Loading...
2004-04-21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 21, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, ACTING SECRETARY ALAN BRYANT PAUL HAYES CHARLES ABBATE ROY URRICO JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT CHARLES MC NULTY CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II MICHAEL M. DUGGAN, JR. OWNER: MICHAEL M. DUGGAN, JR. ZONING: SR-20 LOCATION: 861 SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 396 SQ. FT. ONE-CAR DETACHED GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2003-590, BP 2003-685, BP 85-439 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.17-2-47 SECTION: 179-4-030 MICHAEL DUGGAN, PRESENT MR. STONE-This hearing was adjourned a month ago because it appeared the Board was, that was only composed of seven, six people that night, was split three, three, which meant that we could take no real action. The applicant asked us to table it so that we would have a full Board, and we could consider this again. Now we’ve closed the public hearing, but I will open it when we get to that portion of the application. So read the tabling motion in, if you would. MR. UNDERWOOD-“MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2004 MICHAEL M. DUGGAN, JR., Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 861 Sherman Avenue. At the request of the applicant, until a meeting in April. Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Hayes” STAFF INPUT 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2004, Michael M. Duggan, Jr., Meeting Date: April 21, 2004 “Project Location: 861 Sherman Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 396 sq. ft. one-car detached garage. Relief Required: The applicant is requesting 10 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement of the SR-20 Zone, per § 179-4-030 Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 9-2004: tabled 3/17/04, tabled until a full board can review application (a poll of the board revealed 3 in favor of approval and 3 against) BP 2003-590: 08/21/03, construction of a 396 sq. ft. one-car detached garage. BP 2003-685: 08/27/03, conversion of an attached garage into storage space. Staff comments: An investigation of a concern by the Building and Codes Department revealed the applicant had placed the structure, in error, too close to the front property line. The applicant claims he set the structure back 30 feet from the shoulder of the road believing that to be the front property line. The hand-drawn site plan submitted for the building permit shows a 30-foot distance from the structure to Sherman Ave. An accurate measurement revealed the structure is set back 30 feet from the shoulder of the road and 33.5 feet from the closest edge of the travel lane (fog line). If the roadbed is centered within the Sherman Ave Right-of-way, the structure setback is 20.5 feet, requiring 9.5 feet of relief (the applicant is requesting 10 feet of relief).” MR. UNDERWOOD-And I don’t have anything from the County. MR. STONE-Okay. I think there was no impact. Mr. Duggan, come forward. Let me just briefly, for the record, review last month’s meeting. We do have the minutes. Have you seen the minutes of last month’s meeting? MR. DUGGAN-No, I haven’t. MR. STONE-Can we give him one? They’re not approved yet, but if you have any questions. Basically, Mr. Duggan constructed a garage too close to the road, as determined after the fact . We held a serious discussion. The Board was equally divided, good. Three people thought that he had acted in good faith, that the advice he had been given by the Town was in error, but he didn’t know that at the time, and three of us agreed that even if it had not been built and he had come forward and requested this variance, we would not have granted it, which is one of the things that we do when a built application comes before us. So, having said that, anything you want to add to this thing? MR. DUGGAN-Yes. Like you said, I mean, you guys agreed that the system is messed up. So I took it upon myself, as you’ll see, I walked around my neighborhood and I got everybody’s signature saying that it’s fine where it is. They just, the main cause, they want it finished. The all signed it saying that it’s fine where it is. They just want it finished. As they said it’s an eyesore because it’s not done. Other than that, I mean, as you can see, I walked around the block and when down John Street. Any name that’s not on the list, either were not home, and everybody I went to was very courteous. I mean, they had no problem with the garage being there. I mean, you’re talking a total of 50 names, I think, on the list, within a block, mile radius. I think that’s pretty much every house besides 10 or 11 which weren’t home at the time. MR. STONE-Okay. Let the record reflect, and I will give this to the secretary, we’ll enter it, there are 39 names on this thing, and I applaud you for your efforts. Obviously I know that you’re trying to get this thing to stand, but there’s certainly a lot of effort in here, and you’re to be congratulated for the effort you put in. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. DUGGAN-I mean, because the only reason why I did that is because you said you represent the people. That’s what the people say. They say they don’t care. They want it done. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DUGGAN-Is that what you said? MR. STONE-We said a lot of things. That’s one of the things that we said. MR. DUGGAN-That’s why I went out and did that. MR. STONE-Our job, as the Board knows very well, is to balance the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community, and the neighborhood, and certainly it is always good to hear neighbors say they don’t, they’re happy with it. It doesn’t’ necessarily say that we’ll go along. MR. DUGGAN-Right. Yes, I know. I just want you to know that everybody in the neighborhood, besides one person, which is here present tonight, is in agreement. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, could you pass that down, so we can see the wording on the petition. MR. STONE-Sure. I was going to read it, and I apologize. Let me just read it for the record, and then I’ll give it to you. It says, “I, Michael Duggan, Jr., of 861 Sherman Avenue, Queensbury, am asking your permission to leave my garage 20 feet from the property line instead of 30 feet.” MR. BRYANT-I just want to comment on this type of thing, and it’s understandable that everybody living in these places has signed a petition, but a variance is forever. MR. DUGGAN-Right. I know. MR. BRYANT-So, if they sell their house tomorrow, and somebody else could move there, they might not be as amicable. MR. DUGGAN-But that’s everybody in the neighborhood. Do you know what I’m saying? I mean, not everybody’s going to sell their house and move. MR. BRYANT-No, but not everybody’s going to live forever. MR. DUGGAN-The original thought, I was, because I made up 20 copies of this variance and sent it out to my neighbors. So what you’re saying isn’t true. I mean, why did I send that out to my neighbors, then? Right? MR. BRYANT-A variance is forever. MR. ABBATE-I’m going to take an opposite position and hope he still loves me in morning. I don’t have my notes before me because I gave them to you. What Alan is saying is correct. However, I do believe that not only is there a balancing factor we take into consideration, but I do firmly in what I consider to be a standard of fairness. When individuals come before this Board, and in my opinion they’re acting in good faith based upon information that was provided to them by the Town, and based upon that information provided them by the Town, they act in such a manner as to complete the particular project. I believe that there is, and has been, flaws in the procedures in the Town of Queensbury, and I believe that, in the event that I am correct that there are flaws, I do not believe that applicants should suffer because of flaws in the Town’s rules and regulations. Alan is correct, had you come before us and asked for a 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) variance, in all probability, we would have denied the variance, but nonetheless, the deed has been completed. Now, we have several choices. We could say tear the thing down, because, you know, these are our rules and regulations, but is that a balancing? You have submitted a petition which indicates your neighbors, for whatever reason, want this project completed, and then there’s the standard of fairness. If the applicant is wrong, the Town is wrong, and if the applicant is going to suffer, the Town should suffer, not one or the other, and so based upon my position, Mr. Chairman, I’m still going to support the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any comments, questions before we? Okay. We, the last time, because of our normal procedures, we did close the public hearing, but since we tabled it, I am taking the prerogative of opening the public hearing for anybody who wants to comment on this application. So, I will open the public hearing. Is there anybody wishing to say yes or no on this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SUZETTE USHER MRS. USHER-I am Suzette Usher, and we live next door to Mr. Duggan, and my husband, we live to the east, and I oppose the garage. Just because it looks out of place. Also, our neighbor to our east opposes the garage. I’m sure he did not sign the application. So, I have three objections. One is that, if he is granted this variance, no one else will be able to build a garage in the same relation to the road as he has done, because you’re wise to us now. So his garage will continue to look out of place. The third reason is that if you grant the variance, it sends a message to the community that the best way to get around the zoning regs is to build first, ask for the variance second. That’s all I have to say. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. BRYANT-May I ask you a question, ma’am? MRS. USHER-Yes. MR. BRYANT-You live just on the other side of that garage, or do you live on this side the garage? MR. STONE-The other side of the garage. MRS. USHER-The garage is blocking the view of our house in that picture. MR. BRYANT-At that point? MRS. USHER-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So that was the next question I was going to ask you. Does it block your view at all up and down the street? When you come out of your driveway, does it block your visibility? MRS. USHER-No. MR. BRYANT-No. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to comment? HEATHER CHADWICK MS. CHADWICK-I do. I’m Mike’s girlfriend. I was with him when we went around the neighborhood, and got signatures. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. STONE-That’s okay. Give us your name. MS. CHADWICK-Heather Chadwick. MR. STONE-And do you live in Queensbury? MS. CHADWICK-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MS. CHADWICK-I was with him when we went around the neighborhood, and the neighbors to the east of them. We went to their house. They said that they came to the last meeting, but they didn’t get up and talk because the Town has approved the footings and inspected it and said it was okay, and that they didn’t like the garage, but they felt that it was fine because the Town had approved it, but they wouldn’t sign the paper because they didn’t like it. They didn’t say that they wanted it torn down or anything like that. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Any other comments anybody wants to make? MR. BRYANT-I just want to clarify that, Mr. Chairman. The Town, when it looked at the footings, they’re not taking a survey of the position. They’re just looking to make sure that they comply with the Code, you know, relative to the type of footing and so forth and so on. MR. STONE-Okay. Having said that, let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Mr. Duggan, do you want to comment on anything you’ve heard? MR. DUGGAN-I guess not. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Mr. Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Well, there’s an element of truth in what everyone has said this evening. This is a situation where no one is all right, and no one is all wrong, and as a result, when that happens, we find ourselves in a quagmire. Alan is not wrong. The lady who disagrees with it is not wrong. The gentleman who put up is not wrong. The Town is not wrong. It may be the only people who are going to be wrong are those that are voting on this thing, but it’s an unfortunate set of circumstances, and I will stand firm in my position in that, when an individual acts in good faith, goes to the proper authorities and seeks advice and direction, it takes that advice and direction and completes a project and it ends up that the advice and direction were wrong, we simply can’t say, look, we’re going to punish the applicant, and not the Town. That’s not a standard of fairness. Thank you. MR. STONE-Bruce, Mr. Frank, do you want to comment on the Town’s position on what you believe happened? We did talk about it last month, but there are some new people here who may like to know what’s going on. MR. FRANK-Well, initially, the Building Inspector that went to check the footings, he did not catch it. It was a different Building Inspector driving by, thought it looked too close to the road. He gave a heads up to the Zoning Administrator. He had me go and investigate. I took the measurements, and the problem was that the building permit site plan that was submitted was a hand drawn plan. The applicant did not have a survey. A lot of people don’t, and unfortunately, he showed a setback to, I reviewed it myself. It looked like it was to the road. So I really believe he acted in good faith. After our meeting last month, I discussed the matter with the Staff at the debriefing meeting. I suggested a way around this was to insist that the applicant not only give a setback distance to the road, but also to his front property line, so that 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) he has it clear in his mind that he’s distinguishing between where his front property line is and where the road is, and if he’s got those two distances to be the same, he’s not clear on where his front property line is. So I suggested that. It’s unfortunate what happened happened. Could it have been picked up when the building permit was being reviewed? Possibly. I mean, we go through a lot of building permits. I’m sure that a call could have been made to Mr. Duggan, do you realize what you’ve submitted, and we just want to make it clear in our mind, clear in your mind. That didn’t happen. Why it didn’t happen I don’t know. I don’t review building permits for zoning compliance on a regular basis. I didn’t on this one. So I can’t answer for somebody else, but again, it’s unfortunate, but that’s what came to be. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-Well, basically, I’m going to say exactly what I said at the last meeting, and that is that I believe that the fact that it’s a garage is of no consequence, and I think that we ought to require surveys. It’s a new structure. It’s not a porch. It’s not a, you know, an add-on that could be modified. It’s a completely new structure, and so I believe that that is a flaw in the system, but that being said, I also believe that it was incumbent upon you to, through, whether it was through a method of a survey, or any other method, to make sure that that garage was in the proper location, and that didn’t occur. I don’t know what the solution is, but, frankly, I can’t support the, I’m also concerned with what the neighbor has stated, and that is, it does set precedent and there are going to be other people who want to build a garage in that neighborhood, close to the road, and they’re going to want to get as close as possible and eventually will all have garages on the road. I can sympathize with you, and I understand what you’re saying, but I just can’t go along with the application at this point. