Loading...
2011.01.19 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 2011 INDEX Sign Variance No. 62-2010 GAM of the Adirondacks, LLC 2. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-12 Area Variance No. 20-2009 Mary Sicard 6. Tax Map No. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17 289.10-1-4 Area Variance No. 1-2011 Douglas & Muriel Cherry 16. Tax Map No. 289.14-1-7 Area Variance No. 2-2011 James Kalock 18. Tax Map No. 289.9-1-77 Area Variance No. 3-2011 Aftab (Sam) Bhatti 19. Tax Map No. 302.05-1-51, 52, 52.13 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. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 0 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND BRIAN CLEMENTS RONALD KUHL JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the January 19, 2011 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 that 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 is intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issue at hand, and it functions to help the Board members make a wise decision. It does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers 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 the other speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present, and, Board members, I’d suggest that because we have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking. Rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read in any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members will then discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application, and then the public hearing will be closed or left open depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. We’ve got to re-do the executive Board first thing because we’ve got to have something in play, since it’s a brand new year and everybody’s term’s expired in December. So I guess we’ll go do that first. So do we have any nominations for Secretary? MOTION TO NOMINATE ROY URRICO AS SECRETARY OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Urrico MR. UNDERWOOD-Nominations for Vice Chairman. MOTION TO NOMINATE RICH GARRAND AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Roy Urrico whom moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Garrand 1 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) MOTION TO NOMINATE JAMES UNDERWOOD FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2011, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Koskinas: th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: Vote for Mr. Underwood as Chairman AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So we’re all set with that. We’re going to shuffle things around tonight, because I’m sure Sicard’s going to take a little bit longer. So, just as a courtesy, we’re going to do GAM of the Adirondacks. Under New Business tonight we have Doug Cherry, James Kalock and Sam Bhatti’s projects, and because the Planning Board did not meet, the Planning Board needed to give us a recommendation on all three of those projects. They’re going to meet tomorrow evening. So I think what we’re going to do is we’re going to shuffle them to next week’s Wednesday meeting, because I think we only had two or three items on that one. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s correct, and what you’re going to want to do, for the public record, is do each one with a resolution tabling it to the 26th. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and I think what we’ll do is because there may be some members of the public here tonight for those projects, I think that we will go through the preliminaries on that because the public may be here and if no one is here, then we’ll leave the public hearing’s open, obviously because they haven’t presented to us yet. First up this evening, then we’re going to do GAM of the Adirondacks, LLC. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 62-2010 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED GAM OF THE ADIRONDACKS, LLC AGENT(S): STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): GAM OF THE ADIRONDACKS, LLC ZONING: CM LOCATION: 1048 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 49.8 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN WITH AN 8 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ACCOMMODATE THE BUSINESS PLAZA FOR 5 TENANTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR FREESTANDING SIGNS AT OR LESS THAN 50 SQ. FT. CROSS REF.: SV 5-2006; BP 2010-458 HUDSON RIVER TRADING CO. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 10, 2010 LOT SIZE: 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-12 SECTION: 140-6-3d JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-We did hear this one last month, and again, just a little bit of the project description. I wasn’t here for the meeting, but the Board, I guess, had some concerns about the signs, and the difference is is that prior to this request I think it’s only been one single entity in the building there, one client, and because it’s going to break up into five possible different franchises or different businesses within there, Craig sent a letter that that would need a variance. So that’s where it’s coming from. Essentially the sign is being proposed in the exact same location as what’s presently out front there, and if everybody looks at this picture here, this is the one you should be looking at, the difference between what’s there now and what’s proposed to be there is the part on the underneath part. Okay. I think most people have probably driven by numerous times and seen it. So, Roy, I don’t think there’s anything we really need to read in. Jon, do you want to just go ahead? MR. LAPPER-Yes, thank you. Along with the Chairman, I wasn’t here at the November meeting either. John Miller from GAM of the Adirondacks is behind me, and he asked me to get involved on his behalf after that meeting. I carefully read the minutes, and obviously it was clear that the majority of the Board was not in favor of the application at that time. So what we did since then was to really carefully look at what alternatives there are to try and come back with something somewhat different, and I want to explain what we looked at, and why, at the end of the day, we don’t really have a better option. There is another option that Jon is not in favor of but I will discuss it. To begin with, in terms of the location of the sign, it’s on the landscaped island which is right next to Route 9, and that landscaped island functions in a couple of ways. It matches the other landscaped islands in the Sutton’s Plaza, so that the drive aisles and the parking, the drive aisles all connect, and part of this, under the, it’s really in the Subdivision Regs where you’re supposed to have access management to connect commercial lots, so you don’t have to go back onto the main drag, so you stay one commercial use to another commercial use, and the cars can stay off of Route 9, and the way it functions now, because you have that drive aisle connecting to the next drive aisle, it works pretty well. It’s not, I mean, we’ll explore whether that 2 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) could change, but just in terms of having the curb and the sidewalk from Route 9 and then this planted island, it matches what the other facilities have there. It also provides, it softens the view from Route 9, because you have the landscaping, and if we did something where we removed that and had to move the drive aisle, if you will, in place of that, you’d have pavement right next to Route 9, which would be not as soft as what’s there now. There’s also a grade change. There’s the block wall that’s probably three feet tall that deals with that grade change from Route 9, and so the planted island accommodates that grade change. It’s flat. It’s at the level of Route 9. So it accomplishes some visual things, which may not be as important to the Board as the size and location of the sign, but just in terms of some justification for why it’s there, it matches the other uses and it provides for that drive aisle to connect with the other Sutton properties. What we’re asking for is seven feet because the closest part of the sign is eight feet to the curb, or, I’m sorry, to the property line. It’s 17 feet from the curb. So in terms of that issue about the 15 feet that’s required, it’s 15 feet from the curb, more than that from the drive aisle, and part of that has to do with the fact that the State has taken, over time, has widened Route 9, but, you know, that said, of course, the rule is it still gets measured from the property line. It’s eight feet from the property line, even though you have the sidewalk and the curb. What we looked at is if we were to move it seven feet, it would be essentially into the drive aisle, because the way the site works out is you’ve got the cars parking perpendicular to the building, and the drive aisle is behind them, between the island and those spaces. So, obviously you couldn’t have the sign in the middle of the drive aisle. The only alternative there would be to switch it so you’d have the cars facing the planted island, facing the island where the sign is now, and the drive aisle would be in front of the building. The biggest problem with that is that the drive aisle, excuse me, the island, that planted island is much smaller than in front of the building, so you’d be losing a whole bunch of spaces. They’d be farther from the location of the front door, and everybody would be really walking in front of the driveway to get from where they parked. None of those, you know, preclude