Loading...
2008.10.22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2008 INDEX Area Variance No. 64-2008 David R. Miner 1. Tax Map No. 308.06-1-1 Area Variance No. 65-2008 Kari and Jeff Benway 4. Tax Map No. 301.18-1-68 Area Variance No 66-2008 Garner Holdings, LLC/Michael Chrys 6. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-30 Area Variance No. 67-2008 Dean Reali 28. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-16 Area Variance No. 68-2008 Robin Inwald 32. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JOAN JENKIN GEORGE DRELLOS BRIAN CLEMENTS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI nd MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the October 22 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go through our procedures once again for anybody who is perhaps new here. As we handle each application I’ll call the applicant by name and number. The Secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes and the Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will then ask questions of the applicant. Then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing is intended to help us gather information and understand the issue at hand. It functions to help the Board members make a wise decision. It does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers. We will allow speakers to speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if, after listening to the other speakers, a speaker believes they have new information to present, and, Board members, I suggest that because we have the five minute limit, that we not interrupt a speaker with questions while they’re speaking, rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members will then discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application, and then the public hearing will be closed or left open, depending upon the situation, and finally, if appropriate, a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. First this evening we have some Old Business that we’ll go through here. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2008 SEQRA TYPE: I DAVID R. MINER AGENT(S): KRISTINE WHEELER OWNER(S): DAVID R. MINER ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF LUZERNE ROAD, WEST OF INTERSECTION WITH BURCH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON A PROPOSED 2-LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR LOTS FRONTING ON ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR ROAD. CROSS REF.: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2008; AD 4-07 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 1.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.06-1-1 SECTION: 179- 19-020C KRISTINE WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Last month, in the second meeting, our Board did discuss this at some length, and there was a suggestion from the Board at that time that they were looking for some kind of an approval from the Planning Board, since they were going to be reviewing this subdivision also. In the interim, the Planning Board did meet, and what I’ll do is I’ll read in their motion. Just to refresh everybody’s memory again on this one, the applicant was requesting 108.43 feet of relief from Section 179-19-020C, which requires all lots created that front on an arterial or a collector road to have either double the minimum lot width or a shared driveway, and the proposed lot does not meet the minimum 300 foot lot width requirement, nor does it share a driveway with an adjoining lot. The Planning Board met, and after discussing this also, they made a motion in regards to the project. “MOTION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO RECOMMEND TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING SUBDIVISION 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) NO. 7-2008 DAVID MINER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: That the Planning Board recommends that because of the minimal sight line issues concerning this proposal as submitted and because the requested relief is moderate, the Planning Board believes that the proposal is reasonable and deserves favorable consideration. th Duly adopted this 25 day of September, 2008, by the following vote:” And that was a unanimous vote by the Planning Board. Board members, do you have any other questions or anything you want to add at this time? MR. CLEMENTS-I just had one question. Did we have a recommendation or suggestion on if this was passed where the driveway would be, like in comparison to the neighbors on each side? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that it was pretty much on there, you know, from what I read from your notes, since I was not here. If you go to Staff comments on the notes this time, it says, “The purpose for the double lot width requirement is for safe and efficient movement of traffic. The applicant has stated in the proposal that the driveway will be located approximately 250 feet from the driveway to the west and approximately 160 feet from the driveway to the east. There are minimal site line issues concerning this proposal as submitted.” I believe that’s what was presented to the Planning Board also. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-And so I think that we could go with what was originally filed, you know, as what it was proposed to be. I think that the Planning Board will probably stamp whatever they think is correct, you know, because whatever their submittal has been on the plots here, it looks to me to be the same. I don’t think there was any alteration. Is that in essence what you? MS. WHEELER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, okay. Maybe what I’ll do is quickly open the public hearing in case anybody wants to comment. Anybody from the public wishing to comment on this subject? Did we have any other correspondence? MR. URRICO-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll poll the Board, unless you have anything you want to add? MS. WHEELER-No. I think we discussed it at the last meeting, and unless anyone has any other questions, I have nothing to add. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll poll the Board, then. I guess I’ll start down with you, Brian. I’ll close the public hearing first, sorry. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CLEMENTS-As I looked at it from before, I think that probably it’s a good proposal. As long as the driveway is going to be kind of in between the one on each side, I think that’s probably a good idea. So I’d be in favor of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-There doesn’t seem to be any problem with siting on the road when you’re coming in or out of the driveway, and I notice you do have a turnaround, which is quite important, so that you will be coming out facing forward. MS. WHEELER-That’s correct. MRS. JENKIN-And that’s a busy road and so that’s an important factor there on your drawings. I think that you placed it so that there is the maximum between the other driveway, which is good, and to the other lot line that’s fine. I don’t think there’s going to be an undesirable change in the neighborhood. I don’t think you can really achieve it by 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) any other means, because that’s what it is, and that’s your lot, and I don’t think, it is fairly substantial, but I don’t think that it’s out of line. So I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George? MR. DRELLOS-I would be in favor of it, too. I think the owner tried, in good faith, with his other house. He did put the two driveways together with his other house, and maybe just by poor planning or oversight, that this driveway wasn’t shared with, I think you’re the daughter, right? MS. WHEELER-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-Yes, with you, and I think it’s just an oversight on his part. So I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-Well, given that we have a good line of sight and this is an SR-1A zone and the lot is over one acre, I would have to agree with the other Board members. I think this application is okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m basically in agreement with everybody else. My major concern on cases like this is the sight line, and I think I’m satisfied that it will be fine. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I’m in favor, too. I mean, the Planning Board recommended that there were minimal sight line issues, and this is a moderate request, and I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-I also will go along with the rest of the Board members here. I think that we’re usually pretty accommodating with family subdivisions, with family property, in trying to accommodate your needs, and expanding what you’re doing out here. The sight lines, as the Planning Board has suggested, are not a problem on this stretch of road here. So, does somebody want to make a motion? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2008 DAVID R. MINER, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: North side of Luzerne Road, west of intersection with Burch Road. The applicant requests 108.43 feet of relief from Section 179-19-020C, which requires all lots created that front on an arterial or collector road to have either double the minimum lot width or a shared driveway. The proposed lot does not meet the minimum lot width requirement, nor does it share a driveway with an adjoining lot. Whether the benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, I think the applicant did prove that he could not do anything that would be feasible. There will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. The request is moderate. It will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects on the community, and it’s self- created only because he wishes to improve his land. I suggest we approve Area Variance No. 64-2008. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set. MS. WHEELER-Thanks very much. NEW BUSINESS: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II KARI AND JEFF BENWAY OWNER(S): KARI AND JEFF BENWAY ZONING: SR-20 LOCATION: 13 FAWN LANE, SHERMAN PINES SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 570 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY SIDELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2000-055 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.18-1-68 SECTION: 179-4-030 KARI & JEFF BENWAY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 65-2008, Kari and Jeff Benway, Meeting Date: October 22, 2008 “Project Location: 13 Fawn Lane, Sherman Pines Subdivision Description of Proposed Project: Applicants propose construction of a 570 square foot attached garage to their existing house. The existing garage would be turned into living space and the above proposed garage would be erected adjacent to the proposed new living space. Relief Required: The applicant requests 1.5 feet or relief from the 10 foot minimum side setback per 179- 4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor change to the character of the neighborhood may be produced as a result of this project. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. It appears the applicant could build their family room extension out the back, adjacent to the kitchen and keep the existing garage without requiring an area variance. Further, the proposed garage could be placed deeper in the lot to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 1.5 feet or 15 percent relief may be considered minimal relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor changes on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): P2000-0055 Single Family Dwelling Approved 3/14/00 Staff comments: The location of the proposed garage appears to be the most logical given the limitations of the lot and the location of the fireplace vent. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a stormwater plan, not necessarily approved by an engineer, due to the resulting increase in roof area. Are gutters associated with this project? Where is the stormwater directed during rain events? Please clarify. SEQR Status: Type II-No action required.” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Benway, anything you want to add? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. BENWAY-No. Just on that part there, as far as the stormwater, if you saw our driveway now, what we’re hoping to do with the garage would actually take up less space than what is paved right now, so when we have a guy in there that’s going to build the foundation, I’m taking the rest of the pavement up. So what’s behind the garage also is pavement. That would be turned to sod, and then as far as stormwater what not, if we have to run gutters around the side into the back of my yard, I mean, we could do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I think that what they’re probably looking for is what’s coming off the roof, if it goes into the gutters, that it goes into some kind of a catch basin, so it doesn’t just flood your yard out, you know, in a big storm. So that doesn’t seem to be anything. The project, you know, appears pretty straightforward. It’s only a minor, tiny amount of relief that you need for one corner of the building, you know, and I’m sorry that you had to come in, but it’s part of the process of review. So, in any case, the one letter we didn’t read in was from the Homeowners Association, and they signed off on your project. I assume that that wasn’t any big difficulty with them, either. MR. BENWAY-No. We sent a letter, and we got it back within a week. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members have any questions at this time? MR. GARRAND-I just have one question. Is the stormwater going to be directed away from the septic? MR. BENWAY-Yes, because the septic’s actually. MRS. BENWAY-On the opposite side. MR. BENWAY-On the opposite side of the house. It’s probably 30, 40 feet away from this. MR. GARRAND-All right. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Is there anybody here from the public wishing to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other correspondence? MR. URRICO-I don’t see any, no. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Board members, do you really need any discussion on this one? I think it’s pretty straightforward. The only relief that’s really required on this one is going to be from that front corner of the house, and it’s just because of the angle of the lot, it’s peeling off, it’s not really at right angles to the house. So, I don’t think it’s a problem. MR. BENWAY-We’ve had other people in our neighborhood do this similar type project, but the way their property sat, they didn’t have to come for a variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-And these are modest homes. I mean, it’s nice to be able to add on to them, to give yourself a little more leeway for space and growing families and things like that. I mean, it’s not anything out of the ordinary that you’re requesting here. So does somebody want to do a motion on this one, then? MRS. JENKIN-Sure, I can do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2008 KARI AND JEFF BENWAY, Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: 13 Fawn Lane, Sherman Pines Subdivision. The applicants propose construction of a 570 square foot attached garage to their existing house. The relief required is that the applicant requests 1.5 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum side setback per 179-4- 030. In making the determination, the Board has considered whether an undesirable 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created, and it really is a minor change to the character of the neighborhood and considering the plans, it looks like a good project. It probably would be a benefit to the neighborhood, by improving the character of it. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method. It really doesn’t seem as if there is because there’s not much space in the backyard. The backyard is a small backyard, and, as George has pointed out, the chimney’s there, you can’t move it back. It’s pushed right up against the chimney. So that’s a good thing, and the one and a half foot is very minor. So it is not a substantial request for one and a half feet for one corner, and it will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. I did notice that, with their roofline, any snow or anything will not come over on that narrower section, the eight and a half foot space between your neighbors. It’s going to come front or back, so it’s going to go right back on your yard. So snow is not an issue. So, it’s a minor change. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. It may be interpreted as being self-created because you’re trying to make enough space for your family. So I move to approve Area Variance No. 65-2008. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MRS. BENWAY-Thank you. MR. BENWAY-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II GARNER HOLDINGS, LLC/MICHAEL CHRYS AGENT(S): NORTH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, P.C. OWNER(S): MARGARET LISTON CURRENT OWNER OF RECORD (NEW OWNERSHIP PENDING GARNER HOLDINGS, LLC) ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: PINE TREE LANE – ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,290 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT. ADDITIONALLY, APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIRMENT. CROSS REF.: SPR 44- 2008; FWW 9-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: OCTOBER 8, 2008 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19- 1-30 SECTION: 179-4-090A, 179-4-030 DAVE KLEIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MIKE CHRYS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 66-2008, Garner Holdings, LLC/Michael Chrys, Meeting Date: October 22, 2008 “Project Location: Pine Tree Lane – Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of a 4,290 square foot single family home. Relief Required: The applicant requests 8 feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement per 179- 4-030. Further, the applicant requests 5 feet of relief from the requirement that all houses have at least 40 feet of road frontage per §179-4-090. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 2. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minimal change to the character of the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) 3. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Concerning the front setback relief, the applicant could reduce the size of the project to reduce or eliminate the need for setback relief. Concerning the frontage requirement, the applicant is limited due to the restraints of the road in relation to the property. 5. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 8 feet or 26.6 percent of relief from the front setback requirement per 179-4-030 may be considered minimal to moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 5 feet or 12.5 percent of relief from the 40 foot road frontage requirement per 179-4-090 may be considered minimal in relation to the ordinance. 6. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to moderate changes on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 6. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. However, the limitations of the lot may be a contributing factor in regards to this area variance. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Vacant lot in the Shore Colony Subdivision, Assembly Point Staff comments: The parcel associated with this proposal is located at the end of Pine Tree Lane, a dead end road. There appears to be ample room for emergency vehicles to access the property even though the road frontage is less than the required 40 feet. Does the subdivision plan on extending the road in the future? If so, what would the timetable be for such a project? SEQR Status: Type II-No action required” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Good evening. If you guys could just identify yourselves, just so we’ve got it on the record. MR. CHRYS-Good evening. Sure, I’m Mike Chrys, and this is the engineer, Dave Klein. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Great. All right. If you guys want to run us through this thing. My only comments to begin with are, and I think that probably you’re going to hear the same from Board members is that, we’re on a pretty small lot here. I mean, it’s bigger than all the other lots that surround it, obviously. I mean, I think that we’ve all drawn that conclusion, but the scale of the house on the lot, we have previously dealt with projects up in the Shore Colony area, and I know that one of the times previous that we came in here someone had proposed a very large home also, and in researching the record back there, Shore Colony had pretty much stipulations about the size of homes, and I don’t know if that’s something that you guys have thought about prior to doing this. MR. CHRYS-Well, I’ll comment on that to the best of my ability anyway. The size of the house is somewhat exaggerated in that, in fact I called Dave and said I think there was a typo in the 4200 square feet. The reality is the only is it’s 4200 square feet is, the way the zoning and the ordinances are, if you have so much exposure of the cellar, and the way the land slopes, they consider that, quote, living space. I have no intention of having it as living space. I’d rather them allow me to cover it up, but actually there’s some 1500 plus square feet. The actual house is closer to 2800 square feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-So they’re counting the cellar in that, then? MR. CHRYS-That’s exactly right. So that whole footprint, which is in the neighborhood of 1500, makes that thing on paper appear to be significantly larger than it is, and in fact, the house is pretty identical to another house, virtually identical, but smaller, to a house that was built on 28 North Lane, same structure, same layout, same architecture, you know, with an Adirondack flare, and so it’s been built there. This is a little bit smaller version, but because of the, quote, cellar, and it’s not that there’s cellar windows around there, it’s because of the sloping that they consider that part of the square footage. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. KLEIN-I’ve got it counted in the Floor Area calculations, Floor Area Ratio calculations. You have to count the cellar, in this case, in the Floor Area calculations for your Floor Area Ratio. MR. UNDERWOOD-So is that because you’re going to have walk out on that steeper side? MR. KLEIN-No, actually there’s no walk out. I don’t believe there’s any walk out on the steeper side. I do have clarified drawings of the house. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. CHRYS-I think the important thing to note, when you look at the elevations, is there aren’t windows in the cellar. I thought there was a walk out door there, but I’m not sure. MR. DRELLOS-There is a walk out. MR. CHRYS-Yes. I thought there was a walk out door there, but if you look at it, it’s clearly not a windowed, livable kind of space. It’s just that the slope, if you walked that property or visited it, is pretty severe there, and so as not to disrupt anything, we had to go with the slope that was there, and the requirement was that. So they included that in the square footage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do Board members have any questions at this time? MR. CHRYS-I’m happy to take the door out, if that’s an issue, by the way. MR. GARRAND-Yes. I’ve got a question. Is the septic geared for a four bedroom, four bath house? MR. KLEIN-No, it’s a three bedroom house. MR. GARRAND-It says bedroom on the drawing. MR. KLEIN-Yes. I think we revised that. We’ve taken the closet out of one of the rooms on the upper floor. If you take a look at the new second floor plan. MR. GARRAND-Okay. So it would never be used for a bedroom? MR. CHRYS-No. MR. GARRAND-Would you be open to yearly inspections for that, so there’s no couch, no, no futon, no bedroom, no nothing in there? MR. KLEIN-There’s no closet in it. MR. GARRAND-Yes, but you never know. People convert these things every day. MR. CHRYS-The answer’s, yes, I’d be open to that. MR. GARRAND-Inspections yearly for a period of time? MR. CHRYS-I don’t have any problem with that, no. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. DRELLOS-Are you going to fill in the lot anymore or is that, what’s there is what’s there? MR. KLEIN-The only grading we’re going to do on the lot is to put the septic system in, dig the whole for the basement, and we have two small stormwater ponds that are on the property. We’re not going to be filling up around the basement. MR. DRELLOS-Was that lot originally filled in? I mean, it looks like that was all fill. MR. KLEIN-I believe so. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. CHRYS-It appears, you know, one of the things that I think is a positive is we’re not cutting any trees there. It’s been, it appears as though somewhere, and I’m sure it was decades ago, it had been cleared, maybe part of the original Planned Unit Development there, it looks like it had been cleared and fill was brought in there. I can’t comment any further than that, except to say that it doesn’t look like the normal slope, or the original slope though. MR. DRELLOS-No. It looks like it’s been filled in. MR. CHRYS-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-You guys have got to get your application to the Planning Board as far as you’ve got to get relief because of the wetland setbacks. MR. KLEIN-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you anticipate that’s going to be a problem? MR. KLEIN-I don’t believe so. We’ve tried to keep back away from the wetlands as much as possible. MR. CHRYS-Yes, as far as the requirements, the requirement has been met, in terms of the buffer, and it’s a 100 foot buffer setback for the septic system and 50 foot for the structure, and it’s within those guidelines clearly, or we wouldn’t have taken it this far. So we’re not requesting any kind of variance from the planning folks with respect to the buffers and this is from the wetlands. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you guys are on water up there, right? You’ve got water lines up there? You’re not having a well that close to your septic. MR. CHRYS-Correct. There’s legal issues with respect to that, too, and I think it’s 100 feet. MR. OBORNE-It’s 100 feet, and that’s what you show your distance. MR. CHRYS-Yes. MR. KLEIN-There is a well proposed on the property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. URRICO-These new diagrams that you submitted, do they change the height of the structure? MR. KLEIN-No, they did not. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. KLEIN-And we’ve provided two cross sections on the Site Plan to verify that we have, we’re within the 28 foot height limitation. MRS. HUNT-Could you tell me what the bonus room is? MR. KLEIN-There’s a bonus room up here above the, on the second floor. It’s above the, I believe it’s above the second. MR. UNDERWOOD-Above the garage. MR. CHRYS-That would be, yes, I mean, I’m looking at the plans, I mean, that’s the space that would normally be above a garage, but there was not a garage there. So theoretically you could open that up and make it a pool hall or whatever you want to do in there, but clearly, again. MRS. HUNT-You had skylights there and windows. MR. CHRYS-Correct, but no closets and it would not be a bedroom, and I would be a bedroom, and I would be open to yearly inspections, I don’t have an issue with that. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. KLEIN-And there’s only one window, so the skylight’s kind of let the natural light into that space. MR. CHRYS-Yes. I don’t think that, the way the windows are, that wouldn’t legally constitute a room under your Building Code, because of the light that it would allow in. MRS. JENKIN-It wouldn’t constitute a room? MR. CHRYS-I don’t think, maybe I said that wrong. You couldn’t make that a bedroom or, at least my understanding is that, because it requires a certain size opening, and also a certain amount of lighting. MRS. JENKIN-But don’t the skylights give that lighting that’s necessary? MR. CHRYS-My understanding, in talking to Williams and Williams, and I can’t verify this, but I can ask them again, that there wasn’t enough light there to make that, you know, a bedroom. If you were thinking of converting it, we’d have to put closets in and additional windows, and it would require a building permit. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other questions from Board members at this time? MR. CLEMENTS-I just wanted to make a comment. So you’re building this with no garage? MR. CHRYS-That’s correct. MR. CLEMENTS-Are there plans to put a garage in at another time? MR. CHRYS-There’s no place to put one. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. CHRYS-Unfortunately, in fact, in the zoning and planning part of it, you know, it requires two parking spots, which we have, but there is no way to situate a garage on that parcel. MRS. JENKIN-So where are you going to put the parking? MR. KLEIN-There’s a dashed line between the south corner of the house and the septic system that’s large enough for two parking spaces. There’s no new paving, you know, it’s going to be unpaved parking. MRS. JENKIN-I’m trying to find the 100 foot setback from the wetlands on the plan where the septic system is, and it looks like it’s, this is, it starts here, but then I see it here, and I saw it there. MR. KLEIN-It’s coming down here. It’s following this line right here. MRS. JENKIN-So then it is going into the septic system. MR. KLEIN-No. This is the disposal area here, and it’s, we’re exactly 100 foot away. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you building this for your own use, or are you just going to flip, sell this one as soon as it’s up? MR. CHRYS-I have no plans to sell it at the moment. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I’m just thinking in a practical sense. MR. CHRYS-I also don’t, I’m not, with the current economic environment, to be candid with you, I’m also not planning on building it right away. MR. UNDERWOOD-The only other question I would have is what has been brought up is the fact that you don’t have any kind of garage or outdoor storage or anything like that, you know, and in a practical sense, in this area, I mean, we all live here, it’s pretty hard to exist without some kind of a, you know, request coming in at some point in the future, and as you had pointed out, there doesn’t really seem to be any practical place to put this, other than cobbing it on the end of the house out towards the road or something, if necessary. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. KLEIN-There’s a stormwater pond there, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. That’s what I mean, you can’t really do anything. MR. CHRYS-You can’t fit it in. I mean, I can tell you that, but candidly there’s a lot of spots up there that don’t have garages. I mean, it’s not that, even though this weather is conducive to have one, I mean, unfortunately, you just can’t. MRS. JENKIN-They’ve also come in front of us afterwards to get a variance to put a garage in. MR. CHRYS-I will tell you if you can put the round peg in the square hole here, show me where I can put the garage, I’d prefer to have one, to be honest with you, but it doesn’t fit into the zoning/planning side, and it doesn’t fit in to the geometry on there. I can’t figure out a way to get it done in any kind of creative fashion. MRS. JENKIN-This will be year round home. MR. CHRYS-It can be a year round home, yes. MRS. JENKIN-What is the height of the home? MR. KLEIN-The way it’s calculated with the Queensbury Code it’s 28 feet, actually it’s 27.8. MRS. JENKIN-Came right up to it, didn’t you? MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there’s no other questions from the Board members at this time, I think I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter, raise your hand. Okay. Would you like to come up? I don’t care who comes first. Go ahead. If you would just make sure you identify who you are so we get it on the record. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHLEEN MALONEY MS. MALONEY-Good evening. My name is Kathleen Maloney. I have been asked by my mother, Eleanor Maloney, who’s sitting here, the owner of 36 Forest Lane, Assembly Point, Tax ID Number 226.19-1-40, to speak against Garner Holdings, LLC’s request for an Area Variance, Area Variance No. 66-2008, for the project located on Pine Tree Lane, Assembly Point. My mother is one of the original Shore Colony landowners, having owned a seasonal residence since 1958. She has 50 years of continuous ownership of this property. She is here tonight to strongly object to the Area Variance request for the following reasons. First, the parcel on Pine Tree Lane has wetlands on it. The construction of a 4200 square foot house, single family house, including the walk out basement, which is included in the square footage, on that land would adversely effect the fragile eco system of the wetlands. Second, construction of this single family home on Pine Tree Lane is not in character with the other residences on Pine Tree Lane. There are four residents on Pine Tree Lane currently. Three are seasonal residences and one is a single family, according to the assessment rolls. The total square footage of these four residences is only 4,107 square feet. That’s total for all four. They are modest homes. Our street, Forest Lane, currently has six residents on it, four seasonal and two single family. The total square footage for these six residences is 6,370 square feet. Third, according to the plans presented by Garner Holdings, in support of its Area Variance request, Garner Holdings needs to adjust the property line of the Pine Tree Lane parcel in order to build this single family home. In order to do so, Garner Holdings must purchase other properties in addition to completing the purchase of the Pine Tree Lane property. Garner Holdings proposes to build two other single family homes on the adjoining parcels, each of which is 4,556 square feet. These other parcels also contain wetlands. Lastly, since Garner Holdings does not own the Pine Tree Lane property, or the properties needed to make this project possible, we do not believe that Garner Holdings has standing to request the variance at this time. For all the above reasons, we respectfully request that the Zoning Board of Appeals deny the Area Variance request made by Garner Holdings, LLC. In the packets that they included for your consideration, there is an unrecorded deed. The unrecorded deed has restrictions and states that they have to purchase other parcels. So at present, they do not own the properties, and the plan also shows that they have to adjust the lot size in order for their well to be put on the 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) property, I believe, and that’s in the wetlands. Thank you, and my mother’s 82, and we came up special because we felt so strongly about this matter. MRS. JENKIN-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. MS. MALONEY-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does somebody else wish to speak on the matter? DORIS HOPPER MRS. HOPPER-My name is Doris Hopper, and I live on the corner of Honeysuckle and Pine Tree, and I’ve been a homemaker all my life so I’m not too good at speaking at meetings, but in my heart, this house that’s being proposed to be built on Pine Tree would be nothing but a monster, totally out of character for all of the rest of the Shore Colony homes, and my pet peeve is there won’t be an inch left for any wildlife anywhere on that beautiful Assembly Point. We hear frogs. We see fox. We see a lot of wildlife. There’s just nothing left, and why is this lot still available? In my opinion, it’s because nobody ever wanted it because it was too close to the wetland. Nobody ever wanted it. My daughter bought a lot, and the Dubins told her that she bought the last decent lot, that the rest have water problems, and it’s obvious the lot is still there, but when you look at it on paper, it looks like a great big lot, but there’s only a little bit of dirt in one spot, and the rest drops off. So if they fill it in, there goes the wildlife. They live there. I think they need some room on this earth. I’m very upset, and that’s all I have to say. The house does not fit the neighborhood of the Shore Colony cozy homes. It’ll be a monster. It’s a money making deal. We truly love the area. That’s a money making deal, but I guess that’s the way it goes. It’s heartbreaking. I’m sorry. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on the matter? Mr. Navitsky? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We’ve reviewed the submission regarding the variance application and offer the following for the record. In our opinion, it appears the application is incomplete and fails to list all the variances which are required. Regarding the wetlands, Section 179-6-060 B.1 prohibits removal of vegetation within 35 feet of the shoreline of all wetlands and those shall be left as an undisturbed natural buffer strip. The project proposes the installation of a well within 2 feet of the wetland boundary. That clearly the Code does allow for lake access and beaches in this wetland buffer area, but neither of that applies to this application. So they will clear a swath down to the wetlands, and we all know the disturbance that happens when you drill a well, the silt that comes out, where is that going to go, and that’s right on the boundary. The second item is regarding the wastewater system. New York State Department of Health Wastewater Treatment Standards Appendix 75-A states “For all systems involving the placement of fill material, separation distances are measured from the toe of slope of the fill”. They require a fill system. A 10’ separation is required between the absorption field and property lines and 20’ between an absorption field and a dwelling. The project proposes a 4’ separation to the property line and a 7’ separation to the dwelling to the dwelling. Therefore I feel they need variances on these items. In addition, and I think the Board touched on this matter, the system should be designed as a four bedroom system to include the proposed den as per New York State Department of Health standards. That’s a requirement. So I feel that the application, as it is right now, is incomplete, and we’re not seeing the entire picture, and until those items are addressed, or variances applied, I don’t think there can be action on the application. I’ll submit the letter. MR. GARRAND-Could you submit it to Staff? MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on the matter? PAUL SCHONEWOLF MR. SCHONEWOLF-Paul Schonewolf, 239 Assembly Point Road. You all have the same map, don’t you? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we do. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. I’m speaking for Chief Baertschi and the members of the Fire Department. We have a problem with the requested variance on the pavement, that I think we can work out, but I want to make you aware of two of the problems that this causes us the way it is. If you look at your, that Pine Tree Lane, right about where the “E” is in Pine Tree, that’s really where the pavement stops. Now it shows that it’s further on because it used to be there, and there’s some old pieces of blacktop and stones and so forth, but about three or four years ago, the Town came through and re-graded it, re- did the road and re-paved it, and they stopped right at Mr. Smith’s line there, which is right where the “E” is. That creates one problem for us. In the winter, because they’re dead end streets and there’s three of them, the Town has a special plow that comes in and plows them. They plow the snow right down to where their blacktop stops and leave it there, and then, if there’s another storm before it melts, of course, it goes back, it can go back 15, 20 feet in the winter. That denies the Fire Department access to where this building is. If the road was extended down, roughly to where it says detail on Drawing C- 4, roughly to the “4”, we wouldn’t have a problem because that would allow us to get to the corner of his building, in the winter. All year round, we have a problem also in that we need to have paved access. I think some of you are familiar with the fact, in North Queensbury we don’t have hydrants, and we run a tanker, shuttle operation, that’s the only way we can fight a fire. So that means that, if this is the lot, and that’s the house, even though his is turned this way, we have to get our pumper in here. We have to put two canvas tanks here, and then tankers shuttle the water in, dump them in the tanks, they come to the pumper, and it’s distributed to the house. So we need at least 100 feet sometimes to work in front of a house fire, any structure fire. So in this case, if the applicant is requesting relief, I don’t have any problem with it way out at the end, but we do need the pavement to extend from where it is now, which is the “E” in Pine Tree, up to roughly the corner, just past the corner of his house, so that we can get our equipment in there, and B so it’s not blocked in the winter with snowplowing. Any questions? MR. URRICO-I have a question. The Staff comments say that there appears to be ample room for emergency vehicles to access the property, even though the road frontage is less than the required 40 feet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There’s ample room up until the end of that. MR. URRICO-Up until the end. MR. SCHONEWOLF-To the end of where the Town has stopped paving. We can get to Mr. Smith’s house no problem. MR. URRICO-Okay. The issue is not at the front, it’s in the back. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right. MR. GARRAND-So you’re saying that the Staff was wrong on that assumption? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’d never say that. I’m saying that the Staff, when they said that, I think they were speaking of what was paved, but we cannot get to the proposed house. I mean, it’s going to be a tough pull in there anyhow because it’s turned on the side, and so if you’ve got three, four feet of snow, we’re going to have to pull a line through the snow to get to it, that’s our problem, but we do have to get our equipment up to the house, and we can’t have the Town plowing the road. The Town will only plow the paved road. They’re not going to plow this other stuff. So we do need to have it clear. MRS. JENKIN-Would you mind coming up and showing me, I don’t understand exactly where you need the road to go to. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You see it, George? MR. DRELLOS-Yes. The corner of the house. MRS. JENKIN-Is up here. MR. DRELLOS-Yes. You’re almost to the edge of where it says stormwater pond. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I’m just a little past that because I want, the truck has to line up with the back corner of the house. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. DRELLOS-Okay. So if you draw a straight line from the back corner of the house. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes. You can do that, and that would be fine, and I don’t know, how wide is this lot, 166 feet or something like that? MR. OBORNE-It’s 100 feet at it’s shortest, off of Pine Tree Lane, adjacent to Pine Tree Lane, obviously, and then in the rear it’s 135 feet, but I imagine that doesn’t really amount to any problem. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. Well, I’ve walked it back there, and I’ve walked the area where we’d have to take our trucks, because I live near it, and we could not, we would not take the trucks on, especially mud season, we wouldn’t go back, we couldn’t, and we don’t want a situation, we’ve never had a situation up there where we’ve had to say to a homeowner, you know, tell him and his insurance company we can’t give you fire protection because everybody, we’ve always been able to get the road extended to where the house is, where the building is, not where the end of the lot is. MRS. JENKIN-Is it necessary to have a turnaround for safety service? MR. SCHONEWOLF-It would be nice, but we’ve been dealing with this for years. The biggest problem is, when your tankers come in, they dump the water, okay, and then they can’t turn around. These roads aren’t big enough to turn around. So we have to back them up from Honeysuckle. It’s tough to do, unless we’ve got somebody with a big driveway that we can turn around. Right now that doesn’t exist up there because Bodenhorn’s lots, which are before this, aren’t built, and Mr. Smith’s got the only house there. Yes, sir? MR. CLEMENTS-You said that the pavement should come to about where the back corner of the house is? MR. SCHONEWOLF-That, where it lines up with the driveway, yes, that would be just about. MR. CLEMENTS-That drops off pretty steeply right there, as I recall. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but we’re going to be working off the road, okay, and if we have to pull the hoses back to get around the front, we will, but he’s going to have to grade the lot, too. The Planning Board hasn’t had a look at this yet. MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Any other questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Sure. JOHN SMITH MR. SMITH-How do you do? I’m the Smith that Mr. Schonewolf was referencing, and I live right opposite where this property is going to go. Now the road that he speaks of is barely a cow path. There’s only room for one vehicle at a time. Now if you come home at night, and the rest of the people on the street come home at night and leave their cars on the street, this house, nor my house, would be able to have fire protection. Because you’d have to wake everybody up to move the cars. Now, where he’s speaking the blacktop stops, that road originally, you have to visualize this now, came as far as the point where the blacktop is, and then it dropped, completely, and the water line, the Shore Colony water line, which is provided by the Town of Queensbury, is probably 12 feet below the level of the blacktop, that’s how much it drops off, and the property all around the exterior, at the end of the lot, drops off, up to that distance. Now, Dubin, who owned that property up until this change in ownership, Margaret Liston, that is a companion of a Dubin. So they’re in all together, and they have two other applications coming before the Board here, on Forest Lane with different names, but they’re all properties, in my opinion, to be built and to be sold. They’re not people of Shore Colony building these properties. It’s a commercial endeavor. Now, back to the land that we’re 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) referring to, give you some background on it. That land was sloping right off into the wetlands, and Mr. Dubin chose, some time ago, I think maybe 20 years ago, to knock all the trees down that were on the property, and then at that point cover it with debris, namely brick, mortar, stone, anything that he could find, and then as homes were being on Assembly Point, he went through Assembly Point and had people send truck loads of dirt down to cover the land. So if you walked in there today, you’d walk in on dirt, but below that level is all this waste and trees, and if you walk to the very end, which we did today, you can see where the trees have been pushed over into the wetlands, and just beyond the so called end of the property line, they’ve taken and made an addition of property that belongs to the Shore Colony Recreational Center, which was originally designed to be built in that area, but it never happened, and if anyone went down there, which a couple of your members of the Board here have been there recently, they saw the pool of water nearby. Well that’s the pool of water in October. You have to see it in March/April when the snow melt occurs. It would, you couldn’t get in there unless you went in there with extremely large hip boots, and then it would be a question. So I mean everywhere you look at it, that whole piece of land, as Mrs. Hopper said, her daughter tried to buy land on Assembly Point in the Shore Colony area, because she grew up there, and she had to go way down on the end to purchase land, because the Dubins said the others were all water problems, and that’s what this is. Now speaking of a house similar to this house, there’s one over on North Lane that is built, was built. It hasn’t been sold in three years. There’s a For Sale sign. Sharon Davies has had that house for three years to sell, and it’s been empty, and I understand now a garage has been added to it, or permission to build one, and this woman was questioning where the vehicles would go. There is no room for vehicles. It’s a very, very restricted area, and two gentlemen from here I’ve visited with on the property, and then I understand a couple of letters were sent in to the committee here. I was wondering, are they going to be read? MR. UNDERWOOD-They will be read into the record. Yes. MR. SMITH-Will they be read to the public? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, they will. MR. SMITH-Tonight? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. SMITH-So, I mean, if there’s any further questions, you’re welcome to come up and have a true look at the area. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. MR. SMITH-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else wishing to speak on the matter? Okay. Do you want to read those letters in? MR. URRICO-Yes. Okay. The first letter I have here is addressed to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals members, and “Is this the kind of person you want doing business in the town, especially in an environmentally fragile area like Assembly Point? I would hope character and competence can be part of your review of this and any other proposals you receive from this individual. While you’re at it, check around with local contractors and find out how many of them he has stiffed. I’d use my name, but I’m afraid to.” “Dear ZBA Chairman and Members: I am writing to strongly oppose Area Variance application #66-2008, requested by “Garner Holdings, LLC/Michael Chrys”, for front setback relief and relief from the minimum frontage requirement. I am a neighbor local to the subject property. My opposition is as follows: 1. This is obviously a self- created situation. The planned house location on the lot is either poorly situated such that it requires front setback relief, or the lot configuration actually forces the planned positioning of the house. If the applicant can move the house back without requiring any further relief then he should do so. If in doing so he would require other relief, or if the lot configuration forces the planned location, my opinion is that the applicant is attempting to over-use and exploit the property at the expense of the character of the neighborhood. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Yes, he may build a house that doesn’t require relief, which may have to be slightly scaled back from his intended 4290 sq. ft. of living area to do this. It is apparent that this house is a house being built on- spec, for sale to an as-yet unknown buyer. The applicant appears to be a property 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) developer. I would find it very disturbing to see area variances granted, and compromises to the Ordinance be made, for nothing more than the maximizing of profit from a potential business deal. It is my opinion that the Ordinance should only be compromised in extreme situations, and this, to me, does not constitute an extreme situation. Most people can survive in, and actually enjoy, houses somewhat smaller than 4290 sq. ft. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Mike Kelly” This is addressed to Mr. James Underwood from Russ Bodenhorn. “Please vote in the negative. Reasons: As a second generation owner of the adjoining property who would be directly affected by the zoning variance, I would hope that it would be turned down. My parents bought our piece of property almost 50 years ago, we are long time residents, caring of the community and its ambience and appearance. We are not a non resident, building a house for speculation, not personal use, of a size, which is not congruent with the immediate neighborhood. Growing up there these past 48 years, we always called the parcel in question past our house and “down” the road the swamp. It was a parcel which until recently filled in and elevated, a lower piece of property which was always wet. My father always said that building on that piece of property would have to be an environmental issue and nightmare. He never entertained buying that piece himself because of that reason. Has there been a sufficient, or any, environmental impact study done on this property as it relates to the wetlands area it borders and any run off into it this area this new building would cause? In response to the application for relief from setback requirements, which would directly impact the future use of my property, again I would hope that the request be turned down. With the immediate upcoming birth of my grandchild, the fourth generation Bodenhorn member will be visiting great grand dad’s legacy on Pine Tree Lane very soon. The future use plans for my property may include but not be limited by the possibility of an addition to an existing structure and or a drinking water well on the adjoining property belonging to me. Any setback variances of this, not yet existing, behemoth structure unbecoming to the essence of the area would be unfair to all already existing neighboring properties. In response to the request for a variance from relief from the required minimum road frontage, again, I hope this request would be turned down. The reason for road frontage necessity is not only an issue of aesthetics, but safety. Emergency response vehicles answering a structural fire or a forest fire must have immediate and easily secured access to and past any structure on a public byway. The building in question should be limited to size which can be supported by the existing infrastructure of the Town. The positioning of any structure should be according to existing Code only. The over building and over burdening of the natural resources of areas bordering or part of the Adirondack Park, the Lake George area, and the immediate bordering wetlands and environmental areas needs to be examined much more carefully. The future of this area must be first and foremost in our decision process. The protection of forever wild areas which border potential development areas must be considered essential for future generations. The variances should be turned down. Sincerely, Russ Bodenhorn” “Dear Mr. Underwood and Mr. Oborne: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. As an owner of an adjoining property that would be directly affected by the above referenced zoning variance, I respectfully petition that you deny the request. Simply stated, I emphatically and categorically do not support the request for variance as contained in the above reference. I respectfully ask that you deny the request for variance. I fully support and am in consonance with the statements contained in my brother’s (Russ Bodenhorn’s) FAX transmittal. I reiterate all of his concerns and objections. In addition I offer the following information: My wife, family and I ask that you deny the variance for the following reasons: We do not agree with the request for variance since by agreeing, we would effectively forfeit and relinquish our rights and potential to improve and enhance our own contiguous property. As long term residents of Pine Tree Lane, we are not interested in or willing to waive and sacrifice that which we hold dear ….our rights and privileges, to effectively manage our own property in our best interest and the interest of the immediate community of homeowners. As a resident of 6 Pine Tree Lane, Assembly Point, for almost 50 years, my family and I are not desirous of having my family and th potential 4 generation heirs be disenfranchised and deprived of their legal right to exercise prudent stewardship in the oversight and management of their property. I would like to invite your attention to the following additional information: While the land in question, at the end of Pine Tree Lane, may look pristine, hidden jut below the layer of topsoil are tons of construction waste, stone, concrete, brick, tree trunks, organic waste and the like that were deposited over many years. The detritus was dumped in an effort (apparently successful!) to remediate the wetland swampy conditions prevalent at the time. I respectfully suggest that due diligence would dictate that a core sample of the substratum be taken to see exactly what is lurking beneath the surface. Will the soil mechanics support a 4200 square foot “McMansion”? Does the substrate percolate? Will the effluent generated by such a large septic system, be contained within the leach field on the property? Or since the groundwater table is so high in that area, will the e coli bacteria, heavy metals and other elements of the effluent be transmitted into the 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) wetlands and to the nearby creek and eventually to Lake George drinking water? Has an environmental impact statement been provided? What impact will this variance (septic system) have on the wetland environment and Lake George (drinking) watershed? Our moral obligation requires, as prudent caretakers of the natural resources of the Town of Queensbury and Lake George, that we remain thoughtful stewards of the land. In your wisdom as counselors, mentors and arbiters of the will of the people, I urge you to disapprove these requests for variances. Sincerely yours, Gregory S. Bodenhorn” And I think that’s it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If you would, at this time I would appreciate some commentary based upon, you know, the criticisms of the neighborhood in general in regards to this project. MR. KLEIN-Sure. I’ll try and address as many of the technical concerns that have been raised. I don’t know if I’m going to be able to touch the emotional concerns that have been raised. One thing I would like to point out, that Mr. Chrys owns the adjacent properties. He’s got an application in on Forest Lane through the Planning Board that we do not need any variances for. There’s two other applications in front of the Planning Board they don’t require any variances whatsoever, and so, and he also owns the lot across the street, has control of that, too. Mr. Chrys is also a resident of the neighborhood. He’s got a year round home on Assembly Point. He’s not a transient developer that’s looking to trash the neighborhood. In any event, backing up to the technical questions, I want to bring out the fact that, yes, technically by the Floor Area calculations that you have to do in the Town of Queensbury, it’s an over 4,000 square foot home. The footprint of the home is 1645 feet. So it’s not a big McMansion, you know, one whole level is below grade, nobody’s ever going to see it, except for maybe the deer in the back property that are going to see the partial walk out basement. We’re not doing any filling in the wetlands. There was a couple of issues brought up about some fill that was put in there, in years past. When they dig the basement, they’ll probably get very close, if not close to the original ground surface there. All the material that’s in the footprint of the house within the basement will have to be taken off the property to form the space for the basement. We did several test pits, in designing the septic system. We didn’t find any debris. We had a backhoe there, dug two, maybe three test pits, down as far as the backhoe would go. The Town’s Engineer was out there . He asked us to actually go a little bit deeper, I think, than what did, and there was no building debris or anything discovered within the test pits. The area had been filled. We did perc tests on this site as well as the other two sites. The percolation rate on this soil is slower than on the other two sites. So, you know, assuming that it’s different material than is normal for that area and natural for that area, and it sounds like it was filled 20 some odd years ago. Regarding the two issues that Lake George Waterkeeper brought up, yes, we’re proposing a well. It’s not in the wetlands. You will have to trench a waterline up to the house. That can be done with minimal disturbance. We talked to Staff regarding the permitting issues related to the location of the well. They concurred that there were none. The separation distance, I believe the fill system is defined as having a certain amount of fill. Basically we’re using an Eljen system, which requires a much smaller footprint than a conventional system. We’re putting the Eljen mats on top of a sand layer that’s intended just to level out the ground that require a minimum depth of sand underneath these things, and then we’re bringing dirt over the top of it. So it doesn’t meet the definition of a mound or a fill system. So I don’t believe that is a relevant point, but I’d be happy to discuss it with, when we go to get our permits for our septic system. I’d be happy to research it with the Town of Queensbury that issue those permits. Regarding the fire truck access, the survey was performed by Don Pigeon He indicated that, he’s a licensed land surveyor. He indicate the end of the pavement. When I was walking out there, I didn’t notice that there was two different types of pavement, maybe one that’s been resurfaced recently and then maybe some that’s degraded. We would be happy to pave over the part that’s degraded. If people were interested in us extending that pavement, we can do that, to some degree. You’ll have to put in stormwater management facilities for that extended pavement. There’s an area underneath, well, between the end of where we’re indicating the pavement and the 100 foot setback from the wetlands that we could put in a drywell, slope the pavement back, and have our stormwater management facilities underneath the pavement. We’d be 100 foot away from the wetlands as required. I don’t think we can get it all the way down to the drop off, but we can definitely extend it to where we’re showing the western edge of the parking spaces, and as far as snowplow removal, you know, once there’s a house there, it’s got to be maintained. So if the Town stops plowing at a certain spot, I would assume they would continue to the end of the road, and the property owner would take care of maintaining the two parking spots. So there’ll be, you know, fire truck access, emergency access, to that location, whether it’s paved or it’s not paved. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, can I ask you a question? If they’re proposing extending the road and paving that over, I mean, in a practical sense, too, to have a grass parking spaces to me, I mean, it’s okay in the summertime, but for year round usage of a property, that doesn’t really seem practical. I mean, is that going to trigger some kind of a variance request for paving within too close to the wetland there, also? Would they need relief for that? MR. OBORNE-I honestly haven’t given it any thought, to be honest with you, in regards to this Area Variance. There are some, there is mention of the road in the Site Plan Review aspect of this project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because it doesn’t make sense, you know, for us to segment, you know, and then have them come back later for more because, part of our purview is to look at the whole picture and try and troubleshoot every possible aspect of what might crop up in the future. MR. OBORNE-I agree. MR. KLEIN-We didn’t think paving would be looked on favorably, because we are close to the wetlands. If the Board deems that extending that road a distance makes sense, we can handle the stormwater management, and we can do that. It was our intention to be as environmentally sensitive to the area as possible, and that’s why we decided not to pave it, and basically that’s why we are here for a variance. We had 32 feet of road, we needed 40 feet by the Town standards, so as long as we’re coming for the variance, we said, well, the house sits better on the property this way. We might as well seek the two variances, but, you know, yes, and the distance from, you know, the end of the road as it’s defined now, to the house, is well more than the setbacks, probably 45 feet or more, and we need a 30 foot setback. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, is there any sense, because, you know, any time we get deal with one of these disturbed lots, you know, we don’t really have a true sense of what originally was there, but it would seem pretty easy to me to just go out and grab a topographic map from like 1913, and all you’ve got to do is look at the original contour lines on there and you’d have a pretty good sense of what was wetland, what was dry land, what was buildable out there. I would guess if somebody went and did that, you’d have a total different picture here than what we’re looking at as far as the infill. I mean, I don’t know how much was infilled. MR. KLEIN-Well, there’s a steep embankment here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I know, you can see the steep bank, yes, but I mean, a lot of times out there as you get close to those areas, you know, you’ve got swales that existed that got filled in and things like that prior also, but, you know, my comments in regards to the project are, you know, it’s an awful big place, no matter how you cut it, and for the size of the lot that’s there, I would have to agree that it’s kind of out of character, by comparing it to the neighborhood and what’s existed for many, many years historically there. At the same time, you know, a lot of forethought went into the plan. I’m not degrading your thoughts as to what you’re trying to propose here, but at the same time, you know, it’s, in a practical sense, there’s a lot of question marks, the parking space, the access, no garage, you know, practical things that most everybody requests at some point in the future. MR. KLEIN-There’s no room for that, though. MR. UNDERWOOD-And it’s nice to, you know, this may be what you’ve proposed at the present time. If it gets sold to somebody else, I mean, no one is going to come in here and not ask for those other things that every other homeowner requests, and I think it puts our Board between a rock and a hard place because we’ve got to look at it with eyes wide open, what’s realistic, you know, and I think that, you know, my comments to you at this time would be, I would like to see an original topographic map showing those contour lines, so I gain a sense of what was there, because, you know, if it ends up that this whole area has been infilled, and that it’s a perched, you know, wet spot underneath the whole area down there, maybe not where you did your test pits and things like that I’m not going to contest that, but at the same time, we’ve dealt with places out on the lake, in the lake area out there, where people have pre-dug their foundations then we’ve gone out there and the whole thing’s filled in like a swimming pool, and in a practical sense, you know, septic, even if you do go to an Eljen system there, you’re really not accomplishing the task that’s before you and that’s to make sure that things are purified. Do Board members have any questions they want answered at this time? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. DRELLOS-I do as far as the septic system. This is a pump up system, am I correct? MR. KLEIN-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-I don’t have detailed plans, but, and it’s a raised system. I don’t know if the Eljens are going on top of the original grounds or above it. You’ve got to take the topsoil off. MR. KLEIN-Yes. There’s a section through here. MR. DRELLOS-And then it comes up two or three feet above that. To me, that’s a mound system, but I think, as Mr. Navitsky pointed out, I think you’re going to need a variance for this because, if you look from where your well, you went to the edge of the mound 100 feet, but when you went from the edge of the property line, you went right to the Eljen, 10 feet, instead of the edge of the mound. MR. KLEIN-What we did is put a 100 foot arch off the well. MR. DRELLOS-Well, why wouldn’t you bring the well a little closer, then? Why would you want to keep it farther away if you could have brought it closer? MR. KLEIN-We can bring it a little closer to. It’s only a few feet. MR. DRELLOS-I’m just saying, I believe, as Mr. Navitsky pointed out, I think you go by the edge of the slope of the mound, which would bring you about three or four feet, probably, from the edge of the line. MR. KLEIN-A mound system is normally a pressurized system. This is not necessarily a pressurized system. MR. DRELLOS-Not necessarily. MR. KLEIN-It does have a pump. MR. DRELLOS-Yes, and then it goes into a box and it gravity feeds out. MR. KLEIN-Correct. MR. DRELLOS-Correct, but you’re still, you’re filling over this, the Eljen at least two feet, it looks like. So it’s not level. That system isn’t level with the ground. The system is up two or three feet. MR. KLEIN-It follows the profile of the ground. You have to have a minimum of so much sand underneath the Eljen system. MR. DRELLOS-That I understand. Okay. I’m just looking at the print right here and it shows that it goes this. MR. KLEIN-They step down. Every one of those elevations, the boxes, or those Eljen systems is a different elevation for each one. It’s following the natural ground contours. MR. DRELLOS-So as it goes down, it steps down, each line? MR. KLEIN-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-So the one closest to the property line would be level? MR. KLEIN-The highest one. That would be the highest one. MR. DRELLOS-And it wouldn’t be sloping to the property, the other adjoining property? MR. KLEIN-No, it’s sloping down towards the house. MRS. JENKIN-Towards the property line on the east? MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s Bodenhorn. MR. DRELLOS-Do you see what I’m saying? The elevation 336, 337, and 338? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. KLEIN-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-Three thirty-six. MR. KLEIN-There’s the finished contour. Here’s the existing contour, this 337 and 336. So the natural grade is going down this way, okay, and so this will be the highest Eljen. This will be stepped down a little bit and this will be stepped down a little bit further. MR. DRELLOS-So what I’m saying is there will not be any, nothing flowing that way, on top of it? It’s just going to be level with the ground? Then there’ll just be a bank over. MR. KLEIN-The finished, the top of this system will be covered up with dirt. So that will be higher than the existing grade. MR. DRELLOS-That’s what I’m saying. MR. KLEIN-But the infiltration device is this item right here plus the six inches of minimum sand underneath it. MR. DRELLOS-So what I’m saying is. MR. KLEIN-So we’re building the Eljen six inches above the natural ground surface. MR. DRELLOS-Right. So you’ve got to fill over that. MR. KLEIN-And then we have to fill over that. MR. DRELLOS-What I’m saying, from this point, you don’t meet the setback. You’re going by this point. MR. KLEIN-I believe the setback is from this point right here, not from this point, in this particular system. Mr. Navitsky is correct. An additional mound system (lost words). MR. DRELLOS-Well I guess I’d like to have Staff check into that for me. MR. GARRAND-Is that a Board of Health issue that the Town Board should go over? MR. OBORNE-Well, it would be Building and Codes, specifically, that would have to comment on that. If you’re leaning towards tabling, you might want to direct that in your resolution. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are we going to have any kind of Site Plan Review by Planning Board on this, or is it just going to be Building and Codes? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-There is, complete? Okay. This is going to be my recommendation, then. I don’t think that we’re going to approve or disapprove this here this evening, and I think what I’m going to do is ask for some specific recommendation from the Planning Board at this point in time. The Planning Board, one of the things I’m going to require from you is, in your submission to the Planning Board, I want a copy of an original topographic map showing what those contours were on that map prior to any disturbance, because I think that’s going to come into play there with the final decision here. MR. KLEIN-We may be able to get like a USGS map. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, that’s fine. MR. KLEIN-And those contours are like 20 foot. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I mean you’re still going to gain a sense if there’s any, were any original big swales and hollows in there that people were concerned about. MR. KLEIN-Our contours are at one foot on center, height, and there’s a big difference between one foot and twenty foot contours. MRS. JENKIN-Can I ask one question before you make your recommendation? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MRS. JENKIN-The test pits that were made, they were made in the area of the septic system, and that’s the highest point of land? That’s the highest point of land, that’s the highest and then it goes down from there? MR. KLEIN-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Were any test pits made where the house is going to be built? MR. KLEIN-No. MRS. JENKIN-So you don’t know, when you’re digging the foundation, if you’re going to run into any of the concrete or anything. You don’t know that. MR. KLEIN-No, but, as you can see on the original elevation, the rear of the property where we have that walk out door, the floor level of the basement is just about where there’s, just about at existing grade, and you can see on our Site Plan, this is the low part of the grade. Do you see how these contours are coming down here? I believe this is where the toe of the fill area was in, it’s all steep. You’re nice and level right in here. So I believe they filled this upper portion of the lot, and this is the bottom of the fill, and this corner of the house is pretty close to the bottom of the, the toe of the fill, and finished floor is down about this elevation, too. We’re going to have to have a frost wall. So we’re going to be digging down into the native soil to get that frost wall, and we’re going to be taking the entire fill out where the basement is. It’s going to go off site. So I believe the finished floor of the basement is going to be on the old original, close to the original grade. MRS. JENKIN-And how much, I haven’t figured out, I probably should have, from the height of this to down to where the corner is, what is the depth, would that be how much lower? MR. KLEIN-This is to the 326 contour. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. KLEIN-And this is the 336 contour. So from here to here is 10 foot, ten foot drop. MRS. JENKIN-The height. Okay. Well, in here it says the mottling starts at three feet, or three and a half feet. So that’s where your water is, and if that test pit was taken up here, then there’s going to be water down there. MR. KLEIN-Not necessarily. You’re going to have a foundation drain around your. MRS. JENKIN-If it’s 10 feet difference in height, and the water table starts at three and a half feet, then there’s going to be significant water down here. MR. KLEIN-There would be a foundation drain around there, and it would be day lighting down at this elevation here. MRS. JENKIN-And a sump pump. MR. KLEIN-No. You could put a sump pump in, but if you put a foundation drain around your basement. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think we’re sort of getting into a cross current here with, I think he’s answered your question. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. I’m sorry. I apologize. MR. CHRYS-Could I just make a couple of comments to address some of the questions I think might be pertinent? MR. UNDERWOOD-Most certainly. MR. CHRYS-I’d just like to establish a little bit of position. I think first of all I’d like to say that I appreciate the emotional concerns. It’s certainly well taken. I do live on Assembly Point, and I’ve been there for 13 years. I have a year round house, and I would like to 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) say, on my behalf, that I’ve been very cognizant of the Adirondack surroundings, and for those of you who know where I am, I have a log sided situation with a green roof and I’ve been very careful with the eco system certainly where I am. This particular structure would be something that would be characteristic to, at least from an aesthetic perspective, to the Adirondack environment. In terms of a developer, I’m not a developer. I’m in the finance business, which hasn’t been great of late, as you probably know. I’m not a developer, and I do have family, and hope that some of my family may live in the home, but that is not anything that I could say positively. As far as the septic systems are concerned, you know, I was very careful, too, to make sure that we had a system that was today’s system. I think you probably know that a lot of the homes on Assembly Point, unfortunately, if they were inspected for septic issues, you might find that they’re not nearly as adequate as what would be proposed in most new structures. In terms of getting to this point, and I think this is important to know for the people who don’t, you know, it was a couple of years of work to get to where we are now. That land was carefully delineated by a soils engineer named Charlie Maine who is renown in the area. It was also delineated for wetlands by the Adirondack Park Association, and carefully flagged and carefully surveyed to come up with spots where this would even make sense. So there is not, and has not, been a breech or a white wash anywhere here with respect to what the criteria is and what it takes to be able to do something here. We’re clearly not in any of the buffers, and as I said, actually the entire area that we had flagged encompassed many acres there. So I have some information that’s, you know, beyond the scope of this, but I think it’s important to know that this is not a capitalistic venture that just evolved overnight, where somebody’s trying to take advantage by moving lot lines and playing with the wetland systems. First of all, I don’t think that that’s possible, and that’s clearly not the intent here, never was, and isn’t. I spent a lot of time trying to be able to put something there, and, you know, we’ve gotten to this point, and it’s something that I hope other people will see for what it is, and not for what it might be. As far as the size of the house, unfortunately it shows or sounds bigger than it is, and it is a very similar house to the one on North Lane, which sold a year ago, by the way, not that that means anything, but, you know, it’s not a McMansion in a sense that it maybe looks like on paper, and that certainly is not, again, the intent. So I’m looking for something that is Adirondack motif, which has been my motis operandi since I lived on the Point, and again, that’s 13 years, and I do understand very clearly the emotional side of it, and I can appreciate the comments complete. So that’s really all I have to say, except thanks for your time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich, you pointed something out on the deed you wanted to inform the Board members of that. MR. GARRAND-Yes. It says three single family residences and no more may have the lot lines adjusted and be re-subdivided into three lots and no more with one dwelling each lot, except that any portion thereof may be conveyed to a government or non profit entity for conservation purposes. In essence, it says Dubin may be improved by only three single family residences and no more, or have lot lines adjusted. Is there any lot line adjustment going on? MR. CHRYS-There is. MR. GARRAND-Okay, because the deed says should be no more lot line adjustment. MR. CHRYS-I think the whole intent, and again, I think this is important to note for the people who have concerns. I mean, I don’t know a whole lot about the Dubins, other than I believe it was their father who was the original developer of the Shore Colony, and a lot of those areas have been filled, and, you know, from what little history I know, there was fill all over the Pine Tree area and other spots when he developed it. Clearly when we made the purchase from the Dubins, one of the things that we did want to do is there was no intent to overdevelop or increase the density there to something unrealistic. So there’s actually a restriction there, and you read it, and the way it was understood from what we agreed to was, A, regardless of the size, and it encompasses some eight plus acres, we were only going to do what we needed to do to develop three houses, which is not a lot of density in that kind of area, be very eco sensitive, and the lot line adjustments would only pertain to obtaining three lots, period, not to change lot lines so you can increase density. So, I don’t know if you interpreted it that way, but that’s how it should be written and how it was completely understood, so that lot line adjustments could be done only to be able to develop three dwellings, period, regardless of how many you could legally put there, by trying to subdivide, and it wasn’t a subdivision for lot line adjustment, at least my understanding is that’s not what’s required. Does that make sense what I said? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. GARRAND-It makes sense under what you were asking for in the beginning. I’d have to ask Staff to, you know, talk to Town Counsel about that and see what they say. MR. CHRYS-Yes, but the whole intent, and the only take away I’d like other people to have, too, is this was not a thing to increase density. It was a thing to absolutely the opposite, to control density, and make sure that it was very sparse in terms of development, and that’s it. MR. GARRAND-It sounds like it’s what their original intent was. MR. CHRYS-That was the intent. That was always the intent, and that was the intent I agreed to, and you have a document that, if it’s dated, was probably two years ago. Am I correct? Which kind of backs up what I told you in terms of trying to establish and get this done. This is not something that was, came off the shelf and I’m a developer and I’m capitalizing on some kind of dense. MR. GARRAND-Yes. We can see there was a lot of time and thought put into this. MR. CHRYS-I think that’s important to note, and money. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. SMITH-On the subject of development of Shore Colony, Mr. Veeter, I understand who developed the Holiday Inn in the village, bought this land and subdivided it, and that was back in 1957, to my knowledge. On his passing, two members of Shore Colony, two property owners, Mr. Dillon and Mr. Dubin, both purchased the property, and all the lots that have been sold since then have been sold either by Dubin, or were sold either by Dubin and Dillon or separated. When they separated what was left, Dubin took some and Dillon took some, and since then they’ve been sold. There’s very few, if any, lots left. These three in particular are left, that I know of. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. MR. SMITH-That’s the background on it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ma’am? MS. MALONEY-Mr. Smith is correct. The original developer of the property was Mr. Veeter, Harold Veeter, and every deed, as you can see, the unrecorded deed that Mr. Chrys has for Garner Holdings, LLC specifically states that they have one one hundredth interest in the common swimming area. There were only 100 lots to be developed within Shore Colony, and I can speak to that because I’ve been living there since I was a little girl every summer, okay, so I am well aware of that, and if you look at every deed, it specifically states, for each, each lot has one one hundredth interest. So if you bought a lot and a lot and a half, you got one one hundredth plus half the other interest. Garner Holdings, LLC does not own the property right now. It is an unrecorded deed. The restriction you were referring to was the second restriction, and I believe your Counsel will be able to confirm that, that there is a contract on the other two parcels that he’s referring to, one of which he’s going to have to take a little portion from to add to this property, which shows that he’s going to move the property line over more towards, I believe that’s where his well is going to be, over towards that part of the property line. Now, the other two properties that he says that there’s not going to be any need for variance for are on the paper street known as Cherry Tree Lane, which will be accessed off Forest Lane, and that’s where I live. So I’m very familiar with that area. In addition I’m very familiar with that whole corridor area because my mother’s house, right now, is the last house, existing on Forest Lane. Mrs. Hopper’s daughter owns the other two lots just beyond my mother’s house, and we have a dead end, right there right now, with a storm fence up because of all the dumping that had been going on. The Town had to put up a fence because of all the toxic stuff that was being dumped at the end of the street, and continues to be dumped, even now, even though there’s a storm fence up, to this day. Now, the two parcels, the other two parcels, which I believe are referred to in that restriction, that he has a contract for, are the north side of Cherry Tree Lane and the south side of Cherry Tree Lane, and one of the houses is going to be put on two pieces of land, 226.19-1-48, which is .28 acres and 226.19-1-49. The other parcel, which is, and I’m not sure which is on the north side and which is on the south side, 226.19-1-37, on Cherry Tree Lane, is 247 by 200 feet. It’s got 6.14 acres of wetlands in it. It’s a total of 7.27 acres. There’s going to be a definite impact when he builds those other houses. They are all on wetlands. They’re all being built within 100 feet of wetlands. This is going to have a very detrimental effect on the wetlands and the water stream that goes 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) ultimately into the lake. In addition, our camp is only a summer camp, and we live in Albany. Mr. Chrys may have a year round house up on Assembly Point. I don’t know exactly where he lives on Assembly Point. I do know he’s not a member of Shore Colony, and he shouldn’t really be talking about Scott and Jane Dubin’s father did when he doesn’t know what they did do, what Mr. Dubin did nor what Mr. Dillon did, after Mr. Veeter sold them the property. I do know we tried to get Russell Bodenhorn and Greg Bodenhorn on the phone to speak with you tonight long distance from their locations because they felt strongly, because they’re the most impacted because they own the vacant lots, they have their camp on Pine Tree Lane, and they own the vacant lot on Pine Tree Lane, next to it, and they will be detrimentally affected by this building because it’s my understanding, and I’m not very mechanical, so I don’t quite understand totally about the septic system, but if they want to put a well on their property, basically the way Mr. Chrys and Garner Holdings are proposing to develop this house, they aren’t going to be able to use their other piece of land for anything, because they’re not going to be able to put a well on their property. So, other than, the assertion that Mr. Chrys made that no one is going to be detrimentally affected but him because he owns all the property, that’s not true. He does not own it right now. It’s not a recorded deed. There’s a contract for the other property. So, I don’t know why he thinks that he controls something that he doesn’t own yet. In addition, it’s going to detrimentally affect Russ and Gregory Bodenhorn, and it’s really, it’s too bad that we weren’t able to get them on the phone tonight. We did, we really tried, but unfortunately they weren’t available. They wanted to be available, but Greg has to drive an hour to his house from his job, and unfortunately he’s driving right now and he didn’t want to talk on his cell phone, but if he had been home in time, he was going to call and we were going to put him on speaker phone, because he felt so strongly about this. If you have any other questions that perhaps I can answer concerning the history of the property or anything to do with the deeds, what little I know about them right now, and a lot of this information I garnered from, specifically from the Assessment roll, and that’s what I used the Town of Queensbury website and it was very informative, concerning the topography of the various parcels of land that are going to be the subject of the Planning Board next week. Then if Mr. Chrys is going to keep these in his family, why is he proposing to build three houses, if he already has a house on Lake George, on Assembly Point? In addition, yes, he bought the other property on Forest Lane. It was a burned down piece of property, and he built a house on it, and he was very fortuitous. He made a great deal of money on that last year, excuse me on North Lane, I’m sorry, on North Lane. He made a great deal of money on that, but the point is, he sold that property, he did not live in it. He sold it. He has a property on the Point that he’s living in. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Okay. Keith, when the numbers were run on here, was the unbuildable area subtracted from the buildable area? In other words, you take the whole lot here is .34 acres, all right, and under the regulations you’re supposed to subtract unbuildable land off of that. MR. OBORNE-Included, wetlands and slopes greater than 25%. MR. UNDERWOOD-And so was that considered in the Floor Area Ratio in the numbers? That’s all kosher? MR. OBORNE-It is my understanding. In fact, right now, I can take a look at that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Because I’m going to ask that also is that, in the review by the Planning Board, I think what we’re going to do is go for a tabling motion here, all right, to give you guys a little bit of leeway. I would rather have the Planning Board look at the issues that are involved here. There’ve been many points raised by the public. I mean, not to put down what you guys have done. I know you’ve put some time into this and effort into trying to accomplish this task, but I think it’s important for us to look at the issues. The issues I would like to have looked at are, I would like to have the original topographic survey provided, so that the Planning Board has an idea of what existed prior to any disturbance on site there. I think in regards to the septic issue, I mean, that’s not our purview, but at the same time, you have two very small lots adjacent to here that would be affected as far as setbacks if they had to go to a well, and I know that Shore Colony now, I think you’re drawing water from the lake as I understand it. I would foresee that as the future continues that that possibility of drawing water from the lake is not going to occur without some kind of a major upgrade of that system because of concerns about pollution in the lake as existing up on the Points now. The other issues would be, the issue was brought up about the location of the well, and it’s sort of like right on the wetland line there, so, I mean, there should be a question raised as to, I don’t know about encasing the well, whether that’s something that’s a consideration when you’re putting one into a wetland, as to contamination and things like that, for future 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) reference on that. So, I mean, I’d like the Planning Board to look at that issue, too. Our Board, we’re pretty much looking at the numbers on the dwelling, the 4290 with the three floors in there. I think that that should be a concern. I think that triggered in people’s minds whether this project could be downsized somewhat, and in looking at your plans here, from the originals provided, what you’ve provided us tonight there, that flip flop in there, the bonus room, I think that in the past we’ve considered bonus rooms to be rooms that are going to be used in the future. I mean, there’s no question that if somebody has an empty room in their house, they’re going to turn it into something. A den, which also originally was proposed in there, as a bedroom and then switched off to den, at some point by removing that closet in there, we have to be concerned on these small lots, the size of the septic system as you’ve proposed here is for a three bedroom house, but I mean, we have to consider worst case scenario. If somebody decides they want five bedrooms, which they can do once they buy the property, is it going to be adequate on that site with that Eljen system as designed for that purpose? And, you know, not that you’re not being up front about it or anything like that. Board members, do you have anything else you want to include? MR. DRELLOS-I’d like a clarification on the edge of the leach field, if that’s where the 10 feet setback really is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and the other thing is this, if the Planning Board comes back and tells you guys you’ve got to design it as a four bedroom, I would assume that’s going to push that one Eljen, the third one closest to the property line further back, were you to accomplish that. No? You’re going to have the capacity there with what you have? MR. CHRYS-We’re limited on the capacity. MR. UNDERWOOD-So three is it? Okay, because I think the other thing that could be done here is that, and you could consider a modification of your proposal, you know, if indeed the Board at some future date turns you down or something. I mean, I don’t know where we’re going with it at this point in time. MRS. JENKIN-Jim, I would like one more consideration, because it directly impacts our application, is the road and the safety of the road and the narrowness of the road, whether it is safe for emergency vehicles. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, you know, I think if you were planning a brand new subdivision, obviously it would have to be done to Town standards, but, I mean, you’re looking at an after the fact subdivision here. I mean, it’s 1950’s. The rules were whatever you got, you got, and at this point in time here, there were concerns raised by the Fire Department up there, about the adequacy of coverage in the case of a fire at the end of this road here, and, you know, you’re talking probably some commentary from the Planning Board in that regard then also. Brian, anything you have concerns about? MR. CLEMENTS-I’m wondering if they ought to know what our feelings are about it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I don’t mind polling the Board at this time because that’ll give you guys, if you know where we’re at now, not knowing the whole picture and the whole story here. Why don’t I just do this. I’m going to close everything down for tonight. I’m going to keep the public hearing open in case the public wants to comment further if there’s some modifications to your plans here. We’ll wait to hear back from the Planning Board, but let’s just go down through the Board. Brian, do you want to go first? MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. First of all, I want you to know that I’m a firm believer in landowner rights and people should be able to do what they want with their property, within limits, of course, you know, and that’s why we have zoning. I’d also like you to know that I don’t have a problem with the road, and I think that that probably could be, for one part of the variance that’s asked for here, for the five feet of relief, I think that that road could be extended and that probably could be taken care of. I do have a problem, however, with the character, and with other homes in the area. I think that this is really pushing the limits of a project on this property. I’m concerned about not having a garage and having somebody come back here and ask for a garage, and I think that at one point you said, where could you put that. Well, there’s one part of the house under where you have the bonus room, and I don’t know if you could turn things around or not, but I would think that a garage could be put there. I would, if I looked at this today, I would not be in favor of this project. I’d just like you to know that probably I would be if it was more in character with the neighborhood. So that’s kind of where I stand. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MRS. JENKIN-I also have concerns with this application, because I feel, environmentally, it’s really pushing the limit. It’s very close to the wetlands. It’s within the 100 foot limit of the wetlands. The septic system is right next to it. I feel that building is, it’s over building for what the property can stand, if the property can stand anything. I definitely would like to see the original topographic map and see what it was like before the fill was put in. I have concerns about the road. When I drove down there, I could not, there was nowhere to turn around. I had to back up and try to find a small space to turn around in. I feel that it would be a hazard for any kind of fire, and I also feel that for snow plowing, there will be a problem, because they can’t possibly extend the road far enough to plow the snow without going into the stormwater pond and to the other wetland areas. So at this time I would not be in favor of this project myself. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George? MR. DRELLOS-Yes, at this time I wouldn’t be in favor. I have concerns where the well is situated, so close to the wetlands. Obviously, you’ve got to put a well in. You’re going to have all this silt and mud coming up. You’re going to have to dig a trench to the house, right through all that. The septic system, to me, is too close. I know you’re limited as to the size or the space you have, but it’s so close to your other adjoining property owners, you are really putting a burden on them, if they need a well, or anything else that they would want to put in there. I mean, if you go 100 feet away from that septic with a well, you’re onto this other property. You’re not even on the same lot. This poor guy can’t even put a well on it. So maybe there’s a way that you could check. Have you checked into going into the Town water or the Colony water, I guess, you know, without the well? You know what I’m saying? I don’t know if they would do the same, but. MR. CHRYS-That’s a seasonal source. That’s why we’ve got to use. MR. DRELLOS-All right. Well, then, so you’re putting a burden on them. I feel the house is a little oversized. I think it could come down in size, just to meet the whole character of the neighborhood, and all the other concerns that have been brought up. At this time, I wouldn’t be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-Jim, I was thinking that, first off, this house will change the entire character of the neighborhood. This neighborhood is, first off it’s seasonal. Second of all it’s, for the most part, single story seasonal residences that were intended to be a camp when the Shore community was first founded. It was never intended to be a year round living area for people. Basically, this request will have adverse environmental impacts on the neighborhood, given that it limits what the neighbors can potentially do in so far as wells. At this point, I wouldn’t be in favor of the application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have questions about the property lines, about the road, the size of the house, and while I do think that a property owner has the right to develop their property, the fact that this has not been developed in 50 years maybe it’s not developable. Maybe it’s not buildable. So I would not be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m pretty much on board with everybody else here. My concerns center around the road access, emergency road access. Given the circumstances of the property, where are cars going to be parked if there’s an emergency, how would the vehicles be able to get around it, even with the size of the road itself, and the other concern is, as everybody else has pointed out, is that this is an old neighborhood. This is an old subdivision, and the character of the neighborhood has been long defined. It’s not something that just came about, and albeit you claim that there’s an interpretation by the Town of Queensbury that creates some of the footage there, but by any interpretation, any criteria, this is a bigger house than anything else in that neighborhood, and that’s going to change the character quite a bit. Now legally you’re entitled to that, but the character of the neighborhood and the effect it might have on the environment are very much in question. So I would be against it at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think you’ve listened to the Board members, and I think the points that have been raised here are valid points. At the same time, the other thing I want Staff to do is this. In other words, you know what the lot sizes are in that whole 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) neighborhood down there. I want to know what the average size lot would be for the average, you know, for all those properties down there. You can take the ones over on Cherry Lane and this road here and the ones adjacent also. I want to know what the average is, and I think that, I want you to come up with, in a practical sense, a size house that would fit the neighborhood. In other words, if we were designing a brand new subdivision, and we were going in and we had lots of this small nature involved here, it’s not outside our realm, it’s not outside the realm of the Planning Board to consider what’s reasonable to fit here in this neighborhood. Dave, I know you’re going to want to comment on that, and I understand where you’re coming from, too. In this sense here, I think a valid point has been raised by the Board. Although it falls within the Floor Area Ratio for the Waterfront Residential One Acre zoning, I think that we all have to be concerned, going forward, with what the future holds up there. If everybody does this on their lot, we’re not going to be happy in the end of it. All right, and if somebody starts building apartment buildings or something like that, 50 years from now up there, and it turns into the Gold Coast or something, no one’s going to be happy with that either. So the objective here is to do something reasonable and practical, and that’s from your viewpoint, too. I mean, you have the absolute right to build on a piece of property that’s buildable. No one’s contesting that, but consider what you’re doing thoroughly and thoughtfully going forward, all right. There’s concerns about everything, you know. Dave, do you want to comment? MR. KLEIN-Yes, could I talk a little bit about the neighborhood? It was said earlier tonight that Shore Colony was 100 lots when it was first conceived 50 years ago. Those lots are very narrow lots, very small lots. The lot that we’re proposing to develop, one of the lots that we’re proposing to develop over on Forest Lane is actually two lots. This lot used to be two lots, and it’s also taking an L-shaped piece from another very large piece of property. Now this lot is more than two times your average lot size in Shore Colony. Shore Colony is changing. I’ve spent a lot of time, in the last four or five years, over there. I have lots of close friends that live in the neighborhood. I’m over there just about every weekend, sometimes during the week. I live there more than I live at my house. There’s a new home that Mr. Chrys built on North Lane. It’s the same type of architecture. It’s a little bit larger than this. Also on North Lane there are two homes that were recently on stilts. They jacked the homes up, put a foundation underneath them. I think one of those homes was in front of this Zoning Board for variances on Forest, right across from the other two lots that Mr. Chrys is proposing to develop. There’s another brand new home on that lot. There was a windstorm that came through because somebody took all the trees down over on the other side of Assembly Point and the wind came up and took all the trees down, or blew all the trees down, fell across a couple of homes over there, I believe, and one of them is replaced with a brand new, you know, a larger home. I believe the Hopper home is a year round home. I go by there in the wintertime, walking the dog, and I see Mrs. Hopper there in the wintertime. Mr. Schonewolf who spoke here tonight’s got a home over there. It’s a brand new home, a log cabin style. It dwarfs anything else. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think what we’ll do is, we understand where you’re coming from, what we’re going to do is keep the public hearing open. You people are going to be coming back to us when we get some information back from the Planning Board as to their recommendations. I want the complete minutes of our meeting tonight provided to the Planning Board members prior to their meeting, okay. I know that’s short notice, but at the same time, I think that gives them a heads up as to what the concerns are, and everybody can raise those points when you go to the Planning Board meeting also here again this evening. For you guys, just keep in mind the sentiment of the Board going forward, and if there’s some things you might consider doing, you know, in going forward to maybe appease the different user groups and thoughtful citizens of the community, then I think that’s something that you need to consider. MR. CHRYS-I have no problem considering that, and I’ll go on record saying that. Clearly, again, the parameters are parameters that were established by committees and your board in your Town in zoning, way before I existed. I can’t make 100 feet 110 feet, and I didn’t make it 100 and I can’t make 50 feet 60 feet. So, one of the things I do want you to know, and I think somebody mentioned there was a lot of work put into this and a lot of time. There was. We stayed within the guidelines, obviously. Can things be addressed to appease everybody in the neighborhood and the character, of course? And I’m open-minded to that, but there’s nothing here that was outside the realm of what I think our legal right is, is the word he used, and I think that that’s important to note. So we’re not looking for legal relief here, but I want to thank you very much for your time. It was very long, and I apologize to the people behind us. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll make the recommendation that this is going to the Planning Board. Keith? MR. OBORNE-If you could, be specific in your recommendations, in your conditions, and I do have one question for the Chairman, considering the direction he’s sending me on. I can quantify what you want, but to qualify what house should be there may be difficult. So just keep that in mind. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t think we need to go there, but I think just the quantification as to numbers, and, you know, in a practical sense, and, you know, with the review of what the original land looked like there, too, I think that’s going to give you a better sense of, you know, what changes, if they’ve been drastic, have occurred, or have not occurred at that point in time. So I’m going to make a recommendation that we hold off on our own opinions here this evening for a final, and this is going to go to the Planning Board for their review, and let them come back to us with some practical suggestions, solutions, or answers as to what might possibly occur on this property. MR. OBORNE-Are you planning to set conditions on the tabling resolution, to make yourself crystal clear? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean, I think that if they’re provided with our minutes from the meeting I think they’ll gain a better sense by having read through what occurred here this evening, that that’s going to give them a greater sense of what we’re looking for. MS. GAGLIARDI-I’ll do the best I can, but they may get them on Tuesday night. They might get them for the night of the meeting. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, that’s fine, whenever you get a chance, unless you can fast track them and get them to them a day early, people can drop them off, or they can come in and pick them up at the same time. Can I have a second on that? MR. GARRAND-Second. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2008 GARNER HOLDINGS, LLC/MICHAEL CHRYS FOR RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Pine Tree Lane – Assembly Point. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. MR. CHRYS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II DEAN REALI OWNER(S): DEAN REALI ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 24 JAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 240 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 850 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE FOR GARAGE (900 SQ. FT.) CROSS REF.: BP 2008-423 GARAGE ADDITION; BP 2005- 624 DECK; BP 2003-668 SEPTIC ALT; BP 94-084 COV. PORCH AND CANOPY; BP 87-319 ADDITION, BP 7259 YR. 1982 DORMER ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.67 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-16 SECTION: 179-5-020 DEAN REALI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 67-2008, Dean Reali, Meeting Date: October 22, 2008 “Project Location: 24 Jay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove a dilapidated 204 square foot garage addition and construct a 240 square foot garage addition to an existing 850 square foot garage. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) Relief Required: Applicant requests 190 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot maximum allowable size for a garage per 179-5-020D. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor change to the character of the neighborhood and nearby properties may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could reduce the size of the proposal to become more compliant or not build at all. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 190 square feet or 21.1 percent of relief may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor change to the character of the neighborhood and nearby properties may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2008 423 Garage Addition P2005-0624 Deck 11/28/05 P20030668 Septic alteration 8/14/03 P94-084 Covered Porch and Canopy 4/5/94 P87-319 Addition 6/4/87 P7259 Dormer Addition 3/24/82 Staff comments: There appears to be minimal ground disturbance associated with this project. Staff recommends that any disturbed soils be immediately stabilized by grass seed and straw or other proven methods of stabilization. The applicant should clarify how the roof runoff will be controlled and to what extent the runoff will be directed away from the leachfield. SEQR Status: Type II-No action required” MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Reali. We’ve met before, I believe, with your other previous projects. MR. REALI-Yes, we have. MR. UNDERWOOD-This one seems pretty straightforward. Tell us why you want us to give you this variance. MR. REALI-Well, the structure that’s currently there is sort of in an advanced state of decay, and we’d like to remove it and replace it with something that’s similar. It was there when we purchased the property. To better accommodate some of the miscellaneous lake things we store under there, vehicles, canoes, boats and stuff, we’d like to extend it by about three feet running length, but because it’s 12 foot wide, it’s an extra 36 feet onto what we would have. Technically because we’re going to take the structure down and rebuild it, we need a variance for the whole structure, as opposed to 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) just adding three feet on to it. We thought, rather than adding three feet on, it would be better to rebuild it as opposed to trying to, I guess, repair it, pretty rough shape. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I assume it would be nice to have a little more pitch on there, because you don’t have to shovel it in the wintertime, right? MR. REALI-That’s the other thing is we were going to put a little more pitch on it. We just had the garage re-shingled, and we were going to re-shingle that, too, but we need a minimum pitch to do it. It had a gold roofing on it, which had to be replaced every couple of years, and it had to be shoveled. MRS. JENKIN-So this addition that you will have, on the other side you have the slope down for the addition on the other side of the main part of the garage. Will this be the same on the other side, of the new side? MR. REALI-I’m not entirely certain. MR. CLEMENTS-Will the two roofs match, the one that you have there? MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re just taking the one off that’s there and replacing it with a new one. MR. CLEMENTS-Right, but the roof is going up into the. MR. DRELLOS-It’s going up higher. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s pitching up. MR. REALI-Yes. It will bank up onto the, I guess, the pitch of the roof that’s currently. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, but it does on the other side? MR. REALI-We’re hoping to match it. I guess, yes, I never really thought of that. The person who’s building it said they were going to just attach it and make it look like it blends in, but I didn’t ask them exactly what the pitch was going to be. MRS. JENKIN-I see. So you didn’t purposely plan that slope so that it matched the other side? You haven’t done that. MR. REALI-Not necessarily. We did it more for the sake of being able to get a minimum pitch so we could shingle it and also so that perhaps we wouldn’t have to shovel it. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you’re only going to end up, probably, with like a two/three or something on there anyway. So it’s pretty, about the bare minimum for a pitch. MR. REALI-Yes. MR. GARRAND-You do realize you’ve built this under a deeded easement? MR. REALI-Under a deeded easement? MR. GARRAND-All your power lines going overhead. MR. REALI-Yes. MR. GARRAND-It’s a deeded easement. MR. REALI-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Just thought I’d let you know. MRS. JENKIN-Because the power line is right outside that garage. MR. DRELLOS-No, over it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right over it. MR. REALI-It hangs over the. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MRS. JENKIN-So does this mean anything? MR. DRELLOS-Well, if they ever wanted him to move it, I guess. MR. GARRAND-Yes, if they want you to move it, you have to move it, or if something gets dropped, like the power lines come down, that’s your responsibility to fix whatever gets damaged down there. MR. URRICO-We know the power lines never fall down in that area. MR. UNDERWOOD-Never around Glen Lake. MRS. JENKIN-So you don’t have to move that at all when you’re putting the new construction up, do you? MR. REALI-No, it would fall below it. It would fall well below it. MR. CLEMENTS-Maybe I didn’t see this. Is the width going to be the same as the carport is now? It’s just the length that’s going to change. MR. REALI-Yes. The running length is about three feet longer. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. DRELLOS-On the Staff comments it said clarify how the roof runoff will be controlled. MR. REALI-Underneath that is a gravel about, gee, we put it about eight to ten inches of gravel under there, and we would just extend it out a little bit so that the roof runoff fell into the gravel. We could also put in a gutter system, too, but I was just going to have it drop onto the gravel and probably just get soaked up in that, I would imagine. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think there’s any requirement for garages to be guttered, is there? MR. DRELLOS-I was reading the Staff comments. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-I don’t think so. It was all used up by the last applicant. There is one, I’m sorry. “To the Zoning Board of Appeals Marilyn and Donald Higley of 23 Jay Road have no objection of the Area Variance # 67-2008 which Dean Reali has applied. He is an excellent neighbor and has kept his property in excellent condition. Donald Higley Marilyn A. Higley” Where are they in relation to your property? MR. REALI-They’re two houses over. MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re on the point, Osprey point down there. MR. URRICO-And that’s it. That’s it as far as public comment. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll poll the Board then, I guess. Anybody have any concerns or? MR. URRICO-Wait a minute. There’s one more. One more, Rourke, 19 Jay Road, just wrote “No Objections” on here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. DRELLOS-I don’t have a problem with it. I think it’s an improvement, if anything. Take down that old structure and put up something a little nicer. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Anybody else? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. DRELLOS-There’s not as much change in the neighborhood. So I wouldn’t have a problem with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else have any comments? All right. To me, in a practical sense, it’s just upgrading it and making it little more practicable from it’s current state, and as suggested it’s kind of overdue for a re-do. It was kind of a low budget plan to begin with, the original one. So this one will be an improvement. Does somebody want to make a motion? MR. GARRAND-I’ll make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2008 DEAN REALI, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 24 Jay Road. The applicant proposes to remove a dilapidated 204 square foot garage addition and construct a 240 square foot garage addition to an existing 850 square foot garage. The applicant is seeking a request from the 900 square foot maximum allowable size per Section 179-5-020D. On the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. To do exactly what he wants to do, no benefits cannot be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant is looking to replace, as he put it, a dilapidated 204 square foot carport. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties? No, it will not. It’s going to be replacing almost exactly what was there, except cosmetically it may look a little better. I would not deem this request as substantial. I would deem it as minimal. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental impacts? I don’t believe it will. It’s not like you’re tearing the whole house down and rebuilding it. Minimal environmental impacts, and is this difficulty self-created? It may be interpreted as self- created. So I make a motion we approve Area Variance No. 67-2008. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set. Thanks. MR. REALI-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBIN INWALD AGENT(S): PARADOX DESIGNS OWNER(S): ROBIN INWALD ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: HARRIS BAY, OFF GUNN LANE, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 863 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND 400 SQ. FT. SCREENED PORCH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: SPR 38-2008; BP 6589 YR. 1980 DET. GARAGE; BP 6732 YR. 1980 ENCL. PORCH; BP 6987 YR. 1981 DOCKS; BP 89-059 YR. 1989 ALTERATION DOCK; BP 92-378 INT. ALTERATIONS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: OCTOBER 8, 2008 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17- 1-16 SECTION: 179-4-030 CHARLIE JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 68-2008, Robin Inwald, Meeting Date: October 22, 2008 “Project Location: Harris Bay, off Gunn Lane, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes construction of an 863 square foot residential addition and 400 square foot screened porch. Relief Required: 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) Applicant requests 13.5 feet of side setback relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement per 179-4-030. Further, relief is required for the greater than 50% expansion of a non-conforming structure per 179-13-010(A) (2). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor change to the character of the neighborhood and nearby properties may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could build in a more compliant location such as further north than what is proposed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 13.5 feet or 67.5 percent of relief may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 72 percent expansion of an existing non-conforming structure may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor change to the character of the neighborhood and nearby properties may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA-Pending. P92-378 Interior Alterations Approved 6/26/92 P89-058 Dock Alterations Approved 3/2/89 P6987 Docks Approved 7/13/81 P6737 Enclosed Porch Approved 12/29/80 P6589 Detached Garage w/ Living Quarters Approved 9/17/80 Staff comments: The applicant will upgrade the septic and leach field as part of this project. The current wastewater system is not evident on the survey. Upon clarification of the location of the existing wastewater system, the applicant may be required to decommission said system. The applicant will be appearing before the Planning Board on October 21, 2008 and staff has asked the Planning Board to consider issuing a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning this project. SEQR Status: Type II-No action required” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. JOHNSON-Good evening. My name’s Charlie Johnson. I’m with Paradox Design Architects, representing Robin Inwald. She’s owned the property, or her family’s owned the property, since the mid 70’s. For 30 some years she’s done very little in regards to improvements to the property over that time, built the garage, I think done a screened porch addition. The purpose of this expansion is to make this house handicap accessible for both her mother and herself. Robin suffers from Rheumatoid Arthritis and also a degenerative spinal condition, disease. She’s predicted to be in a walker in about five years, probably a wheelchair in about ten. So that’s the basic purpose for this. The project, as you know, it’s a pre-existing, nonconforming. The house existed prior to zoning. The owners are aware of their role as a shoreline resident. Their goal is to make this addition, this expansion, as invisible as possible when viewed from the water. So that’s why we’ve placed the addition straight back from the house, between the two 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) existing buildings. Current zoning would have allowed us to extend into the yard, right across the face of the yard. We could have built a two story structure. We could have been much more imposing in the way we approached this addition. That wasn’t their goal. So they elected to come before the Board to ask for this variance to keep this project basically as invisible as possible from the water. So, our addition links the two buildings. We’ve got a screened porch that’s fairly transparent facing the lake, and we have a small, shallow addition that looks over the driveway, creates a new front porch, a new entry, a sort of welcoming addition, changes the look of this house as you drive up the driveway. We’re not producing an undesirable change in the neighborhood’s essential character. There’s no other means that effect the site to a lesser degree. There’s no feasible alternatives. Staff Notes indicate that the variance could be considered substantial, but because this is a pre-existing parcel, the relief we’re requesting is not making the nonconformance any worse. We’re staying at the building lines that already exist. No adverse impact to the environmental conditions, and as I said, the variance is self-created. We really don’t want to produce an undesirable change. I think the current zoning would do just the opposite. It would produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. So at this point, I’d ask that you grant the variance and I’d be happy to answer any questions. MR. UNDERWOOD-So in a practical sense the single story layout’s the way to go with this, and, you know, logically they would probably ask you to go up instead of expanding the footprint, but, I mean, it makes sense. MR. JOHNSON-A typical client would want to have as much of their house facing the water as possible. This is the a-typical client. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. GARRAND-Question. If they’re handicapped, how do they get up to the fifth bedroom above the garage? MR. JOHNSON-It’s, her brother, Robin’s brother comes up on summers and uses it. He’s pretty much the only person who uses it. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Because that makes five bedrooms. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. We’ve designed our septic for five. MR. GARRAND-Septic for five bedrooms. MR. JOHNSON-The study that you see there really has to be considered as a bedroom. It’s really just going to be quiet space, because there’s such a large, open great room. In the plan there’s a little getaway room, but it won’t really be used as a bedroom. So it’s sized for that, the septic system. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MRS. JENKIN-Would you explain the deed? I do not understand the wording of the deed. The parties of the second part shall construct no structure or plant life northerly of the northern wall of the cottage, from the easterly boundary of the premises of the Lake George (lost word). MR. JOHNSON-What that, basically, both of, the families own this piece down at the water, and then they own the piece, let me get my bearings, this way. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s the farm and the barn? MR. JOHNSON-The farm, correct. She was before the Board, I think, renovated the barn some years back. MR. UNDERWOOD-When they needed the library, yes. I remember that. MR. JOHNSON-So this property wanted to maintain a view corridor, basically, down through here, to the water. So that’s what that deed restriction is about is not imposing into that view corridor. MRS. JENKIN-And then the other one, in addition to the cottage, in a westerly direction, shall not extend beyond 20 feet from the cottage. That doesn’t mean closer to the water, then. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-Okay, and you’ve made this 20 feet, and that’s why you did that 20 feet? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. DRELLOS-You were in front of the Planning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-This is going to go next week. MR. DRELLOS-It is. I thought it said October. st MR. URRICO-It said October 21. st MR. DRELLOS-Yes. It said October 21. That’s why. MR. JOHNSON-We were missing a required survey. So we got bumped. MR. DRELLOS-Okay. stth MR. OBORNE-That October 21 should have stated October 28. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-That’s obvious, I hope. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, does anybody have anything that they’re concerned about at this point? Because I think what we’ll probably do is defer to Planning Board next week and let them come back, in case they want to make any modifications to what you’ve proposed, and give us the final product. MR. URRICO-Wasn’t this once before us? I thought we had. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. We had some down the road there. MR. URRICO-I thought it was this one. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t remember. MR. JOHNSON-What was the question? MR. URRICO-I thought this, a project similar to this came before us for this property once before. I’m just going by memory. MR. JOHNSON-She showed me, when we first started working, she had worked with another designer. They had basically taken this cottage down and recreated another whole look. I don’t know if it ever got presented, how far it went, but it was a total re-do of this. It would have been more castle like, if you remember it as a castle, that’s what I thought of it when I saw it. That doesn’t ring a bell. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t remember anything other than when we did the library up in the barn there and the museum, whatever that deal was. That was a while back. MRS. JENKIN-Are you gutting the inside of the house and? MR. JOHNSON-Pretty much, for lack of a better term. Would the Board feel comfortable granting approval on condition of Planning Board? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think we can do that. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, it’s an inconvenience for you, obviously, but, you know, I mean, in looking at it to me, I mean, in understanding what your needs are and what you’re trying to accomplish, it doesn’t sound like it’s way over the top to me. I mean, it’s 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) a pretty big house, 26 by 42, and you’re adding a lot on there, but I don’t think it’s triggering the FAR or anything with the Waterfront. MR. OBORNE-Not at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-And your setbacks from the lake are real good. Your septic’s way back. It’s not going to impact anybody, and it’s all your property back behind there, too. So, I mean, in essence, if you want, I can poll the Board, but why don’t we open up the public hearing first and see if there’s anybody wanting to comment on the project. Anybody from the public wishing to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any kind of correspondence? MR. URRICO-Yes. The first letter, it’s addressed “To Whom It May Concern: Mr. Roland Faulkner called me yesterday 10/21/08 to inform me that our neighbor, Robin Inwald is asking for a side setback variance near our property and additional living space. The last time Ms. Inwald had gotten approvals, it was under my understanding that she wasn’t able to do it again or rent the place out. We would appreciate notification and some input on what is trying to be constructed on the 836 square foot addition and 400 square foot porch, please inform of us the status of this application. Sincerely, Steven Lupe Owen” That’s that one. This is, “Dear Board Members: Please be advised that I represent both myself and my wife Rosemary with respect to the above application. Our cottage is located on Gunn Lane opposite another one of Ms. Inwald’s rental units. I say another because we do believe that Ms. Inwald rented out the main building located on Cleverdale Rd. this past summer while she resided in her new home on the mountain. To cut to the chase, we strongly oppose her application. I remind the Board that approximately four years ago when Michael Gargulio applied for a sideline variance so that he could build a new home closer to ours than allowed, the Board turned him down even though we, the affected neighbors, told the Board that we had no objection to the request. The Board then stated that they were acting in the best interests of the community. The application was submitted a second time with both my wife and myself addressing the Board and in fact pleading on Mr. Gargulio’s behalf, that in this case we were the community and welcomed the application. The Board finally listened and granted the application. In the instant case, we have a similar situation but this time opposed by the affected neighbor, the Estate of Amelia Lupe Owen. I spoke to Steven Owen, the Executor of Mrs. Owen’s Estate, yesterday and he was dumbfounded when I told him of the application. He had received no notice of the hearing and he was already committed to another engagement this evening, thus would be unable to attend the hearing. He did express to me his vehement opposition to the granting the relief for which Ms. Inwald has applied. My wife and I both feel that this contemplated structure is unnecessary. Ms. Inwald’s mother has resided in the present cottage for well over forty years with her now deceased husband and their children. Robin’s mother is getting along in years and we can’t conceive of her wanting to take on the task of maintaining a much larger structure. We believe that eventually this would merely become another of Ms Inwald’s compound of rental units. We much prefer that the neighborhood remain an owner-occupied group of families not troubled by the noise and traffic of renters. Although Ms. Inwald will probably claim that this will occupied by her after her mother (Mrs. Horwitz) can no longer use the same, I must ask what Ms. Inwald will do with the studio building (which the Board previously granted permission to convert the living quarters for her brother and family), the main house and pool and her new brainchild. Perhaps the Board should ask those same questions. I regret that my wife and I cannot come from our home in Schenectady to attend the meeting tonight. My wife had a heart attack two weeks ago and cannot yet take the stress of the travel nor the meeting itself. Therefore we ask that this letter be read into the minutes of the meeting as if we were in fact in attendance at the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Roland L. Faulkner” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. JOHNSON-I think this building, the cottage in question, has been rented, from my understanding what Robin has talked to me. Her mom stays there a couple weeks of the summer. Other people come and rent it. So I think it has been rented. Her plans, as she stated to me, was that her and her mom would stay here. This is going to be their place. The kids, there’s a group of, it’s an extended family. I’m not sure of all the relationships, were going to stay in the larger house up in the back where the barn is that we talked about. So that’s my understanding of how the properties would be used in the future. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. URRICO-But you understand why there’s a question, considering that there is going to be a bedroom upstairs? MR. JOHNSON-Over the garage? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. JOHNSON-Well, it’s just a bedroom. There’s no, I guess, you have to go down the stairs, into the garage, into the bathroom, that’s the bathroom for the upstairs bedroom, if you wanted to use it that way. So it’s not, I wouldn’t think, easily rentable, but that’s not the intent down here at this cottage, from what she’s told me, any longer, it’s her and her mom’s place. MRS. JENKIN-So in the letter they referred to the house up on the hill. Is that, that’s the farmhouse? MR. JOHNSON-No. She owns another piece. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s up in Lakewood, right? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, way up high. MR. JOHNSON-Yes, way up. It’s inaccessible in the wintertime. MRS. JENKIN-It is? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-So she would be living here in the winter? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-And up there in the summer? MR. JOHNSON-To be honest with you, I don’t know what the mountaintop house is going to be used for when this is done. So it doesn’t make sense, other than it’s one more collection. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s way up on the hill. Yes. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. It’s a great view, but you’re far away from the water. She had also told me that she was going to be talking to the Owen, the affected property owner. So I had assumed that had already been done. So I’m sort of surprised that he didn’t know about it. That doesn’t mean she actually did that, but. So that may change the flavor of the Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Usually stuff comes back to us if the letters of. MR. JOHNSON-Well, it sounds like he’s an Executor. So maybe the mail didn’t get to the Executor. MR. URRICO-Well, one did come back from Amelia Lupe Owen. It says deceased on it, and Inwald Enterprises one came back, and Rebecca Lupe Owen, one came back that hasn’t been, well, maybe it’s been opened, but. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that’s probably why they didn’t receive notice, yes. MR. URRICO-It was forwarded to Schenectady. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think maybe that it would be in your interest to contact them before the Planning Board meeting and give them the up and up as to where, when, why and how it needs to come to fruition, from your point of view anyways. Why don’t we do this, then. Staff Notes basically have identified the fact that we should send this to the Planning Board, and I think we need to do that anyway because of the large expansion of the project, you know, it’s over 50%, right? 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. OBORNE-That would be, typically it’s a may in this case, but if you wish to do that, obviously, you may. MR. URRICO-I think that’s the way to go, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we do that, and let them come back to us with their recommendation for the project. I mean, they may have some practical solutions, you know, joining the garage, I mean, it’s understandable if somebody’s handicapped and getting worse by day, then, you know, it makes sense for that addition in the back. The porch out front by the lakeside, everything’s been explained pretty succinctly here, but at the same time, they may have, make you modify it a little bit, or something, too, and shrink it a little bit. MR. JOHNSON-Sure. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I’ll make a recommendation that we send this to the Planning Board, and they can make a recommendation to us concerning the whole project, and they’re going to look at wastewater, stormwater, and I think at that point in time, you should come back with some commentary from the neighbors. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-The Owens on the side, because they’re the ones that are going to be most affected by the project. It doesn’t look to me like, Joan, as you pointed out, that they’re going to obstruct the view from behind. MRS. JENKIN-No, no, but I was just mentioning that if they thought it was, you could reduce the size of the variance, if that was, it’s now 6.5 feet from the property line. If you made it a little narrower and made it a straight line here to the garage and then make, that’s one way you could reduce our variance anyway to reduce it about three feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-And the variance that’s being requested from us, too, is, it’s, the house is, as you said, a little bit back. So if you kept it the width of the house it would make it that much better for us. That doesn’t, in a practical sense, mean that, you know, we’re concerned with that setback because it already exists. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does somebody want to second that? MR. DRELLOS-I’ll second it. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2008 ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: th Harris Bay, Off Gunn Lane, Cleverdale. Tabled to November 19 ZBA meeting. To send this to the Planning Board, and they will come back with their recommendation for the full project. They’re going to look at stormwater, wastewater. The applicant should come back with some commentary from the neighbors, the Owens on the side, because they’re the ones that are going to be most affected by the project. They could reduce the size of the variance if that was, it’s now 6.5 feet from the property line. If they made it a little narrower and made it a straight line here to the garage, that’s one way they could reduce the variance. The house is a little bit back. So if the applicant kept it the width of the house, it would make it better. That doesn’t mean, in a practical sense, that the Board is concerned with that setback because it already exists. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. OBORNE-What date is this being tabled to? The first meeting in November? MR. UNDERWOOD-The first meeting after we hear back, you know, the first one that’s practical. th MR. OBORNE-That would be the 19, Maria. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/08) MR. GARRAND-How many do we have on the agenda for that? MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure. It has not been solidified at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want me to come in tomorrow and do the? MR. OBORNE-That would be a fantastic idea. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. We had two sets of minutes that we needed to approve. MR. JOHNSON-Thank you all. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-You’re welcome. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 17, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2008, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of October 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin September 24, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2008, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Underwood On motion meeting was adjourned RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 39