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to stay where I was the last time we voted, and that’s in agreement with Mr. Abbate. I really believe that the Town has a problem with this type of application, in not making it clearer to the applicant what we’re dealing with. There’s problems in building to the side of the road, because that’s not always where the property line is, but that’s what the applicant thought he was dealing with, and from what we’ve heard, there was nothing to tell him that he wasn’t dealing with that. He measured 30 feet from where he thought the side of the road was, but we’re dealing with a collector road here, and I would think that we would spend a little bit more time, to make it a little bit more, emphasize greater, in this case, that the applicant understands that he needs to be precise in the measurements, and that wasn’t done, and it should be done, and I’d really be happy if the Town reconsidered how it takes these type of applications when they’re dealing with such a precise measurement that’s needed, that they make it clear to the applicant that this is, a survey is either required, or a survey measurement is required, but as far as this application, I’m going to still come down on the applicant’s side, based on what Mr. Abbate said, and my feeling of fairness as well. MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes? MR. HAYES-Well, I think the fortunate part of this Board, or the actions of this Board, is the fact that we can review each case individually, and we can look at all the facts that are involved with a decision, and I think that, at times, that doesn’t put us in a position where we’re setting a precedent. This is a little bit subjective in that we’re trying to determine, or at least I’m trying to determine, in my mind, whether an honest mistake was made, or whether an applicant is trying to take advantage of the Code, which we’re obviously against, and we’ve been very firm on that, but as I’ve listened, as I’ve read the minutes from the last meeting, and as I’ve listened to testimony by Town Staff, and I consider the fact that people that are outside of the construction business typically, quite often, think the edge of the road is the property line. You’re not the first one to make this mistake. It’s, if we gave a test out, it would probably be half the people that took the test. MR. STONE-You’re being generous. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. HAYES-Yes, I am. So, you know, I think that that mitigates your action. I mean, if there was something more clear that you were violating, like a side line setback with pipes or something right there, I’d say, listen, I think you knew, but we have applications of this nature over and over again. That doesn’t make it right. Doesn’t make you right, okay, but, and then with the additional piece of information, which, again, does amount to something of having 39 signatures, the greater neighborhood, appear to be no so troubled by its placement that they don’t want to have it be finished, I have to weigh that in my mind, and I think when I balance all those things, I think an honest mistake was made here, I really do, and I think that, I’ve said before in these matters, if you come again before the Board, you’re not going to get that benefit of the doubt, but you’ve never been here before. You haven’t given us reason in my mind, to think that you’re trying to take advantage of the Code. So I don’t think, in the end, there’s any complete or substantial negative impact on the neighborhood or community that outweighs the benefit to you of not having to take this down and move it. So I’m going to be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we have to use a standard of fairness here, and I don’t think there was any, you know, implied part that you were going to build this thing closer than you needed to to the road. At the same time, I think at the last meeting I recommended that some type of vegetative plantings could be done on the side toward your near neighbor to the east there, that would lessen the impact of this structure being so close to the road. MR. DUGGAN-Yes. That is in the plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-And so I would put that in as a stipulation that that be done upon completion. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I do think, to be fair, that this was an honest mistake, and it was just Mr. Duggan’s, it was the Town’s and along the way, no one said anything when they could have. No one made any objections or did any measurements, and I also think that, as far as being a precedent, each variance that comes before us is to be, you know, reviewed on its own merits, and certainly this would not be a precedent, since it was something that was done by honest mistake, and I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, this is a case where, at the last meeting, I was, as I said, very conflicted. I am swayed, however, in this particular case, by the fact that 39 of your neighbors, around the whole area, have said they can live with it. I’m not sure I would have been in that group, if you had come to me, but they’re saying they can live with it, and, because of all the other comments that have been made by the Staff, and by the Board, in terms of fairness and all of this thing, I’ll go along with granting the variance. I do think a couple of things. As Mr. Hayes suggested, we have seen road shoulders, road boundaries, road centers, all over the place in this Town, and you cannot judge, if you’re going to do anything, and I would caution anybody in the room, if you ever want to get a setback from a road, don’t, until you find out exactly where the road is. We’ve had situations where the center of the road is almost on the left side or the right side, technically, and this does come into play. I also think that the Town, as has been mentioned by a number of people, we’ve got to find a way. We get too many of these things, and we don’t necessarily, we do require as built surveys at one point, but we don’t have a survey when the foundations go in, and we need to do something like that. I know there is reluctance on the part of the Town Board to ask people to spend a little extra money, but it would be a lot better to do than to, first of all, put Staff in a bad situation and to make us sit here and sometimes be the bad guys. We don’t mind being the bad guys, but we’d like to find a way so that if we’re going to be the bad guys, we know why we got there. Having said that, I will, as I say, I will go along, and therefore, I need a motion to approve. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2004 MICHAEL M. DUGGAN, JR., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 861 Sherman Avenue. The applicant has constructed a 390 square foot one car detached garage and is requesting 10 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement. As we suggested, this, by no means, implies that we’re going to grant other variances for similar structures along the neighborhood roads in that area. This is a one time deal and understanding that this was done with no intent to build too close to the road. At the same time, upon completion of this structure, we would like to see some vegetative plantings done along the property line, next to the neighbor to the east, to lessen the impact of this structure from their viewing. Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-There you so, sir. MR. DUGGAN-Thank you. Just one note. I think it could be fixed by one piece of paper. MR. STONE-Okay. They’re working on it. Believe me. MR. DUGGAN-Just to say they own 50 feet to the road. MR. STONE-Well, except that roads, as I say, sometimes the centerline is not the center of the road. MR. DUGGAN-Right, but it would be close, you know what I’m saying, a foot. MR. STONE-Easier said than done. MR. DUGGAN-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-And Mr. Chairman, may I make one comment, please? MR. STONE-Surely. MR. ABBATE-I’d like to make sure it’s in the record that I admire the work of the Staff. They do a tremendous job. They are overworked, every one of them, whether it’s the folks out in field or the folks in the office, and they do magnificent work, and the information this evening that we all spoke about is not necessarily directed at Staff. They are under constraints as well. I just wanted you to know that. MR. DUGGAN-Right. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you, and I would echo that, too. MR. HAYES-I’d like to add one thing to that, which I don’t normally do, but, personally, I’d like to comment Bruce in the sense that, when the Staff steps to the plate and admits a complicated sets of facts that are involved with a case, to me, it adds credibility to this hearing, and to the applications, when we’re told, for good or bad, what happened. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. ABBATE-True. Correct. MR. HAYES-And I think you deserve a compliment for that. That’s not an admission either way, but I mean it’s important for us to have everything we need to know. MR. STONE-One of the things about human beings is that we do, or at least should learn from past experiences, and this is a case where I’m sure we will learn to tweak it and make it a little better the next time. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED MEINEKE CAR CARE, PAUL LORENZ PROPERTY OWNER: PAUL & JOAN LORENZ ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 78 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE THE EXISTING 25 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN WITH A NEW 50 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND TO LOCATE THE SIGN CLOSER TO THE FRONT AND SIDE PROPERTY LINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 91-490, SPR 26-2003, MR. PHILLIPS- 91-1444 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 4/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-61 LOT SIZE: 0.50 ACRES SECTION: 140- 6(B1) PAUL & JOAN LORENZ, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 25-2004, Meineke Car Care, Paul Lorenz Meeting Date: April 21, 2004 “Project Location: 78 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace the existing 25 sq. ft., 25-foot high freestanding sign with a new 50 sq. ft., 15- foot high freestanding sign in a location closer to the front and rear property lines. Relief Required: The applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum front setback requirement and 15 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum rear setback requirement, per §140-6(B1). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 26-2003: 06/03/03, 1,921 sq. ft. addition to commercial building. AV 91-2002: 11/27/02, setback relief for a 1,921 sq. ft. addition to building. BP 91-1445: 10/11/91, wall sign. BP 91-1444: 10/11/91, freestanding sign. BP 91-490: 07/24/91, addition to commercial building. SP 92-90: 12/27/90, commercial addition of storage area/waiting room. AV 80-1990, 11/14/90, setback relief for commercial building. UV 83-1990: 11/14/90, 2,100 sq. ft. auto repair shop. Var. 1077: 05/21/86, front setback relief for commercial building. Var. 1069: 04/16/86, setback relief for freestanding sign. Var. 1022: 09/18/85, side setback relief for construction of an automobile service/repair building. SP 24-85: 09/17/85, operation of an automobile carburetor and repair service. SUP 103: 04/21/82, operation of an automobile repair shop. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to locate the new freestanding sign at the north corner of the triangular shaped parcel, resulting in relief being needed from the frontage on LaFayette Street and from the shared property line with Niagara Mohawk (power line ROW property). The proposed location relative to the LaFayette Street road surface appears to be approximately 8 feet (scaled distance). 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. STONE-Any County? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think there was, but I think it was No Impact. MR. STONE-Okay. Sir? MR. LORENZ-My name is Paul Lorenz. I’m the owner of the Meineke Discount Muffler on Quaker Road, and this is my wife, Joan. Just to put your mind at ease, I had my property surveyed. Basically what we’re doing is, well, to start with, they made a mistake. It’s not 25 square feet, right now. The sign, right now, is 50 square feet. MR. STONE-I was going to ask that question. MR. LORENZ-And I’m applying, still, for the same 50 square feet, but it’s just one square sign instead of the two separate signs that are there now. Meineke recently had a name change. So it’s from Meineke Discount Muffler, it’s now Meineke Car Care Centers, and we want to have the sign moved out further because it is very difficult to see. That’s why the sign is so high right now. Because when I originally put it in, we couldn’t see it, and I figured if I could get over that building, that the people would see it, but they still can’t see it, and they tend to drive by all the time, turn around and then they come back. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying that, because that was my first question. It is 50 feet when you put those two signs together. MR. LORENZ-Yes, right, the two together. MR. STONE-Okay. I have, at least I have, individually, complained to Staff about the number of signs that you have. Is there any thought of giving up any of the wall signs that you have? MR. LORENZ-What I could do is I’ll take down the signs that you see over my bays that says Shocks, Struts, or CD’s. I could take those down in front, and we’ll just put a black stripe. It’ll be a black and yellow stripe. That’s the Meineke trademark, and we could run that right across the top of my doors. So there’ll be no sign there, other than like just a registered motor vehicle and inspection sign, and that’s it. MR. STONE-Sure. That would help me. MR. LORENZ-I could do that. That’s no problem. They’re just there for decoration anyway. It doesn’t really mean anything. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question relative to the position of the new sign? You’re moving it closer to Quaker Road? MR. LORENZ-Yes. MR. BRYANT-So the fact that you’re lowering the sign, is the Singular sign now going to be in the way instead of the building? Is that what’s going to happen? I mean, that’s what it looks like to me. MR. LORENZ-Actually, no matter what I do, there’s going to be something in the way. That’s what it boils down to, because you have all of the telephone poles there, but what happens is as you’re coming up to the stop sign, you’ll see the sign. What happens is, when you’re driving down Quaker Road, you tend to, you see all the landscaping and everything like that, and you just don’t think that there’s a building there. You just tend to, your focus is in that direction. By bringing that sign out closer and dropping it, they’ll see the little bit of yellow. It’ll attract their attention, and they’ll turn their head when they come up toward that stop sign and notice it then. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. STONE-I wish you hadn’t said they’d turn their heads. MR. HAYES-You’re saying it’s in the range of their peripheral vision? MR. LORENZ-Right, once they get to a certain point. I mean, there’s points, like I have one picture here, as you’re coming down Quaker Road, you can’t see the sign at all. Do you see what I’m saying? So it depends on when you’re looking, is what it boils down to, but as you’re coming closer to Lafayette Street, it’s going to be out far enough that you’ll notice it, is what I’m basically saying. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but I think from a marketing standpoint, it’s not like you’re going to buy the jacket or a lounge chair, you pass by the place and you see it. People go to Meineke because they need a muffler. They need brakes, or they need something. It’s not like you’re going to get passersby that stop in. MR. LORENZ-Well, that’s not true, because what happens is, that’s fine for the local business, but anybody that’s not from this area, that come from different areas, they don’t know where it is. Or if they’re driving down the road because they need service, they’re not going to see my sign. They’re going to go right past to my competition. MR. BRYANT-That’s a good point. MR. LORENZ-And that’s at least 20% of my business. MR. BRYANT-Is the Saturn sign going to be in the way? MR. LORENZ-No. It’s so open there, it doesn’t matter. When you’re coming from the other direction, you can see everything. It’s really not a problem at all. It’s only because that building blocks everything right in the front so, when you’re coming down the road, you don’t anticipate it. You see the Niagara Mohawk poles and we have it all landscaped. I do the landscaping out there for that also. I take care of the Niagara Mohawk property. So you don’t really pay attention to it. You don’t really look for it, is what I’m basically saying. MR. STONE-You’re going to move the gazebo? MR. LORENZ-Am I? Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what it said. MR. LORENZ-Right. MR. STONE-Because the property is very attractive. I mean, I congratulate you. MR. LORENZ-We’re not going to move it off the property. We’re just going to move it over. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, it’s going to be there, because it’s an attractive. MR. LORENZ-Yes. That’s why I put it out there. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LORENZ-No, I do extensive landscaping, and after this, my project is done, it’s going to be even more landscaping. We’re going to put some stone walls up, things like that also, which over the years, if you’ve seen the property, you know that there’s never a problem with landscape and all, the way we take care of the property. It’s always been. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. ABBATE-Help me out here, would you, please. Now you’ve agreed to compromise. You indicated you agreed to remove, what kind of signs now? MR. LORENZ-Right now it just says like. MR. STONE-Over the bays. MR. LORENZ-Signs, the ones over the bays. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So you would agree, in the event this was approved, to compromise, by removing those signs over the bays and putting more or less the yellow logo, right? MR. LORENZ-Right. Just the stripe, that’s all it is. MR. ABBATE-And how many signs do you currently have over the bays? MR. LORENZ-Three. MR. ABBATE-Three. Okay. MR. BRYANT-That only counts as one wall sign, though. MR. FRANK-Just for the record, they have permits for those signs. I researched them myself. The previous Zoning Administrator determined those were directional signs. I read the letter myself, and I was shown the actual permit that we used to issue. MR. STONE-But if the applicant is willing to take them down, and that pleases me. MR. FRANK-That’s correct, but I just wanted you to know they’re not illegal signs. Those are legal signs. MR. STONE-The wall sign on the north, that’s going to be moved to the new addition? MR. LORENZ-Right. It’ll look exactly the way you see it. Except all that wood in the front there, that’s all going to be coming down. We’re going to do landscaping around that part of the building. Because everything is going to be on the opposite side. MR. STONE-Just out of curiosity, looking at the history. I mean, this variance was granted a year and a half ago, and I know you got site plan approval within the time period. What’s taking so long? MR. LORENZ-We only the actual permit, I think it was like June of last year, and by the time I could get anybody in there to do anything it was already frost, and I didn’t want to do the project in the middle of winter. So we waited until Spring, and that’s where we’re at right now. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LORENZ-And we’re probably going to start the project within the next month to month and a half. MR. STONE-Okay, and we hate to see somebody come and get a variance and then all of a sudden. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I just have one other question. You’re requesting 15 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum front setback. Right? MR. LORENZ-Right. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. ABBATE-And 15 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum rear setback. Correct? Now, let me ask you a question, and don’t hesitate to take some time before answering. Is there a feasible alternative? MR. LORENZ-None. MR. ABBATE-That’s fair enough. That was quick and to the point. MR. URRICO-I have a question. When you applied, this sign dates back to 1991? MR. LORENZ-Yes. MR. URRICO-And when you put that up, were those buildings where they are now? MR. LORENZ-Everything was right where it is now. MR. URRICO-Okay, and just one other question. On your survey it says existing sign to remain. That’s not really what you’re doing, right? MR. LORENZ-No, no, no, no. Not this sign. No. That sign’s coming down. The one that’s on the site right now will be coming down, and we’ll be moving it out. MR. URRICO-Okay, because on the survey it says existing sign to remain. MR. LORENZ-No. MR. FRANK-They needed an Area Variance, which they got, and this was the site plan they submitted then, at the time that was to remain. MR. LORENZ-Right, at the time. MR. FRANK-That’s why you see it on there. MR. HAYES-Yes, he didn’t want to get another survey. MR. LORENZ-No. MR. URRICO-And I should say that while I applaud the applicant’s willingness to take those signs down, when Mr. Stone’s asking for them, I think we have other auto dealers around Town that we should be working on as well. MR. STONE-Well, you’ve got to work one at a time. MR. BRYANT-I want to go back to Mr. Abbate’s question about feasible alternatives. Isn’t a feasible alternative just to replace the sign where it is now? MR. LORENZ-No, because it’s really too high. You really just don’t see it. If you drive down the road and looked at the sign, you could see what I was saying. MR. BRYANT-Yes, well I did drive down and I tried to visualize where the new sign was going to be, and frankly I didn’t see it was any better. So, again, I ask the question, isn’t a feasible alternative just to replace the existing sign with? MR. LORENZ-Well, just to give you an idea, you see the way you have the picture right now? You’re not always looking at that same picture. As you’re driving down the road, it changes constantly. The view that you’re looking at, and that’s where the sign will clear up, as you’re getting closer to it. I’ve been down that road about 100 times looking at this property. I’ve had 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) people out there with big sheets of plywood and everything trying to figure out which was going to be the best location. MR. BRYANT-But as you drive down the road, I understand what you’re saying, but isn’t it also true that you’re going to buy two seconds, this variance is going to give you an additional two seconds of visibility from one side, and that’s all you’re asking for? MR. LORENZ-But it’s worth it in my eyes. I feel like, in the long run, it’s definitely going to be worth it, and I’m going to have to replace the sign with a new sign anyway. So, this is the time to do it, is basically what I’m saying. MR. BRYANT-And what would happen if you lowered that existing sign and just changed your sign? MR. LORENZ-Then you, it would be worse, because now you couldn’t see it at all over that building. At least from a distance now you do see it, if you’re looking that early. See, that’s the whole key. If you’re coming down Quaker Road, and you’re looking, as soon as you start to come down Quaker Road, you’ll see the sign, but people don’t look that earlier. They’re waiting, as they get closer, then they start looking and it’s already too late. They’re already beyond that point. MR. BRYANT-Well, I can understand that, but I know where Meineke is. We all know where Meineke is. MRS. LORENZ-My name is Joan Lorenz. The issue that we have more often is people coming off the Northway will go right past us and by the time they realize their error, they’re at K-Mart. So they have to turn all the way around. MR. STONE-Or they go to Midas, heaven forbid. MRS. LORENZ-Or, I’m sure that has happened, but they will travel all the way down to K-Mart before they realize, yes, and that’s been a problem we’ve had for years, and we’ve just kind of dealt with it, but it really wasn’t right. MR. STONE-All right. Let me ask a question, because while I applaud you lowering the sign, I mean, you’re giving up 10 feet of legal sign height. Why? MR. LORENZ-Because I feel that the height isn’t, you don’t need the purpose right now. If you’re on the Northway, yes, you want the height, but down here, it’s more in the eye level thing. MR. HAYES-It’s the sight line. MR. LORENZ-So if you were coming down the road, you’re going to be in line with all the other signs. That’s where your eyes eventually are going to look for. MR. STONE-Well, we applaud, I applaud that, personally. MR. LORENZ-Plus the reason, in case you’re wondering, the reason why I never applied for this prior to this is that the sign, they’re expensive to replace, and we didn’t have to change the name at that point, but now that we changed the name, I have to change the sign, regardless. MR. STONE-Are they covering the cost? MR. LORENZ-No. MRS. LORENZ-I wish they would, but. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments, gentlemen and lady? Well, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-None. MR. STONE-Was there a County on this one? MR. UNDERWOOD-It was No Impact. MR. STONE-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Al. MR. BRYANT-Frankly I don’t know, and that sometimes is a good thing. I don’t, again, I spent some time out there, walking around, trying to see where the sign would be, and I’m looking at this photograph, and I realize this is only a microsecond of the trip, you know, down Quaker Road, and it doesn’t really amount to a hill of beans when you look at it, but I don’t see the significance of the change, and I understand you have to change the sign, but I don’t see it. Okay. I’d like to really hear what the other Board members have to say before I. MR. LORENZ-Let me just show you this sign, and that microsecond is the difference of you noticing it, the turn you have to make. MR. BRYANT-I’m sure there is. MR. STONE-Okay. You can show that, but let us go. Mr. Bryant has asked that we help him, one way or the other, and we’ll go to Mr. Urrico. MR. URRICO-Well, the basic question, as always, comes to whether the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community, and I think, overall, in this case, it does not. I think there will not be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. In fact, it probably fits in there a little bit better. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved in some other feasible manner, well, that’s up to debate. You probably could leave it where it is, or move it slightly less, but I feel the applicant has done a good job of weighing his options, and I think they know best in this instance, and, having traveled that road quite a bit, as everybody else has, it is a hodgepodge of a lot of different signs and buying a few seconds is worth it, you know, I think if you can. The requested Area Variance doesn’t seem substantial to me. That’s because it’s such an odd lot, and where it sits on the NiMo property. So I’m not really bothered by that, and as far as impacting the area in the physical or environmental way, I don’t see that happening. In a sense, it is self-created, but I think, overall, I believe the test weighs in favor of the applicant, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Thank you. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I think it was a great presentation. We have a number of Sign Variances before us, and I think Mr. Lapper should be nervous at this particular point, because all the questions that questions that I had, you answered. MR. LORENZ-He trained me. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. HAYES-Yes. Well, I don’t know if I’d say that, but you’ve given us a reason why you’re replacing the sign and why you’re here today. As far as your arguments concerning the sight line of people traveling down Quaker Road, I think they’re germane, in this case. I think that, hopefully, people are watching the cars and people in front of them until some moment before they turn, and they should not be looking off for your sign over here. I think that that, I really think that’s a legitimate argument. I think, also, that having your sign somehow more in compliance with the height and the position of the rest of the signs on the street, I think that’s a benefit to that neighborhood, to that corridor. Right now it’s not, I mean, for obvious reasons and for good reasons, but at some point, lowering that sign down, as you’re offering to do, I think, is a benefit to the area. You’re offering that back. I think it’s a plus on your behalf. The relief, I think the relief is substantial, in the sense that, you know, you’re really right down in that corner and zero relief is, that’s a lot of relief, but I don’t think that that’s the only part of the test that I think certainly would be in question at this point in my mind, but we’ve, Quaker Road is an unusual spot, you know, we’ve done things to control the relief that we’ve granted for signage in this particular case, but the fact that that funky Quaker Road/Niagara Mohawk right of way is there, and you’re not going out to the road, I think changes it. I think it makes this a unique application. I don’t think that you putting your new sign there is going to be out of character with what’s going on there. So, when I balance everything out, I think I’m satisfied in this particular case. I think it makes sense, and I just don’t see where the negative impacts are going to hit us. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think the relief requested is a reflection of the property lines out in front, and if you drive from the east coming west, you’ll see that that sign is set back substantially more so than the Saturn signs and the Singular sign there. So I don’t really have a problem with it. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, first I’d like to congratulate you on how attractive the property looks. That gazebo is always, whatever the season always looks nice. MR. LORENZ-Thank you. MRS. HUNT-And I actually think it would be better 10 feet less. I think it would be less obtrusive in the overall, but moving it up front will probably be a benefit to you, and I would support it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Well, I agree with my other Board members. I just have a couple of other comments I’d like to make. I believe the presentation, it was great. In my eyes, you justified and you were trained well. What I also considered is the fact that you’re willingness to remove the two additional signs, even though they are legal signs, to me that indicates a willingness to compromise, to achieve your objective. Perception. You mentioned perception. There was a little question about the microsecond and how much perception. Well, perception is important. If the applicant perceives that, by a microsecond or so, it’s possible to increase his business by approximately 20%, then go for it. I think it’s a procedural type of thing. MR. STONE-Is that from your mouth to God’s ears, as they say, the 20%? MR. ABBATE-Did I say something here? I thought you said 20% earlier, but anyway. MR. LORENZ-I did, I said 20%. MR. ABBATE-I thought you did. I won’t say anything else, other than I’m going to support the application. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. STONE-I do think, also, this is a reasonable request, particularly as Mr. Hayes pointed out, the Quaker Road situation, you’re not near Quaker Road, I mean, because of the strange shaped lot and the NiMo right of way. You’re well off the road, and we certainly had granted relief for signs because of the large right of way that the County owns for Quaker Road, and I think you’re very reasonable on that direction. The only thing that I would question, and not very much, is the distance from Lafayette. I mean, Lafayette is a changing road, with Saturn across the street now, and you improving your building and Warren Tire down the street. There’s a whole bunch of things going on there. However, I think the fact that this sign is going to be at 15 feet I think is going to make a big difference. The fact, personally, your willingness to take off some of the signs, because quite frankly, I have always had the feeling that the front of the building is overdone, particularly when you consider the effort that you have put in to make this property attractive. I think, to me, that has detracted from the appearance, and that’s going to definitely be improved, and I think this is a variance that I can readily agree to. I need a motion to approve. Mr. Abbate, you look like you’re ready. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I don’t have a problem with that. I just have one question. It indicated here, applicant proposes to replace the existing 25 foot square, it’s 50 feet square, is that correct? MR. LORENZ-That’s exactly right. MR. ABBATE-So that was a little error there. MR. LORENZ-They made a mistake. MR. ABBATE-And then everything else remains the same. MR. STONE-Get that into your motion. MR. ABBATE-Fine. All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-2004 MEINEKE CAR CARE, PAUL LORENZ, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 78 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes to replace the existing 50 square foot, 25 foot high freestanding sign with a 50 square foot, 15 foot high freestanding sign in the location closer to the front and rear property lines. The relief required, the applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum front setback requirement and 15 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum rear setback requirement per Section 140-6B(1). Does the benefit to the applicant outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or the community if we grant this Area Variance? In making this determination, we take a number of things into consideration. One is whether or not there will be an undesirable change as a result of this approval. In my estimation, there will not be an undesirable change. Rather there will be an improved change to the area. Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the Area Variance. Well, I made this a specific question. There are no reasonable feasible alternatives. Three, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. Perhaps it might be considered substantial in some areas, but the applicant has agreed to compromise in other areas. Four, whether the proposed Variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. I think not. As it was indicated by several Board members, particularly my fellow Board person Joyce, you have a beautiful area and you maintain it quite well, and so, based upon all of these considerations, Mr. Chairman, and fellow Board members, I move that we approve Sign Variance No. 25-2004. There is a stipulation. I would like to modify that motion. There is a stipulation that the applicant agrees to remove all signs over the bay doors, with the exception of the required State signs, New York State inspection station, and what have you. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-There you go. MR. LORENZ-I just want to say, thanks. I appreciate you guys approving everything for us. MRS. LORENZ-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II THOMAS HEINZELMAN ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 52 REARDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 440 SQ. FT. DECK. SEEKS RELIEF FROM SIDE AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2003-661 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 289.7-1-19 LOT SIZE: 0.29 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 179-4-070 THOMAS HEINZELMAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2004, Thomas Heinzelman, Meeting Date: April 21, 2004 “Project Location: 52 Reardon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 440 sq. ft. deck. Relief Required: Applicant requests 9.1 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement and 47 feet of relief from the 85-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement (85 feet being the approximate average setback of the dwellings on the two adjoining parcels), per §179-4-070 and §179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2003-661: pending this application, construction of a 440 sq. ft. deck. Staff comments: Being the average setback of the two adjacent dwellings is greater than 50 feet, the average setback of 85 feet is the requirement. The average setback was determined by using a scaled distance for the dwelling located to the south of the applicant’s property and a field measured distance for the dwelling to the north (the dwelling to the north was not located on the submitted survey).” MR. STONE-Before you start, Mr. Heinzelman, let me ask Mr. Frank, what does it mean we have a building permit from 2003? I see pending, but I thought we don’t issue them, we don’t do anything, until we have a variance? MR. FRANK-I think the applicant applied for a building permit to do this, and then after review by the Zoning Administrator, he informed him I can’t issue this because of that, and that’s why he’s here. MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead. MR. HEINZELMAN-If I might just comment to that. I made an application for a building permit. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. STONE-State your name, please. MR. HEINZELMAN-I’m sorry, Tom Heinzelman, 52 Reardon Road, which is up on Glen Lake. I made application for a building permit last fall, anticipating that we would like to put this deck on, not really understanding, and not being privy to set back responsibilities. Quite honestly felt that we had enough setback area. When I submitted the request and I put down the distances that we had, I was notified by the Town that it didn’t meet the requirements, and therefore we had to apply for a variance. So I worked with Mr. Brown, and he explained to me what we needed, and we went from there. I didn’t realize that we were going to have the opportunity to have this great technology with us tonight, because I would like to have submitted some pictures, but. MR. STONE-You still can submit pictures. MR. HEINZELMAN-Well, if it would be okay with the Board, I have some black and white photos, if that would be okay. MR. STONE-Well, if you must give us black and white. MR. HEINZELMAN-So I can demonstrate my concerns about this. Okay. The first concern that I have, in attempting to make application for this variance, is if we could talk simply about the side variance, first, and the side would be on the right hand side, which would be on the south side of my property. Fortunately I actually own the property next to me, but needless to say, if you look at this black and white photograph, you’ll see that there’s a very specific line of demarcation between the two properties, which is based on a row of trees and shrubs. You’ll also see a difference in elevation, and the property, even though, again, I own the property over there, that being said, the level of the property where I am is a lot higher than the level of the property next door to me, and so I originally thought that we had enough room, because I thought that we only needed about 12 feet, and I was informed that we were going to need 20 feet, hence the variance. Now, additionally, if you look at this picture, you’ll see that the property that is next to my additional properties, there are actually two dwellings on that particular parcel of land. One sits very close to the water. I would estimate it’s probably about 25 feet from the water. Another one sits back approximately 150 feet from the water. MR. STONE-Now you’re talking, just for the record, on the survey, the framed cabin to the extreme left of the survey. MR. HEINZELMAN-Yes, to the extreme right. MR. STONE-Beyond your second property? MR. HEINZELMAN-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes, okay. MR. HEINZELMAN-And when I had a discussion with Mr. Frank, he informed me that basically you would take, the reason I didn’t meet the 50 foot requirement was because we would take the property on one side, and basically draw a line to the property, the dwelling on the opposite side, and you’d have to fall within that, hence the 85 feet. So I really wasn’t aware of this 85 foot minimum setback until this week, as a matter of fact, after everything had already been submitted, but I still contend that if, in fact, there are two dwellings on a single piece of property, why would we not look at the one that’s closest to the water, in terms of the measurement, which would be somewhat similar to the house that’s located on the northern side of me, which would enable me to be within the parameters of the 50 foot setback. MR. STONE-Do you want to answer, Bruce, on that? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. FRANK-I would agree with that if they were both on the same property. Our records show that that’s a separate parcel. The cabin located on the survey submitted is on a separate parcel from the structure, well, actually, I see what Mr. Heinzelman is saying. I do have a rough map here, if you want to look at it, from our GIS format that shows that it is a separate parcel. It’s not located on here because it’s a newer structure. MR. STONE-You’re saying to the south is a separate parcel? There are two parcels to the south? Yes, that would be good if you could pull something up. MR. FRANK-This parcel right here, has a structure approximately here, which the Zoning Administrator did not want to count as the neighboring parcel. MR. STONE-Right, and that’s Mr. Heinzelman’s property and joint with some other people, I understand? I did hear that from your neighbor when I did go out to look at the thing. Okay. MR. FRANK-That’s correct, and now the framed cabin referenced on the survey map submitted is on this property, here, approximately in this location. MR. STONE-Right. MR. FRANK-And the photograph that Mr. Heinzelman submitted, showing that newer looking framed structure much closer to the water is on this property, here, according to what you’re seeing right now. MR. STONE-You’re saying the one to the extreme right of his photograph? MR. FRANK-In the photograph, is where I’m pointing right now. MR. STONE-That’s two properties away. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Two properties away. Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Help me out here. The two buildings between his property and the higher building on the right hand side, are they on separate lots right here? Right here, Bruce, is where I’m talking about, these two buildings right here. Are they on the same property? MR. HAYES-It might help if Mr. Heinzelman pointed on that map. Could you just point on that map? MR. HEINZELMAN-Yes. This is a very unique set of circumstances here, because as you see, this yellow indicates, you know, my existing property, which is only about 25 feet up here, and about 75 feet down in here. Additionally, this piece of property, which we recently purchased, has about 75 feet up here and about 25 feet down here. The cabin that is the structure that you can see on your right side, that Mr. Frank says is on this property, I’m under the impression that that cabin is sitting right about here, on this property, not this property, and I’m also under the impression that the one that we’re using, facing my setback requirement of 85 feet, to be sitting back behind where mine would be. I mean, this is where I sit right here. My neighbor on the north side. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s how they’re getting the average from the other one, the one to the north, and the one to the, the second one to the south. MR. HEINZELMAN-So, basically, I’m assuming that we’re drawing a line between, you know, and that’s why mine would have to be set back even further. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. STONE-Yes, is that correct, Bruce, what he’s saying? MR. FRANK-I don’t know that, to be honest with you, without it located on a survey map. I’m only looking at. MR. STONE-I mean, he was drawing a line from somewhere on the second lot, to the lot to the north. MR. HEINZELMAN-From a house, or a structure approximately here. MR. STONE-There. MR. HEINZELMAN-To a house or a structure approximately here. Basically I think what we do is draw a line. MR. FRANK-That would be taking the average. That’s correct. MR. STONE-Yes. Right. MR. FRANK-And in defense of what Mr. Heinzelman has said, if you look at this logically, the structure that’s closest to the water, if you didn’t know where the property lines ran, you might think that that is the neighboring dwelling, on the neighboring parcel. So, it’s more technical in nature, what the relief is that it required for this application, compared to what the normal 50 foot setback. MR. STONE-Okay, but the house in the center of Mr. Heinzelman’s photo, you have a copy of it there. MR. FRANK-Yes. MR. STONE-The house that is set back is the offending, or is the south property, correct? MR. FRANK-Yes, the one that we’re using. The one that’s located on the survey map. MR. STONE-Right. The one that’s behind this shed, and behind this open barn, or not even barn, but an open structure. Those don’t count. MR. FRANK-Well, I think the one that’s in the center of the photograph he submitted is the one that’s labeled framed cabin. MR. STONE-Yes, right, that’s what I’m saying. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-And that’s the one we’re using, along with the house on the other side of you. MR. HEINZELMAN-I guess my point is, I’m simply saying that when I filled out the application, I wasn’t aware that we were going to make that kind of a comparison. Because when I met with the Town officials, we were constantly talking about this 50 foot setback, which is what it says in your brochure. That’s the 50 foot setback. MR. STONE-That’s correct, or, it says 50 feet or. MR. HEINZELMAN-Well, I don’t think it says that, but anyway, I guess I submitted this, you know, a month or two ago, and found out just the other day. So what I’m trying to do for you is clarify that. I just found this out. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. STONE-And you’re doing fine. MR. HEINZELMAN-I was under the impression that we were requesting a lot less relief than this 47 feet. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s important, but it could also be immaterial because we can sit here and make our interpretation. That’s why we’re the Zoning Board of Appeals, and we can say that that’s well and good, but we’re going to grant the relief, because we think when you think of the whole shoreline here, it fits or it doesn’t fit. MR. HEINZELMAN-And I think that was one of the reasons why I went out in my rowboat and tried to take this picture, giving you a lakefront view, and if you do look at it, you can see that we’ve got two levels of a plateaued yard, so to speak, and the deck would encompass a portion of the top level. It obviously would not come down into the bottom level, and if you see that great big tree that’s just kind of to the left of the doorway, we felt that it was necessary to attempt to maintain that tree, and therefore we thought that we might want to incorporate it right in to the deck. Now this area, where it’s, you know, sort of level, is area that we use. So I don’t think that placing a deck in there is going to change the complexion of our yard. I mean, we’re out there, basically, every day, and so I don’t think that that would have a dramatic effect, and what’s interesting is the house to the north, several years ago, was granted a variance to put a deck on the front of their house. Now, it changed hands in the meantime and they opted not to do that, and the variance has since lapsed, but it would remain somewhat consistent, if you go down that shoreline, virtually every house that sits on the water has a deck. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Heinzelman, clear something up for me, please. The photograph that you submitted, it appears that there’s kind of a drive down there, you indicated there was a delineation, okay, and I circled the house here. Is this your property here, where the cleared area is? MR. HEINZELMAN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-That is your property. MR. HEINZELMAN-Yes. MR. STONE-The left hand, over here. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. STONE-The left side of the picture. MR. STONE-Yes. Right. That’s what you’re pointing at. MR. HEINZELMAN-This yellow property is mine. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. HEINZELMAN-Okay. This next lot, all the way down to the left, and by the way, this is inaccurate. When I met with the Town, this comes straight down, and they told me I had to go up to the County map. The County map has now been changed. That’s a straight line. There’s nothing curving in there anymore, but anyway, I own both of these properties, okay, right down to the water. MR. ABBATE-So both parcels, all right. Okay, and where is that road, that indentation there. Could you show me on the map? MR. HEINZELMAN-This indentation? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. ABBATE-No. This here, in the. MR. HEINZELMAN-Well, that would be this continuous. See, this is a straight line that goes all the way down. MR. ABBATE-That’s what I’m getting at. That’s what I wanted to see. Okay. Got it. MR. HEINZELMAN-And you can see that the next, you know, hole that sits back in here, the shoreline is kind of contoured back a little bit, too. It was pushed to the back even further. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. MR. STONE-The middle of this picture is that neck of the green lot? MR. HEINZELMAN-That’s correct. The middle of the picture that I submitted is this area right here. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Got it. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, just for the record, Mr. Heinzelman was not informed about the average setback at the time he had his pre-application conference. It wasn’t until I reviewed this application myself, I discovered that the requirement is whichever is greater, 50 feet or greater of the average of the two. So, in fairness to him, I did just inform his last week. It was not something he was, not that it makes a difference one way or the other. I think you’re stating. MR. ABBATE-But that’s important, Bruce. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-It’s important, but the point is, that’s for us to determine. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STONE-Whether or not it’s meaningful in terms of what he wants to do, and that’s why we’re here. Anybody else have any questions before I open the public hearing? MR. HEINZELMAN-Might I just do one more thing? MR. STONE-Surely. MR. HEINZELMAN-I asked an artist to just do a quick sketch of what the deck would look like on there, just to give you an idea, because one of the things that I feel very strongly about is trying to enhance the aesthetics of the lake. I’m a proponent of this lake. I’ve loved this lake for as long as I’ve been in this area, and I don’t believe that we should just be building structures for the sake of building structures, and one of the things that we wanted to do on the front of the deck was to put some sort of shrubs and flowers and, Jim, I think you referred to it as vegetation, and I had the artist incorporate that into this whole sketch. So, obviously it’s not perfect, but it will give you kind of an idea of what we’re looking at. MR. ABBATE-I see what you did with the tree. You incorporated it right in to the deck. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else you want to add, or any other questions? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PETE ROZELLE 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. ROZELLE-Hi. My name is Pete Rozelle. I live at 47 Reardon Road, which is the big parcel of land behind the yellow swath that you see down in front. I also own 50 Reardon Road, which is directly north, the next lot north. The cottage that I bought was the one that had the variance two years ago, or three years ago to have the deck put on. I’m also partners with Tom on 54 Reardon Road. So, I’m worth, and that big swath of land that I live on is actually three 100 foot lots. I don’t know why it’s all one spot. So I could be worth five signatures in the neighborhood. I think that whatever the Heinzelman’s do with their piece of property, with that front of that camp, will enhance the look of it from the lake. Since they bought theirs and we bought ours, you know, we’ve resided. Everybody’s put flowers in, put shrubs in. We’re spending a lot of money down in these pieces of property to enhance it, and I really don’t think, I don’t have any reason to believe that a deck on the front is going to hinder anything, whether it be looks, anything against the, even, I don’t even think it’s really going to bother the view of the people that have that camp which is in question, that little camp set back, because if you look on the picture, I think you’re going to see a bunch of trees and stuff that blocks their view anyway, and I don’t think they’re really going to see a lot of that deck, because there’s a tree line on our property. I, as a neighbor, have no problem with what Tom wants to do and that’s all I have to say. MR. STONE-Good, thank you. MR. URRICO-Mr. Rozelle, you’re part owners of 54? MR. ROZELLE-Yes. MR. URRICO-Do you have any problems with the side setback on your half of the property? MR. ROZELLE-Absolutely not. MR. URRICO-Okay. Thank you. MR. ROZELLE-Okay. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak on the subject? Any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-None. MR. STONE-All right. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions on the part of the Board? If not, let’s talk about it. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I really don’t see the problem with this application. I am fairly certain that this deck will have no impact on the character of the neighborhood at all. The only way that the applicant could do a more feasible one probably would be not to build it. Not to use the deck, or not to put in a deck, but he’s already using that property. It looks like an attractive deck. I don’t see it having, I really think this is fine. Is the requested Area Variance substantial? Well, I, frankly, don’t understand how we come to the average. From a site standpoint, being out at the property, I don’t see this as infringing on the shoreline at all. It seems to be in line with the rest of the properties that are aligned there. So I don’t see it, even this application being substantial, and as far as the side setback, I think it’s pretty much the same. He’s infringing on his own property, albeit it may not be his own property. Some day you may sell it, but I don’t see this as impacting that property at all. I think it will not have an impact on the physical or environmental conditions, and the difficulty is self-created in the fact that he’s building the deck, but I really think this is a good project, and I don’t see it having any detrimental effect, and I think you’ll enjoy it. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. STONE-Just one quick question. If this was ordinary, Bruce, it would require 12 feet of relief from the 50, is that correct? MR. FRANK-That’s correct, and by the way, I offered this to Mr. Heinzelman, and he’s not saying anything, so I’m going to say it anyway. I think he was correct in that there are two dwellings on that parcel that he indicated. We’re both looking at two aerial photographs that we have. So I think that if you move to approve, that you grant 12 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement. MR. STONE-Okay. So, I mean, if we just go to the 50, we’re talking 12 feet of relief. MR. FRANK-That’s correct, and I think that’s what is really needed now. He’s brought it to my attention, and this aerial photograph has a lot of tree canopies that are blocking things, but I think the photograph that he submitted, showing the structure to the far right, is on the same property as the framed cabin that’s located on the survey map. MR. STONE-So we’re talking 12 feet of relief. MR. HAYES-Well, whoever makes the motion can just say that it’s 12 feet, and as depicted, and even if that calculation for that other thing turns out to be true. MR. URRICO-I’d just like to, once again, compliment Bruce on seeking to be factual and as truthful as possible. MR. ABBATE-Yes, and I support that. I think that’s admirable, and I think it shows a high degree of integrity. MR. FRANK-Thank you. MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes, would you please comment. MR. HAYES-Well, first of all, it’s always nice when Roy hits all the parts of the test, because that means I don’t have to. Thanks, Roy. You’re a good man, but I essentially agree. I think, in this particular case, outside of the overwhelming neighborhood support, in this particular case, I think that the decks in front of these structures are in compliance with the character of the neighborhood or don’t change the character of the neighborhood in this particular case. The fact that the maple tree is being incorporated into the deck, and that the applicant is proposing meaningful vegetative screening to the deck, I think that’s also a big plus. I’m not really a tree hugger as they would say, but certainly that’s a nice tree in front of your house there in this case. There’s some question about the formula as to the nature of the relief that is required, but in my opinion, we still know exactly where the deck is going to be, and we know where the other houses are, and at least on my part, I’m examining it from that perspective. The relief is moderate, in this case. I think, you know, 38 feet away from the lake, it’s not minimal relief, it’s moderate relief, but I think, as I look at everything that’s, you know, balancing the benefit to the applicant, in this particular case, with the detriment to the neighborhood, I think it falls in favor of the applicant. As far as the side relief, the most immediately impacted neighbor has indicated that he doesn’t have a problem with it, and these are narrow lots. There’s some configuration issues here that contribute to the fact that there’s relief needed, but that’s not going to change, and the lots are defined. So, on balance, I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Just a question, Mr. Rozelle, you live right next door to this property? You share the driveway? MR. ROZELLE-Which one? No, no. I have to apologize. Did my wife hunt you down? Were you the one down taking pictures? MR. STONE-No. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. ROZELLE-You weren’t? MR. STONE-No, I was there when, there was a woman raking, along with Jim Girard. MR. ROZELLE-That was my wife. MR. STONE-And she sent you to, because she didn’t realize that we liked to hear from people in favor. I told her that, and she sent you. That’s what I was about to say. MR. ROZELLE-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s what I thought. MR. ROZELLE-Actually, I live up behind, but I do own the cottage right next to. MR. STONE-Right. We like to hear people say they like the project. We hear enough people who don’t like it. MR. ROZELLE-Yes. It’ll be, if you can see it now, you’ll see it next year. MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m basically in favor of it, too. It’s nice to see that somebody’s going to incorporate the natural vegetation, rather than to whack it down because it’s blocking one of their windows or something. At the same time, I think that, you know, your lot to the south there is going to be protected by your row of trees that you’re keeping, and the setback for this deck in this instance is much greater than a lot of them that we’ve granted on the lake that are right on the water, for the most part. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I, too, feel like my other Board members. I don’t think there’d be any adverse effect or undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. In fact, I think it would be a plus, an asset, and so I would have no objection. I would approve it. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-I agree with my other fellow Board members. I think Mr. Heinzelman had a very well presented documentation, and I think he justified his position, and, based upon that, I’m supporting the application. MR. STONE-Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-I agree somewhat with what the other Board members have said, particularly with the side setback. There’s no real issue there. I look at your original application, where you talk about the benefit of the variance, and basically you want to enjoy the beauty of the lake, as all lake dwellers want to do, but you do have the enclosed porch in the back, and I’m just wondering if that deck couldn’t be downsized a little bit. I know you’re trying to get around the maple tree to alleviate some of the relief requested, but it seems that, again, I’m outnumbered. So it really doesn’t matter at this point. That’s it, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-That’s it. Well, I don’t apologize for the confusion, because I think it’s good to make people aware that lake setback is not a single number. We do talk about it. We talk about 50 foot, whether it’s on Lake George or whether it’s on Glen Lake or the Hudson River, and we sometimes lose sight of the fact that it is the average of the buildings on either side. In other words, you just can’t plunk a building down at 50 feet, when everybody else is way back, spoiling their view and all that sort of stuff. This obviously is not the case, in this particular case, and I’m glad we were able to clear up the confusion. Normally, if someone comes to me 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) and they say they want 12 feet of relief from the shoreline, I take a pretty hard look at it, but looking at this piece of property, looking at the neighborhood, in this particular area, I don’t see any concern that should be expressed. I think Mr. Urrico has gone through the test, as Mr. Hayes said. I think, on balance, it comes out in your favor. The side setback, even if you didn’t own the lot next door, would not bother me, in an area such as this. I mean, these are small lots, in terms of width, and we have to recognize that when people want to do something. So, having said that, I would certainly vote to approve it, and I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2004 THOMAS HEINZELMAN, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 52 Reardon Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 440 square foot deck. Specifically, the applicant requests 9.1 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement and 47 feet of relief from the 85 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement. I’m reading that as applied, as advertised, in this particular case. The nature of that relief is, at this point, in question, but I’ll resolve that with my actual motion, and those are both per Section 179-4-070, and Section 179-4-030 for the Waterfront Residential One Acre zone. I believe, in this particular case, that the applicant has demonstrated why or the need for this deck for his benefit, in this particular case. I think that granting this relief will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood or greater community. I think other Board members have pointed out that, in fact, we have approved decks closer to the water than this, in many circumstances, and the fact that many camps on Glen Lake have decks on the waterfront side. It should be noted, additionally, that there is immediate neighborhood support as to support the fact that there isn’t going to be an adverse effect on surrounding properties by the construction of this deck. I also believe that, as far as the view from the lake, in this particular case, the fact that the maple tree is going to be incorporated into the deck, and that the applicant has agreed to plant meaningful vegetation around the deck to improve the look or to soften the look of the deck from the lake falls in favor of the applicant, reducing any further, any minor impacts that may be, which I find to be relatively minor. In terms of the relief requested, the Board has decided to examine this from the perspective of as depicted on the submissions, the survey dated, signed by Mr. Thomas Charles Nacy, and that that places the deck at a point 38 feet from the lake. Irregardless of which method of relief that is used in this application, that is the position that we are approving in this motion. That the deck will be no closer than 38 feet from the lake at any point. So, on balance, considering those factors, I think that the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I move for its approval. Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-There you go. I’m glad we could, first of all, straighten out what you needed, and grant you what you really wanted in the first place. MR. HEINZELMAN-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II WALLACE R. HIRSCH AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERING, PLLC OWNER: WALLACE R. HIRSCH ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: BIRDSALL ROAD EXTENSION APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SEASONAL CAMP AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 45- 2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-45 LOT SIZE: 0.78 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; WALLACE HIRSCH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2004, Wallace R. Hirsch, Meeting Date: April 21, 2004 “Project Location: Birdsall Road Extension Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of a 1,342 sq. ft. camp and the construction of a 3,805 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with an 816 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 19 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement and 4.5 feet of relief from the 28-foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A Zone, §179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 45-2001: extension request to be considered in May 2004. SP 45-2001: 04/24/03, extension of approval to 03/30/04. SP 45-2001: 01/15/02, clearing and grading to facilitate driveway, parking, accessory structures, and future septic area. Approval includes 10,000 cu. yds. to be cut and 5,000 cu. yds. of fill to be placed to a finished elevation of 135’. Staff comments: Should the board move to approve this application, the approval should include the condition the applicant must get the extension request for SP 45-2001 approved. Without the approval of the extension request, the site cannot be developed as submitted in this application.” MR. UNDERWOOD-And there was a County on that one, saying No Impact. MR. STONE-Gentlemen and lady. Are you speaking, Mr. Jarrett? MR. JARRETT-For the moment. Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. With me tonight are Wally and Kate Hirsch, the owners of the property. We are seeking two variances, as was read. One is a height variance, and one is a setback variance from the lake. I think we’ve demonstrated the reasons why we seek those variances. The property is unique in that area. If you’ve visited the property, you’ll note that the very large mound that exists on the property, that the applicants are trying to remove, currently trying to remove. They’ve had some difficulties in obtaining a contractor to complete that excavation work, but once that is complete, they wish to tear down this camp and rebuild a new camp, in accordance with the application we’ve made. We think the application would make the new structure consistent with the neighborhood, make it a vast improvement over what is there now. We’re seeking no encroachment on the lake beyond what the existing setback is, and, height wise, we’re seeking four and a half feet of height variance to facilitate the structure that you see on our diagram. One thing I’d like to clarify, the total area of the structure is 3800 square feet, but the footprint is 2100 square feet, just to clarify that number. Now the Hirschs approached the neighbors in the area, and I’ll let them explain who they approached and what they requested. MR. HIRSCH-My name is Wally Hirsch. I’ve put together a little note, approached the neighbors and asked them to sign it. Basically it says that I understand that Kate and Wally Hirsch plan to tear down their existing camp, build a year round camp in its place. I further understand they will be required to get a variance on two items. I have been informed that the house will be the same distance from the lake as the current camp. I wrote 35 feet, but I understand it’s actually 31 feet, but I did tell them that it was the same distance, instead of the required setback of 50 feet. I further have been informed that the new house will be 32 feet high at the front lake side, instead of the required 28 feet, due to the steep slope that exists. The house will meet all other side and rear setback requirements. I have no objections to these variance issues, and I’ve got the signature of the neighbors, starting at the end of Birdsall Road, 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) if you’ve been there, and then there’s six of the neighbors, of the seven neighbors, the one directly to my north, Kevin Dineen, he is in Ohio. He’s with the hockey team out there, and I have not been able to make contact with him. I have talked to my neighbor on the other side, Russ Pittenger, and then I’ve talked to several of the other, all the other neighbors. They’ve all signed it and they agree, they had no problem with it at all. MR. STONE-Do you want to submit those? MR. JARRETT-I’ll pass them down now, and then we’ll submit them, either as is, or copies. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else you want to add? MR. JARRETT-No, I think we’ll open it up to questions from the Board. MR. STONE-That’s my job, sir. MR. JARRETT-If I could add one thing. We printed some of the photos that you see on the drawing in enlargement fashion, and another copy of the drawing you already have, but we feel the printing is a little better on this copy than what you have in front of you. It’s a little smaller. Easier to handle, maybe more difficult to see. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-Go ahead. Certainly, start. MR. BRYANT-These elevations on the drawing that you provided, the new ones are nice, but I’m not really understanding, you have no floor plans. I’m not really understanding the height requirement. Why do we need the height requirement? I mean, I saw their property. I understand you’re going to do some excavation there, and there is a slope there, and I understand that, but without seeing what’s inside that area, how can we determine why you need the height requirement? It looks to me like a giant cathedral, open air space from the outside. Can you tell me? MR. JARRETT-You mean the interior? MR. BRYANT-Yes, the interior portion, this glass structure. MR. JARRETT-I think the question is, what is in the upper level. MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. HIRSCH-That’s, as you look at the glass area, that’s a great room with a loft opening, to the back half of that would be the bedrooms. MR. BRYANT-And what’s the ceiling height in there? MR. HIRSCH-I think it’s 22 feet to the inside, from the floor inside to the peak. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Now my question is, can we do something with that height? Can you pick up the, what is it, what are you asking for? MR. JARRETT-Four and a half feet. MR. STONE-Four and a half feet. MR. BRYANT-Can you pick up the four feet in that twenty-two feet? That’s a high room. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. JARRETT-Well, if you notice, the roof in the front, the cathedral ceiling in the great room, that roof could literally be dropped, but the roof in the rear where the living quarters are, the bedrooms are, that can’t really be dropped without losing pitch, and the architects felt that that was not a reasonable change. They could not drop that. MR. STONE-Question. When you say 32 feet. You’re talking from the right side of this drawing? You’re talking the maximum height from the front. But what happens as you go back. As the land goes up, and remember our 28 feet is every vertical. I’m just curious how much is. MR. JARRETT-It’s less in the rear. MR. STONE-Yes, less, that’s what I’m getting at. How much less? MR. HIRSCH-I believe it’s 24 feet on the road side, on the back of that house. MR. STONE-Twenty-four. Okay. That’s what I’m curious. MR. JARRETT-There’s a dimension on the drawing, if it’s readable. It’s 26 feet, one and five eighths inches at the rear. MR. STONE-Twenty-six. So it’s legal at the rear. MR. JARRETT-Yes. It’s the existing slope that is causing this. MR. STONE-I understand. I mean, that’s the way we determine height. MR. ABBATE-Can I ask a question? MR. STONE-Go ahead. Sure. Please. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. The first thing that comes to my mind are feasible alternatives. The applicant is requesting 200% increase. MR. JARRETT-In? MR. ABBATE-Well, you take, he currently has 1,342 square feet, at the present time. That kind of thing. I’m having a problem with the size of the project. MR. HIRSCH-Well, the actual floor plan is, it’s a story and a half. So the main floor is actually like, I believe it’s like 17 or 1800, and then the upper is that other 2200. MR. HAYES-It’s 21, you said. MR. HIRSCH-Twenty-one. Okay. MR. ABBATE-The second problem I’m having, and Mr. Bryant brought it up, I don’t know, when we talk about feasible alternatives, I don’t have anything in front of me which tells me what this structure contains. MR. HIRSCH-What do you mean? MR. ABBATE-Floor plans. See that would help me to determine whether or not there are feasible alternatives, now that the ceiling, the top I believe you estimated was about 22 feet high? That’s a pretty high ceiling. I mean, I know it’s a great room, but nonetheless, it’s a great height as well. So I’m having a difficult time, in my mind, justifying this, because I have no concept of what’s contained in this structure. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. HIRSCH-Well, just sort of kitty corner on the lake from us there’s a house of very similar construction. This house was designed by Lincoln Logs, and it’s not going to be a log home, but it’s designed by them, and there is a house with a very similar type of a structure of it there. MR. ABBATE-What do you suggest, I go to the house and knock on the door? MR. HIRSCH-No, I’m just saying it’s not out of character with the neighborhood. MR. ABBATE-Well, a feasible alternative would be to submit floor plans. That’s what I would have done. MR. HIRSCH-The great room in the front, where those triangular windows are, that room is twelve foot deep, and beyond that is a stairway, and then downstairs are two bedrooms and upstairs is the master bedroom, and on the wing that goes off to the right, as you’re looking at it, is a kitchen, dining room. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but that’s all well and good, but those are words. I’d like to have something in front of me. Because when I say to you, if I say to you I can’t support this application, because I believe there are feasible alternatives, I might suggest to you, if I had the information in front of me, you know, Mr. Hirsch, you could probably cut down here, cut down here, here. This great room is 60 by whatever the dimension is, but at the present time, I don’t have it in front of me, and then I would have a very difficult time with it. MR. JARRETT-One thing I’d like to point out. The structure, as proposed, meets the floor area ratio for the property as well as the permeability. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I understand that, but my problem is this. You’re going from a 1342 square foot to a 3,805, with an 816 square foot detached garage, and that’s humungous. MR. JARRETT-Twenty-one hundred square foot house plus garage? MR. ABBATE-Three thousand eight hundred and five square foot single family dwelling. MR. JARRETT-That’s the total living area. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I understand. With an 816 square foot detached garage. That’s rather large. MR. JARRETT-And that includes the basement area, which is not proposed for development at this point, but we put it in because there’s a potential for it in the future. MR. ABBATE-And that raises additional questions in my mind. I’m having a serious problem, here, Mr. Chairman. I’m having a serious problem here, Bruce. MR. FRANK-I want to mention something. I think there’s some concern about the vaulted ceiling in the great room. If the applicant had not proposed that, and correct me if I’m wrong, I believe that the bedroom upstairs, if you look at the west elevation, still would be at the proposed height. MR. JARRETT-That was our point. The cathedral ceiling in the great room does not increase the structure height. MR. FRANK-If you look at that west elevation, the upstairs bedroom still would need that amount of height relief. MR. ABBATE-I understand what you’re saying. MR. URRICO-I guess, you know, where I’m going to come from is that when we’re dealing with new construction, we have the opportunity to build something in a conforming manner, 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) rather than a nonconforming manner. So you’re asking us, right off the bat, to look at something that exceeds the maximum height allowance and also is closer to the lake than is prescribed, and we need to understand why. There have been instances where people have come before us with a certain pitch on a roof, and then, basically because we’ve asked them to, they’ve adjusted the pitch so that it now becomes a conforming or more conforming roof than before, or height than before, and my second part of my question that nobody’s asked yet is, why does it need to be that close to the lake. MR. HIRSCH-Well, to answer the second part first, we want to put it right where it is because the neighbor to the north, he has a house that isn’t, is basically slightly closer. In fact, he has a deck and a screened in porch that comes to within eight feet of the water line and sixteen feet of our property line, and that house is only ten years old. So some place along the way that sort of snuck through, and that’s neither here nor there. It hasn’t bothered us the way it is, but to go back further, we would actually be looking at, going down the lake, we’d be looking at his house, the corner of his house, rather than the lake. As Mr. Heinzelman said earlier, the view of the lake is one of the reasons we’re there, and the other thing, if we looked to the side, we’d be actually looking into his bedroom window. KATE HIRSCH MRS. HIRSCH-I have a photograph, if you’d like to see it. MR. ABBATE-Sure. Please. MR. BRYANT-I want to add on to what Mr. Urrico said, relative to this, because I’m not an engineer, but looking at the site plan, the difference in elevation between the front of the building and the back of the building is about 12 feet, okay, and, that being said, and looking at your renditions here, I mean, it looks like the mound is not really in the same place on the east elevation as it is on the west elevation. So let’s assume that you can move the building back 10 feet. Would you pick up the four feet? Could you reduce the building in height four feet? MR. JARRETT-Building back? MR. BRYANT-Yes. In other words, if you moved the building 10 feet back away from the lake, would you pick up the four feet? MR. URRICO-Because you would be into the slope, rather than. MR. BRYANT-Yes, that’s my point. MR. URRICO-Because the slope determines the extra four feet. MR. JARRETT-Well, I’d rather drop the structure on the site and recess it into the existing slope, than move it back, because of the view issue that Bruce has just mentioned. MRS. HIRSCH-If you look at that photograph, you’ll see what I mean. MR. BRYANT-Okay. When it comes around, I’ll look at it. MR. URRICO-When you say drop it into the site, you’re talking about raising the level of the slope or, actually dropping it? MR. JARRETT-Actually dropping the structure. We’d recess it into the slope somewhat, so there’d be, in effect, a berm in front of the lower level. We could drop that several feet, probably, and not drastically hurt the proposal. The Hirschs would rather not do that, but it is an alternative we could consider. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. HIRSCH-The other houses, as you look down the line there, are considerably higher than what we’ve asked for, and the square footage on those houses are actually considerably larger than what we’ve asked for also. MR. ABBATE-You see that’s true, but Mr. Urrico said it right. This is coming to us with new construction. See, now we have an opportunity to say something about it. That’s the problem, and the other thing, if I may just, you had an SP 45-2001, the extension of approval. What happened on that? MR. HIRSCH-That was an unfortunate choice of excavators. We’ve been using Bill Threw, and he sort of wasted his whole year, and I’ll tell you, there’s few people up there, discouraged as I am. I know there’s nobody in this room as upset about it as I am. I’ve been on that lake, on that property since 1952. My dad bought it then. I’ve been up there all that time, and I tell you, I truly love that place, and that was one of the things that motivated us to want to take this camp that my dad bought in the 50’s, and that answers one of the first questions, by the way. This is a 1950’s style camp. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but you have to have permission for that extension, do you not? MR. HIRSCH-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And you don’t have that at the present time. MR. HIRSCH-Not yet, no. MRS. HIRSCH-We’ve made requests. MR. JARRETT-We’re on the May Planning Board agenda for the extension. MR. ABBATE-I see. Okay. Well, anyway, Mr. Chairman didn’t hear what I said earlier, because I directed it to Bruce, but I’m having a terrible time with this, Mr. Chairman, and I don’t know what to do. There are feasible alternatives, and I don’t have sufficient information in front of me, in other words, as I said to the applicant, I don’t have floor plans where I can make an intelligent suggestion or recommendation where we could reduce the size or come up with a feasible alternative, and not having those facts, I don’t know what to do. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let me help you out. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-If we have anymore questions, let’s ask them. If not, we’ll go on. We’ll open the public hearing. We’ll close, and then we’ll go into our comment period, and all of these things will come up because I think we all have some concerns, some of which have been expressed. Some of which have not been. MR. FRANK-I just want to offer up, they mentioned Mr. Dineen is right next door, and how they’re quite close to the shoreline. They did receive two Area Variances, one in 1997 and one in 1992, and I think that one was for shoreline setback relief for that deck structure, and actually you have a picture of it in the submittal. MR. STONE-Don’t tell me it was ’97, please. MR. FRANK-One was in 1992 and one was in 1997. MR. STONE-I don’t care about the ’92. It’s the ’97, because I was here, and I was in that house, and I don’t want to think it was seven years ago. That’s the only thing. MR. FRANK-That’s a fact. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. STONE-I know it is. Thanks. MR. URRICO-My question is, there’s one statement made here I’m a little confused about. The height would make it difficult to meet the New York State Building Code Natural Light requirements in rooms not directly open to the front wall, lakeside. Unless large amounts of earth were excavated. I’m just not clear on that. MRS. HIRSCH-The windows for the lower level, we were told that they had to have a window on the back, by the back entrance, in the basement. MR. JARRETT-It’s a difficult argument to get around. If we move the structure back or down, we’re burying those rear rooms in the earth, in the embankment. Now you’re going to say, well, you’re removing a lot of embankment anyway. Why don’t we remove more. MR. URRICO-I was just asking. I didn’t know what it meant. MR. JARRETT-Have I cleared it up? Should I shut up? MR. URRICO-No, you can keep going. MR. JARRETT-Well, to keep going, potentially, theoretically, more embankment, more excavation could be done, however we’re trying to minimize the amount that is removed, make it consistent with the other properties, but there’s also difficulty with contractors and that has complicated the matter greatly. MR. STONE-But help me. You’re saying if you move this back, some windows are going to have to go, and I don’t understand from this picture what windows are going to have to go. MR. JARRETT-Moving the structure back into the hillside, and either remove the hillside, or we’re burying the windows against the. MR. STONE-What windows? MR. UNDERWOOD-The cellar. MRS. HIRSCH-They don’t show on there. MR. JARRETT-Well, there’s rear windows on the rear of the structure. MR. STONE-Not on the drawings I have here. MR. JARRETT-Yes. We don’t have a rear elevation. You’re correct. MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t think so. MR. JARRETT-We have two side elevations and a front elevation. MR. STONE-Right. MR. JARRETT-There are rooms on the rear side. MR. STONE-And what are they now? You can come up and help me if you can, because if I’m looking at the west, you’re saying back here? MR. HAYES-Back here. MR. STONE-It’s here, underneath the foundation? 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. URRICO-The roadside? MR. HIRSCH-Yes, the roadside of the house. You don’t have that picture. MR. JARRETT-Lincoln Logs did not provide that design. MR. URRICO-Are they portholes? They’re pretty small windows. MR. HIRSCH-They’re regular cellar type windows, whatever they are. I’m not sure. MRS. HIRSCH-Truly, a concern of mine is that view. I really wish to be able to sit out on my deck and look at Glen Lake, not at Kevin Dineen’s deck, which you did grant a variance for. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let me, any other questions anybody has? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-Just the County, that’s it. MR. STONE-Just the County, okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Hearing no further questions, let’s just talk about it. Jaime, let’s start with you. MR. HAYES-Well, unfortunately, in this particular case, I think it’s too much. I hate to minimize my comments, but that, as I looked at the application at home, it’s difficult for me to imagine that there aren’t feasible alternatives to the relief that you’re requesting. In total, we’re talking about 4600 square feet of buildings here on this site, and I find the argument that, I find an overall flaw in the argument that we’re not any closer to the lake, so it’s not going to impact the view of the lake, or impact, you know, the perception of the neighborhood in this particular case, because I think when you go from a 1300 square foot camp to a 3800 square foot single family dwelling, there is an impact, and this is a new build. We’re in a position to put this camp, or new home, in the proper position, which is 50 feet from the lake. Is the relief substantial? I certainly think it is. I mean, with lakeside applications, our two biggest, or I should say my two biggest concerns are shoreline setback and height relief, and you are asking for both, and that’s kind of that cocktail for alarm for me, because we’re definitely going to impact the view from the lake, in terms of size, in terms of where it is, in terms of height, and I think that, in this particular case, I’m not sure that, you know, that you’re not trying to have everything be the way you really want it to be, which is more than understandable. I can understand that, but yet, I’m not sure that when it comes to protecting the neighborhood or guarding against any detrimental impacts on the lake view shed, that I could go along with that, and feel that I’ve balanced everyone’s issues, everyone’s interests in this particular case. So, in terms of the Area Variance test, I do think that there’s potentially a change in the character of neighborhood. I grant to you that there certainly are some large homes there already. I mean, I think that’s undeniable. The pictures that Tom provided do, in my mind, demonstrate that there are large structures there. That’s undeniable, but I think there are feasible alternatives to get this thing under the height requirement. I think, you know, some compromise in my mind on the shoreline setback relief, I could see my way to that, but not 19 feet, which is almost 40%, in this particular case. So I think the relief is substantial. I think 40% relief, or 38% relief, that’s a big number, particularly on a new build. When we’ve had other applications, sometimes approving some shoreline setback relief is usually been for a unique reason, or to square a building. One of these type of things, but never to build, or it least in my 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) mind, never to build a building that’s roughly three times the size of one that’s there. I just can’t ever remember even approaching that type of proportion. So, in this particular case, I think that this is too much. It’s too big, and I would be definitely in opposition to this variance. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to agree with Jaime. Living on the lake, I know that the three most recently constructed houses in that neighborhood, and that would be Dr. Horowitz’s, which is the other side of Dineen’s, and Vittengl’s home, and Dr. O’Keefe’s house, which is currently just being finished up, all three of those properties were built, meeting the setbacks from the lake because they were new construction. They all had to do some excavating in order to accomplish that fact, but at the same time, I think that, you know, when you’re looking at Pittenger’s property, just to the west of you there, also, I know that they’ll probably be reconstructing their home, and I’m sure they would like to construct it where their camp is, also, but at the same time, if you’re going to do complete new construction, I think that it can be compliant, and I think if everyone is compliant, I mean, Dineen’s will be sticking out there a little further because it’s the exception to the other ones, but that’s an older built homes, and all the new ones I think we’ve tried to bring things into compliance, and I think to not bring this one into compliance would be not in our interest. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with Mr. Hayes and Mr. Underwood. When you’re building something new, you have a chance to conform to the requirements, and, you know, I’m looking at this map, and it would seem to me there would be ways of moving it back and moving it down, and still having a decent sized home. So I would be against it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Well, I would agree with my fellow Board members. I believe, I honestly believe that there are feasible alternatives, and one of the road blocks I see is that I don’t believe there has been sufficient documentation submitted to make an intelligent decision, at least on my part, and the other thing that bothers me is the administrative procedure. I think that the extension should have been granted first before they came before the Board, but nonetheless, having said that, I could not be in support of the application. MR. STONE-Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-I don’t know. I’m placed in the unique position of disagreeing with some of the Board members. MRS. HIRSCH-Thank you. MR. BRYANT-We just granted an application for 28% or whatever it is, on the setback on the lake, on a structure that wasn’t, they’re building a completely new structure. You’re offering to build a structure, basically on that same front level, and yet the majority of the Board members are against it, and I don’t understand that. I do have a problem with the height, especially on the lake, and I know there are structures on the lake that are probably just as high, and at least they have the appearance of being just as high. However, that’s where I have a problem with the whole application. I could live with the present situation, because I don’t think it’s any different than the application that came before you. I can live with the present situation because that was the original footprint as long as you don’t encroach on the lake any more than the original camp does, but the height is something I can’t live with. So if you could adjust that in my view, the application would be acceptable to me. MR. STONE-Roy? 