Loading...
2010.03.17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 17, 2010 INDEX Area Variance No. 12-2010 Sally Strasser 1. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-7 Area Variance No. 4-2010 Irene Marshall 2. Tax Map No. 289.14-1-28 Area Variance No. 9-2010 Steven L. and Christine M. Johnson 14. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-23 Area Variance No. 11-2010 Larry Sweet 24. Tax Map No. 309.09-1-4 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 03/17/10) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 17, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOAN JENKIN RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT MEMBERS ABSENT BRIAN CLEMENTS RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the March 17, 2010 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, and we will allow speakers to speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if after listening to other speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present, and, Board members, I’d suggest that because we have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking. Rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read in any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members then will 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. For the information of everybody who’s here this evening, as you can see, our Board is short of our seven Board members. We have people that are on vacation or with other pressing activities that they could not be here this evening. So, we will give any of the applicants the option of, you know, postponing for a full Board, if you wish to have the full seven members sitting on the Board. I don’t know if we do that prior, or they can do that at any point during the hearing if it looks like it’s not going their way I guess we can allow you to do it that way, too. Secondly, the fourth item that we had this evening was Sally Strasser, and that was Area Variance No. 12-2010. AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II SALLY STRASSER AGENT(S): SALLY STRASSER OWNER(S): STEVE AND LILLIAN DOBERT ZONING: WR LOCATION: 64 BARBER ROAD – GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 36 SQ. FT. ENTRY PORCH ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS, SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2010- 006 RES. ALT./ADD.; SPR 19-10; BP 2007-370 DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-7 SECTION: 179- 4-030 MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s a property located at 64 Barber Road over on Glen Lake in a Waterfront Residential zone, and the Planning Board last evening, they pulled last night at the Planning Board because they wanted to submit some additional information on that complete teardown and re-do over there. So, due to the fact that the Planning Board 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) has not been able to look at it and give us any kind of sense of where that’s going, we’re th going to postpone that until May 18. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and to be specific, the applicant’s counsel has requested a tabling of this Area Variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So, I think then I’ll make a tabling motion on this. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2010 SALLY STRASSER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 64 Barber Road – Glen Lake. Due to the fact that the Planning Board has not been able to look at it and give us any kind of sense of where the application is going, and the applicant’s counsel has requested a tabling for this Area Variance, the application will be th tabled until May 19. th Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II IRENE MARSHALL AGENT(S): STEVE ALHEIM OWNER(S): IRENE MARSHALL ZONING: WR LOCATION: 101 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING DECKS AND STAIRWAYS AND THE ADDITION OF A 112 +/- SQ. FT. DECK ADJACENT TO SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: SP 3-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-28 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-6-050 STEVE ALHEIM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MR. UNDERWOOD-We previously did hear this on January 20. We did leave the public hearing open, and I think what the Board was looking for at that time was that we had asked that the deck be significantly shrunk back and moved back and that’s essentially what’s happened here. So I don’t know if you want to go over that or if you want us to read anything in on that, or do you just want to tell us what the changes are? MR. ALHEIM-The changes were, like you said, we did significantly reduce that deck and we removed the bump out that was encroaching on the lake a little bit further than what was desired from the Board, and also we brought it in as far as we could without encroaching on the existing windows with railing. So we did significantly reduce it, and by doing that, we also eliminated some posts. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy, do you think we should read Staff Notes in? They’re pretty much verbatim what they were before. MR. OBORNE-Well, no, it does explain what the change was. You may want to, for clarify purposes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-2010, Irene Marshall, Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 “Project Location: 101 Fitzgerald Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to remove a total of approximately 176 square feet of access decking and stairs and install in its stead a total of approximately 265 square feet of access decking, stairs and stair landings. Further, the applicant proposes approximately 116 square feet of new decking attached to the dwelling adjacent to the shoreline. Relief Required: Applicant seeks relief from the minimum shoreline and setback requirements per §179-4- 030 as follows: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) 1.43 feet of shoreline relief requested from the 50 foot requirement for proposed deck adjacent to shoreline 2.10 feet of west sideline relief requested from the 20 foot requirement for proposed deck adjacent to the shoreline 3.38 feet of shoreline relief requested from the 50 foot requirement for dwelling access deck 4.8 feet of east sideline relief requested from the 20 foot requirement for northern portion of dwelling access deck stair landing 5.12 feet of west sideline relief requested from the 20 foot requirement for southern portion of proposed replacement stairs 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 created by the granting this area variance. 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. Alternatives to the multiple area variances appear to be limited due to the constraints of the lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 43 feet or 86% relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement for the proposed deck adjacent to the shoreline may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 10 feet or 50% relief from the 20 foot sideline setback requirement for the proposed deck adjacent to the shoreline may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 38 feet or 76% relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement for the dwelling access deck may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 8 feet or 40% relief for the east sideline setback for the northern portion of dwelling access deck stair landing may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 12 feet or 60% relief for west sideline setback relief for the southern portion of proposed replacement stairs 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.Moderate impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as the project proximity to the shoreline and the existing slopes may result in environmental degradation. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The non conforming nature of the parcel and the location of the existing home appear to contribute to the need for multiple area variances. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): S.P. 3-2010 Decks and access stairs Pending Cottage built in 1967 Staff comments: This application was tabled at the January 20, 2010 ZBA meeting (see attached). The applicant was directed by the board to reduce the size of the deck proposed adjacent to the shoreline. The applicant has responded by reducing the length of the deck by 10 feet and the width by 2 feet. The applicant has an on-hold building permit application (B.P. 2006-572) for a 160 square foot deck that appears to be obsolete with the submittal of the new plans. The existing access decking and stairs appear to be in poor shape and in need of replacement. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) The Planning Board has issued a recommendation concerning this application dated January 19, 2010 (see handout). SEQR Status: Type II – No action necessary” MR. URRICO-Do you want me to read the Planning Board recommendation? MR. UNDERWOOD-I believe, did we read that in before? MR. URRICO-We did read that in before. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We have read that in previously, so we’ll skip reading that in for a second time. Mr. Alheim, anything you want to add to this at all? I think last time when you guys came in before us, I don’t believe anybody on the Board was upset with the staircase and that would be on the northeast side of the building there. I think everybody pretty much felt that that was a necessary means of accessing the house, and that the old stairs as depicted up there were pretty treacherous in that form. I think everybody understands that putting landings in is a good idea, so if you do take a tumble you don’t go all the way from Point A to Point B at the bottom, and spare the consequences of that. Last time we were looking at the original deck, which was much larger, and I would assume, you had made the argument last time also that, you know, with the sliding glass door that’s been there for many years, I take it. MR. ALHEIM-Actually it’s a picture window that was going to be replaced. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Do you guys have any questions at this time? MRS. JENKIN-Well, I wasn’t here at the last meeting. I was absent, so would you explain what the front, the new decking at the front is going to be? I did walk out to the front and I saw it, but is it underneath? I’m not sure. MR. ALHEIM-No, actually if you’re looking at this picture up in the upper center, you can see the windows. There are three windows right there. The center window is a large picture window. That would be replaced with a sliding glass door, and off from that would be the deck, and the deck would extend out eight feet, roughly, it would not be encroaching on those trees. I know that it might, it appears in the picture that it would, but we’ve measured it out and marked the corners, and it won’t be into those trees. None of the trees that are shown in that picture will be removed. We brought the width of the deck, actually the length of the deck in to the two windows that are adjacent. MRS. JENKIN-So it’ll run along the front of that house? MR. ALHEIM-Right, parallel to the lakeshore and the house. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. ALHEIM-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-And that is the 24’ 9” distance, or how long is that now? MR. ALHEIM-I need to refresh my memory. Sorry. MRS. JENKIN-I was looking MR. ALHEIM-No, it’s now 14 feet. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. ALHEIM-And it comes out eight feet. At one time it did extend an additional 10 feet, and at the last meeting, the recommendation was to shrink it as much as possible. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re going to have three posts under that, in essence? That’s what it looks like on your diagram. MR. ALHEIM-Currently we’re going to expand that with two posts. MR. UNDERWOOD-Two? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MR. ALHEIM-Yes. We have a drop (lost word) beam, and we’ve got two posts at each end of that drop (lost word) beam, spanning 13 3 and a half, center to center. MR. UNDERWOOD-So as far as disturbance on the shoreline, that’s going to be the only thing, is digging the post holes and putting a footer in on those? MR. ALHEIM-Right, and as I stated at the last meeting, we’re going to attempt to use a techno metal post, which is the auger driven post, for minimum soil disruption. MRS. JENKIN-So the access staircase to the lake itself, is that actually, does, how will you get to the lake from the house when you’ve changed all this? MR. ALHEIM-On Sheet A-2, or actually if you are looking at the rendering, there are a set of stairs that come down, a set of stairs right here that comes down and it’s a “U” Shaped stair. There’s an existing concrete, if you go to the first picture we were looking at, you can see it right there, in the lower left hand corner. You can see the concrete patio basically right there. The stairs will actually come down and land off to the left onto the existing concrete. MRS. JENKIN-Underneath the house? MR. ALHEIM-That’s correct, yes. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. That’s what I thought it was. MR. ALHEIM-I’m sorry. Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So that’s the way it will go, it will go under the house. MR. ALHEIM-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-I was looking at the plans, and it appeared that, and there’s enough head room and everything to do that? MR. ALHEIM-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-There must be, I mean, you planned it. MR. ALHEIM-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Question about the property transfer. Where are you at with that and what effect is it going to have on the numbers presented? MR. ALHEIM-Irene is seeking legal counsel right now on the reply to that, and even with a transfer, I don’t see a significant change in the variance, because the transfer is actually minimal for the side variance that we would need, and it doesn’t affect the variance on the lakefront. MR. GARRAND-It doesn’t affect the deed restriction either, as far as distances required there? MR. ALHEIM-I’m not sure of that Irene, like I said, she’s doing the, getting the legal counsel on that. So I’m not sure. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Because there’s deed restrictions on this as far, towards the adjoining property lines as far as you can build. What is it here, 15 feet, nothing can be built 15 feet to the adjacent property line? MR. ALHEIM-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Also, when staining these decks, are there going to be any kind of environmental controls as far as keeping the chemicals away from the land and the lake? MR. ALHEIM-I would plan for that, yes. I understand the sensitivity of the area and also highly recommend using like the Tyvek decking, the composite decking. MR. UNDERWOOD-Like the trek decking? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MR. ALHEIM-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It’s not real wood, but it looks like real wood. MR. GARRAND-Yes, that would be better. It would last longer, and you don’t have to stain it every couple of years. MR. ALHEIM-Right. There’s no stain involved. So I think, as far as the lake is concerned, that would probably be most beneficial. MR. GARRAND-Keith, can you add anything as far as the property boundaries? MR. OBORNE-Well, certainly not as far as the deed restrictions go, but as far as what Mozal’s counsel has written in, that in my estimation has really no bearing on what the applicant’s asking for right now. As far as the deed restrictions, I can’t speak to that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think if you did the swap for that triangle out there on the corner, you know, when you’re trying to do that, that, you know, it’s not going to move the line closer. It’s a little bit confusing, but I think Mr. O’Connor’s here. He’s probably going to comment on that in the public commentary so we can clarify that or quantify that, exactly what they want to do at that point. Do you guys have any other questions at this point? Okay. I think what I’ll do is open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do you want to come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MICHAEL O’CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent Christine Mozal who owns property on three sides of this property, on the east, west, and to the southerly side of it. I’m a little confused as to some of the language in the summation of your relief requested or required. The 12 foot of west side, which I would take it would be towards the Mozal house, requested from the 20 foot, requested from the 20 foot requirement, to the southern portion of the proposed replacement stairs, which sounds like it’s to their westerly boundary. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that that should be east instead of west on that. I said the same thing when I read it. That would be to the east, as opposed to the west. MR. O'CONNOR-I haven’t seen the new plans, but I didn’t see anything in the old plans that was along the west side of their property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Everything was on the east side of their camp toward Bay Road. MRS. JENKIN-Well, the stairs start on the west side. MR. O'CONNOR-At the top? MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s the east. MRS. JENKIN-Right. Is that what they’re talking about? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think it’s just a directional error. It should be east instead of west on that side. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. I think Christine was here last month and spoke. She’d be here tonight except it’s a busy night at her restaurant, being a holiday, being a holy holiday. I don’t think she really has any strong objection to the Area Variances that are given, or that are requested. I do note that I’m going to keep a copy of this decision in my pocket, because it looks like there are some very significant relief that’s granted here. There are three of the five that even Staff has said are severe, or I guess you would say substantial, if you were looking at the Ordinance language, but we have a problem because they aren’t addressing the fact that they are not in compliance with the other provisions of your Ordinance at this point because of their encroachment upon the Mozal property, and I don’t know of their standing to get a variance if they aren’t in compliance th with the requirements of your Ordinance. I wrote back on February 24 and basically 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) said, pick a triangle out of your property and we will try and get Craig Brown to do a swap, foot for foot, which is an administrative sideline setback agreement or a sideline, boundary line agreement, and I’ve had no response to that at all. I think that that will bring other variances to the table, and you will have not only five variances for this property, you will probably have two or three more, because if we create a new boundary line along the side of the camp on the west side, and we give them one foot on the side of it, they’re going to need 19 feet of relief, and in truth probably the Mozal property, when you take that triangle out of the side of their property, a corner of their property is also going to become non-compliant, and they’re going to need some relief. MRS. JENKIN-Which corner would that be? To the south? MR. O'CONNOR-It would be their south, no, it would be their northeast corner. MRS. JENKIN-On the lakeside. MR. O’CONNOR-On the lakeside. MRS. JENKIN-Really? MR. O’CONNOR-It would be the northeast corner of their house, it wouldn’t be right at the lake. If you’ve seen a map, they’re house, the Mozal house is 24.35 feet from the existing boundary line, but if you bring a portion of their boundary line in nine feet, which is what you do, or have to do to make the Marshall property compliant, and I suggested 10 feet so that you’ve actually got a foot around the building. That’s going to make that 24.38 feet distance from the Mozal property, shorter than the 20 that’s required, and it certainly, it’s going to make the Marshal property require other variances, too, and I don’t see a set aside, and I haven’t seen all, if they’ve done a plot plan. I haven’t seen a set aside so that I know that they are keeping that square footage some place that won’t impact something else so that they can make that swap. We’ve done a number of swaps with neighbors when they run into problems like this. We suggest you do them, get them over with, and put them on record, and you can do them with an administrative action and not have to go through Board action, if, in fact, there’s land available, but I don’t know if there is or there isn’t. The other concern that I had, and this goes to the Planning Board from here, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and I don’t know if you addressed it or not, but it certainly should be a condition of your approval, that they show that they have an adequate septic system. When we were doing our application, kind of like us to them, they didn’t strongly protest and object to it, but they had real concerns about their septic system because of it’s location and proximity to the lake. Somebody has hand drawn on here, not the engineer, or at least on the plans I saw, that it’s some place within 50 feet of the lake, and nobody knows what it is, whether it’s just a drywell or leach field or what it is. It’s probably 50 years old at this point. So it’s probably not much. MRS. JENKIN-Would that be on this side over here? MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s right at the top of the hill, right about where the top of the stairs are up there. MR. OBORNE-That certainly is brought up in my notes at Site Plan Review. MR. O'CONNOR-I was told that it was down on the flat part by the lake when we were doing our subdivision. MRS. JENKIN-The septic system? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-No, it’s not on the top of the hill. MR. OBORNE-No. It’s not on top of the hill. There’s an effluent pipe coming out of the side of the house going into the ground, but that is definitely brought up at Site Plan Review, in my notes. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MR. O'CONNOR-I think you’ve got part of the package in front of you, and I’m not even sure if they are encroaching upon the no build thing. I haven’t seen the final plan. I know they drew the deck back from the west line, I think. How far back they drew it, I don’t know. I haven’t seen it. Is that, how far from the west line is that now? MR. OBORNE-The deck? MR. O'CONNOR-The new deck in the front. MR. OBORNE-The deck in the front adjacent to the lake? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. OBORNE-It’s 12 feet. They’re showing 10 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-Which is in violation of their restrictive covenants. MR. OBORNE-As far as the deed restrictions go. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I will say, just to, rebut’s not the right word, but to reply to my calculations on relief, I stand by them, and the eight feet east sideline relief is for the stair landing distance from the east sideline to the stair landing, which is stippled. That’s relief I’m looking for on that side. MR. O'CONNOR-Are you considering the Mozal property’s house being to the east of this place? MR. OBORNE-No, no, I’m talking about the west one. Are you talking about Number Four on my relief required? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Which one are you talking about? MR. O’CONNOR-Number Five. MR. OBORNE-Number Five, 12 feet of west sideline relief requested from the 20 foot requirement. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. OBORNE-For the southern portion of the proposed replacement stairs. MR. UNDERWOOD-That should be east also. MRS. JENKIN-So that’s at the top of the stairs, then. Up here. This is south, isn’t it, down here. That’s this distance here. MR. O'CONNOR-The top of the stairs would be to the south. MR. URRICO-It’s down at the bottom. Right? MRS. JENKIN-So that’s only 12 feet there. MR. O'CONNOR-And that’s on the west side. MR. UNDERWOOD-There are no stairs on the west side. They’re on the east side. MRS. JENKIN-Jim, this is more on the west side of the property than the east, the top of the stairs. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The last comment is you didn’t put a drawing up, but as I take it, that the front deck was moved to the east. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-They did extend over towards the corner of the building there towards Mozals. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right. That’s my comments. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Any comments you guys want to make at this point? I don’t know, as far as the land swap. I would have to agree that the land swap thing is something that’s beyond what we’re going to do here. I think that we can grant the relief based upon what’s here, and not to discount the issue of the sideline setback from the 15, as you had mentioned there in the deed also. The building itself extends over the property line onto the Mozals property, the current building as it exists. The new deck as proposed is not going to extend further onto Mozal’s property it’s actually going to be set back in, although it is going to require relief from the current property line on the property. So, as far as, if and when this land swap occurs, you know, I don’t know if that’s going to come to fruition or not. I mean, for many years this house has existed. It doesn’t seem to be a bearing issue as far as I’m concerned here. I don’t know what you guys think. I mean, you can put your two cents into it also, but as far as I’m concerned, they’ve come in and asked for a deck on the front of their house. The initial proposal that came in was for a much larger deck, and I think the rationale I would use is that I don’t know anybody who has a lake house that doesn’t want some kind of a deck on the front of their house at some point in time. It just seems to be a pretty minimalist deck. It’s only going to require the digging of two posts down underneath there, and I don’t know if that’s what you would consider to be reasonable, as far as disturbance on the Critical Environmental Area of Glen Lake down there. Do you guys want to make any comments or ask any questions about the deck, or do you have any suggestions, or are you happy? MRS. JENKIN-Yes, my question is, by putting the deck and the new stairs on, does this open up, do you have to have Planning Board review for this? There is a Planning Board review? MR. OBORNE-There is Site Plan Review component for this, due to hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline. MRS. JENKIN-Site Plan Review. MR. OBORNE-And the applicant has removed trees without the approval of the Zoning Administrator/Code Compliance Officer, and as such that triggers Site Plan Review, also. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. My question is, then, if we grant the decking and the stair relief, all the reliefs necessary for that, they can go ahead and build it now, or do they have, you have to go to Planning Board and get the whole Site Plan Review done before you can build the deck? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MRS. JENKIN-Even with the variance that we give, you can’t go ahead. MR. OBORNE-Yes. The Site Plan Review is waiting on the variance. MRS. JENKIN-Okay, and if the variance is denied? MR. OBORNE-Then Site Plan Review gets tabled until such a time as there is a plan that is approvable. MRS. JENKIN-And if it’s approved, then it goes ahead. Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think one of the things we can do also is condition this that no further vegetation be removed if that deck is going to go on the front of there. I would make that a condition of any approvals. MR. URRICO-My concern would be the property line adjustment that’s going to have to be done, is that we don’t know what that’s going to trigger, and we’re going to end up back here at some point granting further approvals or amending or changing the approvals we gave. I mean, something like the 12 foot west sideline relief is going to become 21 feet, or 22 feet. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MR. OBORNE-It all depends on how it lands. I think if you’re going to adjust that line to the west, it’s going to make a lot of these issues disappear, but it’s going to make the issues to the east more in your face, for lack of a better term. MR. UNDERWOOD-And that would be the access stairs coming down. MR. OBORNE-That would be the access stairs. The other, to me, I think you’re going from, if you approve a certain amount that’s smaller than what it’s going to eventually be, that’s not an issue. That won’t be before you. It will be whatever is less than what was approved. MR. URRICO-And if we weren’t aware of it, that would be one thing, but we’re aware of it. It was in our notes. It’s enough of an issue for it to become part of the package. MRS. JENKIN-And the question is, if they move the line over 10 feet, where are the Mozals going to pick up the extra property, not take it from the left. MR. UNDERWOOD-They would take it from the side over where the stairs are, on that side. MRS. JENKIN-From that side? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Well then it’s even more out of compliance. MR. OBORNE-I think what they want to do is they want to square the lot off a little better and then what Mike O’Connor was saying was that they want to give at least a foot off that corner of the hedge. So you’re squaring the lot a little bit more, quite a bit, actually, which is the proper thing to do, but that hasn’t happened, and the key word that you said is if. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it may or may not happen. MRS. JENKIN-So there won’t be jogging down, it’ll be coming down? MR. OBORNE-Yes. It should just, the whole thing should just move in tandem, and the relief that they would have to come back for, if you were to grant relief tonight, and if they get through Site Plan Review, would be for any encroachment on the east. The west side would go away, to a certain degree. MRS. JENKIN-Well, especially if the septic system is over there near the bottom and then the septic system would then be on Mozals property. MR. OBORNE-That could very well be the case. That is true. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to proceed? Do you want me to poll you at this point? MRS. HUNT-Well, this adjustment of the line, that isn’t final yet? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MRS. HUNT-But that’s something that may or may not happen. Is that true? MR. ALHEIM-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-It may or may not happen. I thought that that was part of the deal. MR. ALHEIM-No. As I stated earlier, Irene is seeking legal counsel on that. How that plays out in the future is up in the air right now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys have anymore questions, or do you want me to poll you on this and see where we’re headed with this tonight? Okay. I’ll start with you, Roy. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MR. URRICO-Thanks. To be honest with you, I’m still really not satisfied with this. I still think it’s a lot of relief to be granted. I think it’s going to have a major impact on other properties around the lake, and I would probably come down no on this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, because of the fact that the land, that the property line is not definite yet, and I certainly can see a need for the improvement of the stairs, and although it’s a lot of relief, you have made adjustments and come down quite a bit with your deck, and I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-I believe the most affected party here is Chris Mozal. She’s seeking boundary line adjustment. The applicant is also, as stated, seeking counsel with respect to the boundary line adjustment. I really don’t feel comfortable granting relief prior to a boundary line adjustment, since Mozal is the most affected property owner here. So I couldn’t be in favor of this at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I also feel quite strongly that this needs to be settled before we grant variances, because there’s a 98% chance that if we grant these variances and a boundary line adjustment happens, you’ll be back again for other adjustments, in other ways. So I feel that this needs to be settled first before we could grant anything. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I just ask a question of Mr. O’Connor. You made a statement that Chris Mozal didn’t have a problem with what was proposed, but that she was most concerned with straightening out the property line, that that was her primary concern as far as this went? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. So does everybody understand that she doesn’t have a problem with the deck. She doesn’t have a problem with the stairs. She wants to get the property adjusted, you know, it’s long overdue probably for that, in that respect there. MRS. JENKIN-But I’m just saying that if we’re granting certain variances tonight, and then the property line adjustment is done, and even if she’s agreeable to it, they might have to come back again. They’ll be back for a different variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-What would happen in the proposed swap would mean that there would be no property line adjustment variance necessary probably on the deck. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because that line would move further to the west. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thereby increasing the setbacks from the Mozal’s property line. MR. OBORNE-The shore is not going to change. MR. UNDERWOOD-The shoreline setbacks would remain the same as they are. They’re not going to change. The only thing that would change would be the relief necessary for the stairwell, and I think that we’ve all agreed that the stairwell is a necessary component of ingress/egress to the home. It’s the only place you can put a stairs. It’s the only logical way to put a stairs in. I don’t think that Chris Mozal would have a problem with that because it really doesn’t affect, but I would quantify that now with Mr. O’Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-May I say something? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you’re taking what I said out of context. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t you come back up and speak on the record. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t want what I said to be taken out of context. She has tried, over a number of years, to get this thing resolved, and this is the only opportunity she has, and taking a look at the whole picture, if she can resolve this issue, she does not have a problem with their requested relief. If she can’t get it resolved, she has some reluctance. She’s giving up something by saying that she doesn’t have any issue with those Area Variances. The other comment I’d make it the area that we’ve talked about would not affect the setback relief that they’re requesting from the deck. They still would need the same relief from the deck, from both the lake and the sideline. The simplest way to do this, and probably the best way to do it from a land planning use, is to take that triangle that is underneath their house and give that to them, and have us take a triangle from the southwest corner of their parcel up in the back, probably beyond even the road into that hill that’s probably not even buildable, but it qualifies the land swap, because when Mozal did their subdivision, they had to get a variance from you because they didn’t have, I think at that point, six acres. One lot was, or they didn’t have four acres. One lot we made three acres, the one with the garage on it. I’m sorry, no, the one with the house we made one acre, and the one with the garage we made 2. something or other. So in order not to violate that relief, I have to make sure the same square footage is left after she gives up the piece that’s underneath the house. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-So, and we’re prepared to do it now. I don’t know. MR. OBORNE-And if I may say, that appears wholly logical. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. OBORNE-In my estimation. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Have you seen the letter? I wrote the letter. I copied both Chairmen with the letter. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. We got it. Okay. It looks like we’re going to be tabling your variance. We’re not going to act on this this evening. I guess the onus is going to go back on you to get together because it does not appear that the Board wants anything to do with this until you’ve settled this land swap deal or work something out with them. If it’s going to be a land swap that’s done administratively, I have no idea how long that’s going to take. It’s more of a wave of the wand deal. MR. OBORNE-I don’t know if it’s as simple as that because you do have a subdivision that’s going to be modified also, but that’s usually not that big of a deal. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I guess what we’ll do is table you until you come back to us with something concrete in the works for doing this, and I apologize for holding you up, and I would make the suggestion that you do get together with your counsel, and deal with their counsel and try and rectify the situation so you can move forward with what you propose. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-If I might add, when you do that tabling motion, what specifically are you asking them to do, is it to pursue that land swap? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think that the boundary line adjustment, in abeyance, at this point, is going to further the approvals that you’re seeking here this evening. So you’re going to either have to take care of that first and then come back, and we could put you th on as soon as that’s taken care of, you know, given the 15 of the month for anything. Nothing’s going to change as far as the submittals, as far as I’m concerned. Your drawings are going to remain the same. The stairs are going to remain the same. MRS. JENKIN-Except that the variance might change. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, yes, the variance might change. MRS. JENKIN-That’s the point I’m making. Then we would have to grant that different amount. MR. OBORNE-If the land swap is go to forward as proposed by Mozal’s counsel, the relief will not change any. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MRS. JENKIN-That’s right, if they take the back part, the back part of the property, southern. MR. OBORNE-I don’t see how that’s going to affect the hard surfacing or the decking. MRS. JENKIN-That’s true. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I don’t think we should pass it in lieu of. MR. OBORNE-That’s the comfort you have to have. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s the other factor. We could not pass it in lieu of the land swap. If the land swap’s going to occur, then we’re going to approve it at that point. Would you guys all feel comfortable approving it, once the land swap is done? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. MR. URRICO-Well, my issue wasn’t with the land swap at all. Okay. So I just want to go on record as saying that wasn’t part of my negative declaration here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we will table you until such time as you get back to us with moving forward on this, and, you know, we’ll do it at your earliest convenience, whenever you’re ready, let us know and we’ll get you on as soon as we can on the calendar. Okay? So we’ll table you for, what, up to 60 days. MR. OBORNE-Yes. That’s going to throw them into arrears with the Planning Board, th but, so you’re looking, again, probably you’re saying May 19 with a submittal date of th April 15? th MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So you would have to submit the changes by the 15 of April for that next month in May. MR. ALHEIM-I have a quick question. By submitting the changes, would that be just a, you know, the letter stating that it’s official? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, if there’s an agreement, that would probably satisfy the Board, I would imagine, at this point in time. MR. OBORNE-That’s what they’re looking for. They’re looking for some type of formal agreement. MR. ALHEIM-Okay. So you’re not looking for a full submission? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, no. We don’t need anything new from you. We’ll keep everything you’ve submitted so far. MR. ALHEIM-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So do I have a second on that? MRS. HUNT-Second. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 101 Fitzgerald Road. Tabled until such time as the applicant gets back to the Board with th moving forward with the land swap. Tabled until May 19 and submit the changes by the th 15 of April for that next month in May. th Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’ll see you next time. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MR. ALHEIM-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON OWNER(S): STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON ZONING: WR- 3A LOCATION: 96 HALL ROAD – GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING +/- 1,198 SQ. FT. SUMMER HOME AND REBUILD TO A +/- 2,110 SQ. FT. YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE WITH A 576 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACKS, SIDELINE SETBACKS AND ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2007-275 SEPTIC ALT.; SP 14-10 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.29 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-23 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4-050; 179-13-010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s two acre Waterfront Residential now everywhere? MR. OBORNE-It is two acre Waterfront Residential, but it’s all WR, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2010, Steven L. and Christine M. Johnson, Meeting Date: March 17, 2010 “Project Location: 96 Hall Road – Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing +/- 1198 sq. ft. summer home and build a +/- 2,110 sq. ft. year round residence with a 576 +/- sq. ft. detached garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 24 feet 8 inches of shoreline relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement and 15 feet 10 inches of sideline setback relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 of town code. Further, the applicant requests relief from road frontage requirements as per §179-3-040 of town code. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as most structures in the neighborhood are non-conforming in nature. 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. Concerning the dwelling, alternatives to multiple area variances appear to be limited due to the constraints of the lot. Concerning the detached garage, it appears that the applicant could move the structure to the north 9 feet 5 inches in order to avoid an area variance for south sideline setback relief. Concerning road frontage relief, the applicant could combine the two parcels in order to avoid an area variance for this requirement. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 24 feet 8 inches or 49% shoreline relief for the proposed Single Family Dwelling may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 15 feet 10 inches or 79% of south side setback relief for the Single Family Dwelling may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 9 feet 5 inches or 48% relief from the 20 foot south sideline setback requirement for the detached garage may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 150 feet or 100% relief from the 150 foot road frontage requirement 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 to moderate 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as the project proximity to the shoreline and the existing slopes may result in environmental degradation. However, stormwater and erosion and sedimentation controls have been designed and submitted that may mitigate any potential environmental concerns. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 14-10 SFD Pending BP 07-275 Septic Alteration Staff comments: The applicant proposes to build on the same foot print that the existing camp occupies. Staff has brought up the potential to move the detached garage to the north in order to avoid an area variance for sideline relief with the applicant. The applicant has stated that vehicular maneuverability would be difficult if the garage is placed further to the north. Planning Board recommendation attached. SEQR Status: Type II – No further review required.” MR. URRICO-I’ll read the Planning Board recommendation. There was a resolution making a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variance No. 9- 2010, Steve and Christine Johnson. “MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 FOR STEVEN AND CHRISTINE JOHNSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Jackoski: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We select Item Two, the Planning Board, based on limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: A.Access to the site, specifically the one lane road/driveway. B.The closeness to the lakefront C.That the garage is not included in the stormwater management report D.The view shed interruption of the neighbors with increased height of the proposed home. th Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2010, by the following vote:”, and it was adopted six to zero. One was absent. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. Anything you’d like to add at this time? MR. JOHNSON-Well, I have a brief statement if I could read into the record. That the key elements of this request are that we are attempting improvement with this lakefront property, without deleterious changes. Our historic attempts, this is our voluntary septic improvement, several thousands of dollars, evidence our actual, social and ecological conscience. Our guiding desire remains that the Glen Lake shoreline continue socially and visually attractive for ourselves and our neighbors. The existing foundation, which is the object of this rehabilitation, fully complied with local dimensional requirements at building construction. Time passage alone creates the need for this plan, except for the garage plan. Variance is needed due to current building setback rules, lot width rules, road frontage rules, and water frontage rules that did not apply at house construction in the 1890’s. The new garage, placed to allow sufficient vehicle access and egress movement, remains behind vegetation, except at the roadway entrance. You have the reports and our variances from our, the requirements, and we’d welcome any questions. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions at this time? All right. I guess what I’ll do is look for a little commentary here and stir up the pot here a little bit before we get going here too far. Everybody should have this open, so you’re looking at it. Everybody got it in front of them? All right. If I were going to make a guesstimate as to how this occurred here and how this camp came to be built here, it’s pretty apparent, if 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) you look at the back of the camp there where the bank abruptly goes up behind it there, that probably at some point in time in the back this area where the current camp resides was dug out, and it looks to me like a lot of fill was placed into the lake and then that rip rap was put along the shoreline there. The natural shoreline probably was more of a straight line across the front there, almost like where that tie line goes across on your map there. As far as the concerns of the Planning Board, when they reviewed this, everybody understands that a lot of these back roads that access the properties on Glen Lake as well as Lake George are these single lane roads, and there’s not a whole lot we can do about that at this point in time, and I think everybody recognizes the fact that since you live, have used the camp for many years and you’ve used the access, I don’t have a problem with the access. I think that’s something that can be dealt with on your own part. The primary issue, as I see it, would be the closeness to the lake, and when we do a re-do, in the sense of an old seasonal camp or dwelling on the Waterfront Residential areas, I think it’s important for us to always make sure that we look at how we might improve the situation as it exists currently and make it better for the long term, especially if you’re going to go to year round living there, and this camp, to me, does appear to be pretty close to the lake. I mean, if it had a brand new foundation under it or something that was going to be re-used or something, I think the argument could be made, maybe you would do less disturbance if you re-built it on site as has been proposed here, but in this instance here, I think it’s similar to when Kruger’s rebuilt their brand new big place further over there. They had to set it back quite a distance from the water, and I don’t know if that one was compliant. MR. OBORNE-That was before my time. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it was. I don’t recall that we granted a variance for that one, as far as setbacks from the water. So I think what I would be looking for here would be some movement on your part as far as moving this camp back, and I’m not saying you’ve got to go 50 feet back from the water as is prescribed, but I think you can still modify your plan and move it, you know, halfway back from where it is to the 50 foot line or something like that. That might be something more reasonable. I’m just throwing ideas out. As far as the two lots being co-joined together, I mean, they are what they are. I mean, it makes sense probably at this point in time to maybe do that. It would also preclude any further building on that separate lot in the back there. I mean, you’ve got a garage back there. It’s a non-compliant lot in size also. It’s going to give you the ability to make more square footage, but you’re pretty much set on your design of your home as you want to build it now. So I don’t think that’s going to change that, either, but the Planning Board I think is probably going to require you to include the stormwater management plan on that second parcel. So I don’t know if it makes sense to have it all a single parcel and do it all at once or to do it separately. MR. OBORNE-I don’t think that’s a prerequisite for this, to be honest with you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Right, I don’t either. MR. OBORNE-The stormwater management for that, certainly the sub-catchments would have to be looked at. MR. UNDERWOOD-And as far as the view shed, I think if you were to rebuild on the current site as proposed here, that close to the water with such a tall structure, I think definitely it does have an impact on the lake, and I think Kruger’s house was a good example of that. When they built their brand new one down there, it looks pretty big compared to every other camp, and seasonal camp. MR. GARRAND-But it’s far back from the lake. MR. UNDERWOOD-But it’s set back from the lake so its impact is minimized, as opposed to what we’re trying to do here at this point with the setbacks. So I’ll open it up to you guys. Do you agree, disagree or do you have any other concerns you want to throw out there? MRS. JENKIN-Well, my concerns, I’ll go first, if you like. When I visited the site, I felt that the house is much closer than the surrounding homes to the lake, and it really concerned me because it’s right at lake level, too. It’s not, there’s no increase in altitude or anything, and I would think if you’re going to put a new house in, and build a house such as you planned, that to move it back and lift it up higher so that it’s a little farther away and higher than the lake would be a really good solution. I looked at that back dug out spot that is quite a bit higher. It probably, is it 20 feet higher, 15 feet higher? The bank is higher than the house itself, and if you were to move it back to dig that even farther out I 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) don’t think is a reasonable solution at all. The most reasonable solution would be to build a house that was maybe on two levels, something like that, so that you would incorporate that section at the top and be able to move it back so that it was reasonable distance from the lake, and you’d have a better view, and it would just look a lot better with the construction of the home. I agree with our Chairman that the size of the home, being put right by the lake like that, it just, to me, proportionally, it doesn’t fit. That’s my opinion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich, anything you want to add? MR. GARRAND-I think the Planning Board hit it right on the head when they said view shed interruptus. It’s a lot of house, really, really close to the lake. I also have a concern about emergency vehicles, ingress and egress, especially given in the wintertime. I have a truck, and it wasn’t happy getting in there in the springtime. I have a question about that, but moving this house definitely seems like a logical thing to do. I mean, if it’s going to be new construction, it’s the ideal time to be more compliant. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce, anything you want to ask or add comment to? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I was just wondering why you felt you wanted to put it right where the existing camp is? MR. JOHNSON-Because it has been there for over 100 years. It is a nice location. The water, we don’t really have a major water problem, and we can, you know, put precast foundation members onto the low lake level, and build the house at or slightly above the ground level as it is now, and it shouldn’t be a problem. We do have a problem with moving it back. MRS. HUNT-That’s what I was going to ask next. MR. JOHNSON-Because our septic, we have a pump up septic system that we put in a few years ago. MRS. JOHNSON-’07. MR. JOHNSON-Yes, ’07, and the first pumping station is directly behind the house, and we can’t move our house back into that septic tank, and that’s part of the problem moving it back. The house has been engineered for the water situation, the water shed, and it seems to be close to compliance with that. We are out of compliance with some of the older rules of the Town which, you know, we all don’t agree with the rules our parents set for us when we were 10 years old either, and so that is the passage of time, and I don’t think we create hardship for our neighbors. We’ve tried to accept all the hardships on ourselves, like the septic system, to make it a better place to live all around. MRS. JOHNSON-It’s a half a story, also. It’s back. Do you realize that it’s just half of the house. It isn’t two full stories. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MRS. HUNT-The existing enclosed porch, is that going to stay, or is that going to be rebuilt? MRS. JOHNSON-That is part of the actual front which is going to stay. MR. JOHNSON-That’s the first part of the first floor, but the second floor won’t start until back almost 100 feet from the lake. So, again, that is a view of the lake from around the camp. There’s no one behind us. It’s vacant land right behind us. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy, have you got any questions? MR. URRICO-No, just that these are not old Code, right? This is something was just reviewed and revamped and everything was part of the new Code. We had a chance to change it if we wanted to, so we’re not really talking about old Code any longer. We’re talking about something that was just recently approved. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. URRICO-So that’s not old Code. This is new Code. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MR. JOHNSON-Right. That’s what I was saying. The house was compliant with the old Codes. The new Codes have changed and put the house out of compliance. MR. URRICO-And that’s what puts us in a bind here. We’re trying to make this house more compliant. We have an opportunity to do that at this point, and the suggestions we’re making are not being received, you know, in a positive way by you, and that puts us in a bind now because we have to decide whether we can approve, you know, basically 500 extra feet, almost twice as much, you’re demolishing something that was 1198 and building something that’s 2110, and that’s almost twice as big, and we need some, you to work with us a little bit in order to help us. MRS. JOHNSON-How far back are you asking us to move? What would you be thinking, if we could? I don’t actually want my house pushed into the back of a wall. MR. URRICO-But we’re talking about almost a two story house near the lake that seems bigger than it is because it’s right near the lake. MR. JOHNSON-Well, the second story of that house begins approximately 100 feet from the lake, and were it built, you know, originally back there. MRS. JOHNSON-This camp right here, as far as we can tell, that little blue one showing on the side, Don Kruger’s older one, we aren’t going to be any higher than that one. Every, we had two contractors that told us, you’re not going to stick above Kruger’s small blue. We’re not going to be above that. We have two contractors that have been in there already and measured it off slightly. We’re going to be pretty much, we won’t be any, you know, those, that particular house, and the big house is behind that and it is a lot bigger, his new one. MR. JOHNSON-We’re still as low or lower than the surrounding houses. MRS. JOHNSON-For height. MR. JOHNSON-For height. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think what I’ll do at this point in time is open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to comment on the project? Do you want to come up, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS DELLA CAMERA MR. DELLA CAMERA-Good evening. My name is Chris Della Camera. This is my wife Red, and we live at 94 Hall Road, which is right next to the Johnsons on the north side. The biggest problem I have with this renovation is that if they put it there, they severely block my view from my lawn. If you go back to the picture that shows, as a matter of fact, I have some photos we took. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MRS. JENKIN-Yours is the fence? MR. DELLA CAMERA-Yes, right. This is where we go out during the day and take our pups, we have two Chihuahuas, we sit out there, we look at the lake and they play, and if this were to go up, everything from here over, which is 50% of my view, will be gone. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s the front of the house where they want to rebuild, and this is what they look out at. MR. GARRAND-That would go back to what the Planning Board mentioned. MR. DELLA CAMERA-Now, we wouldn’t have a problem if it were to go on the original footprint, being one level, because I don’t believe that the roofline would be any higher than what it shows on your photos there. So I wouldn’t have a problem with that, but I definitely have a problem with the two story, unless it’s pushed back 50 feet, then I can’t do anything about it because that’s Code and that’s what it is, but if it does go back two story, it will give me more of a lake view. It will diminish some of it, but not all of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you want to add? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MR. DELLA CAMERA-Well, the other thing I can add is that the roadway going to their house goes to my property, so that, I guess, would be affected somewhat with vehicular traffic going through, and I don’t have a problem with that because I was in construction. I know what it takes to build a house. I would just be concerned about the parking. Their area there that they’re going to put their garage is large enough for their cars and things that they have going in and out, but if you’re building a house, you have a section where you’re going to dump material, drop material. You have a washout section. Once that’s utilized there’s very little parking. So my concern is where they’re going to park, and they can park anyplace, but I don’t want them to park in that area, because it does become a fire hazard, God forbid there’s a fire there and you’ve got cars parked, you can’t get through. That’s our concerns. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? AGNES HURLEY MS. HURLEY-I’m Agnes Hurley, and I wasn’t in construction, but the idea is, I’m at 92 Hall Road, and part of the one lane that the construction trucks would have to use would have to come through through my area, and I understand all that. My only concern, I’m just trying to voice the same concern, that Red and her husband expressed, and that is I’m concerned that you’re not going to be able to bring in construction trucks and I think I heard somewhere that this is being requested for not just this year construction, but next year construction, too, and so I’m just concerned that with these trucks coming in, you have to stop in order to fill them up with refuse or whatever. You’re going to have a backup there, and again, with emergency vehicles and just routine trying to get in and out, it’s going to be a problem. Other than that, the height and everything does impact, doesn’t impact the Della Camera’s, but I don’t see that it would impact me, but I am concerned about the trucks and parking. Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-I do have one letter. It’s addressed to the Town of Queensbury, to my attention, from Daniel Barber, and it says, “Unfortunately I am unable to attend the public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, March 17, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. so am writing instead to voice my opinion. I am in support of the Johnson application for an area variance. The proposed two story building will basically be the same footprint except for the addition of a garage. The sewage system was recently upgraded. I believe this project will have no impact on Glen Lake and will only improve and increase the value of it and the surrounding properties. Thus I am in favor of granting their request for relief from the shoreline setbacks, sideline setbacks, and road frontage requirements. Sincerely, Daniel R. Barber President Sherwood Acres Construction Corp.” Minerva, NY. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Is that it? Okay. Is that it? Okay. MRS. JENKIN-I have one question, one more question I just thought of. The house that’s, the existing house is now on a slab, is it? Is it on a concrete slab? MR. JOHNSON-I believe, it’s not really on a slab. It’s a foundation wall was built in the dirt, and it’s dirt under the house. There’s no slab. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a crawl space. MR. JOHNSON-A crawl space. MRS. JENKIN-There is a crawl space, and then you would be putting in a slab, would you, or how would you be doing the foundation? MR. JOHNSON-Yes, we’d be putting in a slab. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re not going to have a full cellar underneath this because you’re at lake level. MR. JOHNSON-We’re at lake level, right. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’d have a swimming pool in your cellar real quick. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MR. JOHNSON-Yes. I tried to get a big pump, but I couldn’t get one big enough. MRS. JENKIN-And so this slab would be on the same ground level that it is now, that the? MR. JOHNSON-Approximately. It might be raised a little bit. Approximately ground level, yes. Actually, yes, ground level. MRS. JENKIN-Do you get, when, obviously this winter we didn’t have it, but when you have a heavy snow winter, does the snow melt from the house, does it tend to go into the lake, because your property’s right on lake level? MR. JOHNSON-No. There is a depression that runs parallel with the lake, between the front of the house and the lake, and so the water pools, we get a little pool of water in front of the house sometimes in the Spring, the heavy melt. MRS. JOHNSON-And in the back, it slopes in the back, too. MR. JOHNSON-You can barely see that. MRS. JOHNSON-But it doesn’t seep into the house or we don’t get wet. Anywhere, at any level does anything get wet on the inside, even as old and rickety as it is, and about the roadways, we own most of all of that, three quarters of it all, and Mr. Kruger has many times left his vehicles out there and other people have grooming things that come in for their lawns and trucks and rocks and trucks come in and out all the time, and we own most of it, and we can leave the majority on our own property away from everybody. I haven’t been able to get in my own yard many times for other big trucks. So we do understand that, and we had an alarm go off on our septic last winter, and Chuck Ogden, a neighbor, did call, police vehicles and fire trucks got in safely. The garage wasn’t there, but there’s just barely room. So, as far as roads go, and the two contractors that we’ve already talked to extensively, they can leave any big things out on our own yard, way out to Hall Road, because we own most of it, and it is quite narrow. At Della Camera’s (lost words) that’s when it really gets narrow. Agnes has a little more room, but we do have plenty of room. We’ve had plenty of big, the Town always leaves their trucks up there all the time when they’re working, there’s plenty of room, and it is ours. So we would definitely, definitely try to leave anything big and obtrusive out of the way. There’s no question about that. We have room. MR. JOHNSON-If you could put the photo up there of the plot plan, I can demonstrate where that, where our land is. MRS. JENKIN-This piece of property is yours as well as the property on the lake. So you own. MRS. JOHNSON-Out to Hall Road on the other side. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MRS. JOHNSON-That’s where our big leach field is. We have a pump up system that pumps it up to there. The other thing about moving back is the pump up. That’s all been dug once to put in the pump up system so that it’s, you know, got that tubing all the way, the conduit or whatever you call it runs up to the septic. So pushing back too far, we’re going to be taking up a whole bunch of a $20,000 system, which is going to be a lot to think about. MRS. JENKIN-You didn’t think of re-building the house? MRS. JOHNSON-We did. We weren’t thinking about the second story, but we do need the space. It was a two bedroom. It’s remaining two bedroom. The septic is for three, but we’re staying two. We just want to give our older daughter a little more room, our baby a little more room than she would have. Technically I don’t want an upstairs. I don’t want stairs anymore. I want one level, but I do have a child that comes home. So she’ll be upstairs in that half section. That’s our plan. We just want to keep everything as it has been. We’re simple. We have small docks. No motor boats. We just want to keep things simple. We do like the idea that the house has been there that long. It’s worked that long. As far as weather and rain and snow, it’s worked right there. We don’t see any need to push things around if we don’t absolutely have to, and I don’t know how 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) far back we can without disturbing that system that we put in in ’07 prior to trying to get to this point in life. MRS. JENKIN-But this is just a seasonal home right now, the camp? MRS. JOHNSON-Yes, but we did, the septic was old and we knew we had to replace it either way to stay there summers, but we did it in projection of trying to make a year round residence some day there. MRS. JENKIN-With the same house? MRS. JOHNSON-No. Not with that one. MRS. JENKIN-Well, that’s why I was asking why did you put in a system like that if you were planning to rebuild the whole house, too, if you were planning to take that house down and build a new one. MR. JOHNSON-When we put the system in, the septic system, we didn’t have plans to rebuild. MRS. JOHNSON-We didn’t have a definite plan yet. We just thought, we had to have a new one anyway. I’m sorry. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else have questions? All right. I think what I’ll do, then, is I will close the public hearing at this point. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll poll the Board. I guess I’ll start with you, Rich. MR. GARRAND-I think the Planning Board pretty much hit the nail right on the head as far as the proximity of the proposed house to the lake. The homeowner has basically satisfied me when she stated that there is access for emergency vehicles in there, having seen fire trucks and rescue in there previously. So that kind of allayed my concerns about the road frontage requirement, but like I said, I still have issue with the proximity of the house to the lake and its impact on the neighbors as well as the view shed from the lakeside. MR. UNDERWOOD-The sideline setback, you mean as far as centering this thing more on the property, do you have a problem with that, or do you think that’s okay the way it is currently, cocked to the side towards Krugers? MR. GARRAND-If they could center it up on the lot, I think it would be an improvement, as far as less relief, and as far as uniformity on the lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-And how far back would you want to see it moved from where it presently exists? 10 feet, 25 feet? MR. GARRAND-Twenty-five feet would put it compliant, totally compliant. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure. I’m really not at liberty to tell them where they can and can’t put their house. Just by looking at it tonight, it seems awfully close to the lake, and I’m really surprised that they haven’t had water issues down there with its proximity to the lake and the elevation of the home itself with respect to the water. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I still have some concerns about the two story. I was wondering if you couldn’t make it a one story and just extend it further to the north. MRS. JOHNSON-Like an L-Shape, you mean? MRS. HUNT-Yes. MRS. JOHNSON-Sort of, branch out to the back? Yes, I really hadn’t thought of it. MRS. HUNT-Because you’ve got a lot of property there, and then you eliminate the second floor which people object to. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MRS. JOHNSON-Except the wall. There is a big wall. MRS. HUNT-Yes, I see that. MRS. JOHNSON-That stone wall is quite close, which we kind of wanted to leave that up. MR. JOHNSON-We’re trying to maintain some of the historic character of the area. The second story, as I was saying, of the house doesn’t begin until almost 100 feet back, or 50 feet back. So there’s really not much view of the lake that would be cut off. Mr. Della Camera’s, from his place to the lake, my second story will not, it will not cut off anything more than, by 10 degrees of what would be the northern shore of the lake at the other end. That’s all that he won’t be able to see. I don’t think it would be that much, and because the front of the house is only one story, and it’s the back of the house that’s raised, and that prevents seeing the woods on the other side or the side of the Krugers’ camp. MRS. HUNT-What is the dimension of the second floor? MR. JOHNSON-The second floor dimension. MR. GARRAND-Yes, we weren’t provided with blueprints of the second floor. MR. JOHNSON-It starts, the second floor. MRS. JOHNSON-It’s the same width. It’s exactly the same footprint. MR. JOHNSON-It’s the same width, yes. MRS. JENKIN-It’s just that the porch that’s the first one story. MRS. JOHNSON-What looks like the porch, correct. MRS. JENKIN-Is the one story. MRS. JOHNSON-Yes, and then it starts behind that and it’s identical size behind it. MRS. HUNT-The same as the footprint of the first floor. MRS. JOHNSON-Exactly. MR. JOHNSON-And so if you go 93 feet back from the front of the house, that’s where the second story would begin. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Well, I just want to point out that, height wise, he’s within, he’s legal. He’s under the height restriction. So, even though we’re talking about it, he has up to 28 feet, and I think it’s 25, 8 or something like that. So we’re talking about shoreline relief, and that’s the major issue, and we have the opportunity to step it back a little bit and get it away from the shore, and so that’s my issue with this at this point, and I would like to see it moved back from the lake, whatever you can push it back, five feet, ten feet, that would be an improvement, and I would like to see it centered a little bit more, to get away from the sideline, if you can. If you can’t, then we have a decision to make. MR. JOHNSON-Moving it back more becomes difficult because it’s within 10 or 12 feet of the septic tank at this point. MR. URRICO-How far does this have to be away from the septic? MR. OBORNE-Well, it has to be 20 feet away from the septic, but your slab, you’re going to do slab on grade, it’s not an issue. If you slab on grade, and again, I’m not in the Department of Building and Codes, but my understanding is if you have a slab on grade, you don’t need to have that separation, and we’re talking about the pump now also, the pump house. MR. JOHNSON-Right, that is the pump. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MR. OBORNE-It seems to me that you could probably go back, without any real issues to the pump. Again, you’re going to want to have an engineer look at that or a builder. MRS. JENKIN-One more thing. One thing, as I’m looking at it, you might have to change the plans a bit, but could you turn the house? It would change your plans, but that’s a thought, too. That would actually take up more width, but it would bring you considerably away from the lake, and you wouldn’t impact on your pump out at all. So I’m just throwing that in. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to close my comments with the same line of thought. I thought what you would do with the house is this. All right. As I see it, because it was a cut and fill originally on this lot, it’s very apparent to me that that’s the case, you’re really only sitting 10 feet from the original shoreline of that lake, if you go to the adjacent properties on either side and walk it off, you can pace it off and see that that’s the case. So, proposing your home where it’s proposed now to me is unacceptable. I think that it’s just ignoring the fact that you do have an impact on the lake, even though you have put a new septic system in, and I think the logical way to deal with this would be to take the house, instead of it being 100 feet long back through, I can’t even imagine a 100 foot long house. I mean, that’s a long way to walk. I would just like to see the house changed, attitude of the house. If you swung the house 90 degrees, and so the long way was running across, it wouldn’t have to be 100 feet across, obviously. That would be an immense house. I can’t even imagine any house being that long on the lake, but, at the same time, I think you would have to re-do your plans, and it would bring you into compliance with your setbacks from the lake, and you would need less relief than what you were requesting. MR. OBORNE-If I could offer a couple of issues with that, would be trees would have to be removed and you’d have additional grading. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think if we’re trying to achieve setback from the lake, I think that, you know, you can re-plant trees. When I moved on Glen Lake, I didn’t have any trees in front of my house at all and a forest can grow up pretty quickly when you plant trees properly. So I don’t think that’s an issue. So I think what we’re going to do here, based upon the fact that we don’t have a full Board here, but the Board isn’t buying in to what you’ve proposed here, and I think what you’re going to have to do is go back to the drawing board and think about the suggestions we made and come back. Building on the present site is unacceptable for the majority of the Board members that are here this evening, and we can table you, or you can withdraw and come back with a complete new plan, something entirely different, but it doesn’t look like we’re going to accept what you’ve proposed here. MR. OBORNE-I would suggest a tabling, because if they withdraw, they’d have to go through the recommendation process again. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. OBORNE-Which, if they choose to do that, that’s fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, it’s up to you. Do you want to withdraw, or do you want to table? MR. JOHNSON-Let’s table it then. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then we’ll table you for up to 60 days. If you come back with a design that’s completely different, it’ll probably be, have to go through the process from Square One with new plans and the whole nine yards, but think about the suggestions we made. Think about what you might do, and even though you’re used to what you have and used to the way it is, maybe by doing this it would allow you to have just a single story building instead of the two story, you might save considerable construction costs in that respect, and at the same time satisfy us with the setbacks from the lake, bringing you more into compliance with your neighbors. Pace off how far their houses are set back from the water, and look at yours at the same time and if we’re going to try to achieve something with parity along the whole shoreline there, it’s a good time to do it. th So we’ll table you for up to 60 days. So that’ll be the 19 of May that we would hear you on. So I need a second. MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you want to re-open the public hearing? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’ll leave the public hearing open for next time. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th 96 Hall Road – Glen Lake. Tabled to May 19, for the applicants to go back to the drawing board and think about the suggestions the Board made and come back. Building on the present site is unacceptable for the majority of the Board members that are here this evening. The applicant should think about what they might do, and maybe by doing this it would allow the applicants to have just a single story building instead of the two stories. The applicant might save considerable construction costs in that respect, and at the same time satisfy the Board with the setbacks from the lake, bringing you more into compliance with your neighbors. Pace off your how far the neighbors’ houses are set back from the water, and look at yours at the same time, and if the Board is going to try to achieve something with parity along the whole shoreline there, it’s a good time to do it. th Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl MR. UNDERWOOD-See you then. MR. JOHNSON-All right. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II LARRY SWEET OWNER(S): LARRY SWEET ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 40 CONNECTICUT AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SFD WITH DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR BOTH STRUCTURES RESPECTIVELY. CROSS REF.: BP 173-1968 ADDITION; BP 2009-586 DEMOLITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.09-1-4 SECTION: 179-4-030 LARRY SWEET, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 11-2010, Larry Sweet, Meeting Date: March 17, 2010 “Project Location: 40 Connecticut Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a new single family dwelling with attached garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from front, side and rear yard setbacks as per §179-3-040. Specific relief as follows: 1.10 feet front setback relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for dwelling 2.15 feet north side setback relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for dwelling. 3.20 feet south side setback relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the proposed garage. 4.5 feet rear setback relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement for the proposed garage. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of this proposal. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) 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 preclude any feasible method by which to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 10 feet or 33% relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the dwelling may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 15 feet or 60% relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the dwelling may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 20 feet or 80% relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the detached garage may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 5 feet or 17% relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement for the detached garage 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. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. However, the Moderate Density Residential setback requirement of 25 feet on the sidelines would allow for a 10 foot wide home to be constructed thus not meeting the 800 square foot minimum size for a single family home. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 09-586 Demolition Staff comments: The applicant lost their house to fire in late 2009 and is now before the ZBA to gain approvals for setback relief for a new proposed structure. Staff has worked the Department of Building and Codes and the applicant to ensure that a compliant wastewater system can be installed on site. SEQR Status: Type II – No further review required.” MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Sweet, anything else you had? I think it’s pretty apparent what you’re trying to achieve here. As far as my initial comments on it, it looks like a reasonably sized home. Even though it’s a pretty small lot there, I think that’s the primary concern. It does need a lot of setbacks, but I think it’s pretty self-explanatory as to why they’re needed. Anything else you want to add? I mean, I assume you looked at different size homes to put on the lot. Is this a manufactured home? MR. SWEET-It would be stick built. I’ve got to have three bedrooms. My son and his wife and two kids are going to be living with us. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. SWEET-It’s about the smallest I can get in there, that would look nice in there anyway. MR. UNDERWOOD-And as Staff pointed out, to make it compliant you’d be looking at a 10 foot wide house. So that doesn’t work for too many people that I know. Do you guys have any questions or concerns? MRS. JENKIN-I have one concern, and that’s the five foot placement that you have the house, or you have the garage from your neighbor’s house. It’s only five feet away, and I was looking at the property itself and the house. The house is 16 by 24 feet, and I took that from the drawings you have. MR. SWEET-26 by 40, the house is. MRS. JENKIN-It’s 26 by 40. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MR. SWEET-Yes, with that stairway jaunt it’s 47. On that, to the left side of the property, if you’re looking at it. MRS. JENKIN-Okay, because I wondered if you turned the house sideways on the lot, and then you would still have room for the driveway, but if it’s 47 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’d be building from side to side completely, I think, if you did that. MRS. JENKIN-That wouldn’t work at all. So maybe this isn’t to scale then. Okay. Never mind. I thought turning it then you’d be able to put the garage behind the house and attach it perhaps. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s where the waste field is. The septic field is in the rear. MRS. JENKIN-Okay, is back there, the septic system. MR. OBORNE-We had to shoehorn it in, but it is compliant. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. SWEET-Yes. We kicked the garage ahead, forward, and we moved the house forward to be able to fit the septic system in. MR. UNDERWOOD-And it does give you a little bit of a back yard. MRS. JENKIN-And have your neighbors given any comment at all? MR. SWEET-I haven’t heard anything from any neighbors yet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys? All right. I guess I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do you want to come up, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LOU RATHBUN MR. RATHBUN-My name’s Lou Rathbun and I live on the south side. My property borders their property. I oppose this variance. When they had that fire, it was tragic, but I was pretty concerned for my house, you know. Luckily there was no wind blowing and stuff. I’m concerned with safety. If that happens again maybe my house will catch on fire. I don’t know, and it’s, I mean, modern density says two acres. What have you got, a quarter acre there? MRS. JENKIN-Is your lot any larger? MR. RATHBUN-Mine is 100 by 120. MRS. JENKIN-You must have two lots, then. MR. RATHBUN-I have four. MRS. JENKIN-Four lots. MR. RATHBUN-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the average size lot down there in the neighborhood, Keith? MR. OBORNE-The average size? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, they’re all pretty small, all over the map, right? MR. OBORNE-Probably 15,000 square feet to 20 max, with a lot smaller than this, well, not much smaller than this one. This is a small one for the area. MRS. JENKIN-Do you have any suggestions? TERRI VIGGIANO 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MS. VIGGIANO-No, I was going to say, the only ones that are usually allowed on 60 by, the 60 by 100 are corner lots. Because otherwise it’s on everybody’s doorstep. MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry, could you state your name for the record? MS. VIGGIANO-Yes. I’m sorry. My name’s Terri Viggiano and I live on Rhode Island Avenue, and the whole thing is we’ve had so many variances up there. We’re supposed to use not the high density that we’re getting. The whole idea was that you’re not on everybody’s doorstep. That’s why we don’t live in Glens Falls, because I don’t want to sit in my house and hear him talking next door. That’s my only thing. The density is a major issue, and because of the fire, because I was afraid, too, and then when they had the propane leak after the fire, I had to call NiMo three times. I was afraid we were going to have an explosion in the neighborhood. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else? Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Okay. Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-Yes. It’s addressed to Jim Underwood. “Dear Sir: In Western Park’s heyday, anything would be acceptable on the little 100 by 30 foot lots that were available years ago. One could put additions and add this or that without permits and thus we have West Glens Falls. Times have changed, and it is now Queensbury, New York, and all around us we see Queensbury emerging as a desirable place to buy a home and bring up a family. The avenues are starting to shape up and the homes are increasingly kept up and becoming more valuable to homeowners and perspective home buyers. It is in my estimation that this plan is not acceptable and I do not agree with this for all the obvious reasons. This is asking way too much. It’s like trying to put a square peg into a much smaller round hole. I, as a homeowner adjacent to this property, cannot see how it will enhance the neighborhood or my property. The relief being asked for is way out of bounds. The building proposed, for one thing, would block my view as I try to back up out of my driveway. I would not be able to see down the street with the proposed building not far enough back on the land. The Town of Queensbury has set up these sensible guidelines, and I do believe we should adhere as closely as possible to them for they are there for a reason, specific reasons, and I think we should abide by them. Three to five feet is one thing to overlook, but 20 feet here and 15 feet or so there is way too much, especially on such a small piece of property. No, I do not agree with this at all, for all the various obvious reasons, and that there are restrictions already in place that should be enforced. Respectfully yours, Patricia Carpenter” MR. UNDERWOOD-And I guess she owns the land to the other side? MR. OBORNE-To the north. MR. UNDERWOOD-To the north, right? Okay. How big was the house that was there, the one that burned? MR. SWEET-Well, it used to be an old trailer in the center of it with some additions off it. I couldn’t tell you exact sizes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Like 50 foot long and? MR. SWEET-I would say that trailer was a good 40, maybe 45, and it had a jaunt off the back, plus there was like a front porch on the front. MR. UNDERWOOD-That shows it up there, the old one. That’s the original? MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s the structure as it was. MR. SWEET-I can’t see where she would have any problems seeing down the road on the north side. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I mean the house you’re proposing is. MR. SWEET-The house won’t even come out past her house. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re 26 by 47, right? MR. SWEET-Yes, with a jaunt on the back there. Yes. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-With a little jog on the back, but it’s actually 40. MR. SWEET-26 by 40, correct, 1040 square feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, do you guys want to make some comments here about what you think as far as the size of that house for the size of the lot. Whether you think it’s reasonable or unreasonable. MRS. JENKIN-Well, it might satisfy the neighbors, there are a lot of concerns, if the house is made a little smaller. My concern is I was going by this drawing, and it says it’s one quarter inch to one foot scale, and by this scale, it’s 24 feet by 16. So this isn’t matching up here. MR. SWEET-Well, it might be the way they copied it or something, they downsized my blueprint. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s not to scale, Joan. That’s not to scale. That’s been reduced down. MRS. JENKIN-I see, because it says one quarter, it’s made to fit the paper. Okay. I see. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, I had a question for you. On the original subdivision that was down there had these tiny little narrow. MR. OBORNE-It was 1922 I think it was, something along those lines. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I mean, they were like trailer sized lots. They appear to have been designed for that purpose, but this one as proposed is sitting on two of those lots together. Mr. Rathbun’s property, you said you had four of them together, linked up on that side, and it looks like Carpenter’s up there on the other end. They’ve got a boat load of them, right? MR. OBORNE-Yes, they do. I know that, Pat Carpenter, I believe, is the name of the property owner to the north. MR. UNDERWOOD-Patricia Carpenter. MR. OBORNE-Yes. She had bequeathed a certain portion previously back, I don’t know, 15 years ago, and I’m not even sure that’s correct, but I know that she had given some land over also. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. These old subdivisions are always a nightmare for us when they come in, because, you know, we’ve had some dating back to 1911 over on the east end of Town, you know, that was the last lot that was there, and it was subdivided. So there’s not a whole lot you can do about it. In this instance here, you know, you’ve got two lots that have been combined to make this one lot, as it exists it appears to me, and I guess you could make the argument you could go buy more land, but I don’t know if it’s available or how reasonable that is to encumber somebody with that on their plate. MR. OBORNE-The question is, is that feasible. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Is it reasonable or is it even available. So we’d just be surmising that. Do you guys want to put anything in, your two cents on this one? MRS. HUNT-I think it’s a modest size home for the lot. Actually I had a home about that size on a 40 by 100 down on Long Island. So it seems rather generous here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy, anything you want to add? MR. URRICO-I think it’s a little big for the lot. MRS. JENKIN-You said it’s too big for the lot? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, to me the only suggestion I would make would be if you could go with a smaller garage, you know, instead of having the garage 24 by 24, you 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) know, if you went to 24 by 18. I mean, you wouldn’t get two cars in there probably. That would be a difficult sell for you at that point, and I know everybody wants that extra storage space on it, too, but the, I don’t know, as far as the commentary that was made about fire and stuff like that, I mean, that’s a risk any neighbor takes, and, you know, if you live down on that end of Town, the houses are close together, you know, everybody hopes that these disasters don’t occur when your house burns down, but if it happens, it happens, and that’s why we have a fire department. So I would think with new construction it wouldn’t be a concern to me anyway. MRS. HUNT-I have a question. How many rooms are you going to have in this house? MR. SWEET-Three bedrooms and a bath and a half, and a kitchen and living room. MRS. HUNT-I don’t see how you could make it much smaller and make it a livable house. MRS. JENKIN-The fact, too, that it’s a single story house. I think that that’s a, when you look at it from the street, it’s not going to be too imposing. A twenty by forty house is not a large house, huge, and if it was two story, then it would appear very, very large for the lot, but being a one story it’s not terribly large for the lot, but I think that a smaller garage would probably be less imposing for the, and take up less space as well. It would give a little bit more leeway to that side setback. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich, anything you want to add? MR. GARRAND-A 68 foot wide lot, with any kind of structure except for a single wide, is going to require a variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you think this house is more in keeping with what we want to achieve down there as far as having a single story house? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-That’s the point. MR. GARRAND-Yes, Moderate Density Residential. MRS. JENKIN-Having another trailer put in is not going to help the neighborhood at all. Having a stick built house will. MR. GARRAND-It does lean more toward what we’re trying to achieve. Like you said, if the owner was willing to cut the garage down to say 18 feet, you know, that might help out as far as that side of the property line with your neighbor. MR. URRICO-Would that work? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, because I don’t see making the house narrower’s going to, you know, you’re going to make a house 20 feet wide, I mean, it’s like barely the size of most people’s living rooms, and you want people to have livable space. Otherwise, if you’re going to create it, make it so it works. MR. URRICO-To me it’s not the house, it’s the garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. How about the garage? MR. SWEET-You’re thinking about cutting the garage down by pulling it away from the line side? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think so. MR. SWEET-A couple of feet make you happy? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, two feet’s probably not going to do it. 20 by 24, that’s four feet, bringing it four feet in, is that going to make a difference? MRS. JENKIN-Yes, 20 by 24 you could use it for storage as well as a car. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MR. SWEET-You get to 22, though, you could put a 16 foot overhead door and still have your man door in the front. Keep it on the gable end, you know, so the water and stuff doesn’t freeze. MR. UNDERWOOD-You could always have your, you’ve got your ridge probably going, so it doesn’t dump on your driveway. MR. SWEET-Yes, so you’re driving in a gable. Right. MRS. JENKIN-Well, that’s the thing, too, if it’s so close to the neighbors, some of the snow might go onto the neighbor’s property. MR. SWEET-Shingles (lost words) when it’s not heated. MR. UNDERWOOD-What do you think of that, Roy, is that going to do it or not? MR. URRICO-Yes. That would be good for me. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So what are you saying, then, on your garage, 22 by 24? MR. SWEET-Twenty-two wide and twenty-four deep. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So that’ll bring you two feet further in from Mr. Rathbun’s side, right? MR. SWEET-That’ll give you seven from that side, right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that going to make a difference? MR. RATHBUN-Yes, a little bit. MRS. HUNT-That would be an 18 foot setback relief. MR. UNDERWOOD-Then you can just have a single 16 foot wide door on there. All right. Yes. I’ll go along with what you’re proposing here. I think building a stick built house is what I would rather see down on this end of Town. I think it’s more reasonable to assume that everybody’s going to switch over at some point to, you know, more house like structures, and certainly if we compare that to what was existing on the lot previous, it’s a grand improvement. MR. SWEET-Yes. My taxes are even going up. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think what you’re trying to achieve is going to be reasonable, as far as living space for your family members, too, and if you’re going to build a house, it’s got to be a livable house. There’s no sense building something that as soon as you move in you don’t like it. So, I’ll go along with it, and I think what we’re going to do, then, we’ll need the setbacks, we’ll need two feet less setback from that garage. MR. OBORNE-And let’s make sure we quantify and qualify this correctly. MR. UNDERWOOD-So we get the right number on there. MR. OBORNE-It would be seven foot of south side, seven foot, right? Because it’s less relief than what they’re asking for, so we can go ahead and approve it. MR. UNDERWOOD-So we need 10 feet from the 30 foot front setback. That’s not going to change, 15 feet from the north side setback, 25 side setback for the dwelling, that’s not going to change. Twenty feet south setback relief from the twenty-five. MR. GARRAND-That’s going to be 18 feet now? MRS. JENKIN-Eighteen. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s going to be 18? MRS. HUNT-Eighteen feet. MR. SWEET-Where are you getting the 18? The back isn’t going to change. It should be the south side that’s changing. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) MRS. JENKIN-Right, that’s the only change. MR. UNDERWOOD-The south side is the only thing. I mean, we don’t even have that on there, do we, the side setback from Rathbun’s? MR. SWEET-It’s in the plot plan, I believe. MR. UNDERWOOD-Five feet it says on there. MRS. HUNT-That’s the rear. MR. UNDERWOOD-So now we’re going to increase that so it needs three feet, or it needs only three feet of relief? This is going to come in, so the driveway’s going to come in, too, right? MR. SWEET-That should be an 18 foot relief on that side. MRS. JENKIN-It was five feet before, now it will be seven. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-So now we’re going to have. MR. SWEET-You need seven, so you need 18 foot relief. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we need 18 feet of relief on the south side. MRS. HUNT-The rear setback doesn’t change. MR. UNDERWOOD-Twenty-five on the back stays the same, because it’s still 24 feet long. MRS. HUNT-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So the only thing that changes is it goes from 20 feet on the south to 18. MRS. JENKIN-And then the size of it, is the size in here of the garage? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, we don’t, the setbacks cover that, but we can just say that the garage is going to be. MR. SWEET-It’ll be 22 by 24. MR. UNDERWOOD-Twenty-two by twenty-four. Make sure we put it the right way, right? Okay. Does somebody want to take this one, then? MRS. HUNT-I’ll take it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2010 LARRY SWEET, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 40 Connecticut Avenue. The applicant proposes construction of a new single family dwelling with a detached garage. The relief required. The applicant requests relief from front, side, and rear yard setbacks, as per Section 179-3-040. Specific relief as follows: 10 feet front setback relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for dwelling; 15 feet north side setback relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for dwelling; 18 feet south side setback relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the proposed garage; 5 feet rear setback relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement for the proposed garage. In making this determination, the Board shall 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 Area Variance. I think there will be minor changes, and it really will be a positive change in the neighborhood. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. The lot limitations make this the only feasible method, and the home is a moderate sized one, and the applicant has already reduced the size of the garage. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request for 10 feet or 33% relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the dwelling may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 15 feet or 60% relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the dwelling may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 18 feet, less than 80% relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the detached garage may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 5 feet or 17% relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement for the detached garage may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. I think there’ll be minor physical or environmental conditions that could be anticipated, and whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. It might be considered self-created, but there was a fire in the old building, and the setbacks would really only allow for a 10 foot wide home, which would be not feasible. So I propose we pass Area Variance No. 11-2010. th Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2010, by the following vote: MRS. HUNT-Eighteen feet south side setback relief from the twenty foot. MR. OBORNE-No, and I apologize, Joyce. It’s actually going to be seven feet of south setback relief. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Seven feet south side setback relief is what we’re looking for. MR. GARRAND-Aren’t you looking for 18 feet, because it’s supposed to be 25 feet? MR. OBORNE-Well, look at the direction. It’s the south sideline. We’re moving that away from the south sideline two feet from what it currently exists, which is five feet, not currently exists, but what is proposed. So you want to move that seven. That’s the key number you want to get right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And as far as the rear setback, that needs five feet of rear setback relief. MRS. HUNT-Right. So how many feet of relief? MR. OBORNE-So seven feet from the south side. MR. SWEET-Yes, but what she’s saying is 18, 18 and 7 makes 25. MR. GARRAND-It’s supposed to be 25 feet side setback relief. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. GARRAND-Okay. So they need 18 feet relief because it’s only going to be 7 feet from the property line. MRS. HUNT-That’s right. MR. OBORNE-Twenty-five foot setbacks are what they are. MRS. HUNT-Right. They need 18 feet. MRS. JENKIN-Right. So it’s 18 feet. MRS. HUNT-Eighteen feet of relief. MR. OBORNE-Thank you for doing the math for me. I do appreciate it. AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/10) ABSENT: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl MR. OBORNE-Larry, you’re going to have to get the surveys updated to reflect that 18 feet of relief, or 7 foot movement. MR. SWEET-The plot plan? MR. OBORNE-Yes, the plot plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I guess we’re all set, then. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 33