that that would be a possibility, but I just don’t think it’s good planning. You’d have the spaces perpendicular to this island, away from the door. The cars would then be driving between that and the front door of the store, and it wouldn’t match, when you head north into the Sutton’s Plaza, it wouldn’t match where the drive aisle is. So you’d be sort of weaving. So, I mean, we’ve looked at that. It is an alternative. It would allow the sign to be moved seven feet, but it really wouldn’t be compatible with what’s in the area. What we looked at as an alternative, which might be possible, but John’s not excited about it at all, is to move the sign into the planting bed in front of the building, on the north side of the building where the planting bed is wide enough to accommodate that, and under the Ordinance that this application is under, he could have, instead of the 50 or the 49 and change sign, square foot sign that he’s asking for, he could have a 64 square foot sign. So, he could have a bigger sign without a variance in that planting bed in front of the building, and we wouldn’t need a variance, but the problem with that is, all of the signs on that side of Route 9 are really in the same location, and it doesn’t look bad when you drive down. They’re relatively the same size, it’s consistent, and if this sign were in front of the building, it would be farther, you know, somewhat harder to see. It would be behind the cars that are parked, instead of in front of the cars from when you’re driving, but it just, to our minds, would look out of place, because it wouldn’t be consistent with the way this is laid out. Obviously the mitigation is that he could have a bigger sign. He could go to the 64 square feet, but it’s not preferable. So, you know, with that as an alternative but not really a viable alternative to his mind, we would ask you to reconsider that of all of these alternatives to allow it to be placed where it is, rather than the larger sign closer to the building, and just in terms of what’s proposed, Suttons has always had a sign. It’s the same signpost. That’s never changed, and by placing the new signs underneath, there was discussion of landscaping. I mean, it’s not the most visible place. So just in terms of the impact on the neighborhood, that’s sort of an unobtrusive place, if you will, because it’s at the bottom of the sign rather than at the top of the sign, and I’ve looked at that. I don’t think that the plant material would have to be removed. It would just have to be trimmed. I mean, there’s an issue there, to make sure it’s visible, but, you know, for all of the, for everything that’s being requested, I ask you to consider that by putting it underneath the sign, in the similar location to the other signs along that strip, and not trying to relocate where the drive aisle is between this site and the site north, that this is the least intrusive and really just hopefully you’d see this as a minimum variance to get back up to the 50 square feet. John also asked me to mention that when he opened Adirondack Audio and Video, he had already anticipated that he would have tenants in the building, although they didn’t come along initially. So that’s the reason why he put up an approximately 38 square foot sign, with the intention that he would have room underneath it for future tenants, and that’s what now the work’s been done on the building . He has leased it out, and they’re asking for really modest sized signs, because the main tenant has the main sized sign. So, you know, I hope that you’ll see that when you take this whole package together, compared to a larger sign that he could have without a variance, that this is maybe more attractive and in some ways a little bit softer where it is compatible with the other retailers right in that area. So, John’s here if you have any specific questions for him, and I’m available. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions? I was not here. I don’t know what your mindset was that night or, you know, why you were thinking you wanted to change that but, I’ll 3 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) just say from having driven up and down the road numerous times, I would agree with you. All the signs seem to be pretty lined up. The only one that’s a little bit set back is Suttons, and that’s sort of oddball. When you look at it, it’s harder to see it out of the corner of your eye when you’re zipping north on the road there, but I would have to agree with you. I think if you move it back seven feet, I mean, you can see in the picture that he’s got up there, you back that car up, you’re going to back right into the sign, you know, and you’re negating the travel lane, the interconnect between all the other businesses the Suttons own there. I’m sure that they probably have plans for the missing lobster who’s no longer with us. MR. URRICO-The sandwich board signs that are sitting, one’s underneath that sign, and I think there’s another one elsewhere on the property. Would you get rid of those if we gave you the Sign Variance? JOHN MILLER MR. MILLER-The answer is absolutely. I never gave them permission to put them there. She just put them there. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MILLER-And her reasoning was she’s trying to get a sign and couldn’t get one at this point. MR. URRICO-She’s trying to get around the Sign Variance then. So that’s the whole point is she’s already taken liberties with that. MR. LAPPER-But that’s not John. That’s his tenants. MR. URRICO-Okay. Well, but still, they’re the ones going up on the sign. MR. LAPPER-I guess it’s not there now, thanks to two feet of snow, but nevertheless, you just can’t see it. MR. URRICO-It’s still there. You just can’t see it. MR. MILLER-The answer is I’ll get rid of them. I promise you. MR. GARRAND-I was there for about an hour, looking at some AV equipment, and I thought to myself, you know, at first the variance seems significant on paper, but once you get in there, and you take an oversized vehicle and you try to get in and out of there, and you pull that sign back seven feet, it’s going to make a difference. So I have to agree with your argument here. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. MR. KUHL-Well, not only that, but when it was presented last time, it was just for this latest customer you had and not for the total. Now that you’re presenting it in totality, it makes more sense, rather than coming back, when you get another tenant, for another variance and another one, and I think that the poles and the cables work against you. So having it up there, but you did or didn’t look at moving it up against the building in that? MR. LAPPER-Well, we looked at it, you know, in that planting bed, and it could be put there at 64 square feet. It’s just that it wouldn’t match what the other buildings have, and it would be farther from the road. MR. KUHL-No, I agree with you. I agree with you. MR. KOSKINAS-Actually, I don’t believe that’s accurate. The zoning, as it reads today, allows not 50 square feet but 45 square feet, and the zoning, as it reads today, doesn’t allow 64 feet at 25 feet, but 60 feet. MR. LAPPER-This application came in under the old regulations. You’re absolutely correct. If we came in today it would be 45 and 60. So we could still have a larger sign against the building, 60 square feet, rather than the 50 that’s proposed, but this application still comes in under the old Code. MR. KOSKINAS-And when it came in at the old Code, it was denied. MR. LAPPER-No, it was tabled. MR. KOSKINAS-Well, let me give you my comments, then. 4 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. KOSKINAS-And I’ll address you, too, sir. Signs in the Town, you know, are a challenge. It’s a challenge for this whole community, and I’ve applauded the Town Board when they decided to re-do the zoning for signs. I don’t think they took it as far as it should go, when you look at our Town generally, and we’re not multi lane roads. We don’t have an interstate paralleling our downtown. We don’t have frontage roads. Pretty easy for people to find things, and once you see a business, given the size of our community, it’s pretty easy to remember where things are as well. Things I pointed out when I was against this, principally I was against just another Sign Variance. I think we’re cavalier with, we’ve now made the zoning more stringent and you’re asking now to have a sign larger than is allowed, nearer to the road than is allowed, and I commented the last time, I don’t believe you were here, sir, but, you know, there’s a lot of signage. You have plenty of 50 foot signs parked out front, on those trailers, and lettered trucks. MR. MILLER-A, they’re not mine. They’re Adirondack Audio and Video’s. I don’t own the company. If you want them to place them on the side of the building, I’ll tell them to park their trucks on the side of building. MR. KOSKINAS-It’s signage, in my way of thinking. MR. MILLER-But if you want it moved, you tell me. I’ll have it moved. I’m the landlord. I can tell them where I want their trucks parked. MR. KOSKINAS-For my thinking, now what you’re asking is for a bigger sign than is allowed as well as closer to the street than is allowed. I’d like to see it conform, if you could find a way to do it. MR. LAPPER-I certainly don’t have to tell you what your job is on the Zoning Board, but the Ordinance is the Ordinance, and the reason why somebody would come for an Area Variance is because they would have to have a unique case, and in this case, as I’ve explained, the State has taken some of that frontage. So there’s very narrow room to have one parking, one aisle of parking, one drive aisle, and a place for the sign, and they’re trying to do something modest, to ask for a variance. This is not like an 80 square foot variance. I mean, we’re talking about a few feet. So, you know, I certainly respect that you have your opinion, but just in terms of the Zoning Board being able to give relief in the right circumstance, you know, I think it’s not good to take a position that you don’t believe in any sign variances. It’s a question of whether it meets the standards, and we hope that the majority of the Board will see that this one does. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian, do you have any thoughts? MR. CLEMENTS-I wasn’t here, I don’t believe I was here for that meeting, either. However, as I look at it right now, I think it’s logical to say that the signage should stay there because of the island that it’s on. I think for safety reasons, for the aisle that you have there for the drive thru and going from business to business, that that would be a logical place to put it. As I look at it right now, would that sign, on that picture, would that sign be the, would this sign be the same size as that except for these things down at the bottom? MR. LAPPER-Yes, It’ll be that exact structure. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Then I would be in favor. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce, any thoughts? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I was here for the meeting, and I have to say, I’ve changed my mind. I think you’ve made a good argument for keeping the drive aisle clear, and keeping a consistency with the signs. So I’d be in favor. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, as long as they meet the conditions, and I’ll put that in the motion, that they take the sandwich board signs away, then I would be in favor of it. MR. LAPPER-That’s agreed. 5 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to open the public hearing up. Is there anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence at all? MR. URRICO-I don’t see any correspondence, no. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And any other comments Board members want to add at this point in time? All right. Roy, do you want to make a motion, then? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. OBORNE-If I might interject, you’re going to have to perform SEQRA on this. This is an Unlisted action. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Sure. Why don’t I go through that. MOTION THAT HAVING GONE THROUGH THE SHORT FORM OF SEQRA AND RECOGNIZING THAT THIS IS A SIGN VARIANCE, WE BASICALLY FEEL THAT THIS SIGN DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT’S PRESENTLY ON SITE, OTHER THAN FOR THE INFILL BELOW THE CURRENT SIGN THAT’S THERE ON ROUTE 9, AND SO I WOULD GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DEC., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 62-2010 GAM OF THE ADIRONDACKS, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 1048 State Route 9. The applicant has proposed a 49.8 square foot freestanding sign with an eight foot front yard setback to accommodate the business plaza for up to five tenants. In doing so, the applicant is requesting relief from the front setback requirement for a freestanding sign, at or less than 50 square feet. I move that we pass this resolution with the condition that any quote unquote temporary signs be removed from the property. th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Koskinas MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody. AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2009 SEQRA TYPE: I MARY SICARD AGENT(S): JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S): MARY SICARD ZONING: RR-3A & WR LOCATION: NACY AND JAY ROADS, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE 6 PARCELS TOTALING 42.38 ACRES INTO 16 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.35 ACRES TO 11 ACRES IN THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE ZONE ADJACENT TO GLEN LAKE AND THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL THREE ACRE ZONE TO THE EAST OF GLEN LAKE ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, ROAD FRONTAGE, ROAD ACCESS, SHORELINE FRONTAGE, SIDE SETBACKS AND MORE THAN 1 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PER LOT REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 40.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17 / 289.10-1-4 ; SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-4-050, 179-5-020D TOM JARRETT & DAN MANNIX, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 6 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) MR. UNDERWOOD-We had previously reviewed this item and we were waiting for some additional information, and I think that was what, the letter that we received back on October 13, 2010. We did receive a letter on October 13, 2010, and then we had a couple of postponements of the meetings, up until this time. So I don’t know if you would like to fill us in, again, as to any changes or anything that’s occurred since the last time we met. MR. JARRETT-Yes. Thank you. Good evening. We appreciate your patience with this project. We had health issues this last Fall that we needed to work our way through, and we’re prepared, now, to meet with the Board and discuss this project. Dan, with me tonight is Dan Mannix, and the entire Sicard family is with me, with us. Lindy is at the table, representing the family, and we’d like to go through the changes that we made to the plans since the last meeting, which I believe was in August, and then Dan will review some of the family positions with regard to the criteria for issuing the variance and some of the Staff comments that have been put before you. Initially we’d like to discuss the changes in the plan, and based on your comments and your concerns back in August, and a lot of it was focused on the shorefront lots especially Lot Number, what we call Lot Number Four, which is the smallest of the shorefront lots. We carefully considered your comments, carefully considered your concerns, and the family had a lot of sleepless nights trying to decide what to do with it, but they’ve decided that it’s just not affordable to eliminate that lot. It’s been in the family in that configuration for many, many years, decades in fact, and so in lieu of eliminating a lot, as you suggested in August, we’ve increased the size of that fourth lot. So all of the lots, the first three lots are the same size as they were and the fourth lot is larger. So all the lots, in total, are larger than they were before. The acreage was taken from Mary Sicard’s Lot Number Ten, which is off the lakeshore. In addition to increasing the size that lot, which, by the way, increased the shore frontage of that particular lot as well, we’ve taken it upon ourselves to limit the building footprint for Lots One, Two, and Three. We showed example houses on Lots One, Two, and Three of 2500 square feet initially, and that’s just an example of what someone could build. Actually technically according to zoning, Floor Area Ratio requirements, they could build larger than 2500 square foot footprints. We’ve taken it upon ourselves, since August, to reduce that to 2,000 square foot footprint. So it would be well below the allowable Floor Area Ratio by the time you take into consideration height limitations that the Town imposes. So we would be likely 50% of the allowable Floor Area Ratio on those lots, and the footprint would only be 2,000 square feet, which is well below the allowable under zoning. Lastly what we’ve done is moved those lot setbacks from 75 feet to 100 feet. The setbacks would be a minimum of 100 feet. The structures are now drawn at a minimum of 100 feet, and we’ve stated previously in prior meetings that we would maintain the shoreline vegetation, the buffer, at least 75 feet with no cutting. So we think those offerings to the Board, in our opinion, go a long way toward addressing the concerns that you have. Dan would like to get into the specifics right now and address some of the issues that are in the Staff comments, as well as some of the criteria for the Area Variances. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I just ask you a question before you go on to something else? On Lot Number Four, I’m looking at the plot, and that lot sort of wraps around Lot Number Five. MR. JARRETT-It does. MR. UNDERWOOD-And as I recall, I couldn’t remember whether you were going to, Number Five was one you were hoping to save for family, I guess that was going to be one of the cottages you wanted to keep for family. MR. JARRETT-Actually Five is already owned by a sibling, and Number Four is going to be kept for the family as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So that was the question I had. Because I didn’t understand whether you were still going to part with Number Four or sell Number Four or keep that for family. MR. JARRETT-You’ll notice we drew three new perspective houses on Lots One, Two, and Three. Four, uncharacteristically doesn’t have that, and that’s because the family intends on keeping that. MR. UNDERWOOD-And what is the width on Lot Number Five as it exists now? MR. JARRETT-Five? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Five, that’s one of the existing ones that’s not in the subdivision. MR. JARRETT-I knew you were going to get into the specifics here. Let me measure it. 7 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I think everybody understands it’s sort of a family compound you’ve got down there. So there’s not a concern, and as long as Number Four and Number Five are going to be owned by the family, that’s one thing, but I’m just thinking if you get into a situation where you have to part with them, if you don’t have any lake access on Five except for coming down the driveway to get to the docks, you know, I’m just thinking in a practical sense. MR. JARRETT-But that’s not a change from now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. JARRETT-Right now there’s no access. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I don’t know how you would divvy it up if you got into a situation where you had to in the future. MR. JARRETT-That Lot Number Five is approximately 75 feet wide. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. I’ll let you continue then. Thank you. MR. JARRETT-So we want to get into some details, but you can stop us at any time and ask questions, because as we’ve said numerous times, this is a complicated project. MR. MANNIX-Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. Tom is passing out copies of everything that we’ll place in the record formally, but I’m just going to hit some of the highlights that we’ve prepared with the family from several meetings going over Staff comments and the criteria for granting of the variances. To begin, we discussed whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of an Area Variance, and the applicants, the Staff Notes say, recited that moderate impacts to the neighborhood can be anticipated as the proposal calls for the development of shoreline parcels and a reconfiguration of existing private roadways. The applicant’s project, as proposed in its original, preferred version, as well as its most current version, substantially reduces the Lakeshore Acres’ shoreline project site’s density. If approved as presented, the overall impact is less when individual dwellings are reduced to a total of seven individual parcels. The applicant’s preferred plan is to eliminate three existing dwellings, which actually four current existing dwellings, but there’s an extra lot created up off Glen Lake Road that does not have lakeshore access, as a reasonable and economically feasible proposition. Each eliminated dwelling with lake access can be modestly estimated to have at least a $350,000 fair market value. Conservatively estimated, eliminating three pre-existing, nonconforming lake access occupancies is approximately a $1,000,000 diminished value to the applicant. Now it’s also not mentioned in here, but that also takes into consideration currently the trailer court that’s on the west side of Glen Lake Road, which has summer trailer permits up to 25 trailers that would have lake access. With this plan as proposed, that would be eliminated as well, with residential owner occupied homes with no lake access. Presently all ten existing dwellings owned by the applicant share lake access within a common shoreline. When correctly analyzed, this project proposes a substantial reduction in applicant-owned dwellings that will enjoy lake frontage. While present circumstances provide lakeshore rights to ten existing dwellings and seasonal occupancies located on the west side of Glen Lake road, the present application proposes five privately owned lakeshore dwellings. It should be apparent that such a reduction on use and density constitutes moderate impacts which logically should be construed favorable to the applicant’s plan. Staff Notes commentary suggests that moderate impacts result from a, quote, reconfiguration to existing private roadways, close quote. Succinctly stated, isn’t less better? The Plan sheet 3 of 21 that you have in front of you clearly demonstrates that at least 350 +/- linear feet of existing private roadway, that’s currently at least 30 feet in width within the applicant’s premises are to be removed, tilled, topsoiled, seeded and mulched. The existing private roads are currently used as common paths for the community vehicular ingress and egress. The abandonment and replacement with fewer areas of surface coverage and provision for private driveways should be considered a preferred result. Number Two, Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an Area Variance. Staff Notes Recite: The applicant could reduce the need for multiple variances by decreasing the total number of lake front lots and increasing the size of lake front lots in order to avoid the lot size, lot width, shoreline frontage and road frontage area variance requests. Fundamental to the statutory criteria to be considered by the ZBA is the concept of feasibility. From an impractical standpoint, all existing dwellings could be demolished, and private roadways could be extinguished, even existing infrastructure could be removed thereby restoring the project site to a vacant parcel. Although that remains an extreme example, it serves to point out that the concept of feasibility involves a practical analysis of the issue of monetary value of vested property rights. This exercise is never a circumstance of endless possibilities without serious consideration of actual financial consequences. A comparison of surrounding properties not owned by the applicant is 8 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) extremely relevant. Admittedly, the area variances sought are for proposed lots that will not meet the strict application of current zoning within the district, however, the overwhelming inventory of other equally substandard lots all along the existing shoreline of Glen Lake is a factor that should be weighed and construed favorably to the applicant. From an inspection of existing, available tax maps that depict the general configuration and size of neighboring residential parcels and dwellings along the Glen Lake shoreline and within the zoning district, the applicant’s plan proposes shoreline lots that will surround existing dwellings. In every instance, those proposed shoreline lots are more conforming than the overwhelming majority of adjacent, neighboring shoreline properties. Staff Notes suggest that a fourth dwelling with a shoreline lot should also be considered by the applicant to be abandoned to make the project more conforming. Such a statement unfairly characterizes the applicable balancing test for area variance approval. The staff’s unspecified reasoning provides no mention as to what relevant factors or discernable criteria supports such a proposition. A municipality’s interest in doing so must be substantiated by articulated fact or law. Merely stating that less variances are needed if more existing dwellings are proposed for removal is not a fair application of the ZBA’s obligation to properly apply the statutory balancing test. Whether the requested variance is substantial. Staff Notes Recite: The scope of the requests and their impacts are best quantified and qualified in a list. I mean, we aren’t going to reproduce those, but Staff Notes Recite the cumulative requests may be considered severe to acute. It should be note that New York State zoning and environmental laws, rules and regulations require the applicant to present a completely comprehensive and unified project plan. To do otherwise would inappropriately segment the project presentation. Would it be better to present each existing dwelling to be considered on a case by case basis? This would present fewer requests for variance on individual applications and in a conventional sense, fewer requests for variance relief. It serves no legitimate purpose to merely total up multiple variances on a complex comprehensive plan and to then suggest this is demonstrative of an acute or severe example. In the earliest stages of these proceedings, the ZBA referred the project to the Planning Board for a recommendation. In doing so, the applicant would hope, and the ZBA should seriously consider, that the original plan of subdivision and its impacts was unanimously favored by the Planning Board. The Planning Board is the Town’s SEQRA Lead Agency on this project, and by Planning Board resolution, a unanimous approval for recommendation was granted to the applicant. It should also be noted that the Planning Board’s unanimous recommendation to the ZBA was after careful consideration of all engineering studies, numerous photographs of the predominantly congested and more densely developed shoreline at Glen Lake. This project has received numerous favorable public comments and no negative public comment. The materials relied upon by the Planning Board’s recommendation are identical to the materials presented to you. The area variances that are necessary to accomplish this subdivision remain consistent with the subdivision plan recommended by the Planning Board. The appropriate statutory mandate to be applied is that the ZBA must consider the magnitude of the variances sought in light of any identifiable impacts. This is not achieved by the application of a simplified mathematical formula. Moreover, what constitutes a substantial variance is actually measured by the specifics of each case. This effort should not be a statistical compilation of how many variances are needed or how to arbitrarily reduce the number of variances requested by requiring the abandonment of valuable existing property rights that are reserved to the applicant under New York zoning law. The project plan as presented to the Planning Board reduces the density of the shoreline impacts. Direct lake access would be afforded to five sites where presently there are ten dwellings that enjoy access. If clearly understood, the