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m afraid I’m in agreement with the majority of the Board members, to the degree that I would like to see some adjustment to the height. I don’t know if the four full feet is needed, but probably close to that, and Mr. Jarrett’s suggestion of sinking it further would satisfy me on that, but I would also like to see some adjustment to the, some mitigation, as far as the distance to the lake. I’m not saying the full 19 feet, but I would like to see some movement back. MR. STONE-I very seldom make a decision before I hear all the facts. I mean, there are times I say I don’t think I agree, but I listen. In this particular case, I’ve heard nothing that changes my initial impression, and I’m using the words that are written down here that I think Mr. Hayes used, too big and too close. It’s just, it is too big and it is too close, and it is new construction. Therefore, there are many feasible alternatives, including not doing anything, which is a feasible alternative, which we sometimes lose sight of, but certainly with new construction, having to start from scratch, I think it’s too close to the lake. I think it’s certainly too tall, and the size, obviously that is not as troubling to me, in the sense that if you want to make a 3800 square foot house, as long as you make it conform in other respects, I don’t have a problem, but this is too big. I mean, it’s too tall and it’s too close, and I would have to go along with the majority of the Board and say no. Now, if you want to comment, I will let you. First of all, let me just tell you what goes on. If we vote, on the basis of what I hear, to deny, that means you’re going to have to make significant changes. If you decide to withdraw the application, you’re probably going to have to make significant alterations. If you table it, on the basis of what you hear, you’re going to have to make significant alterations. MR. HAYES-But tabling provides them with less administrative hurdles than. MR. STONE-Right. Yes. MR. JARRETT-Let me ask a question also. If we table and come back with a proposal, is it true that it may not have to be officially as significant a change as if we withdraw or get a denial? MR. STONE-Well, it depends how you’re reading this. I think there’s a great deal, great reluctance to grant. MR. JARRETT-Forget answering that question. Let me ask another instead. Is the Board amenable to some kind of a compromise if I’m able to either table it for a month or even take ten minutes and go out in back and talk with them? I mean, obviously my clients have not heard what they’d like to hear. So they need to digest it, but if we can come to some compromise quickly, we’ll come right back in. Otherwise we can table, or request to table, and come back next month. MR. STONE-Well, if you think you can meet the objections of the six of us, I mean, and they’re very severe. MR. JARRETT-I don’t know that we can. I don’t know that we can. MR. STONE-Yes. I would prefer not to do that. I think we’d like to see what you’re proposing, because first of all, you’re already telling us information about windows that we can’t see. You’re talking to us about going into the hillside and what that does. I’d like to see it. I’d like to see the elevation of the land, so that I know. I mean, if you’re telling me one foot of the roof is too high, and we’ve granted one foot being too high at one point on the roof, but you’re not telling me that, because you don’t know that. MR. ABBATE-And I’d like to see floor plans, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Yes, okay. MR. HAYES-Plus, I just don’t think this is a tweak, where you can go out and come back. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. STONE-I mean, I would prefer to deny it, but you can withdraw it, and we’ll start again. MR. JARRETT-Are you saying you’d rather not table it, you’d rather either withdraw it or deny it? MR. STONE-I’d rather not table it because I think it’s going to be so different. First of all, you’re going to have to advertise again anyway, because it’s going to be very different, I think. MR. URRICO-Isn’t there a time limitation, though, if it’s denied? I mean, don’t they have, they can come back right away with it? MR. STONE-No. They can come back, once it’s denied, they can come back. They can’t get on May because that’s already come and gone. MR. HAYES-Yes, but if it’s denied, though, don’t they even have to come back a month, just to get a vote? MR. FRANK-I think we need to discuss something about that at the end of this meeting, because that’s incorrect, and I’ve got this from the Town Attorney, and I don’t know where we started doing that, but after this meeting is over, I think we ought to discuss that, so we can make this clear once and for all, because that’s not correct. That was started long before my time with the Town, because, to keep applications from coming back here that were identical, hoping to get a different Board make up, and we had a meeting, it was last year some time, with the Town Attorney, and she said that is not a, that’s not a New York State Law requirement. It’s definitely, it was a Town requirement to keep that from happening, because you’re going to see this next week with an application, and I’ll discuss it with you. It’s even different than what you think it is, and I want to explain that to you before you leave tonight. MR. STONE-All right. Well, let’s not take the applicant’s time here. So I would withdraw, if I were you, and come back with a fresh application, recognizing everything that you’ve heard, and we will certainly make available the minutes, if you haven’t made notes. MR. JARRETT-I think I’d actually like to table with the opportunity to withdraw, after I’ve discussed it with my clients. Because I don’t know whether they’re going to be on the limb with major changes or not. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, we certainly can table it for up to 62 days. MR. JARRETT-Let’s do that, and then we’ll withdraw if we feel we need to. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2004 WALLACE R. HIRSCH, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Birdsall Road Extension. For a period of up to 62 days, so that the applicant can consider the comments made by the Board, which were primarily negative in nature. Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNulty MR. JARRETT-Thank you for your comments. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. HIRSCH-I do have a question, though, if I may. Was there a precedent set by the Board allowing the Dineen property to be so close to the? MR. STONE-We never set precedents. MR. HIRSCH-Okay, and then I also know Jackowski, down on the corner. MR. STONE-We never set precedents. MR. HAYES-Every case is by. MR. STONE-Every case is an individual case, and the factors that affect our determination are always unique. Therefore there is no precedent. MR. JARRETT-Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II JOHN W. & KATHLEEN M. TARRANT AGENT: THE MC KERNON GROUP, INC. OWNER: J. & K. TARRANT ZONING: WR- 1A, CEA LOCATION: 338 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF EXISTING ONE-CAR GARAGE TO STORAGE AND PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED 2-CAR GARAGE WITH FAMILY ROOM AND GAME ROOM (1,760 SQ. FT.) RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE FLOOR AREA RATIO AND CONTINUATION REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR , BP 2000-827, BP 2000-828, BP 99-565 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-72 LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030, 179-13-010 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-2004, John W. & Kathleen M. Tarrant, Meeting Date: April 21, 2004 “Project Location: 338 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to expand the existing 3,362 sq. ft. single-family dwelling to 5,000 sq. ft., which includes a 616 sq. ft. attached garage (the existing 274 sq. ft. detached garage is proposed to be converted to a shed). Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement proposing a new FAR of 22.75% when 22% is allowed by code (165.36 sq. ft. greater than the 4,834.64 sq. ft. allowed by code), per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone. Additionally, 329 sq. ft. of relief is required from the Continuation code for that part of the expansion exceeding 50% of the original dwelling’s gross floor area, and the expansion violates the FAR requirement of the area requirements of the code, per §179-13-010(A2 and E). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-828: 10/27/00, construction of a 630 sq. ft. boathouse. BP 2000-827: 10/27/00, demolition of boathouse. SP 74-2000: 10/24/00, demolition of the existing open-sided boathouse and construction of a 630 sq. ft. boathouse/sundeck. AV 92-2000: 10/18/00, side setback relief for an 18’ x 35’ open boathouse with sundeck. BP 99-565: 08/31/99, 248 sq. ft. second-story addition to residence. SP 40-99: 08/24/99, expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA for a 248 sq. ft. addition to a single-family dwelling. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to add an attached garage with additional living space resulting in the need for relief from the 22% maximum FAR requirement. The existing 274 sq. ft. garage is 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) proposed to be converted to a shed by reducing the door width, so as not to provide for an automobile access. Relief is required from the Continuation section of the code being the expansion violates the FAR section of the area requirements, and the total floor area expansion proposed plus the 248 sq. ft. expansion approved in 1999 exceed 50% of the floor area of the original dwelling. Original dwelling floor area: 3,114 sq. ft. 1999 expansion: 248 sq. ft. 2004 expansion proposed: 1,638 sq. ft. Total expansion: 1,886 sq. ft. 50% of the original dwelling: 1,557 sq. ft. Relief required: 329 sq. ft. Note: the application was incorrectly advertised as requesting relief from the side setback requirements. The applicant did not request relief from the side setback requirements (this relief is not needed).” MR. STONE-Anything from the County? There shouldn’t have been. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think so. MR. STONE-Is there someone here for this application? This is a first. MR. FRANK-The McKernon Group is supposed to be the applicant’s agent. Anyone here from the McKernon Group? MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question relative to the application of Staff? Do you mind if I do this? I want to ask Staff a question about the application. MR. STONE-You certainly may. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I can’t find it in my book, the size of accessory structure, as far as a storage structure, on a WR-1A, whatever it is, what the maximum size allowed? MR. FRANK-Two hundred square feet. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So that’s not listed as one of the variances. MR. FRANK-Actually, I’m sorry, that’s in the Single Family Residential. Five hundred square feet in the Waterfront Residential, is the maximum for an accessory structure. MR. BRYANT-Five hundred? Where does it say that? MR. STONE-In the chart. MR. FRANK-I’ll find it for you real quick. MR. BRYANT-I hope you will, because I don’t believe that. I would think t hat it would be less than that. MR. STONE-Okay. So the thing that we have to do is we can deny it outright, or we can just table it. I think we’ll table it. MR. BRYANT-Just open the public hearing, say what we’re going to say, and then vote on it. MR. STONE-Well, I’ll tell you what we’ll do. Are you here to speak on the subject? MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we want to open a public hearing or not? 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) MR. STONE-What’s the sense? MR. HAYES-We can do it, to be official. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, in the absence of any applicant or agent thereof. I will open the public hearing for those who wish to speak to the application that was read into the file. Anybody in favor? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. STONE-There is correspondence. Good. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Attention Board of Zoning Appeals, Town of Queensbury:” This is in reference to variance hearing for Tarrant on 338 Cleverdale Road scheduled for April 21, this st evening, this is Elizabeth Ward “To Whom It May Concern: I am a long time resident of Cleverdale and own property 5 lots north of the Tarrants on the east side of the point. I have spoken with Mrs. Tarrant about the pending request for variance to build a two-car garage at their property on Cleverdale. The request indicates that the new structure would encompass in excess of 1700 square feet which seems extremely large for a family room and two-car garage. Mrs. Tarrant has explained that this will be a three-story structure and that the property is a double lot (120 feet). While this may exceed the Floor Area Ratio minimally, it is still a considerably large structure. My primary concern is that a structure of this size could easily be modified at a future date to encompass a small apartment, or even two (One on the upper level and one on the basement level). To this, I would have to object. The existing garage, which I understand will remain a storage building, was never used as a dwelling space so there is no precedent for multiple housing units on this property. I have no objection to this variance request if the Tarrants will assure the zoning board that there is no intent on their part to create additional housing units on the property at some point in the future. With that assurance, any concerns I have will have been addressed. I thank the Board and the Tarrants for consideration given to my concern. Sincerely, Elizabeth Ward 5 Winding Road Delmar, NY 12054” MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. I mean, if the Board wants to make comments, in the absence of the applicant, they certainly may, but I would prefer that we just table it, because it’ll be, and I will table it, not for next month. I will table it for two months. MR. BRYANT-Up to 62 days. MR. STONE-Well, no, I will specifically table it for June, because we’ve got a full agenda next month. We’ve got an extra meeting, and they’re not here tonight. I will specifically table it. MR. BRYANT-Are you allowed to do that? MR. STONE-Yes, I am allowed to do that. MR. BRYANT-Is this something that you just made up? MR. STONE-Don’t call my bluff. I am allowed to do that, aren’t I, Bruce? MR. FRANK-You can do anything you want to do. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2004 JOHN W. & KATHLEEN M. TARRANT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/04) 338 Cleverdale Road. Until one of the two meetings in the month of June because nobody appeared on the night of April 21 to perfect this appeal, to represent the applicant. st Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-The meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 42