004, “Project Location: 8 Hickok Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 795 sq. ft. wrap-around, open deck. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4.8 (south side) and 2.9 feet (north side) of side setback relief from the 15- foot minimum requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-497: 07/05/02, construction of a 1,080 sq. ft. seasonal dwelling. AV 39-2002: 05/15/02, construction of a seasonal dwelling on a parcel without frontage on a town road. Staff comments: The applicant had the decks constructed based on approvals from the Building and Codes Department and the Zoning Administrator. An inadvertent mistake was made by staff, and not discovered until the “as built” survey was submitted (the building permit plans depicted the wrap- around deck; however, the site plan depicted the dwelling only). A Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued without the relief sought.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 8, 2004 Project Name: Horton, Winter Owner: Winter Horton ID Number: QBY-04-AV-77 County Project#: Sep04-24 Area Variance: The applicant requests approval of two constructed deck additions to an existing home. One deck is 3 ft. x 50 ft. on the north side of the home, where this deck is 12.11 ft. from the side property line where 15 ft. is required. The second deck is 5 ft. x 45 ft. on the south side of the home where it is located 10.2 ft. from the side property line where 15 ft. is required. The information submitted shows the location of the decks and indicates the decks were constructed under an approved building permit. The applicant was requested to submit a variance to correct the situation. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 09/15/04. MR. STONE-Bruce, would you comment on the Staff Notes, or amplify what is written there, the Staff comments on this one, in terms of exactly what happened. MR. FRANK-Well, you’re probably familiar with the property, the applicant had an Area Variance granted to him to build a house on that parcel that did not have any frontage on a Town road. What he proposed initially was this dwelling, and he met the side setbacks, and what he submitted for the building permit in the plans clearly showed that the deck as built were the same. The site plan showed only the footings. So when the building permit was reviewed for zoning compliance, the Zoning Administrator looked at the site plan, saw that, hey, wait a minute, you’ve got a deck all the way around there. That’s not what you submitted. He didn’t look at the actual plans, and the very front page of the plans of the building permit, you could see the deck. I mean, so, admittedly so, Staff made an error. He reviews many, many building permits. Why he skipped over that one without looking at the actual plans besides the site plan, I don’t know. I can’t answer for him, but this is what the Director of Community Development wanted stated. MR. STONE-Yes, well, and there’s a letter that she wrote that we should read in. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-That we didn’t do. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. FRANK-Okay. This is Memorandum to the File from Marilyn Ryba, and it says “The $50.00 fee for this parcel was waived as a courtesy to the applicant. Two decks were constructed; 3 ft. x 50 ft. and 5 ft. x 45 ft. These decks do not meet the side yard setback requirements. However, Mr. Horton constructed the decks based on approvals from the Building & Codes and the Zoning Administrator. An inadvertent mistake was made by staff. To come into compliance, Mr. Horton has agreed to file a variance application. Staff will assist Mr. Horton and/or his representative with the application process as much as possible.” MR. STONE-Thank you. Mr. Horton? MR. DEWEY-No, I’m Mr. Dewey. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DEWEY-Mr. Horton is in California. MR. STONE-You’re Mr. Dewey, you’re the agent. MR. DEWEY-I’m trying to be. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, I should mention I met with Mr. Dewey when I was out on site, and talked with him and Molly. Molly is his dog. MR. STONE-Do you want to add anything to what’s been going on here? MR. DEWEY-No. MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t think you would. Anybody have any questions? I mean, obviously it seems to me that we are being, well, we can’t be directed, but that this is a mistake, and I’m looking at the property, if it’s a mistake, I don’t really see a problem whatsoever in my own mind. Anybody have any questions, any concerns that they want to express? Anybody have any questions for Mr. Dewey? Having heard none, I’ll open the public hearing for Area Variance No. 77-2004. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. We’ll start with Joyce. MRS. HUNT-Well, let’s see. It seems like this was one mistake after another, and it doesn’t seem to be Mr. Horton’s, you know, responsibility. The 4.8 feet of relief on the south side and the 2.9 feet of relief on the north side do not seem too excessive for the 15 foot minimum requirement, and I would accept this proposal. MR. STONE-Leo? MR. RIGBY-Yes. I agree with Joyce that it seems like a minimal amount of relief. There’s been no neighborhood feedback that opposes it in any way whatsoever, and, given the circumstances, I’d be in favor of it as well. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Ditto. I’d agree. I’m ready to make a motion. MR. STONE-Chuck? 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree. Looking at this structure, it’s not closely adjacent to anything else where the side setback relief would be a problem, and certainly the deck that’s on it is a minimal size to begin with. I don’t see how somebody could make them much smaller or narrower than what they are. So I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Having reviewed the initial application, I think even if we had been asked to grant relief for what you’re proposing here this evening, we would have granted it with no problem. So, I have no problem with it. MR. STONE-Yes. I agree, exactly, with Mr. Underwood. Every once in a while, it’s nice to see, we don’t want to see as constructed, but it’s nice to see what it looks like after a variance, quote, is granted, and this is the kind that’s not a problem whatsoever. MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. STONE-Go ahead, Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2004 WINTER D. HORTON, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 8 Hickok Lane. Applicant has constructed a 795 square foot wraparound open deck. The applicant requests 4.8 relief on the south side, and 2.9 feet relief on the north side of the side setback relief from the 15 foot minimum requirement, as per Section 179-4-030, for the WR-1A zone. Going through the balancing test, an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood would not be reflected in this. The request is not substantial. I don’t think it will have adverse effects on the physical or environmental conditions. It wasn’t self-created. It was just a compound of errors, and so I would make a motion that we approve Area Variance No. 77-2004. Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2004, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. DEWEY-Thank you. Can I just make one comment? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. DEWEY-In some places the documentation I have, it says 8 Hickok Lane. It’s really, where he is. MR. STONE-It’s on Place? MR. DEWEY-It’s on Place. Hickok Lane goes out to Pilot Knob Road. This is a spur that goes off that. MR. STONE-Okay. Would you reflect that? So it’s on Place. Okay. We’ll fix it. MR. DEWEY-Well, thank you. MR. STONE-You’re welcome. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. UNDERWOOD-Lew, are we going to do the housekeeping on those ones from last week? MR. STONE-That’s what I’m just going to get around to. Sue and Bruce, what are you asking us to do, and can we do it? MR. FRANK-I think our choices are limited, but, in this matter, the Zoning Administrator wants you to take a look at the resolutions as they have been recorded to the best of our ability from our notes, our memory. There’s four of you here that were at last week’s meeting. MR. STONE-So you want just some words to be added to it, not to act on it? MR. FRANK-I want you to review this and read these resolutions and vote on it. Four of you that were here last week and vote on it and get a quorum to approve these, you’re approving the minutes. MR. STONE-Well, we can’t, all right, we can do it on Grillo, because four of the people were here, no, only three. We’ve got three of those. MR. FRANK-Well, Jaime was here then. I think that was his intention. It would have been a quorum. So you can’t do anything tonight on it. MR. STONE-We can’t, we’ll get to it. Guys, do you have anything to add? MR. FRANK-Yes. Why don’t you review them anyways. You don’t have to do it right now. You can take them home, take a look at it and see if it’s something. MR. STONE-If you can recall anything. I mean, certainly the first one is easy, but. MRS. HUNT-The only one we could do is. MR. FRANK-You can actually re-hear any of these, if you chose not to agree with these, you could re-hear every one of these applications. MR. STONE-The Outback. MRS. HUNT-The Outback we have four. MR. STONE-You could do Outback if the four of you agree with what’s said. MR. FRANK-By the way, there’s four of you here that were here last week. All you’re doing is looking at these and approving these minutes. Wait a minute. I see what you’re saying. MR. STONE-There’s only three of them on most of them. MRS. HUNT-It would be yes anyhow with the four that are here. MR. FRANK-Yes, that’s true. MR. STONE-You approved the Outback. MRS. HUNT-Right. MR. STONE-There are four people here who approved it. MRS. HUNT-Right. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. STONE-The others there aren’t. You’ve got McNulty and Mrs. Hunt to deny. That was two and two. Well, just look at the language. Is there anything that, as you recall what you voted on. MR. FRANK-Yes, that’s the important part. MR. UNDERWOOD-To the best of our knowledge, I would submit that all these are accurate to the degree that they would pass muster with the absent members. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, what about the Grillo one? I mean, is the revised proposal somewhat scaled down? Is that what you guys said? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. STONE-Everybody agree? All right. So that one, we’ll have to come back to it, but you think it’s right? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay, and Johnson, I’m not going there. I mean, those of you who voted to deny, three of you, does that express what you think the motion was? You guys all know what happened, don’t you, that the recorder didn’t pick up. MR. FRANK-It didn’t record at all. MR. STONE-It didn’t record at all. MR. FRANK-It did on the last tape, for the last applicant. So what happened to the machine, I don’t know. MR. STONE-Well, were the tapes damaged before, after that? MR. FRANK-Well, they checked out that tape and it was just fine when they tested it afterwards. The second tape worked, it recorded the last applicant, the Sign Variance for CVS. MR. STONE-Does anybody have any comments they want to make? Because I wasn’t there obviously. MR. FRANK-Obviously the denials are the ones we’re concerned about, more than that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think the only thing that would come back into question would be where we left it with the applicant? Because I think we made some comments to him about maybe some possibilities or, there was questions about tearing the house down that he had and everything else. So if you don’t have that on the record, I don’t know what you’re going to do. MR. RIGBY-Well, what we said is that’s a separate, that comes up at the next. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think that at some point, though, you still need to give him some kind of an idea of where you’re heading. Are you going to let him go with the three by three porch, as Dave Hatin said, and I think we had discussed that at the end. So I think that that point needs to be, I don’t think you want to leave the guy back where he was September a year and a half ago, you know, saying, no, you’ve got to take everything down. MR. STONE-All right, but the application that he came in was for a door with a stoop. Is that correct? And you denied that application? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, that was the previous meeting. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. STONE-No, you didn’t deny it. You tabled it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Previously he proposed to remove everything and then we had raised the question with Dave Hatin about the size of what was necessary. So at the last meeting, Hatin’s letter said that a three by three stoop would be a requirement of that door coming out the side of the house. MR. STONE-And that would require, and that was not as much as he originally had. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but that was not on the table because we had given him indications, by the vote at the previous meeting, that we were amenable to having everything remain as it was, you know, and then because of the Board change, because the different people were sitting that evening, I think that’s why the vote changed. So I think that the applicant’s agent was kind of upset because we had indicated to him the week before, or the meeting before, that we thought this could just go away, and then I think for some reason because certain people weren’t here, the vote changed again. MR. STONE-I don’t agree. MRS. HUNT-No, I don’t agree. MR. FRANK-Well, I’ll tell you something, that’s what was (lost words) in the debriefing meeting, just what Jim said. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s just the way it was headed, and then it changed. MR. STONE-You made a suggestion about coverage by putting some trees in, and then, but we were reminded, by one of us. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, you did a straw poll vote and it came out four to three that we were in favor, that the vegetation was going to be adequate to allow us to grant him his request, and that was a change, as I suggested at the last meeting, that the original intent, he had apologized to us for not offering that at the last meeting, and I think that was what set the Board off on its tangential thing that, you know, they were in the wrong, they tried to be tough with us and we tried to be tough with them, and after the judge’s decision was overturned, I think we had made our point, and that was the point I tried to make at the last meeting, by introducing my concept of it, but I still think that, you know, to throw all that out is, you know, I still have all my notes at home. MR. STONE-Well, I disagree with your position. I mean, I would have disagreed with your position. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. STONE-I don’t think we can go back to give him what we rejected the first time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I know. MR. STONE-There was no reason to. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s your prerogative, but we gave him the indication at that previous meeting, yes, that we were amenable to forgiving and forgetting. MR. STONE-We took a straw vote, but it was not a vote, and he was going to come back with formal drawings, because what he had offered for that meeting were not in conformity to what was on the property, again. The steps were not there. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think, at this point, you’re just going to end up having endless meetings. Now we’re going to go back to the meeting like we previously had where he’s going to offer a three by three thing on the side of the house. MR. STONE-No. We have denied it. He has to come back. We have to approve unanimously him even offering anything. Is that correct, Bruce? MR. FRANK-The Zoning Administrator has changed his opinion, if he comes back with a different application, you hear that application. If it’s the exact same application, now you’ve denied that one, now he’s coming back with a new application. He modified the previous one to keep the porch. Originally he proposed to remove the porch. Then he modified it because he was lead to believe by the majority of the Board, through the straw poll, that, well, gee, maybe they’re going to let us keep this porch. So he modified it, at your request, and I think Craig actually said, look, that’s not what’s on the table here. If you guys want to grant less relief than what was advertised, that’s a different story. Granting more relief than what was advertised could be problematic, so if the Zoning Administrator told you at the time. So that’s when he said, okay, then we’ll resubmit a new application reflecting the amount of relief you’re really going to need. MR. STONE-And what was submitted, though? MR. FRANK-You denied that application. So if he comes back with an application this week for next month, to take down the porch, that’s a different application. You have to hear that application. MR. STONE-Agreed. MR. FRANK-You’re not going to review it to say, should we even consider it. MR. STONE-No, no. I mean, that would be almost prema faci. MR. FRANK-Well, I’m sure that’s what they’re going to do. I mean, they’re not going to propose to take down that part of the dwelling within the side setback that’s encroaching on the side setback. MR. STONE-I don’t think anybody wants that. MR. FRANK-What the lawyer at the meeting said, you know what you’re doing, you’re, by denying this now, we have to come into compliance by tearing this down. I don’t recall anybody offering anything at that moment saying, well, correct me if I’m wrong. Did anybody offer anything up at that moment when you made that statement? MR. RIGBY-Someone said that’s another issue, or something along those lines. MR. FRANK-Yes, you didn’t give them any specifics. No one said, well, why don’t you come back with, you know, a small porch. MR. STONE-No, but the rear door got mentioned, right, Leo, you told me? MR. RIGBY-The door got mentioned. MR. STONE-Moving the door around to the back. That got mentioned. MR. RIGBY-That wasn’t mentioned. What was mentioned is there isn’t a need, the door does not have to be there. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. FRANK-It’s a mud room. So I think that’s what was brought up, do you really need this door. They got an access from, I think, three other sides, at least from the front and the back, obviously. Is there one on the other side? I can’t recall. MR. RIGBY-That’s the issue that we were struggling with the week before. If the door is there, you’ve got to have a deck anyway for the door. MR. STONE-You’ve got to have something, yes. MR. RIGBY-If you have the door, you’ve got to have something, but if you don’t have the door, you don’t have to have anything. MR. STONE-Well, the point is, does this reflect the motion that was made to deny? That’s really the question. Not the discussion. This is the motion. This is all we have to do is the motion. MRS. HUNT-That was the motion. MR. FRANK-I, from my memory, addressed the test, and I recalled who said what. I know what Chuck said initially. I know Al Bryant added make sure you mention the substantiality, how it’s quite substantial, the relief that’s being requested. I think that, Chuck, you mentioned about a feasible alternative. MR. MC NULTY-Well, yes, I think I brought up the idea, at some point, if the door wasn’t required there, that they could take it out and put a window in, which didn’t make them happy. I don’t think there’s much else. I think what this motion says is essentially what we covered. MR. FRANK-I think you did also say it was out of character with the neighborhood. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, and I would much prefer we had the original motion here, but I don’t think, I think we’re on dangerous grounds if we go in and try to add more to this than what’s there now. MR. STONE-Has he called on this one? MR. FRANK-I don’t believe so. Again, if you don’t feel comfortable with any of this, you can re-hear these applications. MR. STONE-If he’s accepted the denial. MR. FRANK-You can always re-hear any application. Even if you get denied, he can make a request to re-hear that application, and now. MR. STONE-And now we’re talking seven. We’re talking unanimous vote, by the Board, to accept a re-hearing. MR. RIGBY-Does he have a right to have this re-heard because the minutes have not been recorded. MR. FRANK-He doesn’t have to give you a reason why. MR. RIGBY-Not another appeal. Not an appeal for a decision to be made, but to have the decision re-made. MR. FRANK-He can also make the request to re-hear because he wanted the full Board. MR. FRANK-Did you have a full Board that night? 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. UNDERWOOD-We did. MR. FRANK-I’m not sure, or a different make up of the Board. I’m not sure. MR. STONE-No, he can’t do that. MR. URRICO-Yes, you don’t want to people going fishing. MR. STONE-No, that was interesting, because one of the things that came up the other day, in Lake Placid was one of the reasons the State does not have an alternate regulation. It has to be local, because there was a concern that people would go fishing. MR. FRANK-What was your big concern, as to liability, what were your specific concerns for potential liability, for Johnson? MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s his lawyer going to do when you don’t have any record? They’re going to tell you to take a hike. That’s what they’re going to tell you to do. That’s what I would do. MR. RIGBY-Now my worry would be that we’re not going to inform him that we had a problem, you know, and now. MR. FRANK-That’s a good point. MR. URRICO-Specifically, to this application, the reason the case was upheld is that you had notes that indicated that there was a proper hearing. If this guy ever brings this case up again, you don’t have the notes to back you up. MRS. HUNT-See, now, that’s all you need. Those notes should be kept, then, that’s a record. MR. FRANK-And since this has the history, you know, it might be a good point. MR. MC NULTY-Either that, or at least make the offer to the applicant in this case. I would presume that that attorney, given the chance, would jump at it to have this reheard. MR. RIGBY-I would, in a minute. MRS. HUNT-Yes, but we’ve got notes here, that were taken. It doesn’t say. I mean, one of the sessions I took it said it doesn’t have to be verbatim. MR. MC NULTY-Minutes don’t have to be verbatim, but I think the problem that we’ve got here is if Johnson, for instance, if they did the same thing again and they went to court, we’ve got no real record of all the points. MR. FRANK-No, there isn’t any. Nobody took any notes. MRS. HUNT-I thought there were. MR. FRANK-No. Someone should have been taking notes, but she didn’t. MR. RIGBY-I believe that you need to re-hear everything that was done that night, is what I believe. Because who knows what’s going to transpire three, four, five years down the road, they cite another case and there’s no, I mean. MR. UNDERWOOD-You better be smart about it. MR. RIGBY-I think you’ve got to to protect yourself. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. FRANK-If you were going to do it, by the way, I don’t think Craig wants you to go this route. If you want to know what his opinion is, I’m pretty sure that’s what he said to me, but if you did choose to do so, there’s only going to be one meeting next month. MR. URRICO-Then we should seek legal opinion. MR. MC NULTY-I think Leo’s probably correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-But you better find out before you do it. MR. URRICO-The Town Attorney should address it. MR. FRANK-But you’ve got room for it next month if you wanted to re-hear it, because there’s only one meeting next month. MR. URRICO-But there’s all kinds of cans of worms that could be opened up. I mean, if the make-up of the Board is different, and the voting goes differently, not only in this case, but all the others, you know, what happens then? MR. RIGBY-This is an extenuating circumstance where we don’t have a record. MR. URRICO-But I think you should get a legal. MR. MC NULTY-Well, or the other possibility would be for the Town to offer the opportunity for a re-hearing to the applicant, say if you want to accept the decision as it stands now, fine, but if you would like to have it re-heard to establish a record. MR. RIGBY-You’d have to send out the same letter to everyone who had a hearing for that evening. MR. STONE-Absolutely, and they’ve got to sign off on it. MR. MC NULTY-And I think that’s the only way to do it, because otherwise we’re just making up stuff from