reduction of existing shoreline density is a preferred and valuable result. The project eliminates over 350 linear feet of common private roadway and in its place proposes private access driveways similar in kind and nature to adjacent neighboring residential parcels. Certainly this is a more conforming and preferred plan in keeping with similar properties in the neighborhood and district. The project reduces the total overall number of existing shoreline docks. All existing docks are presently legally available as commercial non-residential access to Glen Lake and rented to boaters that do not necessarily reside at Glen Lake. The applicant’s plan proposes future use of a reduced number of docks to be in private ownership as an amenity with private shoreline ownership within the proposed subdivision. Elimination of the commercialization of existing docks is a preferred result. The project converts all rental dwelling units now occupied by tenants to the preferred status of owner occupied single family residences. The fourth criteria, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Staff Notes Recite: Any shoreline development is potentially detrimental. It is to be emphasized that staff comments simply avoids the obvious. The most important factor in evaluating neighborhood or district impacts would, in the first instance, materialize by virtue of public comment. In every possible context, including letters to the Town of Queensbury, public comment at the various hearings, e-mail, etc., all comments have been favorable to the applicant’s project. In no instance has the Town received suggestions or complaint that the applicant should reduce the proposed number of lake front lots or be required to limit the area variances sought. Simply stated, the applicant’s project has received overwhelming public support and unanimous Planning Board recommendation because it is a plan that truly conforms to the requirements of retro-fitting a pre-existing 9 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) residential development into a more conforming code compliance if it can receive the required grant of area variances sought sufficient to achieve a worthy project. Finally, whether the alleged difficulty was self created. Staff Notes Recite: The difficulty may be considered self created Each of the ten pre-existing, non-conforming dwellings, the private common roadway, numerous outbuildings and land improvements were placed upon the premises more than fifty years ago in a period of time that pre-exists any form of local land use ordinance in the Town of Queensbury. In instances where an area variance is ought to alleviate self-created difficulties, New York courts acknowledge that a landowner is not to be held accountable for zoning restrictions that are enacted subsequent to the creation of the very circumstances for which the relief is sought. New York state law provides that an alleged difficulty must never be characterized as self-imposed where the land use restriction suggested for variance relief is specified in a zoning ordinance that was created subsequent to the applicant’s property right. This applicant seeks area variance relief for dwellings, structures and real property improvements that were lawfully created prior to the existence of any town land use ordinance. In conclusion, in concept the applicant’s proposal presents a preferred result in bringing a substantially pre-existing, non-conforming developed premises into a more modern and conforming subdivision providing for private and individual ownership. This prospect with the benefit of overwhelming public and neighborhood support as well as a favorable recommendation from the Town of Queensbury Planning Board allows the development of a major portion of the Glen Lake area to meet many of the current and more desirable requirements of current zoning code and planning concepts. It is essential and appropriate to favor the applicant with the necessary approvals for area variance in order to allow this project to proceed on before the Planning Board for further subdivision consideration. MR. JARRETT-It’s a lot to digest. We’ll open it up to questions. We’ve got a couple of other points we’d like to make, but we can open it up to questions right now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do Board members have any questions at this time, concerns? MR. KUHL-I do. You said in your dissertation that you were going to go from ten sites accessed to five. How does that work? You’re putting three lots up in front. On Lot Four there’s still going to be a house. On Lot Five there’s still going to be a house, and you have Lot 12 and 13. MR. MANNIX-Twelve and Thirteen don’t have lake access. MR. KUHL-They will not have lake access? MR. MANNIX-They will not. MR. KUHL-And how about the properties on the north side of Glen Lake Road. Will they have access? MR. MANNIX-They will not. MR. KUHL-They will not. MR. MANNIX-No, sir, where they currently do. They’re currently permitted for summer trailer occupancy, and they are provided lake access via a current situation. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-So in a practical sense, if we’re looking, and I think in a Waterfront Residential zone I think our primary concern should always be the Waterfront Residential lots that abut the lake and things like that, and in this instance here, you’re going to have one, two, three lots that are going to be developed as homes that you’re going to limit in size to about 2,000 square feet. That’s what you said at the beginning of the meeting. MR. MANNIX-That’s the footprint, correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re proposing 75 foot no cut zone, approximately 75 to 100 foot setbacks. MR. JARRETT-Hundred foot setback minimum and a 75 foot no cut zone. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and as far as those lots go, we would not hope to see them come in for variances for, you know, sideline variances or anything like that. I assume you can fit them in there if you’re proposing them at 2,000. 10 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) MR. JARRETT-Yes. We’ve done our best to fit them the way they would have to be configured, and you would see them, the Planning Board would see them at Site Plan Review. Presumably there would be no more variances than what we’ve proposed. MR. UNDERWOOD-On Lots Four and Five, the ones that are going to remain family lots, those are essentially going to remain cottages, as they are. They’re not going to be proposed to turn into, you know, substantial year round homes or anything like that that are going to require X number of variances. MR. JARRETT-That’s the concept to keep them the way they are. Right? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-It doesn’t preclude them from. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, it doesn’t. MR. JARRETT-It doesn’t. Another generation down the road could. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I mean, everybody understand there’s no givens or anything like that. MR. JARRETT-I think we’re fairly safe in saying, Dan and I saying, that they’re not going to turn around in a year and come back to you and say, yes, we want to put up a McMansion. That’s just not the intent. MR. UNDERWOOD-Now the lots like 12, 12 and 13 lots, those ones, I assume if anybody’s going to build down there, they’re going to want to have a boat on the lake, but I mean, you guys are still going to rent out dock space I would assume. I mean, you’ve got the ability to do that. I would think it would make them a lot more salable if you’re, you know, if someone’s that close to the lake and they can’t get to the lake, they’re not going to be. MR. JARRETT-Well, as you know, the dock limitations are very strict in the Town, and we’ve shown docks on each of the frontage lots. There’s really not much, there’s no more docks that can be built than was shown. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, not in the sense of like currently I know you’ve got them rented out to anybody that wants to rent can come down and keep their boat there for waterskiing or something like that. MR. JARRETT-And so could a normal homeowner. They could rent out space to someone else, but the docks would be much more limited than they are now. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, so that’s going to cut down on the number of people on the lake substantially. MR. JARRETT-We think so. That’s right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do Board members have any thoughts or other concerns? MR. GARRAND-I appreciate you not having any objections to our five statutory criterion for considering Area Variances. I got a kick out of that. MR. MANNIX-You’ve got to start it somehow. MR. GARRAND-Cited in here, where the Staff fails to articulate specific criteria on why this could be better, it is apparent that no such requirement is arbitrary. We tend not to make arbitrary decisions with regard to these things. A lot of the problems and issues we had were with density, and the amount of variances that were requested here, but the fact that you’re going back 100 feet with these houses, and, you know, having that no cut zone in there says a lot to what you hope the lake will remain at least, you know, try to stem some of the negative effects that have happened to this lake throughout the years. Getting rid of those cabins alone is going to have a significant impact. I mean, they’re probably the same septics in there as when I stayed in there, you know, decades ago, but having that no cut zone is huge. MR. OBORNE-If I could make one comment to your comments to my comments. Number Four, I found it interesting that you left out the qualifier on Number Four. As your Town Planner I’m tickled that there’s going to be stormwater and wastewater controls along the lake. So I just wanted my fair due on that one. 11 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) MR. JARRETT-That’s true, we did not give you due credit for that. MR. MANNIX-I apologize. MR. OBORNE-But obviously that’ll be brought up at Site Plan, as a definite positive. MR. JARRETT-And that is one of our big selling points is that there will be stormwater and wastewater systems, new compliant systems for these structures. We think that’s a big plus for the lake. MR. KUHL-But again, that’s just the three new lots. MR. JARRETT-Anything that’s new, essentially, right. Three lots, plus the lots on the other side of the road the one on the corner of Glen Lake and Jay. MR. KUHL-And Louise Lane is going away? MR. MANNIX-Yes. Correct. MR. GARRAND-Think of how beautiful this could be with, say, you know, all the utilities ripped out of there, less density in that area and that no cut zone. I think it could be beautiful. MR. JARRETT-It’s actually, compared to, but it’s beautiful now, and I think it’ll be more beautiful. MR. MANNIX-I think when we showed some pictures back in August, you really can’t see the cabins from the lake now. Pushing those cabins or a new structure back even farther with a no cut zone and the setback requirement I think would just benefit everybody. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t I do this, then. I guess I’m going to poll the Board members, and I’ll start with you, Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Excuse me. I have one public comment that needs to be read in. MR. URRICO-There was one additional letter received. It was dated 12/8/2010, it says we are in favor of the project. It will be a great improvement. That’s Richard and Susan Rourke, 19 Jay Road. Okay. That’s it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian, go ahead. MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. I have to agree with that last one, too, and I went back and reviewed the minutes of the last meeting on this Area Variance application also. I found that one Board member would like a timetable for completion and the removal of the cabins, and another Board member agreed with that, and indicated that if the timetable was adhered to, they would both be in favor of the application. As I’m sure you’re aware, I’m in favor of the application. I think, as everyone has said, this is a large and complex project that’s been worked on for several years. I’m strongly in favor of approving the plan as it is, and I am for it for the following reasons. One is the improvement to the density. Two is the Planning Board has made a positive recommendation on the project and they feel that it’s reasonable, and they voted that unanimously. The ownership of the property has been long and they said the ownership of the property has been longstanding and the owners have demonstrated the stewardship in protecting the lake, and I think they’ve shown that tonight with the buffer zone that they have suggested. I think that you’ve seen that from the pictures submitted at the last meeting, the engineers as well as family members have done their due diligence in meeting with the Staff, and several meetings with both Planning and Zoning Boards. I think the Zoning Board has found that this plan will have no significant environmental effects. They gave it a Negative Declaration. I see it as a desirable change. I think that other methods could be sought by this plan, but it’s been worked on for quite a while now, and so I think it’s a reasonable alternative. I think it would have a positive impact on the neighborhood, and as far as we can see the neighbors are all in favor of the project. I’d like to remind the Board members to remember that this application, as a positive improvement on the property, will be the result. The application will result in two fewer septic systems and other upgrades in the future as new compliant homes are built as well. There’s no negative reaction from the neighbors, but rather a positive vote of confidence by everyone for this proposal. So, I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? 12 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) MR. URRICO-Well, I’m going to go ahead and agree with him. I do agree that the project has improved. I think they’ve done a great job in making this even more, a better project than was presented to us to begin with. I think there are enough improvements in here to have warranted the time that we took with it to get it to this point. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. John? MR. KOSKINAS-I guess I agree specifically with the comments of Mr. Clements. I’ve looked at th this project. In fact, after the meeting on the 18 of August, I took my son’s kayak and I liked all the pictures that you had of that shoreline, so I decided to go see it myself, and I thought that the property as it stood already presented a better appearance and a more profound, conservative approach to the treatment of that lake than I’ve seen this Town’s development on both the west and east shores. I recently took a look at lot’s, I tried to take a little sample relative to the revised proposal, and I will comment and compliment you for addressing the comments of the people who stood on this Board during your last presentation, particularly as regards Lot Four. I think you’ve addressed the concerns, but I just started taking a poll to see this potentially problematic Lot Four, and I got tired after researching the Town thing. After 26 properties, Lot Four was bigger than all but two of the first 26 I looked at on that lake, and I started thinking that along with the shoreline setbacks are certainly preferable to what exists around the lake generally. So I’m strongly in favor of the project and compliment you all on your persistence and good work. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with the previous members of the Board. I want to congratulate you. You listed to our comments and our concerns, and I think you’ve fine tuned it into a very good plan. I’m in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I’m liking the fact you’re taking the docks away and the rental boats go away, but I’m still in favor of a sequence. I’d like to see a sequence of how you’re going to go through this, so that it goes in an orderly fashion, but from the work you’ve done, I’m in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I’m in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Question for you, Keith. When we grant these things, and I’m unsure, when we grant the variances, like, are they good forever? Does it have to be acted upon within a time period? MR. OBORNE-Well, assuming that they get subdivision approval from the Planning Board, but, yes, it follows the land. Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. MR. OBORNE-And obviously you have to submit your application within a year. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I know we’ve had cases where people didn’t act and then they’ve had to come back and get an extension on their variances and things like that. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. JARRETT-We think the Planning Board will act relatively quickly. So we shouldn’t have that problem, but this project has gone on for a long time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I would be in agreement with everybody else. I mean, I like what, I don’t really see that you’ve ever had a major impact, negative impact on the lake, you know, in the way that it’s been run for all these years down there, and I think the main concern, I think was just the vast number of variances that were being asked for, but I think if you look at it in the context of improvement, it’s a definite improvement going forward with what you’re proposing here, and my only concern would be, you know, families are families, and, you know, sometimes they turn into family feuds. We don’t know what it’s going to be a generation from now or two generations from now, but nonetheless, Lot Four and Number Five I think probably specifically the Planning Board ought to request that those remain cottages as they are, you know, not to be improved to the extent that they would become grandiose McMansions, you know, at some point down the road there. I don’t think that would be a big burden, and I think that you guys 13 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) recognize the fact, too, that because those lots are substandard down there that, you know, there’s got to be a little bit of give back or something in regards to the whole deal there. MR. JARRETT-Well, of course the Town’s Floor Area Ratio requirements come into play with those lots, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, yes. MR. JARRETT-So it’s going to limit what anybody does. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I think the improvements with the septic, the setbacks, the buffer zones, all those things are positives and we can all live with that. I don’t think it’s any grand stretch of the imagination. It’s a lot of variances to be asked for, and I don’t know, when we do our language, if we just are going to pass the ball on to the Planning Board. Do we have to be specific with what we grant here when we go down the list? MR. OBORNE-Yes. You do. You could refer to the notes that quantify and qualify everything, instead of going through everything, and then that’ll be part of the record. That may be the way to go, Jim. MR. KOSKINAS-Keith, can I ask a question relative to any motion that you’ve made here? In the Notes, in the Staff Notes, most of these, most of this relief, is reference to Section 179-4- 030, and today that would be 179-3-040. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. KOSKINAS-Or Table One of 179. In making a motion, if we choose to make one, are we using the old references or the new? MR. UNDERWOOD-We have to go by the old. MR. KOSKINAS-You have to go by the old. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it’s the old. MR. OBORNE-That’s an excellent question. I’m glad you asked that, because now it’s on the record. MR. KOSKINAS-I guess you use the old reference. MR. OBORNE-Yes, because the application was in prior to that changeover. MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-So then I guess we can make a recommendation to the, I’ll take the motion and go through it just quickly. MR. OBORNE-You might want to close the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m going to close the public hearing. I’m going to make the motion that we make a recommendation to the Planning Board that we approve the variances as requested, and specifically I think that we’ll go through those. Your Staff comments, I mean, a lot of those points have been clarified, missing things that were, are now present. As far as we know, the checklist is complete as presented this evening. You don’t have any outstanding items. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I’m a little confused as to your language as far as a recommendation. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I’m going to move that we approve the variances as requested. MR. KOSKINAS-Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. KOSKINAS-I thought we might get to this, so I actually drafted it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. That’s fine. 14 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) MR. KOSKINAS-I was trying to sort through it, so I started taking notes all the way through, to try and make it as concise as possible. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you want to do that, then I’ll let you go ahead and take it, then. MR. KOSKINAS-I’d be happy to take a stab at it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Now as far as, my only question is this. The 75 foot buffer, that’s included in there? We don’t have to add those in? MR. JARRETT-It’s already on the plans. MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re already on there. So we’re going to accept it as plans. MR. OBORNE-You’ll have to update the plans for the Planning Board, with that in mind. MR. JARRETT-We’ll clean it up with the conditions of the variances, but the 75 foot buffer is already on there. I do think there is one note we need to clean up, but we will do that. MR. OBORNE-You’re offering 100 foot setbacks on the shore, and currently it’s at 75, I believe. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think the 2,000 square foot footprints on the houses, is that what you? MR. JARRETT-Both were intended to be on the plans, and when I looked at them the other day, it’s not as clear as I’d like. So they will be clarified. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. You’ll straighten that out. MR. OBORNE-Yes, Tom and I will sit down. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay, then, John, why don’t you go ahead. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2009 MARY SICARD SPECIFIC TO THE JARRETT ENGINEERS RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION DETAIL ENTITLED “SICARD PROPERTIES” WITH A REVISION DATE OF OCTOBER 14, 2010, Introduced by John Koskinas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: Nacy and Jay Roads, Glen Lake. The Applicant proposes to subdivide 6 parcels totaling 42.38 acres into 16 lots ranging in size from 0.35 acres to 11 acres in the Waterfront Residential one acre zone adjacent to Glen Lake and the Rural Residential three acre zone to the east of Glen Lake Road; And with findings enumerated as follows: 1. The relief sought from Section 179-4- 030 for average lot width, shoreline frontage, sideline setbacks and one acre lot minimums is minor to moderate relative to the ordinance as it applies to lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 12 and 20. 2. The relief sought from Section 179-4-090 for relief from the 40 foot frontage on a Town Road requirement while severe relative to the ordinance is reasonable in the context of the project total as applied to lot #4. 3. The relief sought from Section 179-5-020 for an additional garage (carport) above the one allowed per dwelling and for two additional accessory structures above the one allowed per dwelling is considered moderate relative to the ordinance as it applies respectively, to Lots #3 and #10. This motion includes specific relief limited to the following: For Lot #1: 24 ft. or 16% relief from the 150 ft. requirement for average lot width; For Lot #2: 43 ft. or 29% relief from the 150 ft. shoreline frontage requirement, 50 ft. or 33% relief from the 150 ft. shoreline frontage requirement, 8 ft. or 40% relief from the 20 ft. north side-line setback requirement for accessory structures, 5 ft. or 25% relief from the 20 ft. north side-line setback requirement for principle structures. For Lot #3, 50 ft. or 33% relief from the 150 ft. requirement for average lot width, 41 ft. or 27% relief from the 150 ft. shoreline frontage requirement, relief for one additional garage (carport) above the one allowed per dwelling unit. Lot #4, 0.55 acres or 55% relief from the 1.0 acre density requirement, 60 ft. or 40% relief from the 150 ft. requirement for average lot width, 40 ft. or 100% relief from the 40 ft. frontage on a town road requirement, 50 ft. or 100% relief from the 50 ft. frontage on a town road requirement was an additional note, but it seems to override the previous four foot. That’s a note from the Staff comments. 42 ft. or 28% relief from the 150 ft. shoreline frontage requirement, 40 ft. or 100% relief from the 40 ft. access off of a town road requirement, 2 ft. or 10% relief from the 20 ft. north side-line setback requirement. Lot #10, Relief for two additional accessory structures above the one allowed per dwelling unit, 52 ft. or 35% relief from the 150 ft. shoreline frontage requirement, 7 ft. or 28% relief from the 25 ft. north side-line setback requirement for dwellings, 10 ft. or 40% relief from the 25 ft. west side-line setback requirement for accessory structures (specifically a shed), 4 ft. or16% relief from the 25 ft. south side-line setback requirement for accessory structures (specifically a pool house). Lot #12, 27 ft. or 18% relief from the 150 ft. average lot width requirement. Lot #20, 31 feet or 21% relief from the 150 ft. average lot width 15 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) requirement, 40 ft. or 100% relief from the 40 ft. access to a town road requirement. I move for approval. th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want any of these back? MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to make any new ones? MR. JARRETT-If you’re handing them back, I’ll take them. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2011 SEQRA TYPE: II DOUGLAS & MURIEL CHERRY AGENT(S): VISION ENGINEERING, LLC – DAN RYAN OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: WR LOCATION: FITZGERALD ROAD – GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,052 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. PENDING PB RECOMMENDATION. CROSS REF.: BOH 35, 2010, SP 5-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.44 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-7 SECTION: §179-3-040 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-And as we are pending Planning Board recommendation, the Planning Board was unable to meet due to the weather. I don’t know if you want to present to us now, or just wait? We would put you on for next Wednesday, if that’s something you wanted to do. MR. RYAN-Okay. I have no preference. I do know the neighbor’s here, and with his schedule he may be prepared to make a statement. So I guess if. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, and generally we always allow the public, you know, public comment to occur. So I don’t know as if you want to present anything to us. I think everybody’s had an opportunity to look at the plans. I assume, as a neighbor, you’ve seen the plans. SCOTT ARMSTRONG MR. ARMSTRONG-Yes. I met with Dan yesterday and got the chance. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you’re the neighbor to the right hand side of the property, going down the lake? MR. ARMSTRONG-We’re at 61, yes, and so I let him know yesterday that I was going to object to this. MR. UNDERWOOD-I will open up the public hearing, even though we have not really done our presentation of the project here this evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. RYAN-That’s fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-Usually when we have any neighboring properties that are going to be affected, I mean, we would assume we would hear from those people, and so if you would like to read your statement in. MR. ARMSTRONG-I don’t really have a statement. Basically I met with Dan and my point is just seeing the plans yesterday, all I was asking for was like, due to my travel schedule, my better half’s travel schedule, want about 45 days to review the plans to see how maybe we could work in conjunction. I think there’s, especially since we have a shared driveway, I have significant issues on potentially the access, based on the location of the house, due to the grade of the property. Our cars are parked underneath. So what sort of protection’s going to be for when the boulders come rolling down the hill. They’re building a brick house. A lot of things that come up. 16 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) That was it. So all I’m looking for is, was an extension, and I expressed that to Dan yesterday. I stopped down to his office, and they’re working with us. This is not a contentious situation. Just was looking for. That was it, and so I called the zoning thing and they said stop over and say your peace. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what we’ll do is we will, we understand your comments as an effected party here, and at the same time, we will have a formal presentation to our Board next Wednesday. I don’t know if you will be able to attend. MR. ARMSTRONG-Next Wednesday? No, I will be out of the area on the west coast for two weeks. So, that’s my point. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I mean, taking those into account, I think that we can, and I’m familiar with the property. I live down on the corner of Mannis and Fitzgerald , so I know where you are. MR. ARMSTRONG-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-The issues, I think everybody’s relative, and I think Staff comments are quite relative to the steep slopes present on site there, and that’s a significant concern. MR. ARMSTRONG-Yes. I mean, I know they can move it away from the variance. You mentioned setback for George’s properties. I think you get into more of the structural issue, and that’s why the owner doesn’t want to do it, and I’ll let more of the experts figure out how to do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Our specific purview on the project is essentially the 10 foot setback. MR. ARMSTRONG-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-And that’s the issue that our Board will be dealing with. The Planning Board, specifically, will be looking at the nitty gritty of the whole project. MR. ARMSTRONG-And then I guess there’s another hearing on septic and well. th MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and that’s pending until the 24. MR. ARMSTRONG-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just before our meeting also. Okay. MR. OBORNE-Sir, could you state your name for the record? MR. ARMSTRONG-Scott Armstrong. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. KUHL-Might it be a good thing for you to sit down and put your feelings in a document and then send it in and that’ll get in the record? MR. ARMSTRONG-I’d be happy to do that. MR. KUHL-That way you’re going to be heard. MR. UNDERWOOD-It would probably be best to write down any of your concerns, and even though they’re not germane to our issues here, we will consider them and they’re on the record, nonetheless. MR. ARMSTRONG-So do I call the Zoning Board and get an e-mail address? MR. OBORNE-I’m going to give you my e-mail address. MR. ARMSTRONG-Great. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Probably even more importantly the Planning Board is the one who’s really going to be the one who dials in this thing and makes it work. MR. ARMSTRONG-Got it. No, I understood that, but they said, even though I knew this was going to be tabled, they said come and say your peace. 17 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. MR. ARMSTRONG-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there anybody else from the public wishing to comment this evening or make any, have any questions, any correspondence at all, Roy? MR. URRICO-No correspondence at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I think what we’ll do is we’re going to table Area Variance No. 1-2011 because of the Planning Board was not able to address the issue and get us a recommendation. We will table you until next Wednesday, same time, same station. We’ll see you then. MR. RYAN-Okay. All right. Thank you. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2011 DOUGLAS & MURIEL CHERRY, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Fitzgerald Road. Because the Planning Board was not able to address the issue and give us a recommendation we will table them until next Wednesday, January 26, 2011. th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Garrand AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2011 SEQRA TYPE: II JAMES KALOCK AGENT(S): CURTIS D. DYBAS, RA OWNER(S): JAMES KALOCK ZONING: WR LOCATION: 336 GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS AND ADDITIONS TOTALING 1,602 SQ. FT. TO EXISTING 1,565 SQ. FT. THREE (3) BEDROOM SINGLE FAMILY HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMEABILITY, SIDE YARD AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE. PENDING PB RECOMMENDATION. CROSS REF.: SPR 69- 2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.36 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-77 SECTION: § 179-3-040, § 179-13-010A CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Again, this is pending Planning Board recommendation. We won’t be able to act on it this evening. For Mr. Dybas’s, you’ll be able to attend next Wednesday if I reschedule it at that point? MR. DYBAS-Yes, I will. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think, just as a courtesy, we’ll open the public hearing. Is there anybody from the public here wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-No correspondence that I can see. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then, given the fact, this one does have more variances that have been requested. So, you know, we really can’t act without the Planning Board recommending to us that they think those are reasonable requests or not. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2011 JAMES KALOCK, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 336 Glen Lake Road. Until next Wednesday evening, January 26, 2011. th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: 18 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Garrand AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2011 SEQRA TYPE: II AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI AGENT(S): GARY HUGHES OWNER(S): AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI ZONING: HC INT LOCATION: 543 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF AFTER THE FACT FOR A 10 FT. BY 12 FT. CANOPY CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO MOTEL OFFICE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. PENDING PB RECOMMENDATION CROSS REF.: SP 1- 2011, SP 12-2004, AV 29-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 1/12/11 LOT SIZE: 2.19 & 0.83 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.05-1-51, 52, 52.13 SECTION: §179-3-040 GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Again, this was pending Planning Board recommendation. So I’m going to make a motion that. MR. URRICO-Can Joan come up here and fill that spot? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, she’s not a Board member, she’s not on the Board until they re- approve her. MR. URRICO-Okay. All right. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2011 AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 543 Aviation Road. Tabled until next Wednesday evening, January 26, 2011, pending the Planning Board’s recommendation. th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Garrand MR. UNDERWOOD-So I guess we’ll see everybody next week. We’re done for the evening. MS. HEMINGWAY-Do you want to do the meeting minutes? MR. UNDERWOOD-Which ones did we have? thnd MS. HEMINGWAY-November 17 and November 22. th MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. November 17. You guys, before we go, let’s just approve these minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 17, 2010 MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Having reviewed the minutes, I would move that we approve those thnd minutes for November 17 and November 22. Do I have a second? ndth MR. CLEMENTS-I wasn’t here for the 22. I was here for the 17. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, you can just say, you know, abstained. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. I thought you were doing them both at the same time. th MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Let’s do the 17 one first. I’ll move for its approval. MRS. HUNT-Do you know who was here? 19 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 1/19/2011) MS. HEMINGWAY-I actually don’t have that. Do you want to wait until next week and have a list? MR. UNDERWOOD-We can just do it. I think everybody was here. Ron was not. MR. KUHL-I was not. MS. HEMINGWAY-You were not here for either of them? thnd MR. KUHL-No, I was not here for the 17. I was here for the 22. MR. UNDERWOOD-So just abstain. MR. KUHL-I’m abstaining, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Good. MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17 , 2010, Introduced by James who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Kuhl November 22, 2010 nd MR. UNDERWOOD-And the ones from the 22. I’ll move that we approve those. MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22, 2010, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Clements MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I guess we’re officially done for the evening. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 20