The URL can be used to link to this page

2008.11.26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 2008 INDEX Area Variance No. 11-2008 Debaron Associates by Debra Schiebel, 1. Partner Tax Map No. 239.18-1-47 Area Variance No. 72-2008 Richard Kent McNairy 2. Tax Map No. 296.7-1-13 and 14 Area Variance No. 73-2008 Rolf and Luise Ahlers 5. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-18 Area Variance No. 78-2008 Larry W. Clute 13. Tax Map No. 295.6-1-15 Use Variance No. 79-2008 Northern Broadcasting Co, Inc. [TV 8] 16. Tax Map No. 314.00-1-3 Area Variance No. 70-2008 Christine Mozal 23. Tax Map No. 289.14-1-27 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 11/26/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND BRIAN CLEMENTS RONALD KUHL, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT GEORGE DRELLOS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI th MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll call the November 26 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 that perhaps is new here. As we handle each application, I’ll call the application by name and number. The secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes and 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 ask questions of the applicant. Then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing’s intended to help us gather information and understand it about 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 other speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present, and Board members I’d suggest that because we have the five minute limit, that we not interrupt the 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 in 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. I want to remind people, too, that, you know, when we get into that discussion with the Board members at the very end, I can’t have adlibbing coming in from the crowd, like questions, you know, trying to interrupt and things like that, because that is a motion that has to go on the record, and Maria has a hard enough time trying to understand what we’re doing most of the time anyway because we’re not exactly pros at everything we do either, so we try to do the best we can. For everyone’s benefit this evening, too, we are short one Board member tonight. It’s the holidays, and we run into this situation every year at Thanksgiving and Christmas time. So if anybody who’s here wants to table because of the vote, and what I would remind you is this, because we only have six Board members, if we get into a situation where it’s a three to three vote, a tie vote is, for all intents and purposes, a no vote, you know, so I mean, if you’re in a situation like that, we will give you the option of, you know, tabling for a full Board vote at that time, and you may want to go to the trouble to present to us this evening anyway. The Board members are pretty reasonable people and they’ll listen fully to your story, but if you get into a situation where you’re uncomfortable, you could request to come back at some further time date in the future. Okay. First up tonight we have some Administrative items to go through. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II DEBARON ASSOCIATES BY DEBRA SCHIEBEL, PARTNER AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD, AND CULLUM OWNER(S): DEBARON ASSOCIATES ZONING: WR-3A LOCATION: DARK BAY LANE, OFF ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) CONTROLS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AND STORMWATER DEVICES FOR MAJOR PROJECTS. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 12, 2008 (NO COUNTY IMPACT) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-47 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4-090; 147-9B.2(d) MR. UNDERWOOD-Just to read in, I’ll just do this quickly. The recommendation, and this is off Staff Notes for this project, “This application was tabled by this Board on March 26, 2008, May 28, 2008, July 16, 2008 and September 17, 2008. The purpose of the tabling resolutions was to allow the applicant to pursue alternative project designs and file a Site Plan Review application with the Planning Board so a recommendation could be offered. Staff has contacted applicant as per the instruction of the Zoning Board”, and what I’m going to do is read in, it says, “See recent Dennis Phillips tabling request attached. The Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to consider a Denial Without Prejudice for this application and direct the applicant to submit a new application when the time becomes feasible.” I don’t think it’s our usual means that we like to put people off or make them have to resubmit all their materials a second time. So I think what I’m going to do is make a recommendation. I’ll read the letter quickly. It says, this is addressed to Craig Brown. “Dear Zoning Board of Appeals: In connection with the above matter, Area Variance No. 11-2008, Debaron Associates by Debra Schiebel, we request a further two month tabling for the following reasons. Number One, on Thursday, November 13, 2008, I had a telephone conference with a representative of the New York State Department of Health, who indicated that the Health Department would grant a waiver for a septic tank in connection with the above application. Two, however the written waiver th will not be forthcoming until the week of November 24 due to the fact that the representative in charge would be out of the office until that time. Three, upon receipt of the written waiver, it is my understanding that the matter will have to be brought to the Town Board for a specific variance, and I believe that would be the Town Board of Health. Considering the due cause shown above, we ask that the matter be tabled until the January meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. If we can be of any additional assistance to you in this matter, please do not hesitate to give us a call.” And that’s signed Dennis Phillips from McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Cullum. So, it’s up to the Board members. Do you guys want to just table this again? MR. GARRAND-I’d rather table it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I think it’s more realistic just to table it and let them come back when they said they wanted to. MR. GARRAND-And also have Staff get us, like the notes say, get us a status update, if possible, on the project. MR. OBORNE-That is the status update. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So based upon, then, the request by the applicants, then I guess I’ll table until, shall we make it the second meeting in January, realistically? And we’ll hope to hear from them again at that time, and, again, that’s Area Variance No. 11- 2008. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2008 DEBARON ASSOCIATES BY DEBRA SCHIEBEL, PARTNER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Dark Bay Lane off Route 9. Based upon the request by the applicant, tabled until the second meeting in January. th Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II RICHARD KENT MC NAIRY OWNER(S): RICHARD K. AND DEBRA L. MC NAIRY ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 56 BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE CHANGE IN ORDER TO TRANSFER 0.33 ACRES OF LAND FROM ONE LOT TO ADJOINING LOT. ONE 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) LOT TO BECOME 2.02 ACRES AND THE OTHER TO BECOME 2.07 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 93- 712 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 89-146 ALT. TO DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 LOT SIZE: 1.69 AND 2.44 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.7-1-13 AND 14 SECTION: 179-4-030 RICHARD KENT MC NAIRY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 72-2008, Richard Kent McNairy, Meeting Date: November 26, 2008 “Project Location: 56 Blind Rock Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment for two adjoining lots off Blind Rock Road. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum lot size per §179-4-030. Specifically, the applicant proposes a lot line change in order to transfer 0.33 acres of land from one lot to an adjoining lot. The resulting lot sizes will be 2.02 acres and 2.07 acres respectively. 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 impacts to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of this proposal. However, this proposal may initiate increased area variance requests for redistribution of land. 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 refrain from proposing this lot reconfiguration or decrease the amount of acreage for the request. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The zoning for these lots are Rural Residential 3 acre. Lot 13 currently is 1.69 acres and lot 14 is currently 2.40 acres. The request for a 0.33 acre portion from lot 14 to be conveyed to lot 13 may be considered moderate as lot 14 will become more non-conforming and lot 13 will become less non-conforming. The reconfiguration balances both lots to 2.02 acres for lot 13 and 2.07 acres for lot 14 respectively. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. However, both lots are existing non-conforming lots and as such a variance must be requested for this proposal. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP93-712 Septic Alteration 11-24-93 BP89-146 Alteration to existing deck 1989 Staff comments: Both lots are owned by the applicant. The initial purpose for this lot line adjustment was to include the owner’s rear yard onto the one developed parcel. Further, the applicant’s home is considered non-conforming as the south side setback is 20 feet from the property line, 10 feet less than the 30 foot minimum per 179-4-030 SEQR Status: Type II-No further action required” 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) “Warren County Planning Board Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 12, 2008 Project Name: McNairy, Richard Kent Owner(s): Richard K. and Debra L. McNairy ID Number: QBY-AV-08-72 County Project#: Nov08-24 Current Zoning: RR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a lot line change in order to transfer 0.33 acres of land from one lot to adjoining lot. One lot to become 2.02 acres and the other to become 2.07 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements. Site Location: 56 Blind Rock Road Tax Map Number(s): 296.7-1-13 and 14 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a lot line change in order to transfer 0.33 acres of land from one lot to adjoining lot. One lot is to become 2.02 (lot 13) acres and the other to become 2.07 (lot 14) acres. Relief is requested from the minimum lot size requirements of 3 acres. The information submitted shows the new lot line. The applicant has indicated the adjustment will allow lot 13 to be compliant with the required setbacks. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 11/14/08. MR. UNDERWOOD-First of all, we’re all confused as to why you’re here. Was there, the adjustment that you’re requesting, you know, unless you were going to do a building project or something, but could you explain to us why you’re doing this? MR. MC NAIRY-Why am I doing it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. MC NAIRY-Eventually, either I will build on that lot or sell that lot to someone who may want to build on the lot, and my house is close to the lot line, and then the other thing is, when the house was built, apparently, I surmise, what, they squared the house to the road, but the lot is not squared to the road. So what appears as my backyard is not. This lot line goes diagonally across the back of what appears to be my property. So owning both pieces of property I just wanted to deed over some of that property to my existing home property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Board members have any questions? Anybody have anything they want to ask? MR. URRICO-Is there a project pending that you’re? MR. MC NAIRY-No. MR. URRICO-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So it looks to me like the main issue would be that you just want to make sure that the back yard with that home gets more substantial than it appears to be at the moment, because of that line walking in, as you go further back on the property. MR. MC NAIRY-Number One, and then, Number Two, because it’s close to the lot line, and it doesn’t affect up at the house area, but maybe, well, no it does affect it. It’ll make it about 50 feet off the lot line with what I wanted to transfer. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. MC NAIRY-And it still leaves a large lot adjacent. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. All right. Then I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Nothing. Okay. Do you guys want to do any more discussion? Everybody understand what he’s asking for? I mean, to me it seems that it’ll, you know, we’re talking about nonconforming because of the three acre zone there. Irregardless of what happens, neither lot’s going to meet the requirement anyway. If anybody comes in to build on that lot next door there, I mean, I would consider it, because it’s a pre-existing lot, that it probably would be a buildable lot as it is. So, I mean, there’s not, other than 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) your adjustment, that it’s going to benefit you, I can see that that’s reasonable. So, anybody want to add any other commentary? Somebody want to do a motion, or I could do it, one way or the other. MR. GARRAND-I’ll make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2008 RICHARD KENT MC NAIRY, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 56 Blind Rock Road. The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment for two adjoining lots off Blind Rock Road, and the applicant is requesting relief from a minimum lot size as per Section 179-4-030. Specifically the applicant proposes a lot line adjustment in order to change and transfer .33 acres of land from one lot to the adjoining lot. The resulting lot sizes will be 2.02 acres and 2.07 acres respectively. Now, can the applicant achieve benefits by other means feasible? I don’t believe so. I think this is the most logical thing to do is to square off these lots. Will this cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby properties? No, it will not. As a matter of fact, it’ll improve the distance from the property line to the corner of the owner’s house, thereby increasing the side yard setback. Is this request substantial? I think at most this request might be deemed as moderate. Will this request have any adverse physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood? I don’t believe it’ll have any effect whatsoever on the neighborhood, and this difficulty may not be interpreted as self- created, since the applicant is not the one who created these nonconforming lots. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 72-2008. th Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. MC NAIRY-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II ROLF AND LUISE AHLERS AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY, ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN OWNER(S): ROLF W. AND LUISE AHLERS ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 105 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 463 SQ. FT. SOLARIUM ROOM OVER AN EXISTING DECK AT AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FLOOR AREA RATIO, SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: BP 2003-375 SFD; BP 2003-291 DEMO OF SFD; AV 81-1996; AV 48-1996; AV 64-2002 SPR 38-2002; AV 43-2007; SPR 58-96; BP 96-659 SEPTIC ALT; BP 96-657 DEMO OF GARAGE; BP 96-656 ATT. GARAGE; BP 89-711 FOUNDATION UNDER SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.36 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-18 SECTION: 179- 13-010; 179-4-030 DENNIS MAC ELROY & JOHN SVARE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what I’ll do is read in Mr. MacElroy’s letter, because this sort of explains this one. This request was tabled last year in 2007, and the Board had heard it and I can’t remember exactly where it was. I think we had maybe gone to the Planning Board with this one for review. It was sort of lost in the fray here, but this’ll refresh everybody’s memory here as to where we were at when we got done the last time. This th letter is dated October 15, and again, this is from Mr. MacElroy who’s representing them. “Submitted for your distribution and review are 15 sets of a new application for an area variance request for a waterfront residence located at 105 Knox Road. This project involves the construction of a solarium room over an existing deck. You may recall that a prior application for this same project was before your Board during 2007. It was tabled by the Board with a request for additional information and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant in August of 2007. The project as submitted is identical to the prior submittal. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) With this new set of application documents I have attempted to respond to the items requested by your Board in a tabling resolution dated June 27, 2007, a copy of which is included within this submittal. Please also note that I have not included copies of the property survey or deed in this application as these items were previously submitted and are in the project file. The items of relief being sought by this area variance request include the expansion of a non-conforming structure (179-13-010) and floor area ratio (179 – Table 4 Dimensional/Bulk Requirements). The proposed room addition does not create any new structure closer than the existing shoreline setback (currently 30.8’) but does add new structure in an area closer than the 50’ setback standard. Also note that the location of the room addition is over an existing deck which is also within the existing foundation footprint. The area of the new room, a ‘three season’ sunroom is 463 sf, which increases the floor area ratio by 3.1%. Recent photos of the existing conditions are provided. Thank you for your consideration of this application. The applicant respectfully requests a re-appearance before the Board at your next available meeting. Sincerely, Dennis MacElroy, PE” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 73-2008, Rolf and Luise Ahlers, Meeting Date: November 26, 2008 “Project Location: 105 Knox Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 463 square foot solarium over an existing deck adjacent to Lake George. Relief Required: The applicant requests 463 square feet of additional Floor Area Ration relief from the 0.22 percent requirement. Further the applicant requests 18.72 feet of shoreline setback relief, and 6.1 feet of side yard setback relief. Further, relief requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area. 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 to moderate impacts to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of this proposal. Further, this proposal may initiate further requests for Floor Area Ratio variances. 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. With the property already exceeding the Floor Area Ratio requirement by 1,698 square feet, the only way to avoid an additional area variance for the FAR would be to build the proposed sunroom in existing living space, not build at all, or purchase additional land. Concerning the shoreline set back relief the applicant could build the sunroom more to the east to be more compliant. Further, concerning the side setback relief request, the applicant could build the sunroom more to the north and potentially be more compliant or possibly compliant. Finally, to avoid any variance requests, the applicant could pursue buying land from adjoining landowners in order to become complaint. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 463 square feet of additional Floor Area Ratio relief may be considered severe as the existing Floor Area Ratio is 1,699 square feet over the 3,284 square foot maximum. Further, the request for 18.72 feet or 37.4 percent from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 6.1 feet or 30.5 percent from the 20 foot setback requirement may be considered 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. Moderate impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. With the proposed decrease in shoreline setback and the increased FAR, negative visual impacts may ensue. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): A.V. 43-2007 Solarium Withdrawn P2003-0375 Single Family Dwelling Renewal 6/27/2005 P2003 Demo Single Family Dwelling 2003 A.V. Construct 2,928 sq. ft. SFD 8/21/2002 S.P. 38-2002 SFD on existing foundation 2002 Staff comments: The current allowable building square footage for this parcel is 3,284 square feet. Currently the single family home is 4,982 square feet or 1,698 square feet above the maximum FAR. The proposal would increase the single family home to 5,445 square feet, 2,161 square feet or 66 percent above the maximum allowable for this sized parcel. SEQR Status: Type II-No SEQR action necessary.” “Warren County Planning Board Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 12, 2008 Project Name: Ahlers, Rolf and Luise Owner(s): Rolf and Luise Ahlers ID Number: QBY-AV-08-73 County Project#: Nov08-19 Current Zoning: WR- 1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 463 sq. ft. solarium room over an existing deck at an existing single-family residence. Relief requested from Floor Area Ratio, shoreline setback requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: 105 Knox Road Tax Map Number(s): 239.7-1-18 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 463 sq. ft. solarium room over an existing deck. The area of construction is proposed to be 31 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The floor area ratio is currently 33.4% where the addition will add 3.1% and the maximum floor area ratio allowed is 22% in the WR-1A zone. The information submitted shows the location of the solarium room, elevation drawings, and photos. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 11/14/08. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set. Is there anything you want to add at this time? MR. SVARE-Well, for the record, John Svare, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes. On my right is Dr. Ahlers, the owner of the property. On my left is Dennis MacElroy, Environmental Design Partnership. As you’ve stated, we were here in the summer of 2007. The Board had asked for some additional information and I think that Mr. MacElroy has provided that, and I’d allow him to address the Board and answer any further questions that you might have. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Sure. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you, John. Again, back at your June of ’07 meeting, there was a tabling resolution that requested additional information on the Floor Area Ratio, floor plans, existing deck dimensions, and shoreline setback to the house. The variance package, application package that we’ve provided includes a plan that provides the Floor stnd Area Ratio. We’ve submitted copies of the floor plans, basement, 1 floor, 2 floor, provided existing deck dimensions and the shoreline setback to the house. One point I would make, and I don’t know if it was just in confusion or communication. Staff Notes referred to the need for a side setback variance. I’m not sure that that’s necessarily the case, as the proposed solarium doesn’t expand beyond where the existing structure is. Now it does increase the area of nonconformity, but that may be a minor point. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that’s just reflective of it doesn’t meet the minimum, I think it’s 20 feet on the side and you’re 15.5 or something like that, on the MacElroy side. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that would have to be a variance for that, nonetheless. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. In that case it would be. Maybe the numbers got turned around, but it would be 4.5 feet of relief in that particular case. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members, do you have any questions at this particular time. Do you want to discuss this? Anything that sticks out in your mind here? MR. URRICO-Well, the one question I have, I don’t know if Staff needs to answer it or the applicant, but the original Area Variance in 2002 said this house construction was going to be 2,928 square feet, and now we’re at 3,284 square feet. How did we get there? MR. OBORNE-I think, Dennis, you’d probably be more able to answer that. It is a little confusing because there were some, correct me if I’m wrong, some (lost words) with underneath the house and so on. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Thank you. I wasn’t involved with that original application or the 2002 application. So I don’t know where that figure came from, but presumably it was the Floor Area of the structure at the time. Now whether that was understood to include, you know, first floor, second floor, basement, I’m not sure, or what that representation was. What we have provided is an area of the applicable floor areas on the existing structure. So, I know that doesn’t directly answer your question. MR. URRICO-No, it doesn’t, but I’m just curious as to how we got so far above the Floor Area Ratio. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m trying to remember back, because we were just coming on the Board back then, and I’m thinking it had something to do with living space over the garage or something. Maybe that originally came in as storage space and got converted or something like that. MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure. I think the foundation was replaced on the existing structure and the structure was torn down, and then another structure was built on top of that existing foundation. It is quite nebulous. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-And to be clear, that space above the basement, or excuse me, above the garage, is storage. There’s not living space in that. So that wouldn’t have been the answer. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The only other thing I can think of was where the deck is over the, I remember the discussion we had previously that the deck is built over a foundation, and the original house was closer to the lake and got set back at the time that Site Plan Review was done. I believe that’s how you got into that situation. So maybe they’re still counting that underground space into the quotient or something like that. MR. MAC ELROY-Possibly. It is a little unusual in that aspect of the deck being over foundation, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. KUHL-What are you going to do to handle the stormwater runoff from the roof? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, that won’t change, because the deck is still considered impervious area, and there is stormwater management currently in place. Now we’ll have a different roof, but it’s the same impervious area. So that doesn’t change. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the subject’s probably going to come up in discussion, but we may as well talk a little bit about it right now. I mean, we have a 22% Floor Area Ratio for Waterfront Residential property in that CEA along Lake George, and, in this instance here, I think, you know, all the requests, and the numbers looking so large, I mean, the house, when you look at the house, it’s not really much bigger than any other house that you see along the shoreline, but I think the large numbers are reflective of the very small, narrow nature of the lot and tapering of the lot as you go back from the lake. Nonetheless, I think we have to keep in mind, I mean, when you’re asking for what amounts to 66% Floor Area Ratio, I mean, that’s a pretty substantial jump, and part of what we’re supposed to do here is make sure that we are reasonable with applicants, but at the same time do the balancing test to say, you know, is this going to have an impact, is this way over the top? And 22 to 66 is a pretty major leap forward. I mean, it’s 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) impermeable, as you said before, and I think the last time around, I can’t remember what the vote of the Board was or what the inclination of the Board was at the time, but I think people were concerned about that large number, you know, and what the impact of that is, because we get requests all the time for more than people are allowed, but at the same time we try to like think a little bit about what the impacts are going to be, but Board members should probably think about that as we go forward. Any other questions from you guys at this time? All right. I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do you want to come forward? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I do recall this application is one of the first that I had commented on back in ’02. We recognize the fact that the applicant, back in 2002 I think, provided the updated septic system, provided stormwater management. A concern, and we think that the Town has a very good policy regarding Floor Area Ratio. We think that there’s a good, sound planning basis behind that. Mr. MacElroy probably has a better idea than I do, but I think that there’s been a number of projects along Knox Road. Again, it’s a cumulative impact that we’re seeing. Probably five to six at least in the last four to five years, and we feel that there’s a tendency, what we kind of say that the structures are walking towards the lake, and again, this is filling in an area that’s already impervious, but obviously the shape and the volume is changing. That’s encroaching towards the lake. Again, we’ve got a structure that’s already within the setback. So that setback that’s set up to protect the lake is already being encroached into, albeit they are not expanding that, but we’ve already lost that. So I think, there is a need to balance this. There is a need. Is this actually the minimum variance that can be granted? Can they achieve what they want to? And again, it is just a cumulative impact that you’re seeing, not just along the western shore of Assembly Point, but the other spots along the Town of Queensbury and elsewhere along the lake. So we don’t know if the variance is accepted. There is buffering in the area. Can there be more buffering, you know, between the house and the lakeshore? There is buffering, you know, alongside in the yard. So maybe there could be some improvements there, but again, we support the Town on their enforcement of the Floor Area Ratio. That’s a good, solid planning effort, with good basis in not only site planning but for protection of water quality. So that’s about what we have to say on this. So, thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? Do we have any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-I couldn’t find any, no. MR. MAC ELROY-Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment? I’ll take my engineer’s hat off. MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly. MR. MAC ELROY-And speak as a neighbor, as a member of the public, in that case. Obviously I have shown support for this in assisting my neighbors with this application. I think, in this particular case, it would be an acceptable variance to grant, in our consideration. I represent my siblings as the owners of the adjacent property. The Ahlers have been good neighbors, good stewards of the lake, certainly, over their ownership, and I think maybe demonstrated, if you were able to see the site, that they are not trying to take advantage of their proximity to the lake, necessarily, in terms of buffering and what not. There’s a healthy buffer of trees. I think some of the photos that we provided demonstrate some of that. My thought about the Floor Area Ratio, while it is, there obviously is merit to that, it doesn’t make a distinction between a third of an acre lot or a six acre lot. It’s still the same 22%, and obviously as you’re dealing with a smaller lot size, that has an effect on what happens there, and as someone observed, that it’s not too different, the house appearance certainly isn’t too different from what you see along there, and I think that the Ahlers have done a good job in trying to design their, the use of their property, and the buffering that goes along with it. So, from a neighbor perspective, that’s what I would add. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m trying to remember back, because I think maybe the suggestion was made by one of the Board members previously that, you know, whether this had to be something that was built across the whole front. I mean, obviously, for aesthetic purposes, maybe that would look better, but at the same time, you know, keeping in mind that you don’t always get exactly everything you get, you know, would there be any 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) suggestion, as far as that goes, as far as making it smaller, just to lower it down? I mean, it would be your choice on that. The other suggestion I would make is this, you know, there are awnings and things. I mean, I assume you want this for wintertime use, you know, summertime use is not really something that. MR. MAC ELROY-No, it’s a three season structure. So it’s not really intended for winter. It wouldn’t be used in the winter, but it’s still a structure that occupies that area. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I’m just thinking in a sense of, you know, there are plenty of outdoor structures that people erect over their porches, you know, with pull down, plastic screening, so when you get a storm or something like that you can keep the deck dry, you know, maybe a fold out type awning. There are electric awnings that come off the front of buildings and can be used and configured that same way, and that way you still keep yourself with an open deck on the nice days, and, you know, it’s a little bit more of a hassle to deal with it. I know plenty of waterfront properties incorporate those as an alternative to a real, you know, solid structure like you’re proposing. Just a couple of suggestions. MR. MAC ELROY-I don’t know if the Ordinance makes a distinction, not to pick that apart, because we appreciate the suggestion. There’s not a covered porch, and now this would be on a temporary basis or I don’t know if there’s a real distinction. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think it’s a temporary structure. So I would have to look that up. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m pretty sure that we’ve dealt with them before on other like decks and deck/dock combinations up on the lake there where people have put those up and we’ve done that as a suggestion. Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Board members, why don’t we just go through and discuss this, and I guess we’ll start with you, Roy. MR. URRICO-Well, in terms of the overall project, I think there’s several things to be considered. Number One, nobody seems to know how we got to this point, and the fact of the matter remains that this structure is way above what the Floor Area Ratio should be for this size parcel. The second part of the equation, to me, is, yes, it’s only 3.1%, but it’s 3.1% above what was already a Floor Area Ratio far in excess of what it should be. So, in taking the test and looking to grant minimal variance necessary, I think we’re past that point. We’ve already surpassed the minimum variance necessary for approval. So I’m going to come down negative on this, whereas I believe the benefit would be to the applicant, I don’t see a change to the neighborhood, but I do think the request is substantial, and self-created. So I would be against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, thank you. According to your own figures, the existing building is 1698 square feet above the allowable, which is 52% over, and you want to add another 14% to the Floor Area Ratio. I can’t go along with that. I mean, it’s 22% and now it’s going to 36.5. It’s just too much, and somebody commented about, 22% it might, for an acre property or a small property, I think it just means that if the property is small then the house should be smaller, that’s all. So I would be against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-In looking at this from, when we listened to this before, and as I recall, when the structure was built, I think that it was, this structure that’s there now was built back away from the lake more than it was before, as I recall some of those arguments, and the other part is that this is impermeable space right now. I guess my only concern would be adding a deck on it at a future date or something like that because they didn’t have an outside place to sit, except maybe out on their sundeck on the dock or something like that. Other than that, and maybe with that restriction, without any other further building being done for porches or outside structures, under that condition, I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, when I looked at this, it was over the top as far as Floor Area Ratio and that’s what caused me to look negatively on it. I take the neighbors comments in good 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) form that you’re a good steward of the land, and I think you’re pushing it hard, but I’d go along with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-Well, when the applicant and their representatives came up here, the first two things that struck me is it’s a smaller lot, which to me equals build less. The second thing that struck me was, how did we get from 2928 to something that’s going to be roughly double that size? This request is substantial, but at the same time I think if the applicant wanted to, they could cut the size of this deck in half, eliminate everything down below, make it permeable, and put a, you know, put their sunroom onto a deck half that size. Something like that I’d be in favor of, which would basically increase the setback from the lake and increase the permeability of the area, but at its current, the way this application is currently, I wouldn’t be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’m going to have to fall down on the side of conventionality, here, in looking at the Code, and I think that, you know, in the past, when all the original building permits were granted, and the proper review of the project ensued, I think everybody realized you were working on a much smaller lot than, you know, is obviously present in those neighborhoods up there. Some of the other lots are also small in that area, and as was pointed out by Mr. Navitsky, you know, it’s important for us to keep in mind why we have that 22% Floor Area Ratio. I mean, not everybody has a large lot that would be reflective. I mean, I live on Waterfront Residential property on a different body of water than Lake George, and I have a lot that’s like 1.93 acres. The 22% Floor Area Ratio for me means I could build a house that was 14,000 square feet if I wanted to, and I don’t think anybody would do that, you know, in most instances. I think we have a few examples of them up on the lake where they have built very large projects. As I said before, when you go to the site and you look at the house, it’s really not, as Brian pointed out, that different than any other house that’s reflective of the neighborhood. It’s a reasonably sized home. It’s not a mega mansion, mcmansion or anything in that respect there, but at the same time, you’ve got that impermeable area before the, underneath the deck that exists on the house. I still think that you could get by with a smaller structure up on the deck there, and I would rather see something more modest than what’s been proposed here. As has been pointed out, it’s not going to increase the impermeability, because the impermeability already is pre-existing there. If we allowed this to happen, I don’t think there would be any grand impact on the lake. It is kind of sheltered from the lake, but I think last time we went through this project it was reviewed that there was concern that if the property sold in the future somebody may want the, you know, look at the lake, look at my house type house, and cut down all the bushes in front. So, I mean, we don’t know what lasts forever in this instance here, and I think that we probably should err on the side of being reasonable, and that is that when you’re allowed a 22% Floor Area Ratio and you’re at 66% with this as proposed, that’s a major jump. I can’t remember any instance where we’ve granted that much relief to anybody for any project proposed previous, unless somebody wants to tag my memory for that. So at this point in time, I’m going to say that I’m not for this project. I will give you the option, if you want to, at this point, does the Board want to, you know, we can go ahead and vote. It’s probably going to go down in defeat, or, if you want to withdraw and modify your request and come back to us. MR. MAC ELROY-Procedurally, would it be a withdrawal, or would we come back with potentially modified? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, we can just say, at this point in time, as has been requested here, we would have to turn it down, but it wouldn’t preclude you from coming back with something more modest. I mean, just because. MR. MAC ELROY-Under a new application or? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, under a new application, or if you want to. MR. URRICO-Yes, because you can modify it and come back in 60 days. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, why don’t you come back, modify and come back in 60 days with a more modest request. I mean, some of the suggestions from the Board members were to narrow the width of that dock towards the lake so your set back from the water would be less than what you’ve got there now. Figure out what’s a reasonable amount of space for you to use out there, and I would think like something, what are you at on your width right now, what’s the total width on there, Dennis? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) MR. MAC ELROY-Twenty-eight feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s twenty-eight feet across, and what’s the depth? MR. MAC ELROY-Sixteen. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sixteen. All right. I’m going to guess that maybe you’re going to want to come back with something between 10 and 14 feet, you know, in that range, and I would think you’re probably going to have more success if you come back short, you know, like 12 feet max or something like that. That might be more palatable to the Board members here. I mean, I’m not going to poll the Board to see what they think on it. It’s at your own risk to come back again, but I don’t think there’s been any real change that we’ve seen. I think last time when you were here, I think the Board was pretty much against the project. I think there was only one supportive vote last time. So you’re doing a little bit better this time. So shall we table you for 60 days? ROLF AHLERS DR. AHLERS-When we come back, is it possible, then, to express some concern about the abstractness of some of the negative comments that were made, okay, issue of permeability, for example. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think everybody recognizes that the impermeability is pre- existing on the project, and I don’t think there’s any real way to lessen that without lessening the impact of what previously exists, and that is that if the deck were shrunk back, you know, like four or five feet. MR. MAC ELROY-Remember that there’s a full foundation underneath the deck. MR. UNDERWOOD-Exactly, and I’m not sure how that could be accomplished. So, I’m not sure how feasible it really is to do that, but that seems to be the suggestion at this point in time. So I guess I’ll do a tabling motion. We’ll table this for 60 days. So we’ll expect you back, and submit by mid February. Why don’t you submit by mid February, and we’ll put you on for March. Do you want to wait? You’re not going to build it this winter anyway. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-So we’ll put you on for the first meeting in March, and I’m not sure of the dates yet. th MR. OBORNE-It would be March the 18. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Could I get a second? MRS. HUNT-Second. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2008 ROLF & LUISE AHLERS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th 105 Knox Road. Tabled for 60 days, submit by February 15 for the first meeting in March. th Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you for your input. MR. SVARE-Thank you. DR. AHLERS-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure thing. So you guys should hang on to that information, and then you’ll have something to compare it to. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II LARRY W. CLUTE AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S): BROOKVIEW PLACID, INC. ZONING: SFR- 1A LOCATION: WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 1,929 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 LOT SIZE: 0.86 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.6-1-15 SECTION: 179-4-030 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 78-2008, Larry W. Clute, Meeting Date: November 26, 2008 “Project Location: West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has built a 1,926 square foot single family dwelling in a non-conforming location located on West Mountain Road, north of Old West Mountain Road. Relief Required: The applicant requests 10.76 feet of front setback relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement per §179-4-030 for the Single Family Residential 1 acre zone for a recently constructed single family dwelling. 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 changes to nearby properties are 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. With the house already constructed, feasible alternative would be drastic in nature in order to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 10.8 feet or 36 percent of relief may be considered 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 impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): P-20080404 SFD w/ attached garage 8-1-0 Staff comments: It appears the house was staked out incorrectly or constructed in the wrong area. SEQR Status: Type II-No SEQR action required” “Warren County Planning Board Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 12, 2008 Project Name: Clute, Larry W. Owner(s): Brookview Placid, Inc. ID Number: QBY-AV-08-78 County Project#: Nov08-23 Current Zoning: SFR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has constructed a 1,929 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief requested from front setback requirement. Site Location: West Mountain Road Tax Map Number(s): 295.6-1-15 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the construction of a 1,929 sq. ft. single family dwelling. The 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) home is to be located 23.71 ft from the front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. The information submitted indicates the house location is designed to be parallel with West Mountain Road and is constructed 66 ft. from the edge of pavement. The plans show the location of the home on the lot. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 11/14/08. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, representing the applicant, Larry Clute, who’s at the table with me. Staff comments were right on target. This was a new home that was constructed on West Mountain Road, and if you look at the map, near the northerly end of the lot, the garage side is at 37, almost 38 feet from the property line, and if you’re looking to the north, going up West Mountain Road, that line stays fairly parallel to the edge of the pavement, and then as you head back to the south and the west, it takes a substantial dive away from the asphalt, and that was due to back in the 60’s when the County had re-done West Mountain Road, they took into consideration where they may or may not need to grade for that road relocation from Old West Mountain Road to its currently location. Having the corner that was there, and found the cast iron rod, as you can see in the northerly corner of our lot, and then the builder and the mason and the excavator paralleled the foundation to the road, using that road, being about 40 feet back from that rod, and figured that the property line continued parallel to the asphalt, which it typically does in any situation, not saying that the asphalt is always centered within the right of way, but it is always typically parallel with the right of way bounds, and it’s kind of a unique situation where the County taking, in this instance, is considerably wider than the standard 12 to 15 feet off the edge of the asphalt. So it was a real honest mistake, but it still was made. We don’t see any detriment to the neighborhood. The house sits over 65 feet back from the edge of the asphalt, and it’s actually in line, if not a few feet further back from the asphalt than the houses in that area. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think the test, in this instance here, is that, you know, I mean, we’ve met on these occasions before previously, and I think the Board has been, laid down the law the last couple of times that they didn’t want to see this occur again, but, you know, in looking at the way that that line walks in off the road, it’s a little bit odd from just about every other instance, you know, where it occurs. I mean, I think it’s important for us to look, I hope everybody took the time to drive out and look at the other houses adjacent, as to their setbacks from the road, you know, and how this house appears, and, you know. MR. STEVES-If you take, going to the southwest, down near the end of my map where my title block is, Van Dusen and Steves, going down there is another stake next to a corner there on the house, and if you line up with the iron rod up in front, we’re parallel with that, but there was an old iron pipe, way back into the woods, which nobody really knew where it was. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does the line further down the road there, does that walk back out again? It goes right back to where it was. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, okay. MR. STEVES-And if you look at the County plan, which is irrelevant, but I mean if you look at why they did that, is they weren’t quite sure where they had to grade back to create the road. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Board members, any questions? MR. URRICO-Yes. I have one question. The applicant’s on the question of requested Area Variance, says it’s 21% and Staff says it’s 36%. MR. STEVES-Twenty-one percent for the house. I think it’s 36% for the porch. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because you’ve got the porch to be added. MR. STEVES-The porch is now there. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. STEVES-It’s a stoop off the front, but the actual structure itself, but I understand, as far as Code goes that that stoop is actually part of the structure. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So if anybody came in and wanted to put a more substantial porch on it, they’d have to come back and re-visit this again, at some point in the future, and we do get requests for those pretty often on these smaller homes. It gives you a little more living space on the front. Any explanation from you as to? LARRY CLUTE MR. CLUTE-There really isn’t. I’m completely baffled. No, we staked this out, and as Matt had stated, this was flagged, the farthest corner to the south, but again, if you’ve visited this site, it’s, two dimension is great to look at, but this is a massive ravine. I should have gone and looked for that stake. He did have it staked out. We simply went off of road frontage, right there to the north corner, used the house next door to it, shot in line, assumed if I stayed parallel to West Mountain I’d be find. That word “assumption”, here I am. MR. STEVES-Subsequently, (lost words) the remainder of his house is (lost words). MR. CLUTE-Like I said, this one here I did, I had it all flagged out, and we just didn’t go down into the ravine, and had I gone down into the ravine, I still don’t know if it would have shown me that we were coming off of West Mountain so bad. MR. UNDERWOOD-So if the thing had stayed parallel, you would have been fine? MR. CLUTE-Yes. We’d have been more than fine. MR. STEVES-Closer to 37. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions? MR. KUHL-I guess they don’t have a way of saying it’ll never happen again? MR. UNDERWOOD-Never say never. Okay. I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Is there anybody here from the public wishing to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll just poll the Board quickly. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you for closing the public hearing. I don’t have a problem with this. As a matter of fact, as I look at it, there’s a huge, looks like a lot of land between the road and the house to begin with there. MR. CLUTE-It’s unusual. This particular type of setback, normally a municipality has a 50 foot right of way. This is an extremely odd case, and again, it’s got me in a bind. I made an assumption that it was the norm, and so, yes, the homeowner has the benefit, or the illusion, of an awful lot of front yard property that, in reality, belongs to Warren County. MR. STEVES-An example, real quick, is where everybody anticipates or perceives the boundary to be is the utility pole. Typically the utility company places it right on the right of way line, and then you can see, which is about 12 or 15 feet off the edge of the asphalt. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. This is Number Two, you know, I’m counting. I’d agree with this variance. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I’m not going to fight it, but you should try to make this go away so you don’t come back. MR. CLUTE-Believe me, like I said, I’m shocked and slightly embarrassed here. I just, it should be very straightforward and somehow it just never seems to be the case. MR. KUHL-I wouldn’t go against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-At this point, no objections. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have no objections. I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Had this been out of line with the rest of the houses there it might be a different story, but we’re okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. We’re all shocked to see you back here again. I don’t know how this could have possibly happened. No, I don’t have a problem with it, either. So I think we’ll just chalk it up to, you know, so much for the realities of the world. Does somebody want to do the, make a motion, or do you want me to do it? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-2008 LARRY W. CLUTE, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: West Mountain Road. The applicant has built a 1,926 square foot single family dwelling in a nonconforming located on West Mountain Road north of Old West Mountain Road. The applicant requests 10.76 feet of front setback relief from the 30 foot front setback requirements per Section 179-4-030 for the Single Family Residential One Acre zone, for a recently constructed single family dwelling. In making this determination, we should consider whether the benefit could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. Since the home is already constructed, there really are no feasible alternatives. Would an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties be generated? No, the house is in line with the other houses in the area. The request must be considered moderate. It will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood, and it was self-created in the fact that there was an error made in the staking out of the property. th Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-See you again soon. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. CLUTE-Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 79-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED NORTHERN BROADCASTING CO., INC. [TV 8] AGENT(S): LITTLE & O’CONNOR ESQ. OWNER: R.D. 2 TRAILS, LTD ZONING: RC-3A LOCATION: WEST OF WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF 195 FT. TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND 14 FT. BY 24 FT. EQUIPMENT BUILDING ON A PARCEL PRESENTLY OCCUPIED BY 140 FT. TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PLACEMENT OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) OUTSIDE AN INDUSTRIAL OR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONE. CROSS REF.: SPR 44- 2008; BP 98-324 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM; BP 2008-243 MISC. STRUCTURE – GENERATOR WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 LOT SIZE: 247.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 314.00-1-3 SECTION: 179-5-130C MICHAEL O’CONNOR & JIM BERGERON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Previously the Board have voted on this, I believe, last month, that we would send this to the Planning Board for a SEQRA determination. All right. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 79-2008, Northern Broadcasting Co., Inc. [TV 8], Meeting Date: November 26, 2008 “Project Location: west of West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to erect a 195 foot tall telecommunications tower and a 336 square foot support structure on the Top of West Mountain for TV 8. Relief Required: Relief requested from the requirement that all telecommunication towers be erected in the Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial Zones, and/or collocated on any property where a telecommunications tower or other tall structure exists per §179-5- 130C. Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to New York Decisional Law, Telephone Company v. Rosenberg 1.)That the proposed improvement is a public necessity in that it is required to render safe and adequate service; The safe and adequate service may be a common practice by this public utility. It also may be considered that this proposed improvement is a public necessity as the signal will be increased, resulting in a greater coverage for the Emergency Broadcasting System (EBS) during times of national and local emergencies. 2.)That there are compelling reasons, economic and otherwise, for permitting the variance. This public utility appears to have shown compelling reasons, both economic and otherwise, that this variance may be permitted. The Federal Communication Commission has ordered that all television stations must convert to a digital signal on February 17, 2009. According to the applicant, this has afforded the station the possibility to expand in order to pay for the investment to upgrade to digital. 