Loading...
2011.02.16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 2011 INDEX Area Variance No. 7-2010 Babajani & Mama, LLC 1. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-17 Area Variance No. 1-2011 Douglas & Muriel Cherry 3. Tax Map No. 289,14-1-7 Area Variance No. 7-2011 Robin Inwald 3. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Area Variance No. 45-2010 Inwald Enterprises/Robin Inwald 11. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Area Variance No. 8-2011 Richard & Karen Cunningham 13. Tax Map No. 297.17-1-46 & 47 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 02/16/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT JAMES UNDERWOOD BRIAN CLEMENTS RICHARD GARRAND RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening, everyone. I’d like to call to order tonight’s Zoning Board of th Appeals meeting, February 16 at seven o’clock. My name is Steve Jackoski. I’ll just go through some basics of how we’ll perform tonight’s task. 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 they are applicable into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information that they may wish to do so. The Board will ask questions of the applicant, and then we’ll open the public hearing if it’s been advertised. The public hearing is intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issues 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 has had a chance to speak, but not for more three minutes and only if after listening to the other speakers, a speaker believes they have new information to present to this Board, and Board members I’d suggest that since we have the five minute limit, that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they are speaking. Following all the speakers, we’ll read any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members will then discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their position 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. Before we get started with tonight’s agenda, we have a few housekeeping things we need to attend to, and the first thing is the approval of the nd minutes of December 22. Do I have a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 22, 2010 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF DECEMBER 22, 2010, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Jackoski OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II BABAJANI & MAMA, LLC AGENT(S): PARAGON CIVIL ENGINEERING, P.C. OWNER(S): BABAJANI & MAMA, LLC ZONING: CI LOCATION: 931 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.48 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS OF 2.35 ACRES AND 1.13 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENT FOR PROPOSED LOT 2. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL. CROSS REF.: SPR 10-2010; SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY 10, 2010 LOT SIZE: 3.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-17 SECTION: 179-3-040 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-If you could go ahead and read in the Staff Notes, please, Roy. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to just read the letter? That’s all you’ve got to do. MR. OBORNE-The memorandum. MR. URRICO-“On January 17, 2010, the above referenced variance application, that’s Area Variance No. 7-2010, Babajani & Mama, received an approval without contingencies. The project also received subdivision and site plan approvals in February. Due to circumstances beyond the applicant’s control the project has been delayed for many months. At this time, we are requesting a one year extension of the Area Variance Approval received. In the mean time, we are re-applying for subdivision approval to continue with the project. Would you please place this project on the next available Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Agenda for this extension, and notify our office of the date. In the meantime, should you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.” And that was Clark Wilkinson, President and CEO of Paragon Civil Engineering. MR. JACKOSKI-Any Board member discussion? There is no need for a public hearing on this request. So can we have a motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we need to re-do the SEQRA, too? MR. OBORNE-You can re-affirm the previous SEQRA findings on this. I believe the permeability aspect of it would require it to be a Type II, but the subdivision, it would be prudent to do a Short Form, or re-affirm. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll re-affirm the previous motion that was granted on the SEQRA. MOTION TO RE-AFFIRM THE PREVIOUS MOTION THAT WAS GRANTED ON THE SEQRA MOTION, THAT BASED UPON THE CRITERIA IN THE SEQRA REVIEW, HAVING LOOKED AT THE SEQRA REVIEW, WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE ANY ENVIRONMENTAL OR SUBSTANTIAL PROBLEMS TO BE CREATED BY THE SUBDIVISION OF THIS PROPERTY. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE PERMEABILITY WILL REMAIN ABOUT THE SAME AS WHAT IT IS, IT’S JUST GOING TO HAVE AN IMAGINARY LINE DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE TARMACK THERE. SO WE’LL GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THAT., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Jim. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2010 BABAJANI & MAMA, LLC, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 931 State Route 9. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 3.48 acre parcel into two parcels, 2.35 acres, and 1.13 acres. The relief required, relief requested from the 30% permeability requirement for proposed Lot Two as per Section 179-4-030. In making a determination we should consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, and there will be minor impacts to the neighborhood. In a sense it’s just a line being drawn on a piece of paper. Whether the benefit could be achieved by other feasible methods to the applicant. I don’t think so. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request for 4,180 square feet of relief of a site permeability of 21.5 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the Ordinance, and whether the variance will have any adverse effects or impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. I think there will be minor impacts, and the alleged difficulty may be considered self-created. I move that we extend Area Variance No. 7-2010 for one year starting February 16, 2011. th Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) 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 MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, when you’re ready, if you could read in Staff Notes. MR. URRICO-Yes. The applicant’s agent is requesting a tabling to March 16, 2011, pending the Queensbury Board of Health hearing concerning the wastewater system. It is anticipated by the applicant’s agent that an approval will be in hand prior to the tabling request date. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Do I have any Board member discussion at this time, and is the applicant here? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here in the audience who’d like to address the Board at this time? Keith, is there any written correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. OBORNE-No, not that I know of. I believe not. MR. URRICO-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-There was old correspondence, I think, the last time, but nothing. MR. JACKOSKI-From the Carruthers? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the people next door I think were the ones. MR. OBORNE-I will say to the Board that there is a potential that this Area Variance may go away because they’re moving it to a compliant location, but we’ll still go ahead and table this to th the 16 if we could. MR. JACKOSKI-We will leave the public hearing open. Do we have a motion to table? To any specific date? th MR. OBORNE-March 16. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And the agendas can support that. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2011 DOUGLAS & MURIEL CHERRY, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Fitzgerald Road, Glen Lake. Tabled to the March 16 Zoning Board meeting. th Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2011 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBIN INWALD AGENT(S): LEE HORNING OWNER(S): ROBIN INWALD ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 38 GUNN LANE, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 3,287 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE VERSUS AN 863 SQ. FT. RENOVATION WITH 400 SQUARE FOOT SCREENED PORCH AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ADDITIONAL RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR THE EXISTING DWELLING, AS 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) THE STRUCTURE WAS REMOVED AND COMPLETELY REBUILT. THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE DOES NOT MEET THE SETBACK RELIEF THAT WAS GRANTED BY THE ZBA IN AV 68-2008. CROSS REF.: AV 68-2008; SP 38-2008; BP 2009-384; AV 45-2010; AV 26- 2010; AV 26-2010; SPR 38-2008;BP 6589 YR. 1980 DET. GARAGE; BP 6732 YR. 1980 ENCL. PORCH; BP 6987 YR. 1981 DOCKS; BP 89-059 YR. 1989 ALTERATION DOCK; BP 92-378 INT. ALTERATIONS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY 9, 2011 LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, if you could read into the record. MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to read the Staff Notes in, because it explains some things. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-2011, Robin Inwald, Meeting Date: February 16, 2011 “Project Location: 38 Gunn Lane, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests additional side setback relief as a result of a submitted As-built survey. Single family dwelling not expanded but totally rebuilt. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1.Side setback relief – Request for 16.7 feet from the 20 foot side setback requirement as per §179-4-030. Note: This is the greatest amount of relief requested along the western property line and is measured from the wood deck/stairs. The entire structure requires setback relief. 2.Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires the approval of this board. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. With the structure completed, feasible alternatives appear limited. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 16.7 feet or 83.5% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement of the WR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Further expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires the approval of this board as per §179-13-010F. 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 as a result of this additional request. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 7-10 Expansion of a N/C structure in a CEA Pending SP 39-10 Boathouse/ Sundeck with ramp Pending AV 45-10 Setback relief for 697 sq. ft. Boathouse/sundeck w/ access ramp Pending AV 26-10 Side setback relief for 697 sq. ft. boathouse/sundeck Approved 6/23/10 BP 09-384: 1150 sq ft residential addition, 1092 sq ft residential alteration and 2 fireplaces SP 38-08: Expansion of a N/C structure in a CEA Approved 8/18/09 AV 68-08 Side setback relief for expansion of a N/C structure. Approved 11/19/08 Staff comments: 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) The applicant is before this board as a result of an inspection of the property by the Zoning Administrator on December 13, 2010 (please see attached). The applicant was given relief from the side setback requirement and also for the expansion of a non-conforming structure in 2009. Planning Board recommendation handout before the board. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review needed” MR. URRICO-Now, do you want me to go on and read the other parts of this? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think it’s necessary. I think that an explanation is due as to why you do not have a recommendation before you, and the short answer is that the recommendations were not forwarded because they really were not executed properly, and what we’re going to have to do with this applicant, on both of these applications, is we’re going to have to table them, pending a clean recommendation from the Planning Board. What happened last night is, well, th what happened on the 9 of February was the County Planning Board denied without prejudice this application for segmentation issues. Why I don’t know. I wasn’t there. I’m not sure. Last night during the meeting, the Planning Board, through no fault of their own, and through some poor communication by the applicant, and to a lesser extent myself, issued a recommendation to return the ramp portion of this back to the County Planning Board. That’s already been given a No County Impact. So, with this new information, the Planning Board may have a different recommendation for the house, knowing that the County Planning Board denied without prejudice. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did the County Planning Board deny the new construction that’s already completed? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-That is correct, for segmentation issues. Counsel’s here obviously for Ms. Inwald and would most likely explain what they would prefer. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Welcome, Jonathan. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. I wasn’t at the meeting last night. Stefanie Bitter, my partner, was, but everyone thought that the County had ruled on the other project. So there was some misunderstanding. That’s why it was referred back on the ramp project, but the Town Planning Board was under the impression that for the re-build of the house on the foundation, which was the first application, that that was the one that the County had approved. So the Planning Board made a recommendation last night to approve this, to recommend approval, and I anticipated coming here tonight to present the first one, and then ask the second one be tabled because it has to go back to the County, but now when I walked in, Keith handed me the memo and I now understand that there was a miscommunication. So I’ll just ask that both of these get tabled. We’ll go back to the County Planning Board, explain what’s going on, and go back to the Town Planning Board and get back here as soon as possible, but I do know that one of the neighbors are here that want to make a comment on one of the applications, and I’m sorry for any mix up. It was news to us. MR. JACKOSKI-A specific date you’d like to come back? MR. LAPPER-Well, we would like to be back at the County in March and if possible be back here at the Planning Board in March, but I know the Planning Board has a lot on its plate. So I’m not sure. I mean, you know, they’d like to get their CO and have this Board be able to consider the ramp before Spring, but I don’t know what the schedule’s going to be. So hopefully March, perhaps April. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I had the builder here, to present to you, who built the house, and go through all that, but when we realized what had to happen, I told him he could go home so we’ll come back and do the whole thing as soon as we can. MR. JACKOSKI-Who was the builder? MR. LAPPER-Lee Horning. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) MR. OBORNE-So it’s basically in the Zoning Board of Appeals’ court at this point, as to when you want to table it to, both applications, but you obviously need to open up the public hearing. MR. JACKOSKI-We know, yes. I think that let’s open up the public hearing and then decide. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-So any discussion before we do this with the Board members? MR. KUHL-We went and looked at this project last year for the ramp, and then it was withdrawn, and at that time, I could tell it was a new build. I wasn’t around when they got their variance. How did this happen, the enforcement part of it? I mean, I realize this is a remote area. I mean, this property is down the end of a block, and there’s really nobody drives by. MR. LAPPER-That sounds terrible, and that’s not what happened. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. LAPPER-The builder lifted the house up with a crane. It was supposed to be garage, house. They got variance approvals to connect the garage and the house and do a small porch and front entrance to the house. They lifted the house off with a crane, put it on the lot, fixed the foundation in its location, looked at the house and said it’s all rotting. Went to the Building Department. The Building Department said you can’t put that back, you’ve got to replace it. What I’m told from last night’s testimony, because I wasn’t aware of any of this at the time, that the Building Department came out. They left the house there for 12 or 16 months so everybody could see it. They re-built it on the foundation, and nobody stopped to think, gee, you know, you may lose your grandfathering, and the builder thought because the foundation was there they didn’t. So it was apparently a miscommunication. They were dealing with the Building Department getting inspections constantly, but they never went back and talked to the Planning and Zoning Department about whether or not they needed to come back before this Board. So when they’re ready for a CO, the Planning Department does an inspection, and that’s where we are. So, I mean, we just learned of this recently. MR. KUHL-So, effectively this was built properly? It was inspected along the way by the enforcement people? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Construction is all affirmed by the Building and Codes. So what happens is, is because we approved the additions on there, we did not approve a whole total new project, and so in essence it’s considered a new total project, you know, as completed. MR. KUHL-But at the point that that decision was made, shouldn’t it then come to us for a variance based on the new drawing? MR. UNDERWOOD-It probably should have been like a red flag and then it should have come back to you guys. MR. OBORNE-If the Zoning Department knew about it, absolutely. That’s what would have happened. There was no communication between Building and Codes and the Zoning Department, and it stands to reason also, because the inspector that goes out and does the building code inspections has a building plan in front of him. He doesn’t have the Area Variance, doesn’t have the Site Plan in front of him. MR. KUHL-But isn’t that map the similar map that came in front of this Board? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. KUHL-The wheels are off the wagon, then, Keith. MR. OBORNE-Not really. I mean, typically the Building and Codes wouldn’t have a plot plan. They would have their building plans, that’s it. MR. KUHL-Okay. I mean, what’s the bridge between what we approve here and what they inspect out there? Where’s the bridge? MR. LAPPER-I can tell you, the Planning Department has to issue a certificate saying, when the building plans come in, saying that meets the approval, and the building plans that originally came in were add the additions, as it was approved by this Board, but during construction, when 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) they figured out that it was rotted, they went and dealt with the Building Department and not the Planning Department. So there was no red flag at that point, which obviously there should have been. MR. UNDERWOOD-I thought that on the construction plans you had to have the variances on there? MR. OBORNE-You just don’t. No. You would think, and, you know, we think of mechanisms by which this could be caught, and one of them would be an Area Variance associated with this on the building permit, but, I mean, that has not been codified. MR. JACKOSKI-But the building plans would have certainly had to have identified old structure and new structure. MR. OBORNE-But, you know, I mean, to me this is moot, because it wasn’t the Zoning Department that built the house. MR. JACKOSKI-But this Zoning Board may not have chosen to allow the location of a brand new house, such as the Johnson project on Glen Lake, if they had been told that the house was going to be brand new. MR. OBORNE-You’re 100% correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Just like on Neighbors Way on Assembly Point, the folks there who renovated that project, it was very, very meticulously paid attention to the details of what was old, what better stay there because you’re not in compliance. MR. LAPPER-I think that the Building Department looked at it and said, hey, under the State Fire and Building Code, yes, this is not a suitable structure, and it just, and nobody said there would be a zoning component to that. So they said just re-build it the way it was. MR. JACKOSKI-I think it would help me to better understand what the condition of the property was that required the Building Department to suggest that. MR. LAPPER-I know that Lee Horning, last night, had a whole series of photos and did a pretty thorough presentation for the Planning Board before they recommended approval, and we’ll bring that back to you in a month or two and go through the whole thing here. MR. OBORNE-And for the record, I don’t want to be back here dealing with this either. I mean, this is not anything that is comfortable for me to sit here and deal with this, all right, and I can assure you there was no malfeasance by Lee or by anybody associated with this. There is a process that doesn’t work that well. MR. JACKOSKI-It’s just that the community wants consistency. MR. OBORNE-I agree. MR. JACKOSKI-And we have many projects like this on the lakes in the CEA that we are adamant about making sure the old structure stays where it is, and what is built is what is agreed to by these Boards. So it’s important to have consistency and make sure that we understand that this particular project, we know where we thought it was going to be, we know where we are. There’s a disconnect. MR. OBORNE-There is. The foundation is the same foundation. It’s in the same location. The square footage is the same. What obviously you’re here for is that landing that comes out the side, and was not on the plan that was before this Board originally, but was on the plan that the Building and Codes folks would inspect. MR. JACKOSKI-Keith, also the air conditioning unit that’s on that side of the house, I didn’t see that on the previous plans. MR. OBORNE-Right, but that doesn’t require setback relief. MR. UNDERWOOD-So we’re looking at just tabling this until this thing gets properly sequenced? MR. OBORNE-Correct. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other Board comments? I’d like to open up the public hearing if I could. You can come up to the table. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROLAND FAULKNER MR. FAULKNER-My name is Roland Faulkner. I reside at 28 Gunn Lane. I think my cottage shows on there. If this matter is basically going to be tabled, is that the appropriate term, until it goes back to another Board, my wife and I came up from Schenectady to address the Board, but this was not really a presentation by Mr. Lapper. He has a plan presentation to make, and we’d like the opportunity to come back, be notified, and we’ll make our remarks to the Board then. However, I have a problem. We anticipated tonight that we’d be done and whatever your th decision is, it is. We happen to be going away from the second through the 17 of March, and that makes it just, we can’t come up and voice our thoughts, voice our opinions or our knowledge. We’ve been there for close to 40 years. MR. URRICO-It doesn’t sound like they’re going to be here any time before April, the way they’re talking. MR. FAULKNER-Well, you never know. I’m just trying to suggest to the Board that I would appreciate the opportunity for my wife and I to come back again, and that we don’t have to fly up from Florida just for this. MR. JACKOSKI-And just so you know, and certainly if it happens that even if it does get postponed to April, and you still can’t make April, please don’t hesitate to write your comments and direct them to Staff and they will get read into the record, and we will at least hear them. MR. FAULKNER-We have, my wife has written on our behalf, there should be a letter in the file, an e-mail in the file, which was in turn e-mailed to Ms. Inwald. She was in touch with us as early as nine o’clock this morning. So, we’ll stay on top of it, and I appreciate the Board’s consideration. I’m not going to make my remarks tonight, if Mr. Lapper’s not going to make his presentation tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and I’d suspect that e-mail will get read into the record for tonight? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. FAULKNER-Thank you very much, gentlemen. MR. JACKOSKI-You’re welcome. MR. FAULKNER-And ma’am. MR. FAULKNER-This is my wife, Rosemary. ROSEMARY FAULKNER MRS. FAULKNER-Okay. My first question is, how did this building grow from a 1263 square foot structure to 3,287, if there were no additions to the initial structure, to the finished structure now? I mean, you’re talking 2,000 square feet here. Can anybody answer, does anybody know? MR. OBORNE-Do you want me to answer that? MR. JACKOSKI-Well, if you wish. MR. OBORNE-Okay. What happened, the total square footage of the house has not changed through the proposal. What they had is actually, and it’s one good thing to have this old map here. You see the single family structure here? MRS. FAULKNER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Okay. What they did is they proposed to add a screened porch and then connect to the garage, and add a front landing area. That whole total Floor Area Ratio is the 3,000 square feet that you’re talking about. The expansion was 1200 square feet, and what they did is they tore this down and re-built the whole thing. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) MRS. FAULKNER-No, I understand that. So you’re telling me that, and I also understand it is not a screened porch, it is a four season porch? MR. OBORNE-It is four season, that is correct. MRS. FAULKNER-And the variance was for a screened porch. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MRS. FAULKNER-Okay. You’re telling me it’s 1200. MR. FAULKNER-Don’t go into it all. MRS. FAULKNER-No, I know it, I just want clarification. That was the only thing. The 2,000 square feet are the attachment between the garage and the main house, and the front entry way, that’s 2,000 square feet? MR. OBORNE-And the porch. MRS. FAULKNER-No, the porch is 400. I’ve added that in. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MRS. FAULKNER-It’s 863 for the original structure; 400 for the porch, which is now a room. That brings it up to 1263. MR. OBORNE-I don’t have the file in front of me right now. You would also include the existing house that was there. MRS. .FAULKNER-That’s 863. MR. OBORNE-And you would include the garage and the living space above the garage. MRS. FAULKNER-You don’t know the square footage? MR. OBORNE-Not off the top of my head, no. MR. KUHL-And, Keith, are they still in between the house and the garage? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. KUHL-So that would be more area, and if they filled in between the house and the garage, that’s more, and then the garage, and the garage has got an upstairs? MR. OBORNE-That’s correct. MR. KUHL-There you go. MR. FAULKNER-And they enclosed the porch into a year round room. MR. KUHL-Right. MR. OBORNE-That wouldn’t affect the Floor Area Ratio, though. It still would need that, but I agree, it was misrepresented. MR. FAULKNER-That’s not what the variance was for. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. That’s why they’re back. That is correct. MRS. FAULKNER-Thank you very much. That was really my only question. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Would any other members of the audience like to address the Board at this time? Keith, do you have any correspondence to read into the record, or Roy, I’m sorry. MR. URRICO-There are two letters. The first one is addressed to you, Steve. Do you mind if I read your mail? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-No, please, go ahead. MR. URRICO-It says “Dear Mr. Jackoski: The above referenced area variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Lake George Waterkeeper understands the hardship which the applicant has to provide safe access to the shoreline. It is our opinion the plan that is proposed does not completely mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the disturbance and grading required. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals to apply the Town’s regulations, specifically §179-8-040 Shoreline Buffers, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced area variance application. A substantial shoreline buffer should be proposed. The project plan fails to include the minimum required shoreline buffering as required by the Town Code. With the extensive earthwork proposed, the shoreline buffer should be expanded to require the planting of additional trees and shrubs for natural stormwater runoff reduction through deeper root structures, slope stabilization and pollutant removal. Additional alternatives should be evaluated to reduce potential impacts. Permeable surface, such as pervious concrete or pavement, should be provided to reduce runoff. In addition, the slope should be increased to reduce the extent of grading and disturbance. Furthermore, the expansive patio should be reduced in size. Stormwater management plan should be improved. The previously requested shoreline buffer expansion should be incorporated into a rain garden to mitigate the disturbance and the impact from the lawn. The proposed underdrain (for the proposed French Drain) should be eliminated to reduce the potential of the discharge of minimally treated stormwater. Conditions on the restriction on the application of fertilizers and pesticides should be considered. Fertilizers feed algae and aquatic plant growth and pesticides change the natural ecology of the lake. It is imperative to limit the application of nutrients within the Critical Environmental Area of Lake George. In conclusion, further mitigation must be provided to reduce the potential impacts to balance the benefits for the applicant. The Lake George Waterkeeper recommends the following to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals: 1) Require a substantially expanded shoreline buffer to incorporate additional trees and shrubs; 2) Alternatives including pervious pavement, reduction in patio size and fill should be evaluated; 3) Submission of a detailed stormwater management plan; and 4) Restrict the application of fertilizers and pesticides on the property. The Lake George Waterkeeper Program looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Waterkeeper” And then I have the e-mail that was submitted by Mrs. Faulkner. Do you want me to read this in? MR. JACKOSKI-I would like you to read that in. MR. URRICO-“Dear Board Members: At this time my husband and I object to any further variances issued to Robin Inwald, which includes Inwald Enterprises. As your records will reflect, she has continually requested a myriad of variances throughout the years. Unfortunately many have been granted; she has completed her changes and then used the structure not for her home as proposed, but for a rental venture. As I understand it, Ms. Inwald blatantly did not comply with the last variance for the changes to the structure at 38 Gunn Lane. She is now before you again requesting a change to your previous ruling so it will accommodate her unauthorized changes at 38 Gunn Lane. On June 16, 2009, I sent a letter to Craig Brown stating my environmental and esthetic concerns regarding Ms. Inwald’s ventures. The letter was followed by a meaningful discussion with Dan Stec. Hopefully I will be able to attend the th meeting on February 16. If I am unable to be there, please read this letter to those present on my behalf. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Rosemary M. Faulkner, 28 Gunn Lane” MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Would you like to come back to the table, Jonathan? You’re all set? MR. LAPPER-I’m all set. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other discussion or comments from the Board members? Could we have a motion to table this project to the April meeting? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2011 ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th 38 Gunn Lane, Cleverdale. We will be tabling this until April 20. th Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, as a matter of formality, we will address, under Old Business, Inwald Enterprises. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010 SEQRA TYPE: INWALD ENTERPRISES/ROBIN INWALD AGENT(S): STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): INWALD ENTERPRISES/ROBIN INWALD ZONING: WR LOCATION: 38 GUNN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOATHOUSE WITH A 697 SQ. FT. SUNDECK ADDITION WITH ACCESS RAMP BETWEEN TWO EXISTING DOCKS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A +/- 250 SQ. FT. ACCESS RAMP WITHIN THE SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACKS. CROSS REF.: AV 7-2011, AV 68- 2008; SP 39-2010; AV 26-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION: 179-5-06A7 MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, if you could just give a brief overview of this application. MR. URRICO-Which one are we doing? MR. JACKOSKI-The boat ramp and sundeck. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2010, Inwald Enterprises/Robin Inwald, Meeting Date: February 16, 2011 “Project Location: 38 Gunn Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 48.5 foot long by 4 foot wide handicap ramp with glass paneled guardrails leading to the ZBA approved boathouse location. The applicant must appear before the ZBA for side and shoreline setbacks concerning that portion of the ramp on land up to the mean high water mark, in this case 37 linear feet of proposed ramp. Further, relief is required for that portion that is proposed below the mean high water mark and violating the side setback requirement, in this case 9.5 linear feet of proposed ramp. Finally, relief is required for that portion of the ramp entirely within the shoreline setback as the structure is considered an accessory structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: 1.Side setback – Request for 6.7 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement of the WR zone as per §179-3-040 for the 38.5 foot ramp proposed above the mean high water mark. 2.Side setback – Request for 10.7 feet from the 20 foot requirement of the WR zone as per §179-3-040 for the 10.5 foot ramp proposed below the mean high water mark. 3.Shoreline setback – Request for 38.5 feet from the 50 foot requirement of the WR zone for the ramp totally within the shoreline setback. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant has proposed an alternate plan that may be a method feasible to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 6.7 feet or 33.5% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement of the WR zone for the ramp portion above the mean high water mark as per §179-3-040 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 10.7 feet or 54% relief from the 20 foot setback requirement of the WR zone for the portion of the ramp below the mean high water mark as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 38.5 feet or 100% relief for the total portion of the ramp proposed within the 50 foot 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) setback of the WR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance (Note: this portion of the ramp is considered an accessory structure). 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 proposed disturbance adjacent to the shoreline may be detrimental. However, the plan calls for stormwater and E&S controls which, if properly installed and maintained, may mitigate or eliminate these concerns. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): S.P. 6-2011 Exp. Of N/C in a CEA Pending A.V. 7-2011 Setback relief for SFD Pending SP 39-2010 Accessory structure w/in shoreline setback Pending AV 26-10 Side setback relief for 697 sq. ft. boathouse/sundeck Approved 6/23/10 BP 09-384 1150 sq ft residential addition, 1092 sq ft residential alteration and 2 fireplaces Issued AV 68-08 Side setback relief for expansion of a N/C structure. Approved 11/19/08 SP 38-08: Expansion of a N/C structure in a CEA Approved 8/18/09 Staff comments: The applicant is seeking relief from shoreline and sideline setbacks for the handicap ramp as it is considered an accessory structure greater than 100 square feet as per §179-5-020; proposed structure to be 200 square feet of which 154 square feet is located on land above the mean high water mark. The proposal also has an alternate plan to include the previously discussed lift associated with access to the approved boathouse/sundeck. If this alternate plan is requested by either the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals, an additional variance for permeability may be required. The site plan associated with this project is currently on hold pending a decision from the ZBA concerning the access ramp setbacks (see attached). Further, the Single Family Dwelling applications (S.P. 6-2011 and A.V. 7-2011) must be approved prior to any consideration of approval of boathouse ramp and associated site work. Planning Board recommendation handout before the board. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review needed” MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Jonathan, do you want to address the Board now? MR. LAPPER-Only to ask for it to be tabled. MR. JACKOSKI-Of course. Thank you. Any discussion by the Board members? Okay. Just for the record, I did participate, as a Planning Board member, on this application when it was brought before them concerning this ramp. So I just, you know, wanted to make sure that everyone understands that, now that I’m Chairman of the Zoning Board. So can we have a motion, then, please. I should open the public hearing, of course. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-We’ve already heard your comments concerning public hearing. ROLAND FAULKNER MR. FAULKNER-We’ll reserve those until that next meeting. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Of course. Thank you. Would any other members like to address the Board? We’ve already read in the correspondence in the other application. So we can refer to that, and would anyone here on the Board like to make a motion? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES/ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) 38 Gunn Lane. Until the first meeting in April. th Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-And, just for the record, the public hearing has been left open. MR. OBORNE-Thank you, Jon. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2011 SEQRA TYPE II RICHARD & KAREN CUNNINGHAM AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): RICHARD & KAREN CUNNINGHAM ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 384 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR THE TWO ADJACENT PARCELS THEY OWN ON RIDGE ROAD SO THAT THERE WILL BE ONE BUILDING ON EACH LOT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT WIDTH, LOT AREA, ROAD FRONTAGE AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2007-297, AV 83-1992, UV 77-1992 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 9, 2011 LOT SIZE 0.28 AC.; 0.27 AC. ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 297.17-1-46 & 47 SECTION: 179-3-040A3 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2011, Richard & Karen Cunningham, Meeting Date: February 16, 2011 “Project Location: 384 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant is proposing a boundary line adjustment for the two adjacent parcels they own on Ridge Road in order to segregate the two existing structures currently situated on the southern lot. Currently the north parcel is 0.28 acres and will expand to 0.33 acres resulting in a more compliant lot size, not requiring a variance for lot size. Conversely the south lot is currently 0.27 acres in size and will be reduced to 0.23 acres resulting in a less compliant lot size, thus requiring a variance for lot size. The applicant has no intention of any site changes in relation to the buildings, parking and lighting on both lots. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as per §179-3-040 for the MDR zone as follows: North Lot: 1.Sideline setback relief: a.Request for 15.5 feet of west sideline relief from the 25 foot side setback for the SFD. b.Request for 14.5 feet of south sideline relief from the 25 foot side setback for the SFD c.Request for 16.4 feet of southeast sideline relief from the 25 foot side setback for the SFD 2.Road Frontage relief: a.Request for 50 feet of road frontage relief from the 100 foot requirement. South Lot: 1.Sideline setback relief: a.Request for 15.2 feet of east sideline relief from the 25 foot side setback for the commercial structure. 2.Lot width relief: a.Request for 47.7 feet of lot width relief from the 100 foot lot width requirement for the parcel. 3.Lot area relief: a.Request for 1.77 acres of lot size relief from the 2 acres lot size requirement for the parcel. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 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. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to the existing location of the structures and existing lot limitations. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. North Lot: The requests for 15.5 feet of west sideline relief, 14.5 feet of south sideline relief and 16.4 feet of southeast sideline relief or cumulatively 62% relief from the 25 foot side setback in the MDR zone as per §179- 3-040 for the SFD may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 50 feet or 50% of road frontage relief from the 100 foot requirement in the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. South Lot: The request for 15.2 feet or 61% relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement in the MDR zone for the commercial structure as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 48 feet or 48% relief from the 100 foot lot width requirement in the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 1.77 acres or 89% relief from the 2 acre minimum lot size for the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Note: The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical calculation and not a subjective calculation. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood are anticipated as there will be no change to existing on-site conditions. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2007-297: Residential alterations-removal of commercial fixtures Completed 7/23/07 UV 77-1992: Add parking spaces Approved 7/29/92 Staff comments: The Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to direct the applicant to denote the correct zoning on the final submittal as MDR and not NR. SEQR Status: Type II – no further review required” MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Jonathan? MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper. Rick and Karen Cunningham are on the right, and Michelle Kristy next to them. Michelle is the current tenant who would like to, licensed aesthetician who would like to buy the salon, and just to start with, just to give a little background, Rick and Karen are longtime residents of Queensbury. They live on Brookfield Run by Sunnyside North, and they purchased this property, just the southern parcel with the structures on it before they bought it in 1983 and opened up their hair salon, Hair Designs, until they outgrew the little structure and moved to Washington Street Downtown, but when they purchased it, it had these two pre-existing buildings on just the one subdivided lot from an old 1920’s subdivision, and it was fine. They ran their shop in front and they rented the back building to a series of tenants over time, improved both of them. Everyone’s probably familiar with that, the brick building, and they added the awnings and made it, landscaped it and made it look as attractive as it could on a small piece of property. Ultimately, in 2008, somebody purchased the north lot at a tax sale, and they learned through the Building Department that the new purchaser had made inquiries about seeking variances to build a house on that north lot, and as you can see from the map, the driveway to the rear house has always been, since before they acquired it, on the north lot, and actually that happened, I think, in 2004 when that was purchased at a tax sale. They were ultimately able to go in to a realtor, make an offer, and purchase that lot to protect the property that they owned on the south, in 2008, and that, because they were able to acquire both parcels, that made it possible to come before this Board 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) to try and do something with the property that makes sense. The use of the front as a commercial building and the back as a residential were always separate but they were always on the same piece of property. What we tried to do, when we looked at this, was to sit down with Matt Steves and come up with, draw the lines in a way that would minimize variances. Obviously, the location of the buildings to each other can’t change, but we tried to make it work in a practical sense of what a residential owner in the back would want to have, to give them more of the land, because it’s not necessary for the small parking lot and the small building. There’s just not much you can do in a 2,000 square foot building. So they didn’t, so what we came up with was what you have in front of you where we have, we split the frontage in a way that would work for both lots, and we tried to make the residential parcel, the north parcel, larger than the commercial parcel. Obviously that was subjective, and we could have drawn the lines in a different way, but this just seemed like a reasonable way to proceed. Right now, as the notes indicated, we have two structures on one lot and if this is approved, there will be one structure on each lot. So that they would be separated, and since they functioned for all these years on half of this real estate, it should work out a lot better now that they’ve acquired this other piece of property. Michelle’s business is facials, you know, it’s just herself. So there’s something where you schedule people, you know, one or two at a time, something that’s suitable for a small, you know, you can’t accommodate much on this lot, but that’s a, it’s a salon business. It meets the zoning under the Area Variance for this, Use Variance, excuse me, for this property, but it’s just, it’s a smaller business than what Rick and Karen had with a very busy hair salon. So I think that’s appropriate as well, and even though it sounds like, you know, obviously there’s a bunch of relief, but as the Staff Notes said, it’s not a subjective calculation, and I hope you’ll recognize that by acquiring this other lot, they’re making the situation a lot better than it’s been for all this time. So they’re all here to answer any specific questions, either for the applicants or for the purchaser of the front lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-I assume that the lines as you drew them were just to accommodate, so you had some amount of acreage on each lot? MR. LAPPER-And to make the setback, you know, between the buildings to give everybody enough room to operate. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, in a practical sense, would it not make more sense to just keep the lot with the small building a smaller lot because you don’t really need that space in the back, it’s not going to be necessary for any expansion or anything in the future? I’m just thinking in a sense of the concrete block house in the back there, you know, if eventually that gets to the point where you want to renew it and put a new duplex up or something, which you can do in the mixed residential zone, so, it would give you more land back there to work with, you know, in that sense. MR. LAPPER-Let me react this way. I’m looking at this in terms of what’s practical and also what minimizes the variance. So I called Keith and had a discussion of the exact opposite, which would be impractical to say, if we changed these lines so that the salon would have even more land in the back, which doesn’t really make sense, because it would be more beneficial, as you’re saying, Jim, to the residential owners, but if we did that, we could eliminate the need for a variance for lot size because we could keep them both exactly the same size, so it wouldn’t be any worse than the prior nonconforming, which is kind of a silly thing to do, but it eliminates a variance. So in terms of what you’re asking, you know, there’s no need for the salon property to have the land in the back, and if the Board would prefer to see it that way, I’m sure that Michelle, there’s not going to be anything, you’ll just have to mow some land. So there’s no benefit to that. We were just trying to minimize the variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, to me it’s more practical, in a reality sense. I mean, there wouldn’t be any sense to have that property down there. MR. LAPPER-I completely agree. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, I don’t know how the other Board members feel. MR. CLEMENTS-I had a question on that, though. Where, is there septic here, and where are they located? KAREN CUNNINGHAM MRS. CUNNINGHAM-Hi. I’m Karen Cunningham. Yes, it’s on Town sewer. MR. KUHL-It’s on Town sewer, Town water? MRS. CUNNINGHAM-Yes. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) MR. KUHL-Okay. So then really Jim’s suggestion is a good suggestion. Besides she wouldn’t have to pay to have the lawn cut back there. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MRS. CUNNINGHAM-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-Jonathan, are the water lines connected building to building? MRS. CUNNINGHAM-Yes, aren’t they, the water lines? RICK CUNNINGHAM MR. CUNNINGHAM-Separate water lines for each building. MRS. CUNNINGHAM-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-So there’s no variance needed to access the water lines through the south lot to the two story building? MR. LAPPER-There might be an easement needed. MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry, I meant easement. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Do you know where the water lines are, Rick? MR. CUNNINGHAM-The water line to the building in the back is on the north parcel, what we’re proposing to give to the building in the back. MR. LAPPER-So it’s already on that parcel. MR. CUNNINGHAM-So it’s already on that piece of property. MR. LAPPER-Good question. MR. OBORNE-I do want to remind the Board that if you do change what is before you that it will have to come back to this Board. MR. LAPPER-Well, I don’t see that. They have to grant, they can modify it. I mean, it doesn’t change the relief that we requested. MR. OBORNE-But it wasn’t, yes, it does, well, it depends on what line you’re talking. How are you changing the line? Are you going to bring that North 40 line straight down to the southern property line? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just go straight across to the sideline with it. MR. LAPPER-I would probably say it should come back a little bit just because of that concrete, because of the back door. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because you’ve got that step down. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but the Board has the right to modify a variance request. That’s not the applicant that’s asking for it. MR. OBORNE-Well, my understanding is that the public hearing is for a certain amount of relief, a specific relief. MR. GARRAND-You’d have to go back and recalculate all the relief required here. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. I mean, there’s less, the parcel’s become even more and less nonconforming. So, I’m not the Zoning Administrator, but I would say that that would be the ultimate result, to be honest with you. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Jonathan, there’s no easement in place currently concerning the driveway on the north lot? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) MR. LAPPER-No, because the driveway was on the neighbor’s lot from well before the Cunningham’s purchased it, but when they purchased it they fixed that because they. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand that. MR. LAPPER-Yes, so there’s no easement, nothing. That’s just, that’s how you get to the back. It always has been. MRS. CUNNINGHAM-It’s kind of messy. I mean, it was a, I think Queensbury owned it, and then I believe Warren County owned it, and then these. MR. LAPPER-Because of tax sales. MRS. CUNNINGHAM-Right. MR. LAPPER-So it’s just a little parcel that didn’t benefit anybody except them. MR. JACKOSKI-But there was an adverse possession use of that lot, correct? MR. LAPPER-Apparently, from decades before they bought it. MR. JACKOSKI-So well established. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but now that gets, but any adverse possession issue goes away when they merged the ownership. MR. JACKOSKI-When they bought it, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So when it was Neighborhood Residential as opposed to mixed residential now, was there dimensional differences between those two? MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s MDR. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s mixed now. MR. OBORNE-Right, as opposed to NR, yes, certainly. MR. LAPPER-But this was built even before Town zoning. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I mean, the Zoning Department really has no concern with the existing site plan or what is going on on the site. Nothing’s changing. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. OBORNE-Okay, so obviously what you’re talking about, Jim, makes a lot of sense. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I’m just thinking for long term, I mean, it’s like, probably somebody’s going to replace that building in the back at some point. MR. OBORNE-Yes, but Jon is correct that you can alter, you can certainly alter what relief is being given, as long as it’s less than what has been advertised. That’s my understanding, and that’s what I’ve been trained, how I’ve been trained. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thanks. MR. JACKOSKI-But there is a concern that all of a sudden the site, the combined site, could be more heavily used, should the north lot become expanded and a duplex or something else, so to me there’s a little bit more concern on my part to make that lot bigger, than keeping it more toward like what it is now. I mean, these folks may not own it forever. MR. OBORNE-That’s true. I mean, you can’t look into the future. I mean, the one story brick building could come down and they could put a house on there, you know, it would be considered a pre-existing, nonconforming lot, obviously. MR. JACKOSKI-Jonathan, the north lot, it says building area is 1220 square feet and the south lot says that the building area is 2218 square feet. It seems backward to me. MR. LAPPER-There’s a basement under the. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-One story? MR. LAPPER-The one story, yes, and that must be the difference. MR. JACKOSKI-It just seems strange. Okay. Well, how about we open the public hearing, if there’s no more comments from any of the Board members. Seeing no one in the audience, is there any comments received written? MR. URRICO-I don’t see any correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I’m going to hold the public hearing open for a little bit longer here. Does anyone have any comment? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I would just say to you guys, would you want to pursue that, what I’m suggesting? MR. LAPPER-I think they would like to close the deal with Michelle and just to be expedient, I guess, and they’d probably take it the way it is, rather than having to come back, but, you know, we’ll do whatever the Board wants. MR. JACKOSKI-This is a Type II SEQRA. MR. URRICO-As presented, the plan really isn’t changing very much. It’s just switching around the. MR. LAPPER-The lines. MR. URRICO-The lines as it was, so that even something like the road frontage, it’s only changing because the lot line’s moving, but the frontage is pretty much the same. It’s just expanding on one half and decreasing on the other half. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO-So I really don’t see this as being a major deal, for what it’s worth. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce, how do you feel? MRS. HUNT-I agree. I don’t think it’s a big deal. I do think, kind of question that property back there on the south lot, but if they want it, I would go along with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Whatever your pleasure is is fine with me. So, go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Just as long as the applicant doesn’t mind the way it is, I don’t have a problem with it, and if it was me, I’d probably re-submit and get them squared off, so that it’s not a puzzle lot, but that’s my feelings. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-No, I have no problem with it the way it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I don’t have any problem with it, either. I’d want it the way Jim said, but this doesn’t bother me. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Also, keep in mind that it may restrict things you might want to do with the south lot in the future, by reducing the area. MR. LAPPER-I mean, I would switch it, but they want to be expedient and just get it done. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. The only thing that I would recommend that if we could, I would like to see the underground utilities map so that we do know there isn’t going to be an easement necessary. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) MR. LAPPER-That’s no problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you don’t have to go to the Planning Board with this or anything? MR. LAPPER-No, because it’s a boundary adjustment, Craig determined that it doesn’t have to. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Well, I guess we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone like to make a motion? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make the motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2011 RICHARD & KAREN CUNNINGHAM, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 384 Ridge Road. The applicant is proposing a boundary line adjustment for the two adjacent parcels they own on Ridge Road in order to segregate the two existing structures currently situated on the southern lot. Currently the north lot parcel is 0.28 acres and will expand to 0.33 acres resulting in a more compliant lot size, not requiring a variance for lot size. Conversely the south lot is currently 0.27 acres in size and will be reduced to 0.23 acres resulting in a less compliant lot size, thus requiring a variance for lot size. The applicant has no intention of any site changes in relation to the buildings, parking and lighting on both lots. The parcel will require area variances as per §179-3-040 for the MDR zone as follows: North Lot. Number One, Sideline setback relief: a. Request for 15.5 feet of west sideline relief from the 25 foot side setback for the SFD. b. Request for 14.5 feet of south sideline relief from the 25 foot side setback for the SFD. c. Request for 16.4 feet of southeast sideline relief from the 25 foot side setback for the SFD. Two, Road Frontage Relief: Request for 50 feet of road frontage relief from the 100 foot requirement. South Lot: Number One, Side setback relief: a. Request for 15.2 feet of east sideline relief from the 25 foot side setback for the commercial structure. Two, Lot width relief: a. Request for 47.7 feet of lot width relief from the 100 foot lot width requirement for the parcel. Three, Lot area relief: a. Request for 1.77 acres of lot size relief from the 2 acre lot size requirement for the parcel. In making the determination, the Board shall consider: 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, and there will be minor impacts to the neighborhood. Whether the benefit could be sought by some other method feasible. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to the existing location of the structures and existing lot limitations. Whether the variance is substantial. On the north lot, the requests for 15.5 feet of relief, 14.5 feet of side setback relief and 16.4 feet of southeast sideline relief or cumulatively 62% relief from the 25 foot side setback might be considered moderate to severe. The request for 50 feet or 50% of road frontage may be considered moderate. On the south lot, request 61% relief for the 25 foot side setback might be considered moderate to severe. Further, the request for 48 feet of relief from the 100 foot lot width may be considered moderate. Finally, the request for 1.77 acres or 89% relief from the 2 acre minimum lot size per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Whether the variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions. There will be minor impacts as there will be no change to the existing on-site conditions, and the difficulty may be considered self-created. th Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: MR. KUHL-Think about what you read in on here. This is not to panic anybody. This is just for clarification. Under the south lot you have lot area relief request for 1.77 acres on the normal two acre. Now the north lot there’s no relief, and yet that’s less than two acres. MR. OBORNE-That is because you’re not increasing the nonconformity with that lot. MR. KUHL-Okay. So it doesn’t have to be mentioned. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. LAPPER-It’s a weird situation, you’re right. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you, Keith. MR. OBORNE-That’s what I’m here for. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and thank you for investing in Queensbury. Good luck. I’ve got a couple of quick things, if you don’t mind. I have spoken to many of the Board members about process as it relates to the Chairman having the sole responsibility of waiving a requirement for a survey on certain applications before they can actually be put on the agenda. It seems to me that the majority of the Board members that I got a chance to speak to felt that that was reasonable and acceptable, and of course if they felt a survey was necessary after hearing the application they could require it at that point also. So for those who I didn’t actually get a chance to talk to, I just wanted to briefly mention that process, and if there was anything who thought they might have additional concerns with it. Hearing none, that’s great. Number Two, next week, because I had made family plans long before this little change into my life with the Zoning Board, I was planning to not be here Wednesday. I just want to make sure that we’re going to have enough members to hold the meeting, and if anyone’s planning to be out, and of course we have an alternate. So I have airline reservations to come up, but I’m just going to play it by ear and see how it goes that day, if that’s okay. Okay. So, do I have a motion to end the meeting? MR. UNDERWOOD-I just had one more thing I wanted to bring up. I ran into Joan Jenkin the other day and talked to Joan and she feels sort of abandoned by the Board because she sort of got cast out, you know, as the odd man out. She just happened to be the unlucky person who’s term was up to accommodate a full Board of seven members when you came on, Steve, and I suggested to her, I said, well, you know, we’re still short a member as far as an alternate. We only have one alternate right now, and it’s probably a good idea for us to consider having, always having two alternates because we do get into times, during the year, when people are on vacation and we’re shorthanded, i.e. the summertime, and even sometimes in the wintertime also, but I don’t know, I just wanted to bring it up as a point of conversation amongst the Board members. I don’t think we ever felt that Joan didn’t do a really great job while she was on the Board, and, you know, I don’t want to stuff it back to the Town Board, either, but I don’t think that the Town Board feels that she was in some way, shape or form a negative for the Board, but I don’t know if that was something that we could make as a suggestion to the Town Board. It’s difficult to find volunteers for the Boards, as everybody knows, and if you already have somebody trained up, it’s a lot easier just to yank them out of the woodwork again and use them, and, you know, I’m sure someone would have to ask Joan if she wanted to come on as an alternate, but I don’t think it would be not in our interest to do that at this point in time, but I don’t know what you guys think about it. MR. GARRAND-She provided some valuable input on the Board. She added a different perspective to the Board, and, you know, I think it would behoove of the Town Board members to consider her as an alternate, since we do need another alternate. We are shorthanded quite a bit. MR. URRICO-I agree. We had a case recently where we only had six Board members present, and it does create a voting problem, not only does it lead to a possible deadlock, but the applicant has the option of electing a tabling, so extending the process a little bit longer for them. MR. UNDERWOOD-And sometimes it’s necessary that members recuse themselves for having some kind of relationships as far as monetary or businesswise, since everybody’s doing something in their job that creates. MR. URRICO-Everybody knows everybody in this Town. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, it’s not like everybody doesn’t know anybody in Town anyway, but I don’t know what your suggestion would be, if we should pursue that or send a request to the Town Board to consider it. MR. KUHL-It’s interesting you say that. I was thinking the same thing. When they didn’t renew her as a Board member, I was surprised they didn’t offer her as an alternate. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and because we weren’t there, I don’t know what the circumstances were. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2011) MR. OBORNE-Well, she certainly would have to submit that petition to the Board. Only she can do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And I feel fairly confident that the Board is aware that we are down an alternate. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I’ve been beating that drum on a daily basis. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. I think between Craig and Keith I think they’re aware. MR. OBORNE-Yes. So it’s all it is is the protocol for her to submit a letter. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll call her on the phone and see what she wants to do. MR. JACKOSKI-I think at this point there’s nothing the Board actually is, okay. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I think you ought to tell her we support her, though. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s it for me. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Do we have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, 2011, Introduced by Stephen Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, everyone. Good night. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 21