Loading...
2009.08.19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 2009 INDEX Sign Variance No. 36-2009 The Golub Corporation (Jim Maikise) 1. Tax Map No. 302.10-1-7 Area Variance No. 40-2009 Frank Adamo & Joyce Strauss 5. Tax Map No. 252.00-1-47 Area Variance No. 41-2009 William Whipple 15. Tax Map No. 304.13-1-8 Area Variance No. 46-2009 David W. Howard 25. Tax Map No. 308.08-2-67 Area Variance No. 44-2009 Michael & Christina Breda 30. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-30 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 08/19/09) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JOAN JENKIN BRIAN CLEMENTS GEORGE DRELLOS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’ll call the August 19, 2009 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, and 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, but it does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers. We will allow speakers to speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if after listening to the other speakers, a speaker believes 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 on the situation, and finally, if appropriate a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. OLD BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 36-2009 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED THE GOLUB CORPORATION (JIM MIAKISE) AGENT(S): MARCHAND JONES ARCHITECTS (M. KOPCHIK) OWNER(S): GLEN STREET, LLC (BRIAN FIELDING) ZONING: HC- INTENSIVE LOCATION: 677 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF 9 ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS ON FRONT FAÇADE OF PRICE CHOPPER. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS. CROSS REF.: SP 41-2009; SP 69-05; SV 7-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 8, 2009 LOT SIZE: 18.79 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.10-1-7 SECTION CHAPTER 140 MICHAEL KOPCHIK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Now last time that we met on this situation here, they were proposing a whole bunch of extra signs on the building, and also a change to the façade of the building, repainting the building a darker color. We had asked that the applicant should come back to us with four façade signs, and we’re going to allow two large ones, two small ones, as has been suggested, and to show us what the pattern’s going to look like, and which ones they’re going to be. Now I’m going to read in the Staff Notes, because I think that pretty much sums up what we were looking for, and we also have a recommendation from the Queensbury Planning Board in regards to the project. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 36-2009, The Golub Corporation (Jim Miakise), Meeting Date: August 19, 2009 “Project Location: 677 Glen Street Description of 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) Proposed Project: Subject to new ordinance. Planning Board has made a recommendation to the ZBA concerning this Sign Variance. See previously attached recommendation. Applicant proposed placement of 10 additional wall signs and the relocation of 2 existing wall signs on the front façade of Price Chopper on State Route 9. The applicant has since revised the plan at the direction of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The applicant is now proposing the placement of four additional wall signs and the relocation of 2 existing wall signs on the front façade. Relief requested from number of allowable signs. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief for 4 additional wall signs and approval for the relocation of 2 existing wall signs currently installed on the façade of the Price Chopper Grocery Store west of State Route 9. Criteria for considering a Sign 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 may be created by the granting of this sign variance as the proposed signs are small in nature and the nearest public road, State Route 9, is over 400 feet to the nearest proposed sign. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could reduce the number of signs in order to be compliant or more compliant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for what amounts to 4 additional wall signs or 400% relief may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.Minor impacts on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action due to the highly commercialized nature of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The alleged difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 42-09 Façade change/reconfiguration Pending SP 69-05 Renovations/alterations Approved 12/20/05 SV 7-03 Add 2 x 8 sign to existing 48 sq. ft. freestanding sign Approved 2/19/03 SP 22-98: Fence Approved 10/19/99 Staff comments: Per Chapter 140-6, “A business located on a parcel of property shall be granted a permit for two signs: one freestanding, double faced sign and one sign attached to a building (wall sign or permitted roof sign) or two signs attached to the building”. The parcel currently has 1 freestanding sign and 5 wall signs on the façade. The five wall signs and their proposed status are as follows: 1.Price Chopper / Market Center sign to remain as is. Compliant sign. 2.Pharmacy sign to remain as is. Compliant sign. 3.Starbucks sign to remain as is. Compliant sign. 4.Open 24 hour sign to relocate from left façade by south entrance to right wall adjacent to north entrance. Non-compliant due to proposed re-location. 5.Citizens Bank sign to relocate from left façade by south entrance to extreme south wall by building corner. Non-compliant due to proposed re-location. The applicant proposes 4 additional ‘Blade’ signs ranging in size from 8.0 square feet to 14.2 square feet. SEQR Status: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) Type Unlisted” MR. UNDERWOOD-Now as far as the Planning Board’s recommendation, this is something that we’ve developed as a new procedure here, so we’re not staggered by only one, not even less than 24 hours between meetings, so we get these things well in advance now. MR. OBORNE-Well, typically we hope that doesn’t happen. We want to give you a week. If they’re more involved, obviously, I’m not going to give you 24 hours. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Usually when we have these controversial ones, I think the key is that, you know, it gives us time to really get the minutes of what the Planning Board’s thought process was when they give this to us. So we’re not just told, yes, they say it’s a great idea or they don’t agree that it’s a good idea. So, in this instance here, this was Resolution Sign Variance No. 36-2009, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan and seconded by Stephen Traver. “The applicant has submitted applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals for placement of 9 additional wall signs. Relief requested from number of allowable signs. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING PRICE CHOPPER’S SIGN VARIANCE NO. 36-2009 REGARDING 10 ADDITIONAL WALLS SIGNS. CONSIDERING THERE ARE THREE BUSINESS UNITS WITHIN THE BUILDING, PRICE CHOPPER, CITIZENS BANK AND STARBUCKS, THAT THE APPLICANT IS IMPROVING THE COLOR SCHEME OF THE BUILDING, THAT THE DISTANCE OF THE SIGNAGE FROM THE ROAD, THE FACT THAT THESE SIGNS ARE NOT ILLUMINATED, WE WOULD SUPPORT A VARIANCE, AS THE APPLICANT WILL BE BETTER ABLE TO DEFINE THEIR SERVICE OFFERINGS AND IMPROVE BRANDING”, and that was Introduced by Gretchen, seconded by Stephen Traver, and it was unanimously adopted by the Planning Board. And I think that’s an error, that number 10, isn’t it? MR. OBORNE-That was the original. MR. UNDERWOOD-That was the original one. So that’s where we’re at. So I guess all we really need to do is just to clarify, in your packets, everybody should have your signs in front of you there, and you probably just want to quickly go through which ones they are. MR. KOPCHIK-Yes. Per the last meeting, we agreed to reduce the number to four, two large and two small. The two large signs read Bagel Factory and Artesian Bread. The two small signs read Café and Florist. They represent what we’ve determined were more a-typical offerings that were in the building to help define their offerings and services, and I believe we’ve presented what was requested. So, if you have any other questions, I’d be happy to answer them. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. In any case, are there any questions from you guys, or is everybody pretty much happy with the situation? I think this is exactly what we requested last time. I think what I’ll do is I’ll just quickly open the public hearing up, in case there’s anybody here from the public. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Then I guess what we’ll need is someone to do the motion. Does someone want to do this one? MR. OBORNE-To remind the Board, this is a SEQRA Short Form. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Why don’t I do that first of all. MOTION THAT HAVING GONE THROUGH THE SHORT FORM SEQRA, AND NOTING THAT WE DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING THAT TRIGGERS ANY KIND OF THOUGHTS IN OUR MIND THAT THIS WILL TRIGGER, THEN I WILL GIVE A NEGATIVE DEC ON THIS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Does somebody want to do the motion on this one, then? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-If I may interject, just to make sure that the motion is correct, not to say that it won’t be. There are two non-compliant signs that will have to be approved, plus the four signs, there’s a total of six signs. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and those two signs that need to be approved are the ones that were moved, the Citizens Bank sign. MRS. HUNT-The two relocated. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The two relocated ones were the ones we’re worried about. MR. OBORNE-Correct. That’s right. MR. UNDERWOOD-So in addition to that, it will just be the four, the Florist, Café, Artesian Bread, and Bagel. MRS. HUNT-Blade signs, yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-You need to close the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’ll close the public hearing. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 36-2009 THE GOLUB CORPORATION (JIM MIAKISE), Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 677 Glen Street. The applicant proposes, this is a revised application, is now proposing the placement of four additional wall signs, and the re-location of two existing wall signs, one on the front façade. Relief requested for the number of allowable signs. The relief required. Applicant requests relief for four additional wall signs and approval of the relocation of two existing wall signs currently installed on the façade of the Price Chopper grocery store on the west, Route 9. The four blade signs are new, and then the two existing signs, the non-compliant, are the 24 hour sign, which would be relocated from the left façade to the right wall adjacent to the north entrance, and the Citizens Bank sign will relocate from the south facade, south entrance, to extreme south wall of the building corner. In making this determination, we should consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this Sign Variance, and there should be minor effects because the signs are several hundred feet from the road. They’re not lit, and they’re small. Whether the benefit could be achieved by some other method feasible to the applicant. Well, the applicant did request 10 signs in the beginning, and very graciously cut down to four signs. Whether the request is substantial? I guess we could say that 400% is considered severe to the Ordinance, but again, this is a large building and these are small signs. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and I think there’d be minor impacts on the neighborhood, and you could say the difficulty was self-created because they wanted to upgrade the front and add new signs. So I move that we approve Sign Variance No. 36-2009. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) NOES: Mr. Urrico MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. Good luck with it. MR. KOPCHIK-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II FRANK ADAMO & JOYCE STRAUSS OWNER(S): FRANK ADAMO & JOYCE STRAUSS ZONING RR-5A LOCATION: 1875 BAY ROAD APPLICANT HAS BEGUN CONSTRUCTION OF A 256 SQ. FT. DECK AND REQUESTS FRONT SETBACK RELIEF. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 66 LINEAR FOOT STOCKADE FENCE IN FRONT YARD AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM LOCATION, STYLE AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. CROSS REF.: BP 2000-468 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: AUGUST 12, 2009 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 251.00-1-47 SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-5-070 FRANK ADAMO & JOYCE STRAUSS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-2009, Frank Adamo & Joyce Strauss, Meeting Date: August 19, 2009 “Project Location: 1875 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has begun construction of a 256 sq. ft. deck and requests front setback relief. Further, the applicant has constructed a 66 linear foot stockade fence in front yard and requests relief from location, style and height restrictions. Relief Required: The applicant is requesting 98 feet of front setback relief for the existing incomplete deck per §179-3-040. Further, the applicant requests relief from location, style and height restrictions for fencing per §179-5-070. Specifically, all privacy fences shall be limited to side and rear property lines and no fences over four (4) feet in height shall be erected or maintained along yards adjacent to public roads. 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 may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. With the existing house less than two (2) feet from the front property line, feasible methods other than an area variance appear limited. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 98 feet or 98% relief from the 100 foot setback requirement for new deck construction in the RR-5A zone per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for height, location and style relief per §179-5-070 for the 66 linear foot fence erected in the front yard may cumulatively be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to nearby properties may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The proposal and the resulting difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-468: 2592 sq. ft. residential alteration, CO not issued 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) Staff comments: It appears the existing fence has been installed on top of a stone wall and exceeds 6 feet in height. As only four foot non-privacy fences are allowed in the front yard, the height relief is in excess of 2 feet. The height of a fence shall be measured from the lowest point of the natural grade of the property adjacent to the fence per §179-5-070A(4). The fence is not located on the survey. The Zoning Board may wish to direct the applicant to ascertain if the fence has been installed in the county right of way. If the fence has been installed in the county right of way, does the applicant have permission to do so? Due to the close proximity of the fence to Bay Road, snow removal from the road may be impeded. SEQR Status: Type II” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 12, 2009 Project Name: Adamo, Frank & Strauss, Joyce Owner(s): Frank Adamo & Joyce Strauss ID Number: QBY-09-AV-40 County Project#: Aug09-27 Current Zoning: RR-5A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has begun construction of a 256 sq. ft. deck and requests front setback relief. Also, the applicant has constructed a 66 linear foot stockade fence in front yard and requests relief from location, style and height restrictions. Site Location: 1875 Bay Road Tax Map Number(s): 252.00-1-47 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant has begun construction of a 256 sq. ft. deck and requests front setback relief. Also, the applicant has constructed a 66 linear foot stockade fence in front yard and requests relief from location, style and height restrictions. The property is located in Rural Residential 5 ac. where the lot is 0.64 acres in size and the zoning requires a 100 ft. front setback, 75 ft. side yard setback, and 35 ft. rear setback. The existing home is 0.68 ft from the front property line on the south side and over by .53 ft on the north side. The plans show the location of the deck on the south side 32 ft. by 8 ft. in length. The fence is located on the south property side on the front property with a length of 66 ft. and a height of 6 ft.. The 6 ft. height is not allowed in the front yard. The applicant explains the porch will be consistent with the existing porch on the home and the fence will protect the side yard fro snowplowing materials along with helping minimize erosion on this side of the property. Staff recommends on county impact based upon 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 Action Local Action/Final Dispensation Default approval. Due to lack of quorum of the Board. No Action was taken.” Warren County Planning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to tell us about what’s going on? Anything you want to add? MR. ADAMO-The fence is constructed along a culvert that carries water from the top of Bay Road, by the T & T ranch there. It’s a problem with water always. Water seeps off the mountain there. So the fence we put up is right based on our culvert, which the village cleans out, or the Town cleans out, every year. Our septic that was existing runs right behind that maybe four feet, and leaches right along that. So we’ve had no problems with our septic yet, because it’s been under construction for seven years, but we anticipate, you know, just constant snow and snow, snow. The fence has been there two years. We’ve never had any Warren County issues or the Town or anything. They clean out our culvert. It’s really to protect our septic and actually our little piece of property right there. Because we did buy an existing structure that is right on Bay Road. I mean, we didn’t move the house. We didn’t change it, you know, that’s with the fence. So the deck, we connected the front porch, which is existing, to our rear entry, which goes from the front of the building to the ground level on the driveway. So it makes our second floor, which is above a two car garage, accessible with no stairs. So there was an existing, I guess a mud porch, that we connected to the front of the building. So we did, 296 feet. Now we thought it was in our permits when we first took over the property because we took it over under a construction already. We bought it with a building permit for a, not a new construction, but a renovation. Then when we filed our permits when we bought it, we got a different permit, you know to re-vamp the place. So we thought we were all good, and since we got any work, stop work or anything, we haven’t touched it. So we’re only trying to make it nice, and to make it functional, to come from 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) the back of the house to the front of the house, on the porch, which is connecting an existing porch to the front deck or the front porch, and then the fence is, we’re trying to keep our septic and our leach fields free from salt, you know, from deterioration. MS. STRAUSS-There’s just very little room in that area to meet the setback requirements, and that we understand, understand the height limitation, didn’t really know there was one. I’m not too sure about the style of the fence, because down the road on Bay Road, there’s other houses with vinyl fences. So I’m not too sure if this style. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Most recently we had one further down the road that we approved, but it set back pretty much further, and I think that, you know, the argument that you’re making seems reasonable based upon the fact that this building pre-dates, you know, when cars were whizzing by. I’m sure it dates back to the Year One. I don’t think you could build a structure any closer to the road than that thing is built, as it exists. I think most of us have probably driven by and seen the improvements that have been made over the course of the time that you purchased the place, and I kind of watched the fence go up. I saw the posts go in, driving up to my brother’s house up on the lake, and stuff like that, and I kind of wondered about it at the time, but it didn’t trigger anything in my mind at the time also. MR. ADAMO-Also, too, it’s just, me and her, we’re the only two people working on it. We don’t have construction companies. We live in Westchester. We come up here. Anything you’ve seen, improvement wise, and that place was a, you know, an eyesore, we’ve done it ourselves. MS. STRAUSS-We’re just trying to, you know, if the height has to come down on the fence, and again, I’m not too sure about the style. The style meaning? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, the way that it’s written in the fence Code is such that we wouldn’t want to see everybody in Town putting a fence up that close to the road, obviously. MR. ADAMO-But being where we are, you see where those weeds to the right of fence, that’s our septic. That’s the existing septic. So even the snow and all that stuff pounds over, so even if we come up here in the winter, it’s solid. I mean, it’s. MRS. JENKIN-So did you get permission to put the septic that close to the road? MR. ADAMO-The septic was existing. MS. STRAUSS-That was there. Everything was there. MRS. JENKIN-It’s an existing septic. MR. ADAMO-Yes. It’s existing. MRS. JENKIN-It’s amazing. It’s so close. MR. ADAMO-Everything we’ve done there is existing. The only thing we’ve done is we put, even, there were stones along that culvert, because when the Town cleans out the culvert, they take the dirt, if they don’t put it in the truck, they put it along to stop, because that’s right where the crest of Bay Road goes. So really the Town should even actually put a drain that goes to the lake. That would be the idea. MR. DRELLOS-Is it the Town or the County that does it? MR. ADAMO-The County, it’s Warren County. MRS. JENKIN-I notice that there’s a section of the fence that looks like it’s buckled out, too. MS. STRAUSS-Well, we stopped. MR. ADAMO-No, we stopped when we got a stop work order. MRS. JENKIN-You hadn’t constructed it, then? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. ADAMO-It was started to there, and then when we got, you know, when Dave contacted us, we stopped. MS. STRAUSS-We stopped, we didn’t finish anymore cementing. MRS. JENKIN-Would it be possible to move that fence behind the stone wall? That would lower it and it still wouldn’t get into the septic. MR. ADAMO-The only thing is, see, right there would hit our leach field, though. So we would have to break up our leach field, which is an existing leach field. MRS. JENKIN-The leach field is right on top of the stone wall? MR. ADAMO-Yes. If you look in our building permit application, the leach field runs actually right to the corner of Bay Road, but it’s pre-existing. MR. DRELLOS-That’s actually a six foot fence. It’s just sticking out of the air an extra two feet. MS. STRAUSS-On top of that. MR. DRELLOS-Could the posts go two feet, four feet? MR. UNDERWOOD-How did you set the posts in the rock wall? That must have been fun. MR. ADAMO-Yes, and they’re all four by fours, wood. I mean, we stopped working on it because we didn’t want any problems, you know. I mean, we’re here to make the Town as nice as we can. MRS. JENKIN-The leach field goes actually into the culvert? MR. ADAMO-No, it goes south towards, behind those weeds right there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Parallel to the fence. MR. ADAMO-Parallel to the fence, straight down, but right along that edge, to the culvert. That’s why it gets, somebody put stones there so the Town, or the County didn’t keep digging up the culvert. MRS. JENKIN-So they’re digging up your leach field at the same time? MR. ADAMO-I don’t know if they are, but we put that fence there. Hopefully everything will be stopped, you know, we’re trying to make it as nice as we can. MS. STRAUSS-The rocks were piled there along that whole side, and that’s where we just set them, where they were. MR. ADAMO-That culvert’s been there for 100 years. MRS. JENKIN-But you said that the leach field goes right to the edge of Bay Road? MR. ADAMO-The leach field runs to the right of that fence, straight. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would imagine that if you went further up the hill, inland, it looked to me like you’re on bedrock. MR. ADAMO-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-As most of Woodchuck Hill and the whole place, they’re on the side of the mountain there. MR. ADAMO-Yes. I mean, we bought a piece of property that’s, that was, you know, it’s too close to the road. MRS. JENKIN-Well, the house you can’t do much about. MR. ADAMO-But we’re just trying to get a little noise reduction to keep it nice. We’re not going to make anymore changes. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MRS. JENKIN-The deck sounds like a very reasonable idea, because it’s giving you better access to the house, and it also brings you out onto ground level at the back. MR. ADAMO-Right. MRS. JENKIN-That seems very sensible, but this fence is, doesn’t look like it’s doing anything at all. It just sits there. MR. ADAMO-Well, it’s keeping our septic away from the snow, and if you come, if you hear the cars go by, in the winter, the Warren County trucks go back 60 miles an hour on Bay Road. The snow goes over that fence. MRS. JENKIN-But then the fence is going to take a beating. Your fence is going to be done. MS. STRAUSS-No. It actually did, I was going to, I didn’t take pictures in the past winter, but the snow that’s up along that side, it’s amazing how much snow sits up on that fence. MRS. JENKIN-It must. MR. URRICO-Can I ask a question of maybe Staff or the applicant? Now you purchased this property in 2000? MR. ADAMO-Yes. MR. URRICO-And you received a building permit then? MS. STRAUSS-Yes. MR. URRICO-And at what point did you start constructing the fence? MR. ADAMO-About, I’d say a year ago. MS. STRAUSS-No, two years ago, I think, in the summer. MR. URRICO-And you had received a letter from Craig Brown at that point, in 2007? MR. ADAMO-Right. We started the fence maybe six months before we got that letter. MR. URRICO-All right. Now why has it taken two years? MR. ADAMO-Because they gave us a stop work order. We don’t live here. MR. URRICO-But, I mean, what’s happened in the mean time? MR. ADAMO-To be honest with you, we don’t live here. We’ve had some medical issues. MS. STRAUSS-We had to stop. MR. ADAMO-We stopped everything. MR. URRICO-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-So you’re not living in the house presently? MR. ADAMO-Not right now. MS. STRAUSS-No. We come up, we do the work on it. MRS. JENKIN-Just for the summer. MS. STRAUSS-Well, weekends. MRS. JENKIN-Summer, weekends. MR. ADAMO-We had a bad two years. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MS. STRAUSS-We’ve been doing this every weekend for, except for the past, I would say almost two years now we’ve kind of slowed down a bit, but we’re ready to start again. MR. URRICO-Now you started to say something about possibly lowering the fence? MS. STRAUSS-I was going to ask if that would be a possibility if we had to lower it. I mean, I don’t know about dropping it to the inside wall, as you suggested. I’m not sure about. MRS. JENKIN-It seems that it would give better protection to the fence if there was a rock wall in front, between the fence and the road, and it probably wouldn’t affect your leach field all that much to have, driving posts down there. MR. ADAMO-We’re here to, whatever, whatever we have to do, but we’re back here. We’re healthy again. We’re strong, and we’re going to work. Whatever you guys want us to do. How’s that? MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we open up the public hearing and see if anybody from the public wants to speak on the matter? Anybody from the public wish to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence at all? MR. URRICO-I don’t see any correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we look at it in two separate facets, then. The deck on there, do you guys have any remarks about the deck in the negative? MR. DRELLOS-I guess the only thing I have is the new section of decking, are the posts to hold it up new, too? MR. ADAMO-There’s actually, the old, the back side of the building, it’s on a piece of foundation that’s existing, and there’s four posts that are new, and they’re all in, what is it, pressure treated and sonotubes. MR. DRELLOS-Okay. I was just wondering if I can ask Keith then, what would the Building Department do? Would they make them dig everything up to check it? What’s existing? MR. UNDERWOOD-They had a building permit. MR. DRELLOS-Yes, but not for this, though. MR. OBORNE-Yes, they’ll check it out. MR. DRELLOS-They would? MR. OBORNE-And see if it’s done right. They can ascertain that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m sure they’ll just check to see if the bearing capacity is there, based upon what they have. MR. DRELLOS-Well, that’s what I’m saying. MR. ADAMO-Yes. From the front deck that’s to the other, the front old deck to the old porch is, there’s like a cement footing that used to be the house. So that’s connected right off the old mud porch. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s about two-thirds of it that’s sitting on the four posts out there. MR. ADAMO-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-The back quarter of it’s sitting on the ground. MR. DRELLOS-I’m looking at the overall picture, because if Dave Hatin comes in and 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) says, you know what, you need another beam here or this isn’t right, you know, that’s what I’m, they’ll do all that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. OBORNE-They’ll have to, let’s say the scenario is you approve the deck, okay. They’re going to have to come in and get a building permit to finish the deck. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. OBORNE-So, that’s the bottom line. They’ll have to go out and inspect it. MRS. HUNT-What is the width of the deck? MRS. JENKIN-Eight feet. MR. ADAMO-Yes. It’s eight feet, I believe. Eight feet wide. MRS. HUNT-Eight feet? MR. ADAMO-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and the other thing to consider on the deck is it doesn’t intrude any further out towards the road. It’s only as far out as the end of the house. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. DRELLOS-No, the deck makes sense. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, right. Okay. On the other issue of the fence. The way I look at it, there’s two things you could do. Either we can leave it as it is and accept the fact that it’s there. It’s too close to the road. If we take it off the top of the rock wall, we’re only going to move it back probably a foot from where it is now. MRS. JENKIN-But it will be lower. MR. UNDERWOOD-And lower it a little bit. So it’s a matter of the offensiveness of whether we think it’s too high or it’s creating any problems. MR. ADAMO-And also before you guys vote, you’ve got to remember, we’re right on Bay Road, and every little bit helps, you know, height wise, and noise and protection. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think, you know, we can consider it in the light of, you know, like if you were living there, and you were that close to the road, I don’t think that a bigger fence, to me, would be that offensive, because I think if it’s going to cut down on sound and noise and preserve what’s left of the septic system, if it’s functional, as he says it is, that, you know, maybe that’s a plus to leave it as is. It’s up to you guys. We approved a similar height fence further up the road, about two months ago. MR. DRELLOS-A lot longer, too. MRS. JENKIN-And that now is completely covered with bushes and things. So you can hardly see it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, you know, and I’m thinking this one here. MR. ADAMO-We’re going to put, right between the culvert and the rock wall there, daylilies. We’re going to make it nice. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. ADAMO-We just stopped work because Dave told us to stop. So once someone says stop, we stop. MR. URRICO-I don’t know if you’re going to poll everybody, but this has to be one of the more usual properties in the Town. I mean, we have very few properties that are this close to the road that, you know, create, they create a problem, but the problem has actually been there for a long time. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Well, as I said before at the beginning, I think it predates when there was car traffic. It probably dates back to wagon load days back there, and there’s that other barn you pass on the way out there that’s kind of like right in the road almost, you know. MR. URRICO-I mean, there are other properties in Town that are very close to the road, some of them even have satellite dishes in their front yard that are almost on the road. So this is not unusual for this type of property, the few that exist. MRS. JENKIN-The thing that bothers me when I look at the fence is it doesn’t fit. It just sits there. It’s not attached to anything. MR. ADAMO-Well, we stopped work on it. MRS. JENKIN-Right. Are you planning to make it longer and closer to the house? MR. ADAMO-No. We’re going to put perennials around the front of it. We’re going to probably put a little tiny gate right in there, you know, a little small gate, and we’re going to make it nice. MRS. JENKIN-If it had something that just. MS. STRAUSS-It looks like it’s floating in the middle of the (lost words). MRS. JENKIN-Yes, exactly. It doesn’t fit there. MR. ADAMO-We will anchor it as nice as we can. Believe us. We did a lot of work with that house already. MS. STRAUSS-Just that little front piece, like a little garden gate, like a little, you know, with like flowers, just to make it. MRS. JENKIN-That would be nice. Yes, to make it actually fit with the house and have a reason for being there, even though. MS. STRAUSS-Yes, the other side has a weeping cherry. We put a lot of weeping trees around, around the side of the house, and on the opposite side of that fence, there’s a beautiful weeping cherry, and then we’re going to put like a little arbor, because, well, he likes (lost word), I love gardening. Just trying to keep the weeds out of the garden. MR. ADAMO-But we haven’t done anything since we stopped. So that’s, you know, that’s how we stopped, and that’s how it is. So we’re going to get a permit. We’re going to come see Dave and Keith over there and get our deck checked out, make sure it’s structurally safe, and do everything we can to, you know. MRS. JENKIN-I’d still like to see it moved behind the rock wall. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you guys want to discuss, or do you want me to poll you? Did you have a comment from the public? You’ll have to come up if you want to make it. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’ve been driving by this property every day practically for the last 35 years. I think you’ll find, if you did a real honest to goodness deed search, that Warren County is encroaching on these people’s land with their road. There is no title to the bed of that road in Warren County. If you could show the slide that. You see that line, the yellow line property line there? There, to the right, more to the right? That’s the line of the old road. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-And it was changed back in 1932, so that they could accommodate the access to Woodchuck Hill Road. When this road was cut in there, it was cut in, it was first surveyed in 1811. It was first surveyed and mapped in 1811. You see the inordinate curve to the south? That road takes a very inordinate curve there, and that’s where it was changed. Before that time, it ran straight up to the lake. I shouldn’t say the lake, it ran up to a point just south of the intersection of Bay Road and 9L, but this is a mess up there like you can’t believe. We’ve been squabbling, the neighbors have been 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) squabbling about property boundaries and it’s a mess, because of the lousy surveying jobs that have been done, and the County has never taken land for their road, which they’re supposed to. There’s no such thing in law as a County road by use, but that’s what you have there, and every time I’ve got to the County to try to get it straightened out, the reply I get is, we don’t want to open that can of worms. These people are wrestling with that can of worms, but it’s a terrible situation, for whatever it’s worth. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. All right. Based upon that, do you guys want to reconsider, or, you know, I’m thinking in light of the fact that eventually the road’s probably going to get re-done up there at some point, they may move that road further off their property, off to the right, you know what I mean? It may not be as close to their house at it is now. It would seem to me also. MRS. JENKIN-Are they planning to move it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, no, I’m just saying, if it becomes a major use road in the future, maybe 20, 30 years from now, maybe the road will get changed so it’s not so close to those buildings, but, you know, in the instance of that barn that’s further down the road on the left as you’re coming south there, too. I mean, that, it’s like right on the barn. I’d hate to have to back out of that one. MRS. JENKIN-How old is your house, do you know? MR. ADAMO-I think it was built in the 1870’s. Not since we owned it, but I think the beginning structure was I think like horses and. MRS. JENKIN-So it’s really been there since. MS. STRAUSS-I think the actual brick structure was in the 70’s, ’72 or ’71, early 70’s, the brick structure. MRS. JENKIN-But the original house was built around 1900? MR. ADAMO-Yes. MS. STRAUSS-I know that the property that that sits in, because it’s a little piece of the bigger property, that that was an ammunitions barn. So, I mean, I don’t know, I’m not as good in my history. MR. ADAMO-It’s old. MS. STRAUSS-It’s old. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And poll the Board at this point in time, and I guess I’ll start with you, way down on the end, Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Well, you know, I think it’s unfortunate that this is so close to the road, but it is an existing condition. I think that you’ve worked hard to put up the fence, and the deck doesn’t extend out any further than the house does. So really, I guess that I would be in favor of the proposal. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce, you want to go next? MRS. HUNT-Yes. As far as the deck goes, as you said, it’s only eight feet wide, and it is no further front than the house, and it’s only eight feet more an extension of the house. I have no problem with that, and the fence, even looking at the picture, though it’s very close to the road, I mean, there are trees that are hanging out further than that. So I would have no problem with the fence either. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I really think this is a time to be reasonable about things, rather than unreasonable, and I believe that, you know, perhaps there might have been some triggers along the way that might have warned them before they got to this point, but it 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) didn’t happen. I think the result is really not detrimental to the neighborhood. I don’t think, if I were living in that property, I don’t know what feasible alternatives there would be, other than putting up something like this and trying to improve the property, and trying to get some privacy from the road that runs right by your house, and thanks to Mr. Salvador, I guess that road is encroaching on them rather than them encroaching on the road, and in terms of it being substantial, that’s part of it, too. The area being substantial, I don’t see any impacts, otherwise, and I don’t even think the difficulty was self-created. I think it was created by the situation. So I would be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I think the deck is a good practical application of the space. It’ll also give them some nice views from that spot. The deck I’d be in favor of. The fence, I think, is about eight feet high, from where I was standing. I think it could have been a lot lower. The fence I would not be in favor of. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George? MR. DRELLOS-The deck makes sense. I’d be in favor of the fence. I would like to see the fence a little lower. I think it is kind of high, the eight feet, but I don’t know if moving it a foot or two is going to be that much of a difference, or is it too unreasonable to move at this point in time? It is obtrusive, obviously, but, like you say, it’s on Bay Road, protecting the property from the heavy snows and plows. So, in this case, we did approve one down the road, six foot, same thing. So I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I think the deck is definitely a desirable change to your home. I think it makes sense. I think that it’ll add a lot to it. You are trying to upgrade the house and make it look nicer, and I think that’ll be a major change, a positive change. The fence I still have a problem with. I’d like to see it moved behind the rock wall because I’m not sure how high the rock wall is, but it probably would, you would be able to lower it at least two feet by having it behind there. You’ve said, though, and as I said before, I don’t like the idea that it’s just sitting there with no attachments at either end, but you did say that you would try to finish it off and make a little arbor gate, something like that, to try to improve the appearance of it. I don’t see, when it’s that close to the road, that you’re going to be able to plant perennials or anything, because then the salt from the road is not going to be good. So it probably would be what it is, and we have to vote on the whole variance, correct? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-So I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll go along with the majority here, too. I think that, you know, I have no problems whatsoever with the deck. I think that’s reasonable, and being able to run around the whole thing without having to run through the house to get from one end to the other is going to be a bonus for you at the same time, and I’m sure that the Building and Codes will make sure that everything is approved and to standard at that point when they get a hold of it. The fence is an extraordinary request, but as Roy said, you know, there’s situations that we run into where people get more than they’re entitled to, and this seems to be one of those cases here. It is a taller fence than normal, and I would have to agree with Rich that that’s a valid point that he makes there, too, at the same time, but, you know, we’re not here to make people jump through hoops, and, you know, bark when they’re supposed to, and the fence is already up. Moving it back isn’t going to make that much of a big difference. It isn’t going to increase the amount of snow that piles up in front of there anyway. So I guess I’ll go along with it, too. So I’ll look for somebody to make a motion to approve it. MRS. JENKIN-I can make the motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2009 FRANK ADAMO & JOYCE STRAUSS, Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) 1875 Bay Road. The applicant has partially constructed a 256 square foot deck and requests front setback relief. Further, the applicant has constructed a 66 linear foot stockade fence in front yard and requests relief from location, style and height restrictions. The relief required. The applicant is requesting 98 feet of front setback relief for the existing incomplete deck, per Section 179-3-040. Further, the applicant requests relief from location, style and height restrictions for fencing per Section 179-5- 070. Specifically, the variance does say that all privacy fences shall be limited to side and rear property lines, and no fences over four feet in height shall be erected or maintained along yards adjacent to public roads. In making a determination the criteria for considering the Area Variance, 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 the nearby properties because the property is fronted on Bay Road and there really is nothing except the road in front of it, and that’s where the impact will be. 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 existing house less than two feet from the front property line, feasible methods, other than an Area Variance, appear limited. It really, since the house has been there, since close to 100 years, and that’s where it was built, any kind of improvement that the property does must go along with that. It’s a nonconforming structure. Whether the requested variance is substantial. The request for 98 feet is extremely substantial, but it has no bearing because the house is there and the new deck has to be constructed where the house is. The deck is on the side of the house, so it doesn’t encroach further, closer to the road. The request for height location and style relief per 179-5-070 over the 66 linear foot fence erected in the front yard may be considered severe. It’s very, very difficult to make any changes to that, either, because of the location of the septic system which they’re trying to protect from the snow removal that happens along the road. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. That doesn’t seem to be, it will not really have any adverse effects at all. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, I don’t consider it was self-created because the house was there and they’re trying to do the best job they can with it. So I move to approve Area Variance No. 40-2009. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Garrand MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. Good luck with it. MR. ADAMO-Thank you guys very much. MS. STRAUSS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II WILLIAM WHIPPLE AGENT(S): WILLIAM WHIPPLE OWNER(S): ALVERTA SAWYER c/o RICHARD SAWYER ZONING: NR LOCATION: 11 KATHERINE STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE EXISTING MOBILE HOME WITH A NEW 1, 152 SQ. FT. MOBILE HOME AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE NR ZONE. CROSS REF.: TB RES 208,2009; BP 2009-182; BP 97-583 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: AUGUST 12, 2009 LOT SIZE: 0.13 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 304.13-1-8 SECTION: 179-3-040 WILLIAM WHIPPLE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2009, William Whipple, Meeting Date: August 19, 2009 “Project Location: 11 Katherine Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace a 980 square foot existing mobile home with a new 1,155 sq. ft. mobile home and requests relief from the front setback requirement of the NR zone. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7.5 feet of front setback relief per §179-3-040 for the NR zone. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) 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 the character of the neighborhood may be produced as many dwellings associated with parcels in the neighborhood are non- compliant with regards to front setbacks. 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 limitations of the lot appear to eliminate any feasible method by which to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 7.5 feet or 37.5% of relief from the 20 foot front setback requirement for the Neighborhood Residential District per §179-3-040 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 in the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this request. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. Lot limitations in relation to this proposal appear to not make the difficulty self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 09-182: 1,280 sq. ft. mobile home, pending TB Res 208-09: Placement of mobile home outside a mobile home court Approved 6/15/09 BP 97-583: 980 sq. ft. Mobile home 10/14/98 Staff comments: The applicant states in the description of the project that the replacement dwelling will be approximately 175 square feet bigger than what currently exists. With a 980 square foot dwelling on site, that makes the proposed replacement approximately 1,155 square feet. The survey denotes a 16 by 80 square foot dwelling proposed, which equates to 1,280 square feet. Clarification on the size of the proposed mobile home will need to be forthcoming. On June 15, 2009 the applicant requested and received approval from the Town Board to place a mobile home outside of a mobile home court (see attached). SEQR Status: Type II” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 12, 2009 Project Name: Whipple, William Owner(s): Alverta Sawyer c/o Richard Sawyer ID Number: QBY-09-AV-41 County Project#: Aug09-29 Current Zoning: NR Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to replace existing mobile home with a new 1,152 sq. ft. mobile home and requests relief from the front setback. Site Location: 11 Katherine Street Tax Map Number(s): 304.13-1-8 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to replace an existing mobile home with a new 1,152 sq. ft. mobile home and requests relief from the front setback requirement. The information submitted indicates the existing mobile home is 1985 and the new home is a 2009 energy efficient mobile home. The home is to be located 12.5 ft. from the front setback where a 20 ft. setback is required. The applicant explains the location is because the new home will be located in the same position as the previous home where relocating would be more expensive. Staff recommends on county impact based upon 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 Action Local Action/Final Dispensation Default approval. Due to lack of quorum of the Board. No Action was taken.” Warren County Planning Board. 8/19/09. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Whipple? MR. WHIPPLE-I am William Whipple. What I propose here is pretty much what you have read there and stated. I’m just replacing the existing mobile home with a brand new mobile home, staying with the setback that is existing on the home that’s there, which, up until the very last moment, I didn’t even realize that was a factor. Kind of was hit with me, because I thought I was going to have issues with the side setback, and since we did it the last time, they’ve changed the front, and that was the situation this time. The sides are fine, and it became the front, but staying with, and actually just looking at that folder right there, with the exception that there is actually a new house on that lot to the left of us, that does sit quite a ways back, but everybody else prior to that is pretty much in that same front setback range, and that’s pretty much what I’m looking to do, stay the same. MR. UNDERWOOD-So the new trailer is just slightly wider than the one that’s there? MR. WHIPPLE-Yes, it is a little bit wider, and the main factor I was after is that with the new home, we’re going to get eaves and stuff put on it, which is better for the walls. MR. UNDERWOOD-Better than the square walls? MR. WHIPPLE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. WHIPPLE-Yes, and we went for the cost of that and having put a roof on and actually re-side it and insulate it and it was just astronomical for what it was. The new trailer is less expensive. MR. UNDERWOOD-How old is the one that’s there now? MR. WHIPPLE-It’s a 1984, I believe, ’84-’85, right in that range. MR. UNDERWOOD-So what do they do now? Do they have any use for the old ones, do they just tear them, rip them down? MR. WHIPPLE-We’re in the process of figuring that out. That seems to be what they want to do. MRS. JENKIN-Will you keep the side deck as is? MR. WHIPPLE-If you see it, the way that it’s done in the proposal there, pretty much we’re going to do just what it is, just kind of cut the corner of it, but stay with it. So it’s going to be actually a little smaller, but keeping it, yes. So it won’t really, it probably has to be moved and then set back. I’m not quite sure yet on that, but we would like to keep it, just cut the corner and kind of keep it exactly where it sits. MR. URRICO-Can you clarify the size of the, Staff says that the survey shows room for 1,280 square foot, rather than 1150, the trailer. MR. UNDERWOOD-For the trailer dimensions, is it 16 by 80 or is it 20 by 80? MR. WHIPPLE-It’s 16 by 80, the actual, 16 by 80. MR. DRELLOS-Is it 16 by 80, or is it 16 by 76? MR. WHIPPLE-It’s 16 by 76. MR. DRELLOS-They add four feet for the hips. MR. WHIPPLE-Yes. They call it a 16 by 80, but. MR. DRELLOS-Would that make it three, four feet less? MR. OBORNE-They added four feet for the hitch, is that what you said? MR. DRELLOS-Yes. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-So it’s really 76. MR. OBORNE-No, I’m looking at outside dimensions, the walls and living space. MR. DRELLOS-The hitch comes off, though, Keith. They don’t leave the hitch on. So the actual box size is 16 by 76. MR. OBORNE-So 1216 square feet is what you’d be approving, then. MR. DRELLOS-Whatever that is. So you’re actually four feet less than what the plan shows. So you’re really only going for, what, three and a half. MR. UNDERWOOD-We can make it for a little bit more than it is. MR. DRELLOS-Well, no, it’s still the same, but he’ll be back. MR. WHIPPLE-Well, the front would stay the same. MR. DRELLOS-Right. The front stays the same, but he’ll be three and a half feet from the back less. MR. OBORNE-The back lot, that’s not an issue. MR. DRELLOS-It’s not an issue. MR. URRICO-Yes. I don’t think the size of that is really relevant to the motion anyway, if we get to that point. Right? MR. OBORNE-True. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re looking at the front setbacks from the road, so that’s the only thing we’ve got to worry about. MR. DRELLOS-Unless he moved it back to meet where it is on the plot plan, he’d be three and a half feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, we can leave it up to him. I don’t think they want to get into the septic area back there, you know, because it’s pretty confined, in case they’ve got to ever do the re-do and put it next to where the current tank and all is back there. I don’t even know what’s back there. MR. WHIPPLE-That’s what we were mainly trying to stay away from. That was one of the factors. I think that was the original factor when the other one was there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. So you don’t even remotely disturb it, yes. MR. DRELLOS-All I’m saying is, if they left the rear the same, now the front is actually three and a half, four feet farther away from the road. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. So they’ll gain a little driveway there. MR. DRELLOS-Well, that’s what I’m saying to him, that he actually, you only need three and a half feet of relief, but the home is in the back is still the same. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Well, we can grant it as advertised, because that way he’s not going to have to come back if they go back and re-measure it and missed it by a foot or something. MR. OBORNE-If it results in less relief, that’s good. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that’s fine. MR. OBORNE-So you pretty much have to approve it as advertised. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. MRS. JENKIN-Where do you park now? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. WHIPPLE-I think the one shot he had there you’ll see it. It’s right in front. MRS. JENKIN-Right in front. There’s room. MR. WHIPPLE-Yes. There’s actually, we’ve had no issues with the plowing or anything like that, as far as the trucks, the County trucks or Town trucks, whoever does it. Even with the vehicles there, it’s usually enough that the snow drops and it’s not, I mean, there’s a pile behind the cars, but there’s enough space there so they’re not like in the road or anything. It’s a good distance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think I’ll open the public hearing at this point. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JEFF RYTHER MR. RYTHER-I’ve just got some concerns. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ll have to identify yourself on the mic, so we can get you on the record. Thank you. MR. RYTHER-I’m Jeff Ryther, I live at 9 Katherine Street. Where the empty lot is, we built a new house right there. So, my concerns are, if they’re bringing the trailer up, they’re already almost. MRS. RYTHER MRS. RYTHER-They’re on the road now, where they park. MR. RYTHER-Just about. MRS. RYTHER-Snow removal. MR. JENKIN-Which side are you on? MRS. RYTHER-We’re on the empty lot on the left to the trailer, and their fence is actually on our property now, and it’s on my mother’s in the back. We have a survey that shows that. So if they’re going to get any closer, how are they going to, you can’t even get to their back yard off their deck now, and if you can see the front of what they have there now, Mr. Whipple doesn’t live there. He, I guess, must be a tenant, but as you can see, the up keep of it isn’t, I’ve had to call the Town of Queensbury on them five times since we’ve been there. Just to get them to clean up their yard. The weeds are overgrown, way up over the fence. MR. RYTHER-So our concern is the eyesore of it. Is that going to stop? The fence is falling down. MRS. JENKIN-Is it your fence or their fence? MRS. RYTHER-The fence was already there. MR. RYTHER-It’s pre-existing. MRS. JENKIN-It’s your fence. MR. WHIPPLE-Yes. It is. He’s right. It’s technically above, even on our survey, but, not to take their time, but there is actually, not to take there time, but if you see on my survey there’s plenty of room to walk between my, the owned property, and the deck. MRS. RYTHER-Right now, but if they put a new overhang or whatever else is there, there will not be, and the snow removal, when they do do the snow removal, the first year, this is only our second year, this’ll be our second winter. Last year we allowed them to put it over on our property. They never came over to clean it up in the Spring like we asked. So we told them they couldn’t do it again. MR. RYTHER-That was the year before. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MRS. RYTHER-That was the year before, and I don’t know what they’re going to do with it this year, and if they get any closer to the road, they barely have enough room to park right there, and there’s, at least there’s always two vehicles there. In the summertime there’s a motor home there. MR. GARRAND-Did you want the fence moved back into his property? MRS. RYTHER-Yes, please, or we’ll put up a new one. MRS. JENKIN-Do you need the fence? MRS. RYTHER-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Maybe you don’t need a fence. You can just take it down. MRS. RYTHER-I mean, if they take it down, we’re going to try to put up a new one. MRS. JENKIN-Well, then you could put a fence up. MRS. RYTHER-Yes. That sounds perfect. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you want to add? MR. RYTHER-No. Well, my other concern is the Town Engineer going to go in and check out the septic on it? I mean, it does, our yard is right there. Our line is right there where that septic is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll ask Staff. I don’t know what the requirements are, Staff, when they replace one of these? MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s a Building and Codes issue. I mean, obviously you can make it a condition of approval that it’s checked, but. MR. RYTHER-I also have a letter. The neighbor knocked on my door today, asked me if I was coming. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, you can give that to the Secretary. He’ll read it in. Thanks. MR. DRELLOS-It does meet the side setback requirements. MR. UNDERWOOD-Presently, as it exists, it looks like it meets side setback. The only thing we were requesting was setback from the road requirement, you know, front setback. MR. RYTHER-And I also put in an irrigation system and I’ve got a brand new lawn. I’d like to, hopefully they’re not coming on my lawn like before. MRS. RYTHER-To have to put the new trailer in. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would imagine all they’re going to do is put a hitch on that thing, or take it out in pieces, you know, whichever way it works out. I know the property got dug up before when they put that trailer in. MRS. RYTHER-Yes. My parents owned the property that we built on, and they had to use that property to put the existing trailer in, and we were told that after that trailer came out, there was not to be any more trailers put, and it was a grandfather clause. So, how all of a sudden, I mean, anything would obviously look better than what’s there, yes. I agree. MR. GARRAND-The Town Board approved. MR. UNDERWOOD-The Town Board unanimously approved it. So, I mean, we don’t really have any purview over that requirement, other then, I guess, there probably was a public comment period on that, and I don’t know if you were allowed to speak. MR. RYTHER-This is the first letter we got on this. MRS. RYTHER-Yes. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. RYTHER-I think Mr. (lost words) came and (lost words) back in June or something. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know if the Town’s required to notice the nearby residences on something like that. I don’t know. MR. OBORNE-I don’t believe so. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Thank you. MR. RYTHER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy, you want to read that in. MR. URRICO-It says, “To Whom It May Concern: I received notice that Mr. Whipple is applying for a variance to the front setback requirement to replace existing mobile home with a new 1,152 sq. ft. mobile home. While I respect Mr. Whipple’s right to replace his mobile home, I object to his request to receive a variance to the front setback. Mr. Whipple has two vehicles that are parked in front of his property much of the time. There is not room for the vehicles in the driveway and they are parked in the road a good share of the time . My property is directly across from his property and it is difficult now to exit my property with his vehicles parked in the road. Additionally, he has no place to plow snow now and with less room, I do not know his plans for snow removal. When his last mobile home was put in, he had to use my property in order to place the home. I will not allow him to do this again. The last time, the yard was all dug up and he did not take responsibility for putting the property back to the condition it was before. Mr. Whipple is a good neighbor and I do not wish to cause him hardship, but in my opinion, the front setback that the town sets is very much needed on Katherine Street and in this neighborhood. Respectfully, Eugene F. Pratt” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thanks. MR. URRICO-I guess the address is 14 Katherine Avenue. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you want to make any commentary. I think that they have raised a couple of issues as far as the upkeep of the property and trying to have less of an impact on the neighborhood. I don’t know what you can do with the car situation. You’re sort of between a rock and a hard place. It looks like you’re going to gain three feet, possibly, if we measure right to the edge of the house there. I see that it’s things that you can work on yourself, you know, I mean, if you live in a neighborhood, you’ve got to get along with people and, you know, go the extra yard if you want something out of the deal. MR. WHIPPLE-Pretty much, the part with the snow, that’s why, to the left hand side of the house, it’s left there, because that’s really where we place it, and I guess the last, especially this last year, there was a lot of snow. MR. UNDERWOOD-It was a big snow year. MR. RYTHER-So there’s not a lot, you know, I mean, there’s so much we can do. I mean, I guess we could have it taken away if it comes to that point or whatever. It does bank up. I will admit that, as far as what we’re pushing to the side, because you’ve got what’s coming off the road. So that’s what that area is left there for, so that you do, and not directly in front of the home itself. Don’t want anymore issues with that, as far as problems with the home. Some of the other ones that have been brought up, I don’t know as to where they’re totally relevant with what I’m asking here. I will say I was notified once of the yard and actually went down there and had at it, you might want to say, brought equipment in. We actually put a new lawn in, put out the sprinklers, tried to take care of that part of it. I had the neighbor next door to the right mowing it and taking care of it, but he’s kind of in and out of health and when he can do it, he can. We don’t. So those are issues I guess we’ll work on, but. MR. UNDERWOOD-You don’t own the property, you’re just? MR. WHIPPLE-It’s my grandfather’s. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s your grandfather’s. Okay. MRS. JENKIN-Do you plan to live there? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. WHIPPLE-No. MRS. JENKIN-You’re not. You’re going to rent it. MR. WHIPPLE-Yes. MR. URRICO-Jim, I want to go back to what George suggested and think. Maybe we can use that extra footage here. I think we need it, and as far as re-advertising, we’ve adjusted setbacks in the past, while we’re voting on it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, based upon George’s knowledge of mobile homes, then you’re telling us that they’re going to gain three feet by taking? MR. DRELLOS-Four feet. The hitch is four feet. It’s really a 76 foot. MR. UNDERWOOD-So the amount of relief that we’re going to need is going to be two feet only, right? MRS. JENKIN-But it will be closer to the road, though, that house itself? MR. WHIPPLE-No, it’ll actually be pushing back. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. It’ll be further from the road, than what currently exists. MR. DRELLOS-It’ll be further from the road. Leave the back the same, and now it’s four feet shorter. MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re asking for 7.5 feet of relief. So they’re only really going to need three and a half feet of relief, but, I mean, I would rather give them the extra foot in there to monkey with. We advertised it, and when you place the home, put it as far back as is reasonable. MR. WHIPPLE-Well, if I stay with what I’ve asked for on the back, that would gain whatever forward. Correct. MRS. JENKIN-The septic’s, the tank is right there, right behind the existing house now? MR. WHIPPLE-Yes. It’s actually, that is done with the survey. We had that done to where it is. MRS. JENKIN-There’s no way you can move. MR. WHIPPLE-Well, we didn’t want to be over it at all, so if you have to really access it, and get to it. MRS. JENKIN-No, you can’t. MR. UNDERWOOD-And this thing isn’t going to be on a cellar. It’s just going to be sitting on a slab. MR. WHIPPLE-It’s on two piers that we put in, that run the whole length. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So there’s just a crawl space under there, or something. MR. WHIPPLE-Yes, pretty much, skirted. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and it doesn’t look to me like the deck’s going to intrude any closer to the property line to the people on the left there. The deck’s going to stay where it is. MR. WHIPPLE-We’re not planning on moving it. Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think with a new home, that’ll probably be incentive to keep the property up better, too, you know, that would be my guess on it. We can put that in as a stipulation, upgrade, upkeep. That’s not too difficult. MR. WHIPPLE-That’s fine. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. OBORNE-If I could interject, though, as far as the deck, if that deck stays, though, and you put the trailer right up to the deck, you’re going to need side setback relief. MR. UNDERWOOD-He was going to cut some off the deck, he said. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. WHIPPLE-Yes, to cut it. We don’t want to relocate it, basically. Stay right where it is, just cut the edge so that it fits. MR. UNDERWOOD-You could probably cut the plate off there and just cut it back and reattach it. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Well, just keep in mind that what you have on the survey is what needs to be installed. That’s all. MR. UNDERWOOD-So they’ll lose a little bit of deck from what they have now. MR. GARRAND-Now the neighbor wanted you to move the fence, remove it or move it over. Is it possible to move it over into your property? MR. WHIPPLE-We can reposition it, I guess. We’ll have to work that out. MR. GARRAND-If it’s on their property, I’m not sure. MR. OBORNE-Just looking at this, this is not a true facsimile. This is not a survey. This is GIS, but if you look at the survey, you can see that the deck and the fence is off the property. So, if you wish to make that a condition, obviously you can. MR. WHIPPLE-Well the deck’s not off the property. The fence is. MR. OBORNE-Okay. I’m just saying that the deck is right on there, but it’s pre-existing. That’s not the issue. MR. UNDERWOOD-It looks to me like you’re 3.8 feet off the property line with the deck as it exists right now. MR. WHIPPLE-Yes, but it’s not on their property. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s in your yard. MR. WHIPPLE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-But the fence looks like it’s just slightly over. So, I mean, that may be something you can work out with them. If they want to put up a new fence, you could just take down the old one and put the new one up. If they want to take that cost under consideration or. MRS. JENKIN-The fence itself is probably fairly old, isn’t it? MR. WHIPPLE-It’s at least 10 years old, I’d say, or eight to ten years. It was a chain link fence prior to that and it was (lost words). MRS. JENKIN-It was? MR. WHIPPLE-Yes. Actually it’s right where the chain link was, and when Pam spoke, I had spoke to her dad when we changed that, which was years ago, and we pulled that up and switched it out, but back then there was no survey. We stayed with what was there. We just took away the chain link and replaced it, but that’s, I mean, if the fence has got to go, the fence has got to go. MR. DRELLOS-What kind of siding are you going to put around the home, is it going to be the vinyl? MR. WHIPPLE-It’s going to be new vinyl. It’s all, it’ll, it’ll actually look closer to the new house that’s built in style and what else is existing. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. They’re house is very nice. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. WHIPPLE-Yes. They did a nice job. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess what I’m going to do is close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And poll the Board, and I’ll start with you, George. MR. DRELLOS-Yes. I think it’s a good plan you have here. I think it’ll upgrade your property, and it gives you a chance to clean up the lot even more. I think the variance that you’re asking, the relief isn’t that substantial. I’d be in favor of it, as long as he keeps the back where it is. So it’s four feet shorter, and he has to take the hitch off, obviously. It has to come off. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I think I agree with George. I think it’s going to be a nice upgrade to the property. I think that probably you could work some things out with your neighbors and get that under control. So I think it would be a desirable change for the neighborhood. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I think this’ll be an improvement over what’s currently there, and I think Mr. Whipple seems willing to work with the neighbors next door. I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think I’m going to go along with it. I don’t know if I want to condition the fence as part of this, but I would encourage that issue to be resolved independently of our making it a part of the motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I agree with my fellow Board members. I think it’s a modest proposal and I have no problems. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I think your neighbors have taken a lot of care with their house, their property, and it looks very, very nice, and I think that by you putting in a new mobile home, I think that that’s going to definitely improve the character of the whole neighborhood, and definitely will be an addition to their property, because it’ll be new, and hopefully you’ll, the deck will be the same deck but you’ll put grass in and you’ll landscape it a little bit now, given the chance, and I think that any improvement in that neighborhood would be a real physical and environmental positive. So I would be definitely in favor of this change. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll go along with everybody else, too. I think when, Rich, do you want to do this one? MR. GARRAND-Sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think what we’re looking at here is we’re going to give you four and a half feet and use up that three feet that the hitch is going to use, and that’ll give you a foot to play with there, as far as that goes. I would echo everybody else’s sentiments, too, though. I think you, you know, if you’re the owners of the property, keep the place clean. I mean, tell the people that are renting it, you know, you expect a change in their attitude, if there’s been a problem, you know, whether it’s been substantial or not is up for question, but nonetheless, I mean, if everybody upgrades in the neighborhood, it’s a plus, and I see this as a plus also. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2009 WILLIAM WHIPPLE, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: 11 Katherine Street. The applicant proposes to replace a 980 square foot existing mobile home with a new 1260 square foot mobile home and requests relief from the front 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) setback requirement of the Neighborhood Residential zone. The applicant requests 4.5 feet of relief from the front setback relief per Section 179-3-040. On the balancing test, can benefits be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? The applicant is looking to upgrade a mobile home. Renovations are pretty much out of the question due to cost nature of renovating a mobile home. So he’s replacing the mobile home. So other means feasible are pretty much impractical. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby properties? The applicant has agreed to work with the neighbors next door to work on issues with the fence as well as landscaping and up keep of the property. I think a new mobile home will actually produce a desirable change in the neighborhood. Is the request substantial? I’d have to deem this request as moderate at best. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood? I do not believe it’ll have any adverse environmental impacts on the neighborhood. Is this difficulty self-created? Given the size of this pre-existing lot, I don’t believe this difficulty is self-created. So I would move that we approve Area Variance No. 41-2009. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. WHIPPLE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II DAVID W. HOWARD AGENT(S): KASANDRA L. ISSACSON OWNER(S): JACQUELINE LIAPES ZONING: MDR LOCATION: CORNER OF HOWARD ST. AND SHERMAN AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,280 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 418 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REF.: NONE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.08-2-67 SECTION: 179-3-040 DAVID HOWARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-2009, David W. Howard, Meeting Date: August 19, 2009 “Project Location: corner of Howard St. and Sherman Ave. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,280 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 418 sq. ft. attached garage on a 0.16 acre lot. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10.2 feet of front setback relief and 20.0 feet of rear setback relief per §179-3-040 for the MDR District. 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 the neighborhood may be anticipated overall; however, the property to the east will be most affected by this proposal as the rear of the proposed house will be 10 feet from the property line. 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. Due to the limitations of the lot, there appears to be limited options by which to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 10.2 feet or 34% relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the MDR zone per §179-3- 040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 20 feet or 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) 67% relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement for the MDR zone per §179-3- 040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty for the applicant may not be self created due to the limitations of the lot relative to the proposal. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None Found Staff comments: It appears that the property directly east of this proposal will be most affected. Has the applicant considered centering the house on the property in order to minimize the impact on the neighbor to the east? The Zoning Board may wish to consider this scenario when deliberating this proposal. SEQR Status: SEQR Type II – no further review necessary.” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything you want to tell us about? MR. HOWARD-Yes. First and foremost, sir, the home isn’t 2280 square feet, okay. The home’s just under 1500 square feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that’s the two floors they’re counting? MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s what I thought. MR. HOWARD-It’s going to be just under 1500 square feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. HOWARD-And then with the garage, it’s another 440. So I’m not sure where that number came up. MR. OBORNE-Is there a basement? MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir, there is. MR. OBORNE-Okay. That’s why. Anything over five feet is considered living space. MR. HOWARD-Okay. That’s where they came up with that. Okay. Very good. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and that’s the new Code? MR. OBORNE-That’s the new Code, yes. MR. HOWARD-Okay. That’s where we come up with that number, then. MR. UNDERWOOD-How about as far as the, I mean, when you look at the plot, you know, here, you still have all that frontage out in front that’s off the property, that’s on the, is that Town right of way on that Town road? MR. OBORNE-That’s a Town road, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-A Town road out front there. So that’s got to be, what, 12 feet? MR. HOWARD-It’s actually about 20. MR. UNDERWOOD-Twenty, is it that much? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. HOWARD-I looked at that as well, sir, and that always makes it easier, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, because a lot of times we run into these same situations on these old subdivisions, where, you know, because of the right of way, you know, obviously it cuts into the property, but in the instance of all the neighbors there, everybody doesn’t meet the setbacks in essence, on that whole street, I would imagine. MR. DRELLOS-So are you saying move the house closer to the road? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, you know, I mean, if we’re trying to reach, what is it, 30 feet is our goal on the setback off the line, and in essence here we’re going to end up with about 30 feet. Even if you centered it and you got a little bit closer to the road with the house, and I’m not sure that, you know, having 12 feet of setback or 14 feet on the back would make any difference, but it would give you a little bit of a back yard, and you’ve got more of a side yard to worry about on that other side of the garage there. So you will have a little bit of yard there. MR. HOWARD-I had the same problem at another home that I did in Hudson Falls and it was a very small back yard, but as you’re standing at the foot of this, the Town property there, yes, it is the Town, but if we do have to slide it forward, that’s not a problem, and I just really can’t make the house any narrower than it already is. I’ve constructed it already, and it gives it adequate living space inside and any smaller just would probably be impractical. MR. GARRAND-No, I can see coming from this two more variances, one for a front porch and one for rear deck. MR. HOWARD-Down the road? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. Yes, at this point, you know, I want to make it affordable enough, I have a younger brother that’s probably going to be purchasing it. I want him to be able to afford it, and with the lot that it is right now and the price range, that’s what’s going to happen. I don’t know what’s going to happen down the road, and that’s kind of our of my hands. MR. GARRAND-Okay, because one thing we don’t want to see is we don’t want to see adverse, you know, impacts on say the neighbor to the east. We don’t want to see something built towards him that would be offensive to him. MR. HOWARD-Exactly, and at this point, I wouldn’t do anything like that. MR. UNDERWOOD-It would almost make more sense to limit, if you were going to put a deck in there, to put it off towards Sherman Ave., you know, on that, out towards your septic, you know, and leave a space for it on that end, and that way you wouldn’t be intruding. You could put a hedge up along that property line, too. MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-Now, that’s all wooded right now. So all those trees are going to come down pretty much? MR. HOWARD-That’s correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-You’re going to clear cut? MR. HOWARD-Yes, pretty much, ma’am, to make the best use of our space, and to give either my brother or the homeowner maybe somewhat of a yard. Because, as we’ve stated, the back yard is not going to be much. The front yard will be minimal, but the side yards is really what they’re going to, say they have children or something like that, you’ve got to give them some side yard. MR. DRELLOS-Would it make more sense to move the house closer to the road five feet? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know. Well, as we were saying, if you end up putting a front porch on there at some point, you know, out towards Howard Street, you’re going to want to be set back. MR. HOWARD-There is a little stoop. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I’m saying eventually they may want to put a substantial front porch across the whole front or something, and, you know, that’s, you know, certainly we don’t want to do is on the Sherman Ave. side. MRS. JENKIN-And you also have to consider snow removal, too, and snow coming off the roof at the back. Ten feet is not an awful lot, whether you encroach on the neighbor’s property if the snow slides off and onto their home. MR. HOWARD-Yes, ma’am. I have built a home similar to this in Hudson Falls, and I had, it was probably exactly 10 feet, and I didn’t run into that problem because I had lived there for a little while. It wasn’t a lot of space. We had a fence put up behind it, and everything seemed to work out well. MR. UNDERWOOD-It would be awful hard to leave any vegetation, too, because you’re going to have to maneuver machinery around to dig it out and get at it. MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Why don’t we do this. Let’s open up the public hearing and see if there’s anybody here from the public wishing to speak on the matter. Was there any correspondence at all? MR. URRICO-None. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Nothing. Come on right up. Just please identify yourself for the record, so we know who you are. WILLIAM WHIPPLE MR. WHIPPLE-William Whipple, and I actually sit on the Zoning Board of the Town of Kingsbury, and these guys do what they say. They did a nice job on that lot. They came in front of me and built a beautiful home on a small parcel that was there. Did exactly what they said, enhanced the whole neighborhood, put a fence up like you’d asked, and made it even nicer, worked well with his neighbors, and it was a pleasant experience. So I see that they would probably do the same thing in the Town of Queensbury also. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thanks. Keith, did we get any kind of, the people that would be most affected were notified? We didn’t get any kind of response from them? MR. OBORNE-No, not at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-Nobody. Okay. MR. OBORNE-No, they certainly were notified, though. MR. UNDERWOOD-In your estimation, would it make any sense to move this closer to the road to gain a little bit on the back side there? MR. OBORNE-I mean, I don’t want to let my personal feelings be interjected into this. If you were to do that, they would have to be tabled and reapply. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t know if it makes more sense to just leave it as it is. MRS. JENKIN-Well, we’ve made conditions, we’ve made adjustments before and they haven’t had to reapply. MR. OBORNE-If you increase what the relief is, they would certainly have to be tabled. MR. HOWARD-I actually spoke with the owner of the property to the east, I believe is Mr. Trombley. I know him. I spoke to him briefly, and he had no qualms about it either. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll go back to you guys. Do you guys have anymore questions you want to ask or anything you want to tweak here, or do you think what it is is what it is? MR. DRELLOS-It is what it is. You can’t really change the size of the lot, and you’ve got to put a house on it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we probably get one or two of these a year, you know, on these left over lots that are tiny, and probably never would have been created in this day and age, but if you’re going to make use of them, it’s a buildable lot as it exists. So you’ve got to work within the parameters of what we have. I think the only thing you could do would be to move the house one way or the other, but if Keith says it’s going to throw these guys off the mark, then I don’t want to do that. The two or three feet you’d gain on the back isn’t really going to be enough for me to justify doing that. Okay. Then I guess I’ll poll you guys, and I’ll start with you, Joyce. MRS. HUNT-Yes. A 20 foot home, 20 foot wide home on a 50 foot lot is pretty tight. I don’t think you could make it much narrower and have a decent home, and I think you’ve got 30 feet. I think you’ve divvied it up as best you could. I, myself, lived on a 50 foot wide lot on Long Island, and I know the constraints are tough, but I would have no problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I think, looking at this plan, we’re still getting 23.8%. That’s taking up a lot. We’re still over 75% permeable on this lot. You shrunk the house down. It’s basically very thin. It’s going to look deceivingly large from the road. As far as where the house is laid out, I’d say it’s probably in the most logical position you want to put it in. I don’t see this proposal having any real adverse impact on the neighborhood. Quite the contrary. It might even be an improvement on Howard Street to see a brand new home greeting people as they go down Howard Street. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-The one positive about placing the house farther back, it actually is, that the house beside it is farther forward. So there will be more space generated. It won’t be encroaching on the other house as much, being so close to that side. I still have a problem with the 10 feet, but I think that having it a little bit farther away from Howard Street will give it a better view from the front yard. So I would be in favor of that. I think the 20 feet wide is definitely a good size for the size of the lot. I appreciate the fact that you have made it narrow and don’t try to squish a much wider home on that property. So I would be in favor of it as you have presented it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George? MR. DRELLOS-Yes. I would have to agree. You scaled the house to fit the lot. That’s what I see here. I don’t see any other alternative houses or ideas that we can do here. So I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I’m going to have to agree with the rest of the Board here. I think there’s been no negative impact remarks from the neighbor. The neighbor seems to have more space, although it’s not shown on here, between his house and the line. So it’s going to look, even though you don’t have as much land, it’s going to look like you have more back property, and I think it would have a good impact on the neighborhood. So I’d be in favor of this proposal also. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I don’t have a real problem with it. The only thing I would have probably liked is if we’re going to eventually see a deck and a porch on it, I probably would have liked to have seen it presented now rather than later on. I kind of don’t like the incremental variances where we come back and ask for a little bit more than, rather 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) than now. So that would be the only thing that I would say, but at this present proposal, I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and I’ll go along with everybody else. I think it’s a modest home that fits the lot. I would think that, in the future, if you come back to us for future variances, that, you know, if any additions were put on this house, like, i.e. a porch on the front side that would face towards Howard Street, I don’t think that we would be willing to grant any kind of relief for anything on the back side, other than that 10 foot space that we’re going to grant you here, and if you do anything towards the septic tank, you know, it’s going to have to be reasonable and screened from your neighbors, obviously, because that’s going to be the major effect on them on that end of the building there. So I don’t know what you’re layout’s going to be inside. That’s up to you. So I’ll go along with it, too. Does somebody want to do this one? MR. DRELLOS-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2009 DAVID W. HOWARD, Introduced by George Drellos who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: Corner of Howard St. and Sherman Ave. The applicant proposes construction of a 2,280 square foot single family dwelling with a 418 square foot attached garage on a 0.16 acre lot. Relief required. Applicant requests 10.2 feet of front setback relief, 20 feet of rear setback relief per Section 179-3-040 for the MDR district. In making our determination, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of this Area Variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood are anticipated. If anything, it’ll be an improvement to the area. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. Due to the lot size constraints, there is no other method that can be achieved. He’s made the house to fit the lot, and being only 20 feet wide, that’s the best we can see here. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request is moderate at best, but with the size of the lot, it is needed. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. No impacts are expected. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. I don’t think so. I think it’s not, being the size of the lot, I think they’ve done a good job in making the house fit the lot, so I don’t see that it was self-created. So I make a motion that we approve Area Variance No. 46-2009. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. HOWARD-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2009 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA AGENT(S): JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S): ESTATE OF HELEN A. SLEIGHT ZONING: NC LOCATION: 369 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR A DAY CARE/PRE-SCHOOL FACILITY AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE PARKING SPACE SIZE REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF.: SUB 5-09; SP 41-09 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 2.93 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-30 SECTION: 179-4-090 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-2009, Michael & Christina Breda, Meeting Date: August 19, 2009 “Project Location: 369 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Note: Subject to new ordinance. The Planning Board has made a recommendation to the ZBA concerning this Area Variance. See attached. Applicant proposes to construct a 6,500 square foot daycare facility on a 1.06 acre lot fronting Manor Drive. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) Relief Required: Applicant requests two (2) feet of parking space length relief from the 20 foot requirement per §179-4-090B. 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 the character of the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this area variance request. 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 increase the length of the proposed parking spaces by 2 feet in order to comply with the code. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 2 feet or 10% relief from the 20 foot parking space length requirement per §179-4-090B may be considered minor 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. It could be argued that the resulting decrease in impermeable pavement as a result of the granting of this area variance could be an environmental benefit. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The alleged difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SUB 5-09: 4 lot subdivision, pending SP 41-09: Day care facility, pending Staff comments: The applicant proposes 18 foot by 9 foot parking spaces through out the site. A revision to the parking and loading regulations in the new code (§179-4-090) increased the length requirement from 18 feet to 20 feet. The Planning Board issued a recommendation for this variance during their discussions of the applicant’s site plan submission [resolution attached]. SEQR Status: Unlisted – The ZBA must issue a SEQR Declaration concerning this area variance.” MR. URRICO-And then this is the motion by the Planning Board. “THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD WHEN THEY REVIEW THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION FOR WORLD CLASS KIDS REGARDING PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS. THE APPLICANT APPEARED BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SKETCH PLAN REVIEW A FEW MONTHS AGO-PRE ZONING CHANGE. THEY HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR PLANS TO THE PLANNING BOARD BASED UPON THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AT THAT MEETING. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO WORKING COOPERATIVELY WITH THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY REGARDING THE PROPOSED AND POSSIBLE ROUNDABOUT ON AVIATION ROAD AND FARR LANE. AS A RESULT OF THE NUMEROUS DISCUSSIONS AND COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THIS APPLICANT AND THE EFFECT OF THE ROUNDABOUT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS COMMERCIAL SITE THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS THAT MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE PRIOR ZONING CODE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs: Duly adopted this 7th day of July 2009”, and it was unanimous. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Jarrett. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. MR. UNDERWOOD-In general then, I think that, since you initially provided your plot to the Planning Board, the Code obviously got changed, and the tweaking in the Code, I don’t know if that was done as a result of the disaster of having it 18 and not 20 feet wide. Is that the, I mean, I assume that’s the difference, but if the Planning Board, their recommendation is that, you know, I mean, it’s up to us whether we want to use the new Code or not. I mean, it’s our purview to look at it fully, eyes wide open, but the only thing we’re really looking at here is the parking width, you know, and that seems to be the issue at hand. MR. DRELLOS-The length. MR. UNDERWOOD-The length, yes. Excuse me. MRS. JENKIN-Would you explain the roundabout. Are you cutting off part of that property with the roundabout? MR. UNDERWOOD-If it happens. MR. JARRETT-If you look at the survey that was in your package. MRS. JENKIN-Right, this one. This is what I was trying to MR. JARRETT-Actually the survey, the actual survey that’s the second sheet, if you look at the parcel that is closest to Aviation Road, it shows a house and garage, that is the parcel that’s being reserved for the roundabout. The roundabout would be in the corner with Farr and Aviation, and you notice the odd property line shape along the northwestern side of our. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that’s Lot B on the plot? MR. JARRETT-Michael’s going to walk around with a better drawing of it. MRS. JENKIN-So this is actually where the roundabout. Okay. I thought that sounded right. MR. DRELLOS-I didn’t think they were going to (lost words) take the house when they discussed it before. MR. JARRETT-Pardon? MR. DRELLOS-I didn’t think the house was in the way before, but I guess it is. MR. JARRETT-The house would be in the way, the way we’ve seen the later design. MR. DRELLOS-But this may never happen, either. You don’t know. MR. JARRETT-Actually, Keith may be able to update us as to where that stands. MR. OBORNE-Chazen has now been selected to do the engineering for this. So, I mean, they’re at least at that stage, they’re at preliminary stage. MR. DRELLOS-And they’re in, probably negotiation with buying the property, obviously. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, looking at how they’re going to fund it. Because it’s going to be two and a half million or something, wasn’t it? It was pretty pricy. MR. JARRETT-Yes. It’s a hurdle that has to be. MR. DRELLOS-This could be many years. MR. JARRETT-Absolutely. So our intent was to design the site, Michael’s site, to accommodate the roundabout. If it never comes to pass, then there’s another parcel that could be developed commercially. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, out front. MR. JARRETT-We’ve tried to leave them flexibility so both can happen. MR. DRELLOS-Now this hasn’t been subdivided yet, right? MR. JARRETT-Yes, it’s in the process right now. MR. DRELLOS-It’s in the process. MR. JARRETT-The Planning Board is looking at both, subdivision and site plan. MR. OBORNE-Simultaneously. MR. DRELLOS-Simultaneously. All right. MR. UNDERWOOD-So irregardless of what happens, it’s going to be a plus, because everything else new that’s been done down there looks great. The changeover has been very positive. MR. JARRETT-And I’d like to clarify one thing. We could possibly change these spaces now to make them compliant, but I’ve purposely left a little bit of flexibility in this property line so we can do an adjustment in case the roundabout design needs to change. We don’t have a lot of flexibility, but we have a little, and if I encroach on that, then we lose some of that flexibility, and that’s our argument. MR. UNDERWOOD-And a lot of the issue with the day care center, too, is you’re going to have people getting dropped off in the morning, people getting picked up in the afternoon. The rest of the day there’s nobody even there. MR. JARRETT-Pretty much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Pretty much the case with all the day cares we’ve done so far. So, you know, it’s a matter of, is everybody going to be driving giant SUV’s in the future? Probably not. Cars are going to shrink continually, I would imagine. MR. URRICO-You plan on going ahead with the project regardless of what happens with the roundabout? MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. URRICO-So if the roundabout doesn’t come about, you’re not going to adjust the parking spaces at a point. MR. JARRETT-We don’t think we really need to go to 20 foot spaces, to be honest with you. MR. URRICO-You’re not going to know anyway, prior to putting this together. MR. JARRETT-And I don’t want to increase the impervious area. I’d rather have the green space, and not adjust the stormwater. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, we were at 18 feet forever. Right? MR. JARRETT-Many years. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, so it’s been decades. MR. OBORNE-And just a point of clarification. That 20 foot length appears to have been in error, but, nevertheless, it has been codified. So, with that, I mean, they have to come before us. MRS. JENKIN-It was in error? MR. OBORNE-Yes. There are a few issues with the Zoning Code right now that will need to be taken care of in the future, by the Town Board. MR. GARRAND-So this is one of those areas on the table that was misprinted? 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. OBORNE-It’s, I don’t want to get into the particulars. I really don’t know exactly how that happened. MR. DRELLOS-So basically it’s going to go back to 18? MR. OBORNE-It will probably go back to 18, but they are in the window. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I mean, let’s just. MR. JARRETT-We knew a lot of people weren’t happy with it, but this is the first I’m hearing that it was an error. MR. OBORNE-Yes, well, we are chagrined about that, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, however the situation ends up, do you guys have any problem with this? I mean, we’ve been on 18 forever. I don’t think it’s going to be any big deal. MRS. JENKIN-I have to say, though, that placing a daycare center on that lot is probably the most perfect place you could ever place anything, just because of the location of all the townhouses. MR. JARRETT-Mike has one across the street right now. That’s got to close. MIKE BREDA MR. BREDA-I’m in Sokol’s Market right now. MR. DRELLOS-You’re the one in the Market, then. MR. BREDA-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-So you’re going to close that one and move it across the street. MR. BREDA-I’m leasing the space from Sokol’s. MRS. JENKIN-It’s much safer. MR. JARRETT-This is a great location, yes. MRS. JENKIN-It’s a great location. MR. UNDERWOOD-And if it ends up getting redeveloped in front, that gives you even more of a buffer, too. So, if they really cut you off from all the noise and hustle and bustle. All right. Let’s open up the public hearing. Does anybody from the public want to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-I don’t believe so, but I’ll take another look. I do not see any. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And, barring the fact that we don’t seem to have any dissention on the part of the Board as far as this goes, and recognizing the fact Keith has informed us that possibly that that was an error going to the 20 feet. MR. OBORNE-Possibly, and it possibly will be reduced down to 18 in the future. MR. UNDERWOOD-That that situation may go away, too, in the future. Why don’t I do this. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2009 MICHAEL & CHRISTINA BREDA, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) 369 Aviation Road. Barring the fact that we don’t seem to have any dissention on the part of the Board, as far as this goes, and recognizing the fact that Keith has informed us that possibly that was an error going to the 20, that that situation may go away, too, in the future, that based upon the Planning Board’s recommendation to our Board, even though the Code has changed to 20 feet long from the 18 feet that existed previously, the Planning Board has made a recommendation to our Board for granting a variance for parking space dimensions that meet the standards of the prior Zoning Code, and that was 18 feet long, so we’ll be granting two feet of relief for each of those parking places and allow you to go at 18 feet, and I don’t really think there will be any undesirable change created in the neighborhood or a detriment to properties created by the shrinking of the parking length requirement. The benefit could be sought, we could make them go, but as Mr. Jarrett has said to us, it would just make more impermeable surface out there on the lot itself, and we don’t see that as a plus. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial, two feet or 10% of relief from the 20 foot parking space length requirement may be considered minor to the Ordinance, and whether there’ll be an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, I would say no, and whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. It could be considered self-created but I guess there’s some concern on the part of Staff also that the Code may revert back to the previous 18 feet from the 20 foot requirement as it exists now on the books. So they’re proposing 18 foot by 9 foot parking spaces throughout the site, and a revision to the Parking and Loading regulations in the new Code, again, and that’s Section 179-4-090, increase the length requirement from 18 feet to 20 feet. Based upon the Planning Board’s issue of a recommendation for this variance during their discussions during the applicant’s Site Plan submissions, I would have no problem, and I don’t think the Board has any problem, with this request. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. JARRETT-This may come as a shock, but you’ll probably see more of these before that Code is changed back. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve got to do the SEQRA. MOTION THAT BASED UPON THE SHORT FORM SEQRA, NOTING THAT WE DO NOT NOTE ANY ENVIRONMENTAL DIFFICULTIES FORESEEN BY THIS REQUEST FOR SHRINKING THE PARKING LENGTH FROM 20 FEET DOWN TO 18 FEET, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Salvador asked, at the beginning of the meeting, to address the Board. So if he wants to come up right now, please. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to request that this presentation and remarks be made a part of your record. MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Chairman, I wrote you a letter, back in June, on the subject of zoning district boundaries, and because I feel that, as provided for in the Code, that in the event that none of the above rules are applicable or in the event that further clarification or definition is considered necessary and appropriate, the location of a district boundary shall be determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Now I went to great length to outline the reason for my request. Prior to writing you that letter on June 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) th 29, I wrote twice to Mr. Craig Brown on this subject, offering to have him clarify this th himself, and I got no answers, and that’s why I wrote you the letter on the 29, but in any case, this subject was brought before this Board in the Year 2000, and maybe some of you recall being on the Board. Mr. Stone was the Chairman, and the Board made a determination as to the location of the district boundary in Dunham Bay. By the way, is it too late? I was going to ask if you could put the zoning. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Salvador, it’s never too late for you. I shall spark it up for you. MR. SALVADOR-Just Dunham Bay area. MR. OBORNE-Yes. It’s going to be a bit. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, in essence, just to refresh the Board’s memory about the letter, this was in regards to the property line, and as you go along the shoreline there, I think everybody else is pretty much the mean high water mark or low water mark? You can correct me on that. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. MR. UNDERWOOD-The usual property line for properties up on Lake George, as I noted when I looked at it, was? MR. OBORNE-Mean high water mark. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mean high water mark. MR. OBORNE-That’s my understanding. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think Mr. Salvador was asking us for a determination. As you will recall, he had included a plot that showed that his property line, for some reason, when it gets to his property, extends offshore from the mean high water mark. So it’s substantially offshore like, you could tell us exactly how far that is. MR. SALVADOR-Well, the map will show when I attach it, but for further clarification, it’s been established in real property law. It’s regulated by the State. The riparian property owner, the littoral property owner, takes title to the mean low water mark. That’s State law. We can’t change that The OGS who administers the public lands, public lands are those that are submerged under navigable waters, their jurisdiction begins at the mean low water mark. Now, this recent Zoning Ordinance we have further complicates this issue. Because, as I said in my letter to Mr. Brown, another fact that should not be overlooked is that all land laying between Elevation 320.2 mean sea level and Lake George’s water’s edge is now situated outside of the Waterfront Residential zone and the Waterfront Three Acre Residential zone. These lands, as they are within the boundaries of the Town, are currently without a zoning district designation. If we zone to the mean high water mark, and there is land beyond that, above the water, that’s not being zoned. It’s not zoned, and then worse yet, the land under the water, down to the mean low, is not in a zoning district, and the Town refuses to address this. Now, I’ve discussed this with Mr. Brown, and he tells me that they’re working on it. He’s contacted the Town surveyor and he’s contacted the Town attorney. These people have had years to work on this. They’re not doing anything about it, haven’t done anything about it, and then we go through the gyrations of the Zoning Ordinance. How many years we worked on that, between the PORC Committee and Planning Board and everything, and we still haven’t got it right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask you a question? In looking at what’s up there. So the actual property line on your property goes, is the yellow line that extends out into the lake as we see up there. What would your hope be, then, that the property line be adjusted back to the shoreline, in essence, is that what you’re asking? MR. SALVADOR-Not at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-Not at all? No, I don’t know where it’s going to. MR. SALVADOR-This is the property line, okay. That’s one of the great lot lines. This is Lot 11. This is Lot 32, and Lot 33 is over here. All of this land was conveyed out, this portion in 1814, this portion in 1818. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that the Harris patent originally? 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. SALVADOR-French Mountain. MR. UNDERWOOD-French Mountain. MR. SALVADOR-What’s really missing, and I’ve talked to Craig Brown about this many times. We need an underwater zoning district. MRS. JENKIN-But how can you own land under water? MR. SALVADOR-Everybody bordering Lake George owns land under water, down to the mean low water mark. MRS. JENKIN-Well, is that straight line the mean low water mark? MR. SALVADOR-No, not at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, that’s way offshore. MRS. JENKIN-That’s what I mean. MR. GARRAND-Since Lake George is basically, you can govern the mean high water mark on this lake, you can adjust it, okay. What’s the difference between the mean high water and the mean low water mark in this area? MR. SALVADOR-2.47 feet. That’s the difference, the arithmetical difference between the two. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. That’s like spring level to low level in the summer. That’s the level that the lake is from melt water in the spring to lowest point in the summertime. MRS. JENKIN-Right. Also, the level of the lake is determined up by Ticonderoga, too. MR. SALVADOR-No. These two parameters, mean high and the mean low on Lake George have been statutorily established, okay, they’ve been statutorily established, and we can’t change those, but we have to recognize them, and I maintain that, and the State agrees with this, the riparian owner takes title to the mean low, 317.74 feet, mean sea level. MRS. JENKIN-Are you taxed on that? MR. SALVADOR-Absolutely. You know that. MR. GARRAND-Was the purpose of your letter to Mr. Brown to gain standing? MR. SALVADOR-Pardon me? MR. GARRAND-Was the purpose of your letter to Mr. Brown to gain standing? MR. SALVADOR-No. I have standing. There’s no limitations on who can bring this request. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you would want the Town designate a special zone for those areas that extend offshore in this instance here? MR. SALVADOR-They all do, Jim, they all do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Everybody does. MR. SALVADOR-Everybody does. Where do you think the boathouses are and the boat docks are? MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. So that would be considered like the littoral zone of the lake, you know, and offshore for anything that’s attached to the shore, obviously, right? MR. URRICO-Or move the line so the low mean, rather than the high mean. If they moved the line to the mean low water mark rather than the mean high water mark, this would cover that land. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. SALVADOR-If the zoning district boundary went to the mean low water mark, okay, then you have a situation where you have land, above the lake level, and land under water, and those two situations are not compatible. The dilemma that we have had for years is that land has been zoned Waterfront Residential. Look at your allowable uses in residential zone. You want us to locate any of those on any of that under water land? I’ve tried. MRS. JENKIN-I don’t see how you can own property under water. MR. SALVADOR-And it’s not the State policy, it’s not the State policy, to have under water land zoned residential. That’s not the State policy. The DEC regulates, in their protection of waters program, Part 608 of the Environmental Conservation Law, they regulate under water land. They regulate structures built on the navigable waterways. Residential uses are not in there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, do you have any sense as to where we’re at with the Town? Because all I’ve gotten is one e-mail from Dan Stec saying that they had referred this to the Town legal people to look into, and that’s the last I heard of it, and I check my e-mails every week like you guys probably do, and I don’t see anything more to reflect that there’s been any movement forward. MR. OBORNE-My understanding is that Craig has asked, I believe, Cathi Radner, to look into this for you, and as of now, there has been no reply. I cannot corroborate that. That is in passing. I am not privy to the issue. MR. SALVADOR-He’s told me. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we just ask, as a Board, for some clarification, like within some reasonable length of time, that they get back to us? Because obviously your letter was a month ago. Right? Or two months ago now. MR. SALVADOR-I think this Board has an obligation to convene a hearing, and let these people come and testify. MR. OBORNE-I think before, and this is, I think Counsel should be consulted on this. Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MRS. JENKIN-Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, can we make a formal request that they resolve the issue at some point? Obviously Mr. Salvador would not be here if he wasn’t concerned about it, and he asked for a resolution. MR. OBORNE-I think you certainly can attempt to do so. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. OBORNE-What the ramifications or the results of that are, I do not know. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, do you guys feel comfortable honoring his request? I mean, it’s up to you guys what you want to do. MRS. JENKIN-Well, isn’t that our duty? MR. GARRAND-I think he’s entitled to an answer. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, I think he’s come to the Board with a reasonable request, you know, and we’ve been told that it’s in the works, but I don’t know how long it’s going to take or to what end it’s going to result in what result. MR. SALVADOR-The thing I have objected to with Mr. Brown is I want to be a part of this process. I don’t want the Town attorney and the Town surveyor and the Town Supervisor and the Zoning Administrator cutting up the pie, without me having a seat at that table. It’s my land that’s effected, and it’s my appeal that’s being brought. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, it could also have ramifications for every other waterfront property owner also. So, I mean, obviously, it would make sense to have anybody who is interested be able to participate. It would make sense. MRS. JENKIN-How many properties actually extend into the water? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, how many people have docks and boathouses? Everybody. Pretty much, right? MR. OBORNE-Hundreds. MRS. JENKIN-But the property line doesn’t go to the end of their docks. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I’m sure like when, I’m just saying I’m sure when properties are assessed, like say Mrs. Hoffman’s or some place like that, where you’ve got a huge, grandiose boathouse, it has something to do with your property values. MRS. JENKIN-No, not at all. You’re able to put a boathouse in because of the width of your property, not because you own the land in the water. Your landownership ends at the, I would imagine the low, or even the high water mark, and that’s it. That’s where your land ends. I don’t understand how Mr. Salvador can own into the water, unless the lake has changed. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I’m just thinking. MR. SALVADOR-I can explain it very easily. MRS. JENKIN-Has the lake changed? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, dramatically. MRS. JENKIN-In the last 100 years. MR. SALVADOR-When that land was conveyed out, okay, that area north of the road there was probably a marsh land. MRS. JENKIN-I see. MR. GARRAND-The Indians owned it. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. It was probably a marsh land. MRS. JENKIN-Has it been dredged or anything? MR. SALVADOR-No. The dam has been built and has raised the level of the lake. MR. UNDERWOOD-When you had the dam, it (lost words) shoots up in Ticonderoga. That’s what raised the level of the lake. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, well, that’s what I mean, that was what determines the level of the lake, not high water or low water. MR. SALVADOR-And this, you know, this Dunham Bay wetland down there, that was Joshua Harris’ farm. MRS. JENKIN-Really? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. He was a farmer. He didn’t acquire, he wasn’t interested in the mountainside. That was a fertile. MRS. JENKIN-Well, so was Halfway Brook. They were farming all along Halfway Brook, and now that’s deemed wetlands. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but I mean, that was a very fertile plain in there, okay, and ideal for farming. MRS. JENKIN-But that would flood every year, wouldn’t it? MR. SALVADOR-No. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we do this. Why don’t we do this, okay. Why don’t we ask the Town to get back to us by next month and just try and give us some sense of where they’re going with this, or whether this is going to get resolved, because I don’t think it’s an unreasonable question that he’s asking. It would seem to me that there could be a meeting of the minds that everybody get together on this and figure out some reasonable solution or answer as to what they’re going to do, as far as classifying it. MR. OBORNE-Put your concerns, or Mr. Salvador’s concerns, in a resolution, and we basically will take it from there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Do we want to do it that way, then? MR. GARRAND-Certainly. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Now, bear in mind, there’s one issue here that’s very, very complicated, and it’s the issue of the Town boundary. Now it’s very clear that the land that was conveyed out in Lots 11, 12, and 32 were in the Town of Queensbury. That is crystal clear. The land that was conveyed out along the other shoreline of Lake George was always conveyed just to the shoreline. MR. OBORNE-Well, there are some properties along the lake that do extend in, but they are more in marshy areas. They’re not in navigable areas. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. So, the question arises, where is the Town boundary. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So, why don’t we do it this way. I’ll make a formal motion, then. MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ASKS THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE OF THE TOWN BOUNDARIES IN THE AREA OF THE VICINITY OF NOT ONLY DUNHAM’S BAY, BUT ALL THE WATERFRONT THAT EXISTS UP ON LAKE GEORGE THERE BECAUSE THE ISSUE HAS COME TO US AS TO WHERE THE TOWN BOUNDARY IS IN REGARDS TO LANDS THAT ARE NOW SUBMARINED FROM WHERE THEY ONCE WERE AS A RESULT OF THE ORIGINAL CREATION OF THE RAISING OF THE WATERS BY THE DAM UP AT TICONDEROGA, AND THAT WE WOULD JUST LIKE THE TOWN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE AND INVOLVE MR. SALVADOR IN THE DISCUSSION ALSO BECAUSE HE SEEMS TO BE MOST GREATLY AFFECTED BY IT, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ll hope to get an answer, or convene when we get something back from them. MR. SALVADOR-I just might add, it’s fine that you want to do it this way, but I feel that you have an obligation, under the Code, to convene a hearing on this subject, and all of these people who are interested, be they public officials or attorneys, surveyors, property owners, are free to come to the hearing and be heard. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-And you have to gather this data and make a determination. MR. UNDERWOOD-So your general feeling would be that there’s something missing in the Code then, in regards to those lands? MR. OBORNE-I have no issue, I don’t have enough information. I am not privy to this issue. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean, I would think it would have to involve the Planning Board, our Board, the Town Board, all the parties involved. MR. OBORNE-If I was to have a kneejerk reaction, which is probably not a good thing, but I would think this would be a Town Board issue. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. OBORNE-It’s not a dimensional issue. I think it’s a Code issue, and Code changes go through the Town Board, plain and simple. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, we’ll hope to hear something from them and get back to you, then. Thank you. Okay. I guess we’re done for the evening, guys. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 41