3.)Where the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal, the showing required by the utility should be correspondingly reduced. The applicant appears to have chosen this site with minimal intrusion on the community in mind. The site is located on the top of West Mountain, 64 feet from an existing 140 foot cell tower. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR 44-2008 Telecommunications Tower, pending BP 98-324 Communications system 1998 BP 2008-243 Misc. structure-generator 5/23/08 Staff comments: The applicant is before the Zoning Board in order to gain a use variance. Currently, the zoning code only allows Telecommunication Towers in the Light and Heavy Industrial zones. The standards for placement per §179-5-130 will be ‘New telecommunications towers on a lot already a tower’. This is the third priority after collocation on an existing tower and shared use of an existing structure. The following is a description of why the first two priorities where not applicable 1.The first priority of collocation appears to have been pursued. Apparently, the existing 140 foot tower at the site for this proposal was deemed too short and contained signal interference problems. Further, the tower cannot be safely expanded. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) 2.The second priority, shared use also appears to have been pursued. The tower mentioned above appears to be unsuitable for shared use due to height restrictions and incompatibility. According to the applicants, there is a tower located off of Luzerne Road. However, there appears to be problems with direct line of site in relation to the broadcast facilities. Concerning SEQR, the Planning Board has sought Lead Agency Status for a coordinated review concerning this proposal. All involved agencies have been notified. If responses from these agencies are returned to the Department of Community Development prior to November 25, 2008, the Planning Board may commence SEQR review. SEQR Status: If a SEQR Negative Declaration finding is issued by the Planning Board on November 25, 2008 then the ZBA may review this Use Variance application with the SEQR finding in hand.” “Warren County Planning Board Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 12, 2008 Project Name: Northern Broadcasting Co., Inc. Owner(s): R.D.2 Trails, Ltd. ID Number: QBY-UV-08-79 County Project#: Nov08-27 Current Zoning: RC-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes the construction and maintenance of 195 ft. telecommunications tower and 14 ft. by 24 ft. equipment building on parcel presently occupied by 140 ft. telecommunications tower. Relief is requested from the placement of a Telecommunications Tower outside an industrial and heavy industrial zone. The information submitted explains the use variance for a public utility is evaluated differently than non-public utility use variances where the applicant must prove the “public necessity”. The information submitted explains that by Feb 2009 all TV stations must provide a digital signal where TV 8 will be able to meet this requirement with the new proposed tower. The application indicates the site has an existing 140 ft. tower that will not meet the requirement due to the height. the new tower will also have the ability to allow collocation. The information also indicates the 140 ft. tower is to remain and the transmitting equipment for both towers will be housed the newly constructed building. Staff recommends approval recognizing the applicants desire to provide appropriate services to the public based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve The Warren County Planning Board recommends Approval recognizing the applicants desire to provide appropriate services to the public.” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 11/14/08. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. O’Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the Law Firm of Little & O’Connor, and with me at the table is Jesse Jackson who is a principal of the applicant, and Jim Bergeron, who is the Station Engineer. I think Staff comments pretty much sum up the application. We are looking for a Use Variance, but in this instance, you look at the application a little different than you do a normal Use Variance. If you read the Rosenberg case, basically that deals with public utilities and public necessity, and I think that we fall within that area, and probably, I will say that since we were here before I’m not sure if it was since then or not, but we’ve had two different actions on this project so far. The County Planning Board has recommended approval because they see it as a benefit to the County, which is a little different than what they normally do. Many times they simply say a project has no negative County impact. So I was very pleased when they decided to recommend approval, as opposed to simply saying it does not have a negative impact. The Planning Board, last night, did do a negative dec under SEQRA. They went through the Long Form Environmental affidavit that was filed with the application. I think you’ve got it in your packet as well as they got a copy in their packet. I think they thought that it had very, very little impact upon the environment. This is a 195 foot tower or antenna, as Mr. Jackson sometimes refers to it. There’s very little construction that’s actually involved in it. You have some construction for the three guy wires that hold it in place, or the guy wire systems that hold it in place, anchors, if you will, and you have an anchor for the tower itself. You will have some construction for the small building that’s going to house the equipment, but I think we’ve shown you photographs, which I think is the best part of this application. If you take a look at the photographs of the top of the building that are presently serving the existing tower, you wouldn’t think that those buildings exist in 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) Warren County, and if you look at it in a color photograph, you’d even, I’m not sure what holds it together. MR. GARRAND-It’s a chicken coop. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s less than a chicken coop. The TV 8, and I refer to it as TV 8 as opposed to Northern Broadcasting, is a low power TV station, Class A, with a must carry designation, and that’s by the FCC, that’s by the licensing of the FCC. That’s important because you aren’t going to have another like TV station in this immediate area. They’ve pretty much franchised this area to that station when they give them that designation, and that’s important if you take a look at the two maps that were in the application documents, and that’s where we get into the issue, or the discussion in proof for public necessity. The first map shows, and I’m sorry that we didn’t tab these or number the pages, but there is a map that shows pretty much the City of Glens Falls, that’s on a page that’s dated 6/20/2006, and it’s a service area map at the top. It’s in the booklet, Mr. Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-So is your coverage area going to increase substantially with the higher tower, too? MR. O'CONNOR-Significantly, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s showing you the difference on that one. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. This is an area that doesn’t go much outside the City of Glens Falls. This is for broadcasting right now with the existing antenna and existing system by air. Now when we say that this is a must carry TV station, they do broadcast directly to an antenna with the local cable TV, and that’s why wherever cable TV is available in the County, they get the Channel 8 signal, and somebody on the Planning Board last night, Mrs. Bruno, I think, said they don’t, she lives in Queensbury, wherever it is, and she doesn’t have cable. She can’t get TV 8 right now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because they’re behind the hill. MR. O'CONNOR-I think so. I’m not sure what their reason it. MR. UNDERWOOD-You get those shadow zones. MR. O'CONNOR-If you take a look at the, probably the last page before the blue divider, you will see the proposed area or the area that we will be able to reach. We will be able to reach all of Queensbury, which is important from this Board’s position, and in addition to that, we will also be able to reach, by air, a good portion of the rest of the County. We’ll go up to Chester. We’ll go to Hague. We won’t get all of Hague. We’ll get most of Bolton, and it’s kind of, it’s just a much bigger area, and I do think that TV 8 serves a public purpose. Some of their programming is local. Some of it is comical, depending upon which Board you watch, I couldn’t resist saying that, but I think the application speaks for itself, to be honest with you. I don’t often say that. There’s very little disturbance here. We’re going to go back to the Planning Board, hopefully after your approval, for their Site Plan approval, which they couldn’t give us without us having the variance at hand, and they only had a couple of questions, and engineering only had a couple of questions. One was to speak about what trees would be cut, if any, to delineate the areas for erosion control, and I think the other question was whether or not we needed to get a right of way, which we don’t need to get, because we have a lease from the owner of the property out to a Town road, and Jim can address the idea of the tree removal better than I can. It’s minimal. The area up there was cleared when they built this 140 foot tower. Most of the area up there has scrub brush on it, in the areas that we will be placing our equipment. There are, perhaps, a couple of trees that will either have to be trimmed or removed, depending upon where the guy wires fall, and we will certainly use erosion control around any area that’s constructed, but as I understand it, and maybe I’m trying to shorten this too much, but if you have direct questions as to the construction, Jim Bergeron can answer them. The anchor, what they do is they drill a hole, put a sonotube in it with a piece of iron in it, and then pour it full of cement, and that’s their anchor. It’s not a big backhoe construction type operation. I can walk through the pictures if you want. They did do the visibility, environmental review last night. They didn’t think there was anything significant. It is very significant that, in order to get this area of broadcast, they need to be at this height, and in order to broadcast, they need to be able to center their antenna at 180 feet. That gives them a direct vision of the antenna from their existing operation down in Glens Falls. They had some concern, when The Mill was built, whether or not The Mill was going to block them, the 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) apartments on The Mill. They can’t jump their transmission. Their transmission has to be a direct site transmission to the antenna. If you have questions of us, we’d be glad to try and answer them. MR. KUHL-It’s not going to affect any of the ski trails? JESSE JACKSON MR. JACKSON-No. MR. KUHL-Any plans for collocation on that antenna, or is it just going to be used for TV 8? MR. O’CONNOR-We will be able to collocate. It’s 195 feet. There’s five feet of the mass that comes because of the segments that they sell you. We will use the next 20 feet for our antenna, and we need to keep 10 feet below that, so that we don’t have interference. So after 35 feet down to probably 60, 70 will be available for collocation. MR. KUHL-Is the structure being built to support that, weight wise? MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve had inquiries from Verizon. They first said that they checked out the coordinates. They didn’t think it would work in the system that they’re trying to put together, but then they called back and asked for the coordinates again. So, as far as I know, they’re still looking at it. I talked to Brian LaFlure, who is the Emergency County Coordinator, and they may have some desire to do something on it. Jesse Jackson has talked, we sent a letter out. Your Ordinance is kind of very detailed. We sent out notices of this to Town of Moreau, Town of Luzerne, Lake George, I think Fort Ann, Kingsbury, City of Glens Falls. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re probably going to be able to get Thurman. You’re almost to Johnsburg it looks like, too. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would think just from a standpoint of like what’s up on top of Prospect, you know, it’s such a hassle for anybody to get up there and do maintenance. I mean, I hiked up there the other day, and the trucks were all stuck and backsliding down the hill and off the road, and, you know, and your site is, you know, a piece of cake to drive into. It’s almost flat compared to that. MR. KUHL-What’s your structure going to be made of? Is it going to be a poured concrete hut? MR. BERGERON-It’s not a concrete building. It’s a block building. MR. KUHL-It’s a block building. MR. BERGERON-It’s a standard building. The FCC requires that we have to do some certain things for radiation, not radiation that you think, but we call it radiation, it’s RF, radio frequency. So what we need to do, in the plans that are in here, we have to put some mesh in the floor. It has to be grounded a certain way, and that prevent any other RF interference. So we need to prevent, RF, or what they call EMI, RFI type problems. So certain shielding has to be done. So a concrete floor is the best way to go. MR. KUHL-But you’re going to build the structure on site. It’s not going to be brought in on a flat bed? MR. BERGERON-No, it’ll be built on site. The structure that’s there now, that you’ve already seen, is going to come down. There’s what they call a cable ladder that goes, and I think it’s in one of the pictures. You can see it go from the antenna to the building. In the drawings that are provided here for the new building, basically it’s the same thing. That’s why it’s in line, but it’s a block building. It’ll last a lot longer than what’s there. MR. URRICO-You mentioned the possibility of collocation. Would that be other broadcast stations as well as a repeater station? MR. BERGERON-It could be a repeater station, so long as it doesn’t hit the certain frequencies we’re at or interfere with what’s on the other tower. We would be managing that. That’s part of our contract for the site. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) MR. URRICO-Now you also mentioned in the application somewhere that you planned on, this would give you the opportunity to expand your digital coverage. I’m just curious, what would that be? MR. BERGERON-Well, unfortunately, I’m just going to throw out an example here. Right now, there’s cable TV, and if you don’t have cable TV, you get just about nothing. We’re in a pretty good location. This is a very good location for us to broadcast from, because if you go on the other side of Route 9, let’s say Fort Ann, I’m just throwing this out for an example, there is no cable. MR. URRICO-No. MR. BERGERON-All the way to Vermont. Same thing with Whitehall, Dresden, Putnam, where I live. If you go up side Route 9, up to Tongue Mountain, once you’re off Route 9, there is no cable. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. BERGERON-You go on the other side of 87 Northway, on both sides of that highway where you’ve got, along the lakes up there, where was that, Schroon Lake River, wherever that is, there is no cable. Downtown Warrensburg has cable, but once you get outside the little village there, there is no cable, and from what I understand, I do a lot of work with the cable company, and they have no plans in running cable. It’s just too expensive. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-There apparently are some parts of Queensbury, which I was not aware of, which also do not have cable, and this will now broadcast to them. If they’re operating on an antenna, they can now pick up this channel, or will be able to pick up this channel. Today they couldn’t do that. This also allows TV 8 to go into the digital business, because they’ve got to change their equipment, for obvious reasons that if they don’t digital, they’re going to lose their customer base that they already have, and in order to go into that, they’ve got to be able to broaden the customer base to support the equipment that they’re going to have to get. It’s kind of a vicious circle when you say you’re going to go digital and to satisfy your existing customers, add that to your overhead, you’ve got to be able to expand that base, or else you’re not going to be able to serve even the original customers. MR. JACKSON-The mandate is very interesting. Not since television was invented has something like this come down the pike. The first time it happened was analog over air. We all had rabbit ears, many of us remember that, and it, now, again, you’ll be able to receive television over air. A lot of communities will not be served by cable. The local news and weather and sports that we do is important to people. We know that because I can tell you from the phone calls we get, and the opportunity to be able to reach those communities is very important. The other piece of that puzzle for us is that, if the FCC is mandating that all stations go digital, if you’re FOX, maybe you don’t have to be so concerned but when you’re an LP TV like us, it’s an enormous undertaking. The opportunity outweighs the expense, but we have a lot of pieces to this puzzle that have to fit in order for this to work, and I think we’re fortunate in that we had selected a good site for our Downtown office, with a direct line of sight to West Mountain. We stay under the 200 foot limit. I’m a hippie at heart. I’m a creative guy, and I didn’t want any tower that had to have lights on it or painted red or any of the other things that the FAA might require if you go over 200 feet. Jim did the analysis. We had the antenna people to the site, a couple of times to do the analysis. We could stay under 200 feet. It’s not visible from any place around, and it’ll give us the opportunity to shoot and clear those mountains. As someone was saying before about, I forgot which one of you said it, but unfortunately signals don’t bend. They don’t go over other shaded areas or whatever. You have to be up and you have to hit it, and this would give us the opportunity. MR. CLEMENTS-How far away is the closest home, do you know? MR. BERGERON-About 1200 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Over on the edge of Luzerne Mountain Road, too, there’s some over there. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) MR. BERGERON-I’ll show you exactly where it is. This is the main ski trail right here, and the tower is basically, the one that exists is right here right now. We’re going to be right next to it. If you take a look at the first, as you come up the ski lift, and you come right off this bend right here, I think there’s a picture in the book it’s actually circled on top of the ski lift. I’m on the wrong slope, I’m sorry. This is, there’s a little angle right here. It’s a tiny little clearing. This is where the existing tower is right now, and we’re right on the other side of it. Actually there is a picture of it in the book. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there’s no more questions from the Board, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here from the public wishing to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? I don’t believe we had any. MR. URRICO-No, I don’t have any correspondence. MR. GARRAND-What digital frequency are you going to be broadcasting on? MR. BERGERON-The frequencies, we can no longer transmit on Channel 8. There will no longer be a VHF signal. The way it works, the FCC says that we can’t broadcast on Channel 8 with corresponding channels. In other words, Channel 7 from Vermont and Channel 9 out of Albany, we cannot interfere with them. So those alternate channels no longer exist. They’ve done away with them. So have Channel 3 out of Vermont, Burlington, Channel 5, then it skips to Channel 7, because you’ve got your FM band in there. Then it goes to Channel 9 and then it goes to Channel 10 and 13. The ones that are in there are no longer there. They’re up on a UHF band. We will be up on the UHF band also, Channel 31. Now, there’s a funny thing about digital. It’s just like your laptop computer, and you have files. In the beginning of those files, on your hard drive, it tells you what’s on that drive. Well, when you go digital, it’s just not an analog signal anymore, or a picture, it’s what they call a 19 megabit band width. So we’re physically putting out a digital signal. In the front of that signal there’s a code, and the code says you’re receiving Channel 31 on the TV when you turn it to Channel 31. What your TV is going to say is Channel 8. That’s one of the unique things about digital. You can make it say whatever you want it to say. So when you turn your TV to Channel 8, you’re going to have Channel 8, but it’s really Channel 31. That’s all done with the digital. MR. JACKSON-It’s done at the head end. MR. BERGERON-So these boxes that you get, these converter boxes, it’s not a patch through box. You will lose all of your analog signals. What is does, it converts that signal again, it reads that front end coding as Channel 31, it tells your TV, when you turn to Channel 8, it’s Channel 8. It’s kind of a unique thing, and there’s so much more coming down the road in the next couple of years, it’ll be unbelievable what you can do with this stuff. So a lot of your stations that you think are VHF that you get out of Albany are no longer VHF. They’re up on the UHF band. Homeland Security’s taking the upper UHF bands. All those channels are going to go away. So there’s a lot of new things that FCC’s doing that a lot of local people don’t know but they hit the broadcasters right between the eyes and they say, these are the new rules. MR. GARRAND-They hit the cable operators, too. MR. JACKSON-Yes, it probably will hit them pretty hard. MR. O'CONNOR-It might make it more competitive. I would hope so. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think what I’ll do is close the public hearing, then, and, first of all, before we do anything here, we’ve got to basically make verification, do we have anything that we can read in from the Planning Board from last night? Nothing’s been done so far? MR. OBORNE-I believe I gave you a sheet of paper that states that they have. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we can just basically say it. They found no significant negative impacts from the project in their SEQRA review, right? I mean, in essence. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Well, typically right now you’re approving your Use Variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Based upon the negative declaration of last evening. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) MR. OBORNE-Right. That gives you the ability to even talk about it and gives you the opportunity to approve it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Do you guys want to discuss this or does somebody, do you want to just make a resolution going forward? MR. KUHL-So long as they’re not interfering with the ski trail, I’m all for it. MR. JACKSON-I take it you’re a skier, right? MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll make the resolution. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 79-2008 NORTHERN BROADCASTING CO., INC. (TV 8), Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: west of West Mountain Road. Based upon the fact that we’ve received a negative SEQRA declaration from the Planning Board last evening, and that would be 11/25, that at this point in time our Board feels that the applicant’s proposal to erect a 195 foot tall telecommunications tower, as well as a 336 square foot support structure on the top of West Mountain for TV 8, as well as the cable guy wires and those to be determined by the Planning Board in their final review of the project, that they are requesting relief from the requirement that all telecommunication towers be erected in the Light Industrial/Heavy Industrial and/or co-located on any property where a telecommunications tower or other tall structure exists, and that’s per Section 179-5-130, Part C. Because of the current location of a 140 foot tower in the same area up on top of West Mountain Ski area, that this location seems to make absolute sense here. The Planning Board, last night, determined that they did not see any negative factors involved with this project, and I don’t believe anybody on our Board does, either. I think, as you had mentioned, there’s significant benefit to the greater County area because of the effect that TV 8 will now be broadcasting to a much larger area, and that’s of benefit to everybody who lives within the area that the signal will be picked up to. It’s a public necessity that they render safe and adequate service. There are compelling reasons, both economic and otherwise, for permitting the variance, and the fact that they are required by the Federal Communications Commission to go digital by February 17, 2009. In this case they seem to have chosen the location with a minimal intrusion on the community. I mean, the nearest houses to this property are rarely going to be in the sight line of it. I mean, you will be able to see it a little bit above the top of the trees, but you’re looking up a long distance up the slope to see where that tower will be located. As far as our Board goes, the standards are that new towers, this one will be placed with the current tower that exists up on top, and co-location appears to be the reasonable solution to where this tower goes. It wouldn’t be applicable elsewhere on the ridge, but because it’s with the other one. It’s also mitigated by the fact that it’s not going to be over 200 feet with a light blinking up there 24/7, and that seems to be something that we’ve all, as previous towers we’ve done in the Town, we’ve gotten them all down below that number, so we didn’t have that same visual impact in the evening sky. So, given that, I guess we’ll approve it. th Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED CHRISTINE MOZAL AGENT(S): M.J. O’CONNOR, ESQ. LITTLE AND O’CONNOR OWNER(S): CHRISTINE AND RICHARD MOZAL ZONING: WR-3A LOCATION: 99 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.42 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1 ACRE AND 2.42 ACRES. RELIEF FROM DENSITY, LOT SIZE, AND ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS REQUESTED. ZBA TO REQUEST A PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION PER SECTION 277 OF TOWN LAW. CROSS REF.: SUBDIVISION NO 8-2008; AV 77-1998; SPR 34-91; BP 98-592 2-STORY DETACHED GARAGE; BP 91-470 DOCK; BP 88-554 ALT. TO EXISTING DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 3.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-27 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4-090; 179-50-8(4) 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) MICHAEL O’CONNOR & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-This is an Unlisted action that we sent to the Planning Board for review, and I believe they dealt with that last evening also. Keith, do you want to fill us in as to what happened last night. MR. OBORNE-Well, basically there was a pretty long discussion on the merits of this subdivision in regards to a house being built on it, or some type of structure being built on it, and they talked about it, and I believe they felt that they’ll address those issues at Site Plan Review if you do pass this Area Variance. So their recommendations are what are before you, and that is to, they recommend the passage of this Area Variance, in order to make this subdivision lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-Now if at some future date, I think it was our concern that if someone wanted to convert what was there presently to a structure, they would have to come back and get relief from the Board at that point, too, for expansion? MR. OBORNE-Well, I’m not sure. I think that’s one of the reasons why it was, you gave those indications to the Planning Board, and they talked about that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but they thought they would handle it going forward? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Anything you want to present to us, or whatever your take on it last night? MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, again, I’ll repeat. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and with me at the table is Christine Mozal who is the present owner. I think at the time that we did the application the property was owned by Christine and Richard, but Christine is the sole owner of the property now, and Matt Steves from Van Dusen and Steves. I think Keith has pretty much summed up what the Planning Board did last night. They were looking upon our presentation last night from two points of view. One, it was the referral that you made to them for a recommendation as to whether or not they thought you should approve the variances that we have requested, and, Two, as the first stage of subdivision approval, which is Sketch Plan, and I emphasize, and the point was made that, your granting of the variance doesn’t mean that we’re going to have two lots there and two different houses. We still go back to them, and with engineering we’ll address the source of water, the septic and stormwater, and any other like impact by having the two houses, or the potential of two houses, or the potential of two houses on the two parcels that are created, and we’ll do that with engineering that we present at the time of the Preliminary application, and if they have comments on that, we then go back to them again with Final subdivision application. So I think we had a very good discussion. Matt has been on the site, walked the site. He thinks that what we’re looking at is doable. Somebody on the Board asked us to specify what would be disqualified by sloping in excess of 25%, and could we get it and get it to the Board. I said I would try and get it by the Friday of the week we met. I called Chazen who I’ve used before for that purpose, and they told me they were going to get it to me on Friday. I think they ended up giving it to me on the following Tuesday, and I submitted copies of that to the Planning Board last night, and Keith has copies. I have copies here. I’ll give them to you as well. Part of the problem, I guess, is the site is small, and you lose a lot in trying to do this on a small site, as opposed to the map and file that we did when we did the subdivision up on West Mountain Road for Cerrone Builders. It’s much more. Mr. Chairman, I’ll give you a color one. I’ll tell you, I basically, when I looked at it, I still disagree with that, and it’s probably more visible with the color one than it is with the others. MR. UNDERWOOD-You have flat spot on top. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you have a flat spot on top, but you also have a fairly decent flat spot in the area where the garage is constructed, and that shows that area as being 25%. It will be in excess of 5%, or 25%. MR. STEVES-I can explain a little bit of the reason for that. Matt Steves, by the way. What happens when you do a slope analysis based on 20 foot contours from USGS is you have a flat area of less than three times the interval of the contour, would be 60 feet. What happens is your computer cannot analyze that slope. It’s considering it continuing down that 20 foot contour slope all the way. So it figures it’s over 25%, but in this instance, if you’ve ever been to the end of Fitzgerald Road, you’re coming down a steep 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) slope. You flatten out for around 50 feet, and then it dives back down again to the lake. So that the mottling, the computer cannot mottle that because it uses three times the width of the contour interval. So what happens is it really only shows that flat area on top, when actually there’s more, if you’re doing some detailed topography, and with an analysis we did with 10 foot contours, last night before the meeting, I get about four tenths of an acre more than the Chazen plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-So we went make everybody look through stereoscopic goggles at aerial photos with eyes crossed and get the true sense of what it looks like. MR. O'CONNOR-The other thing that people, or I think got a little bit confused. Mr. Marshall, who owns that little piece that’s in the middle of all of this, spoke and talked about, as I understood it, he really didn’t object to the subdivision that we’re trying to create, but he was concerned about the impacts on his property, but not by the subdivision, and I don’t think we’ve got all kinds of copies of it, but I’ll show you, Matt did go back and he shows the Marshall property. Maybe you can pass that. You will see that a good portion of the Marshall camp, nine feet of it, actually encroaches on the Mozal property. We’ve known that for some years. MR. KUHL-But his point was more the septic than it was. MR. O'CONNOR-His septic was on this side. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right next to it. MR. KUHL-He also, he kind of committed to put a new septic, maybe I should put a new one in, I’ve been there 40 years, he said. We would like that, wouldn’t we? MR. O'CONNOR-Keith did raise a point, and (lost words) trying to pursue the point, and I think it’s in your Staff comments, that the Health Department in 2005, I think it’s 2005, put out a new rule that says that if you have a vacant parcel of land on a lake, you will take your water by well, you won’t take it from the lake, but I talked to Dave Hatin about that, and he referred me to a Mrs. Wheeler at the Health Department. He had talked to Mike Shaw at the Health Department, and there are provisions in there for variances, and I’m not 100% sure in my own mind whether or not the Health Department would look upon this as being a vacant parcel of land in the first instance. I know that there’s a difference between the Town and the Health Department with regard to septic systems, whether they are, when you do a tear down and build a brand new house, the Health Department does not say that that’s new construction. That’s an existing house being replaced. The Town says that’s new construction so they apply different standards to it, but in any event, it’s something that we know, and it’s something that was raised last night with the Planning Board. It’s something we will address with the Planning Board. I’m not sure. The Planning Board even suggested how about doing a holding tank. I said probably as a last resort. Matt seems to think that there is a place here that we can establish an absorption field that will work and it will actually meet the 200 feet setback because it’ll be up gradient of the lake, and he thinks we have another place that, separate from there, where we can actually do a well. So we may not have to look for the Health Department exception. So we’ve got some engineering to do, but before we spend the five or ten thousand dollars on engineering, we wanted to know that the door was open, and the door opens with you saying here’s a variance, take it to the Planning Board, and if you meet all of the other requirements of the Planning Board, they will approve you to have two lots. MR. STEVES-And we know that this Board understands, I’ll just put it on the record, that in granting this variance, if we do not get the subdivision approval, it doesn’t stay with the land. You understand that. I mean, you’re not setting a precedent for the land with this variance because of the fact that if the subdivision never gets approved, this basically doesn’t happen. MR. UNDERWOOD-So in essence, you guys are taking the risk of whatever they say they say, and worst case scenario I would see would be that if they approved it and said it was only going to be seasonal on a holding tank, then that’s what it would be, and take it or leave it at that point. MR. O'CONNOR-It can’t have too many bells and whistles on it so that it’s not salable. The idea of Mrs. Mozal is to downsize her holdings on the lake, but she’s got to be able to have a piece of property that’s salable and usable by somebody else, with reasonable, you know, within reason. I’m sure that they’re going to have to do different things to get the approvals that we need. Either that, or, you know, she has to sell the whole thing as 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) one piece, which would be a significant disadvantage to her, and more than a practical difficulty, because I don’t think, that would really be a difficult thing to do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you think you would run into problems with the Floor Area Ratio based upon the buildable area, with that flat being the only flat area? MR. O'CONNOR-The Floor Area Ratio goes to the whole lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but you’ve got to subtract out the steep slopes. MR. O'CONNOR-No, you don’t. MR. UNDERWOOD-I thought you did. MR. O'CONNOR-No, you don’t. MR. STEVES-That’s only for density but not for Floor Area. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, not for Floor Area, okay. MR. KUHL-Shouldn’t you have to draw this differently to show the Marshall house, or don’t you have to straight out your property line? Because how are you going to sell it with Marshall’s there? MR. O’CONNOR-We’re not going to sell the house that he encroaches on. We’re not trying to sell the house that he’s encroaching on. We’ve tried to work out something with him a couple of different times. I guess the best way I’d say it is between he and his wife they seem to have different goals, and we thought we had things worked out some years ago, and then it just fell apart, and nobody’s pushed each other. So, you know, we will try to work something out. Their cabin there is a seasonal cabin, it’s a very seasonal cabin. It’s not year round or anything close to even maybe being three season. MR. UNDERWOOD-The lot that you would split off, then, would be the one that has the three car garage on it, and I would assume, before you could sell that lot, you’d have to work out all the intricacies so you wouldn’t stick somebody with it that couldn’t do anything in the future, because, I mean, it would be difficult for somebody to come in and say it was a hardship. They’d have to be eyes wide open on that one. MR. O'CONNOR-Typically, the Planning Board will make us put any and all conditions on the map, so that people are fully aware of what they’re purchasing when they purchase. MR. STEVES-Typically with the Planning Board you have to prove that it is a sustainable building lot. MR. KUHL-They’d be foolish to buy it without it, an approved lot. MR. O'CONNOR-In order to get the subdivision approval, we’re going to have to have a designed septic system that will work and function, and a location for a well or a variance for drawing the water from the lake, either of which meets the requirements. If it’s a well, it may very well have to be, I don’t know if it’s, it won’t be down gradient of where you’re going to put this absorption area. So I think your separation is 100 feet, but there are different standards. I mean, the worst thing in the world is having a lawyer try to plan engineer. MR. STEVES-There is ample room, and we can work that out. There are some unique engineering with it. The soils are extremely well on the top, on the plateau. They’re your typical (lost word) till, that is all around Glen Lake, but it has enough fine particles in it that when we run our perc test up there, we can consistently get two to three minutes in that type of soil, and the depth to ground water, you’re 90 feet above the water up there probably. So that’s not an issue, and your separation from your well, by putting it up top, you have more than the 100 feet, you have actually more than 200 feet, but we wouldn’t be down gradient anyway from anybody’s well, but we put it down the 200 feet, even though we weren’t. That is just some of the unique challenges of designing a pump station and running that force main up that hill. MR. UNDERWOOD-Would you go all the way up to the top? MR. STEVES-Not necessarily. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s an old terminal moraine there, you know, from the glacier. So it’s substantial. Too bad you couldn’t just bore straight through the hill and take everybody’s out to the back side there, because then you’d alleviate all the problems for everybody on the whole side of the lake. MR. STEVES-But Hutchins Engineering has been up there with me, walked the entire site yesterday, and they say that there are a couple of options here, just looking at which one would be the best scenario. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, because it’s not likely, I mean, with Nolan Camp Road down there, I mean, you’ve only got the two camps on that end, and then, you know, that’s, like we discussed before, you’re at the end of the road. MR. O'CONNOR-The area behind it is the no man’s land of Surrey Fields. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, yes, I knew that. Some place, it doesn’t go all the way to the top of the ridge, but it goes up the back of the back side of the ridge. Then there’s a trail system up there. MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t think that we’re going to have any impact on the community and the character of the neighborhood. I don’t think anybody’s really going to see a great deal of difference here, except that we will have a second family on the lake. We’ll probably have a second boat or dock on the lake, but that’s typical, and if you actually look at the size of the other lots, what you have here and what we’re creating is larger than most of the lots that are along that road. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’ll open the public hearing. Nobody’s here. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-We haven’t had any other correspondence? MR. URRICO-No correspondence since last week. The only question I have is, do we have to put down a figure for the density relief? Because that was one of the questions you had, Staff had, as far as Staff Notes was because there was no topographical information, that we didn’t have a specific amount of density relief. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. If you’re going to give them a blanket coverage, give them a blanket exception to it. If you’re going to give them density relief, that’s, again, something that the Board needs to discuss. Do you require that of the applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we do this. Let’s just close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And let’s just kind of discuss it amongst us, you know, and bounce some ideas back and forth and see what people think. Brian, do you have any concerns or anything you? MR. CLEMENTS-No. I just wanted to thank Staff for getting the full minutes here from th October 28 of ’98. I think that helped me a lot because, looking through them, it looks like, Mr. O’Connor was there at that meeting, and it looks like, although they weren’t looking for a house to be built at that time, it was said that they may look at that in the future, and if they did, they would have to go to the Planning Board and do all the things that you’ve been talking about tonight. So, you want to know if I’d be in favor? Is that where we’re at? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think the key is, is that, you know, even if we’re in favor, you know, you guys, you know, recognize the fact we have to recognize as a Board, too, that if we, it doesn’t rubberstamp it through the Planning Board, that it has to go through full subdivision review, and that’s, you know, that’s in a different form than we have here. My only concern would be, I think that all of us think about it, is that we don’t want to see somebody coming back here, down the road, saying, well, we want to encroach into the buffer towards the lake to build a house now because we’ve got a garage, and, you know, we should anticipate, you know, what’s a likely, reasonable conclusion to this. You could convert what you already have, maybe add on a little bit or something, but that would be based upon the density calculations which we don’t have before us, and I think that that’s the one thing we’ve got to be careful with. We’re not giving carte blanche, but 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) it’s got to remain within the density classifications for the buildable area of the house. I think that’s the real key to making sure that it’s done properly. MR. CLEMENTS-Well, buildable would be within the confines of the building as it is right now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but I’m just saying, that’s two things to keep in mind. We have a building that’s been created, you know, that could be converted, or somebody could come in and just say, I want to whack the whole thing down and start all over again with a camp or something like that. We don’t know what way, shape or form. We may end up with something. MR. URRICO-Well, can’t we condition it based on the current location of the garage? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean we could. We could be exact and say, this is the area that we think is reasonable to build on, you know, the footprint that’s there. I mean, we don’t have the density to know, I mean, are you at 22%, are you at 32%? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, okay, you’re confusing, I think, Mr. Underwood, the Floor Area Ratio with density. The Floor Area Ratio is 22% of 2.42 acres, and nobody’s going to build a building of that size on this lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-It wouldn’t be physically possible, but I think that we should be concerned with, in essence you have the examples of what’s previously been done along the road there, that whatever way, shape or form it ends up in, it should reflect what’s been built through that neighborhood, and that area there. It shouldn’t be any larger than what has been done there. I don’t think you would want to maximize and have somebody come in with a proposal for an 8,000 square foot house which it probably might be with three acres. I know my lot is 1.98, and I calculated mine, and I could build a 14,000 square foot house. MR. O'CONNOR-Open discussion. The one concern, we have no intention of doing anything but designing a septic system and a water system and a reasonable access to the lake which was talked about last night, and showing that we have stormwater in place for all those items that we have. You might, but I really wonder about the benefit to the Town or the community by trying to condition or handcuff it to just that. Somebody might come down the road and say a corner of this garage actually encroaches on the 75 feet now. It didn’t encroach, when it was built, on 50 feet. Somebody else might come along and say, I’m going to tear that garage down. I’m going to build a building entirely 75 feet back, and is that an improvement? I’ve seen, I don’t think Glen Lake is like that yet, but I’ve seen people spend an awful lot of good money on existing, nice homes on Lake George, and then two weeks after you close, somebody’s in there tearing the darn house down. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think as long as we ended up with a reasonable thing, but conditioning it is not in a sense to stymie somebody’s efforts to do that, but just simply to make it realistic. I know that last time that construction occurred there, you had the whole bank come down, you know, before Dan built the retaining walls, and it was pretty frightening I think for everybody, saying, my God, what have we done, but at the same time, you’ve got to do things realistically, too, and I don’t think that it hurts us. The limiting factors I see are the septic and the water, because you’re not going to be able to build something that you have to build some massive septic system for on that area that you’ve got there. MR. O'CONNOR-We aren’t going to get subdivision approval unless we can show, and we are, we know that we’re limited. I’m not sure what that building will easily accommodate, whether it’ll be three bedrooms or four bedrooms, and that’ll be the type of system that they design. If you go beyond that, then you’re back into the whole new ballgame again, with looking for another place to do your septic. MR. STEVES-But doesn’t any, correct me if I’m wrong, but any building within that CEA. Is this within a CEA? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. STEVES-Doesn’t that trigger Site Plan Review anyway? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think so. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) MR. STEVES-And even if it did not. MR. OBORNE-Not necessarily. MR. STEVES-Depending on where you are. MR. OBORNE-In this case it would be expansion of a nonconforming structure, in a CEA. MR. STEVES-In a CEA. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. STEVES-That’s what triggers it, right? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. STEVES-Right. That’s what I’m saying, or if you tear it down and you build a compliant one, it may not. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. STEVES-But what I guess I’m saying is, without putting a lot of conditions on it, and trying to figure out, you know, foresee in the future with a crystal ball what somebody may want to do or may not want to do is just to say, even if something was torn down and built compliant that it still has to be subject to Site Plan Review. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Well, we’ll continue on. Is there anything else you want to add? Ron? MR. KUHL-My only concern is that you get the Marshall thing straightened out. I mean, you’re asking us to approve a line that’s got another house on it. MR. O’CONNOR-We’re not creating that line. MR. KUHL-That’s an existing line. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s an existing line. MR. STEVES-Yes. We wouldn’t ask you to create a line going through a neighbor’s house. That’s an existing parcel. We’re creating just the garage parcel. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-Well, in the interest of fundamental fairness, I’d be in favor of this project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I would, too. I think the Planning Board has suggested that we pass the variance, and I think we really can’t look into the future and decide what’s going to happen. So I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m happy with the application as presented. I think, you know, it satisfies the variance test, to me, and so I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll go along with everybody else on that, too. I think, ultimately the Planning Board’s going to be the deciding factor as to what, when, where and how, and, you know, that’s not our purview. So we don’t need to go there, and so we won’t condition it, other than to say that, you know, with the caveat that we don’t know what that density allowance is. MR. URRICO-But in a sense it’s saying that, in the Staff Notes when it says relief required, it says concerning density, applicant requests .58 acres of relief, subdividing 3.42 acres into two lots, and I think that’s sort of satisfying the question, in a sense. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. URRICO-It’s not limiting it. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Then I’ll withdraw that. MR. O'CONNOR-I would add that with knowledge that we have submitted a calculation by Chazen that says that of the 3.42 acres, 2.5 acres is greater than 25%. That actually defines how much you’ve known is in excess of 25%. MR. STEVES-And that would be conservative on your part, because of the fact that I know it’s less, or however you look at it, yes. MR. OBORNE-And if I may, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Steves, I would highly suggest that you write something to that regard, because you are hamstringing yourself by saying that the density is larger than it actually is. That’s just a suggestion. MR. O'CONNOR-Part of our understanding from the conversations with the Planning Board last night is they want us to do topo of anything in any area that we are actually utilizing. So we will have actual topo, as opposed to using the USGS topo, which is sometimes tough to calculate. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I would think that we could go ahead and make a resolution, but I think we should add the caveat, as you’ve suggested, that the Planning Board would be the one who determines, you know, in the future, Site Plan Review would have to occur for any modifications to what currently exists on the property, to make sure that it’s in compliance with all the regulations, and that would be for septic and for freshwater on site. I mean, that’s a given. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I argue this all the time, Mr. Underwood, and sometimes I create issues by arguing it, but that’s your Ordinance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. O'CONNOR-So I don’t think it’s appropriate to do it as a condition of an approval. Your Ordinance says that if you modify a pre-existing, nonconforming structure, it’s only by Site Plan Review, whether you’re in a CEA or not in a CEA. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and the only other thing I would say is that whatever ultimately ends up down there, you know, going forward, it probably should be reflective of what else has been created in that neighborhood. I wouldn’t want to see anybody come in and try and use the basis for some huge house that is way out of whack with much more use than you would find on these, you know, more reasonable sized homes along that road there. MR. O'CONNOR-I honestly think that the existing structure will be what will be used. It’s 2100 square feet. That’s bigger than most of the other places that are year round there. Somebody may want to put a deck on it. Somebody may want to put a balcony. I mean, they’re going to have to be compliant. It’s going to have to be 75 feet back from the lake, but there may be some modifications to it, but if you go in and look at the structure, I mean, it’s reinforced concrete walls, it’s got steel eye beams. It’s not a two by four structure. It’s a two by eight structure, two by six structure. I mean, somebody’s not going to, at least not in my realm of finances, going to go in and simply tear the thing down and start over again. MR. CLEMENTS-It’s holding up the hill. MR. O'CONNOR-It may very well be. Knowing Danny Barber, it could hold up two of those hills. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does somebody want to make the resolution, then? Roy, do you want to do it? MR. URRICO-I guess so. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2008 CHRISTINE MOZAL, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) 99 Fitzgerald Road. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 3.42 acre parcel into two lots of one acre and 2.42 acres respectively. In doing so, the applicant is requesting relief from density, lot size and road frontage requirements. The applicant requests .58 acres of relief for subdividing the 3.42 acres of the two lots. The applicant also is requesting .58 acres of relief for Lot Two, and road frontage, the applicant is requesting 40 feet of relief from the road frontage requirement from both lots. The criteria for granting this variance, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties be created by the granting of the Area Variance. I would say, no, we don’t see many major changes, and possibly probably only minor changes to nearby properties as a result of this action. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue. We don’t see very many feasible alternatives. There is a significant sized parcel to the east, but we’ve determined that this is not necessarily the best solution for the applicant to pursue. The Area Variances might be considered moderate, I guess, in terms of the fact that .92 acres of flat land exists, which is enough. As far as environmental impact to the neighborhood or district, it may be minor to moderate, if any at all, and the difficulty probably is considered self-created. I move that we approve this Area Variance. I just want to also mention that the applicant has also provided us with a topographical map. This is evidence of the nature of the lot. The motion to provide the following recommendation to the Zoning Board was from the Planning Board, last evening, that the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals approves the requested Area Variance that will establish Lot One at One acre, Lot Two at 2.42 acres, as requested by the applicant. th Duly adopted this 26 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: MR. URRICO-The Area Variances might be considered moderate, I guess, in terms of there’s 3.42 acres, not all of it are buildable land. The request for density relief of .58 acres or 14.5%, I’m not comfortable with these numbers. I need some suggestions here as far as the density relief. What are we going to put in? MR. O'CONNOR-I think the area relief is to the lot size, which is the .58 acres on the one lot. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The density is, let me just, 3.42. MR. URRICO-I don’t think I necessarily have to put those measurements down. I’m just going to say that the requested Area Variances is moderate. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the density requirement for density variance is actually 3.08 acres. If I subtract the 2.50 from our total of 3.42, that means I’ve got .92 acres of flat land, and the Ordinance calls for four acres of flat land, and I’ve got .92. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s for both lots? MR. O'CONNOR-So 3.08. MR. UNDERWOOD-.92 is both lots. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I think that’s this, the way this arrow looks like, it’s for both lots. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think you could just say then we have to recognize that we’re at .92 for the flat area. MR. URRICO-All right. Again, we’re talking about the balancing test, and as far as the question of whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. We’ve determined that it’s not substantial, that it’s moderate. AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’ve got one set of minutes that we’ve got to approve. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you all. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/26/08) MR. STEVES-Thank you. CHRISTINE MOZAL MRS. MOZAL-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-These were the minutes from October 22, 2008. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 22, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2008, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 26day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 32