memory and adding it to these. MR. RIGBY-Even if there was a possible decision here. MR. UNDERWOOD-What you have written here, I’ll tell you one thing you left off of there, right off the top of my head, you guys made consistent reference to the original application like a year and a half prior to this, and there’s no language in there relating to that whatsoever, and that was your main point that I think convinced the four of you to vote against it, and you don’t have anything in there written about it. So, unless you could really come up with something that was, but you would be pulling it out of the stars to do it. MR. MC NULTY-That’s the thing. Even if we can reconstruct something, we’re doing it without the applicant being here to say, no, that’s not what happened. MR. RIGBY-And who’s to say that the applicant doesn’t have notes that might be entirely different than ours. MR. MC NULTY-I think the only way to do it is to re-do it. Unless they want to accept it. MR. STONE-Well, you can do one thing. You can say, here’s all we have. Mea Culpa, would you accept this and forego any further action except to progress through this Board again? I mean, come back with a revised plan? But you’ve got to promise not to go to court, otherwise then we offer to re-hear it. MR. RIGBY-I think we need to talk to Mark Schachner. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MRS. HUNT-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-You better talk to the other party, too. MR. MC NULTY-I think you’re right. I think that’s Step One, is to see what the lawyer says, but, otherwise, offer them a chance to re-do, or maybe the lawyer can come up with an acceptance letter, if they want to accept the decision as it stands. Saying we’ll accept it and not argue with it. MRS. HUNT-Johnson would love to have a different make up of the Board because they were four to three. MR. MC NULTY-Well, sure, but, you know, I think he’ll buy in to, let’s hear it again, and it’s probably what should happen, absent a good record of, you know, what we went through. MR. FRANK-So do you want to actually vote on this, what you think you should do? I mean, is there a need for you, or to poll the Board? MR. STONE-No. I think our suggestion is that we get legal opinion about this thing, and that we either, if it’s possible, we offer what we have. These are the only four that we feel are necessary? Why not all of them? MR. UNDERWOOD-The other one was recorded, the last one was recorded. MR. FRANK-CVS was recorded. MR. MC NULTY-Okay, and that was a tabling. MR. FRANK-And the other two, one was the Appeal that you guys went in favor with the Zoning Administrator’s decision. The other one was a tabling for the Appeal for Kelly. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, Kelly was tabled. So that’s not a worry. MR. STONE-Kelly was tabled. Two alternatives. First of all, you get Mark’s opinion, and you either present, if they’re willing, we present this with the explanation, a well written, legal explanation of what happened. This is our best recollection. Would you be willing to accept this without recourse, or, if you have recourse, then we will offer to re-hear the whole thing, to establish a new record. MR. URRICO-And they have the option to put that on the schedule? MR. STONE-Again next month. MR. MC NULTY-We’ve got room next month, so we could do it. MR. RIGBY-It’s got to be done quickly. MR. STONE-Is that reasonable to everybody? MR. RIGBY-Yes. MRS. HUNT-Yes. MR. URRICO-Yes, I think that covers it. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/22/04) MR. STONE-All right. Let us know. You’re saying right now there’s only one meeting in October? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Good. MR. FRANK-So you want them to present, have the Town Attorney review this and present, draft a legal document to present to all the agents to review and say, would you accept this? MR. STONE-Review the situation. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. Our inclination is to offer it to each applicant. MR. STONE-We’re willing to re-hear if they will not sign off without, saying there will be no further recourse, then we would be willing to re-hear it. MR. FRANK-Just those that choose not to, is that how you guys want to do it? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. There may be some that are going to say we’ll accept what we’ve got, either because they’re happy with it or because they’re going to take some other separate action and they’d just as soon not pay a lawyer to go through this again. MR. FRANK-Grillo definitely, because he’s tabled it and he’s going to come back before you anyway. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. So it isn’t the whole bunch, but first find out what Mark Schachner says. Because he may have some totally different take on it. MR. RIGBY-Mark Schachner will probably tell you exactly what to do. MR. URRICO-He may say that we’re fine. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 53