Loading...
2011.04.27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 27, 2011 INDEX Area Variance No. 7-2011 Robin Inwald 2. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Area Variance No. 45-2010 Inwald Enterprises/Robin Inwald 14. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Area Variance No. 20-2011 Susan Clermont 28. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-13 Area Variance No. 21-2011 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 42. Tax Map No. 302.08-2-4 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 27, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN RICHARD GARRAND JAMES UNDERWOOD BRIAN CLEMENTS JOYCE HUNT ROY URRICO MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Good evening, it’s seven o’clock, April 27, 2011. I’d like to call to order the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for this evening. We do have one minor modification to the agenda, and that is in the beginning here we would like to approve some minutes of our February meetings. I’d also like to briefly explain a bit of our process here. Each of tonight’s agenda items do, in fact, have a public hearing scheduled. During that public hearing we ask each person who would like to speak to come to the table, identify themselves, and of course address the Board. At that time, the Board, the information that we get from you is so that the Board can further act on that information with the applicant. We do request that you try to minimize your comments to five minutes, and I guess we should begin. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, if I could, if the Board is so willing to switch the Inwald applications to have the house looked at first, and then move to the deck? MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone on the Board that is concerned with doing that? MR. URRICO-Are you talking about the boathouse or the residence? MR. OBORNE-The residence. The residence first and then the boathouse. And the reason being is that’s how it was reviewed in the past. MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t hear any objections, so I’d say that’s just fine. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-So the first item of business, I’d like to have a motion to approve the February th 16 minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 16, 2011 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2011, Introduced by Steven Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE rd MR. JACKOSKI-Secondly, because I wasn’t at the February 23 meeting, I’m looking for a rd motion to approve the meeting minutes of February 23. February 23, 2011 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2011, Introduced by Steven Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Jackoski OLD 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 THE 863 SQ. FT. RENOVATION WITH 400 SQ. FT. 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 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; SPR 38-2008; BP 6589 YR. 1980; BP 6732; BP 6987; BP 89-059; BP 92-378 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 9, 2011 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13 STEFANIE BITTER & LEE HORNING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-2011, Robin Inwald, Meeting Date: April 27, 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 §179-3-040. 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. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) 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: 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 (please see attached). Planning Board recommendation distributed. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review needed” MR. URRICO-The Planning Board met last night and they adopted a motion that said based on their limited review they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was approved unanimously seven, zero. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MS. BITTER-Stefanie Bitter from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, together with Lee Horning, who is the contractor for the project. As Roy described, in 2009 Ms. Inwald received variances which would connect the existing cottage to the existing garage. Specifically that was for an 863 square foot addition, together with the addition of a 400 square foot screened in porch which was later constructed as a four season room. The first part of Mr. Horning’s construction, when he went to the site, was to actually lift the existing cottage off of the foundation to determine the stability of both the structure as well as the foundation. At that time, he determined that the foundation was crumbling, and parts that the walls were actually coming in inward. The floors of the structure were deteriorated and the exterior walls of the structure were two by fours as opposed to two by sixes. When he lifted that cottage off of the foundation, he actually placed it on another portion of the property, and that cottage remained there for about a year. When those discrepancies or those issues were discovered, he discussed them with the Building Department to discuss alternatives, how to proceed, because of these issues. At that time, with the discussions with the Building Department, he proceeded to construct a new structure on the exact same footprint, once he stabilized the foundation, which he has pictures of and I’ll let him go through the process of construction with you. The other issue that came up was on the southern portion of the structure, which is called the four season room now. They incorporated a wood burning fireplace and a hot tub, and had discussed with the Building Department putting a door at that southern side of the house, so that the individuals could, you know, bring in firewood and easily access that area as well as drain the hot tub in a very direct area of the house, which the door was discussed with the Building Department and incorporated, but with that door having an outswing, a platform had to be incorporated as well as three stairs down, and fortunately that was the area in which the setback was granted. So with the incorporation of that platform, they further encroached on that setback. To add an additional wrinkle to that area, when the original survey was submitted in 2008, the property line of that southern line was done in error, which that original submission demonstrated that there was a larger distance from the property line to the original footprint. So both with that, together with the addition of the platform brings us here this evening relative to that setback needing more relief. To go through the variance process that you’re required to do, we feel that the factors result in a benefit to the applicant, outweighing any detriment that can be deemed to exist with the community. Changes to the neighborhood with this project we feel are only positive. Nothing can be deemed as undesirable. There’s really no other feasible alternative, due to the fact that the home has been constructed. Although the Area Variance, numerically, may be considered substantial, the house was constructed on the existing footprint. It wasn’t deviated from that in the sense that we were working with the area that we had. We had discussions with the Building Department, 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) and the cottage remained on the site. We weren’t doing anything quickly to try and hide anything from the Town in any way, as well as the fact that there was a discrepancy with the original survey. No adverse impacts on the physical or environmental conditions since the applicant constructed a structure which is to the building codes, and that was necessary to be done. Although it may be deemed self-created, we had proceeded in good faith with Mr. Horning discussing elements of this project with the Building Department as we went along the way. Mr. Horning, if you want to show them the pictures and go through the project. MR. HORNING-I can also hand them to you. This shows the existing house, the house that we removed, and also the foundation. It shows also what we salvaged of the foundation, and then I have a couple of pictures of the house from the neighbor showing that we can barely see any of the house, one in May and one in this last January. MS. BITTER-And unfortunately, as my presentation demonstrated, this was really done by, this resulted in a misconception, that the discussions with the Building Department weren’t sufficient to make such changes, but unfortunately that was the understanding that we had. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Would any of the Board members like to address the applicant? MRS. HUNT-I have a question. No building permit was applied for building this new building, was there? MS. BITTER-Well, the building permit was issued relative to the project, and the Building Department was on site doing inspections as the project proceeded. So the Building Department, as has been represented in the past by Staff, is ready to issue a CO, but because of the variances that are necessary, Craig Brown won’t allow that to happen until all approvals are issued. MR. GARRAND-This is new construction. Why wasn’t it built in a compliant location? MS. BITTER-Because based on the conversations with the Building Department, I don’t want to speak for Mr. Horning, it was our understanding that we were proceeding accordingly. MR. HORNING-Upon starting construction, we found out that the members were undersized, they were spaced wrong, and it didn’t meet the proper Code. The floor system was bad, and we salvaged the house, in contemplation of re-using it, but then we found, you know, we found the foundation in deterioration also because of frost. So we salvaged about 50% of that foundation, and then we determined the house wasn’t worth putting back, but the house was put right on the same footprint. We used all the existing footings, and the foundation what we could. MR. GARRAND-You mentioned there’s a hot tub and a four season room. Was that originally designed as a screened in porch or a four season room? MS. BITTER-That’s correct. It was originally demonstrated as a screened in porch, and then during construction was assessed by the Building Department as converted to the four season room. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Are you allowed to dump chlorinated water in the soil up there? MS. BITTER-I’m not aware of that, no. I think, if I indicated drain, I must have meant that they would be able to utilize the water systems to actually fill the hot tub, do it as a necessary maintenance, but no. MR. JACKOSKI-But you could do that through a window. You wouldn’t need to do that through a door, right? MS. BITTER-Right, but because of the disabilities of these individuals, too, they’re limited in their capacity to reach certain areas, so the door provides accommodations to those disabilities. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So those stairs they can navigate? MS. BITTER-That’s my understanding, for purposes of, well, it’s not just Mrs. Inwald that lives there. MR. JACKOSKI-Could the new structure be lifted like the old structure? MR. HORNING-Could the new structure be lifted? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Like the old structure was. MR. HORNING-With difficulty. MR. JACKOSKI-But it could be done? MR. HORNING-I suppose. MR. JACKOSKI-I apologize, but we’re just seeing these particular pictures. Brian, do you have any questions down at your end? MR. CLEMENTS-Not right now. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I guess at this moment we’d like to open the public hearing, if we could. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this Board concerning this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. GARRAND-Keith, I don’t see anyone in the audience. Is there any written comment? MR. OBORNE-Roy has that, actually. MR. GARRAND-Sorry, I’m used to Keith having it. MR. URRICO-This is a re-submittal, this is a letter that was sent to you, Steve. Can I read your mail? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. 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 Water Keeper. The Lake George Water Keeper 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 Water Keeper 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 Water Keeper 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 Water Keeper 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 Water Keeper” MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, isn’t that for the other Area Variance? MR. URRICO-No, it says for Area Variance No. 7-2011. MR. JACKOSKI-That’s for. MR. OBORNE-It’s interrelating. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-They’re interrelated, and I think that’s what Chris’ intent was, to interrelate the two. I think that’s fair to say. I don’t want to speak for Chris, but I think that’s what his intent was. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think so, too, and then once we’re done with this, you go on to the next one, I think that that doesn’t need to be read into the record again. MR. JACKOSKI-Certainly, but I can certainly reference again. Is that good, Roy? Okay. So if the applicant would like to address, I assume there’s no other written public comment, is that correct? MR. URRICO-That’s it. MS. BITTER-We can address those comments, if the Chairman would like, during the next presentation, since a lot of those were directed toward the ramp. MR. JACKOSKI-I think, though, the patio and the rain gardens actually have a lot to do, also, with the existing entrances. I was there yesterday. The rain gardens were quite wet. There’s standing water in them, at least there was then. I think there’s a concern that the hedgerow the north, which borders the little creek, so to speak, that is running at this time of year, there looks like there’s some runoff and maybe some erosion there. So I think that might be some of the stuff the Water Keeper’s looking at. MS. BITTER-Okay. I’ll have Peter Loyola from CLA address those. PETER LOYOLA MR. LOYOLA-Well, just a point of clarification, I mean, we weren’t involved in this aspect of it, the construction of the rain garden or the patio, so I can’t really speak, necessarily, to, you know, what is actually occurring out there now. That was designed under Paradox Design. We came in for the ramp specifically, and to address, and we took on some of the stormwater that was related to the work that we were doing with the patio and the ramp system because there was some impervious surface that was being created. However, you know, as far as we saw from the plan, it looked like actually an appropriate design. We didn’t go in an analyze it by any means. It was kind of already approved, so really can’t make much of a comment based on what was previously designed and built by someone else. MS. BITTER-During site plan if we find that those concerns are still, you know, occurring, then we’d be willing to incorporate that in the site plan approval as well. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. URRICO-What about the additional buffering, though? MS. BITTER-The additional buffering with regards to the house? MR. URRICO-Well, he’s suggesting some additional trees and shrubbery. Considering that this is sort of a re-submittal and re-build, I think there’s something that we need back. I feel like we need something additional to make up for the additional setback. MS. BITTER-And I apologize. I’m more looking at it in terms of the ramp, and maybe I’m not looking at it as deep as he’s requesting. MR. JACKOSKI-But I think if you had come to us, if you ignored the ramp completely, and that didn’t exist, I think this Zoning Board would certainly be looking at all of these aspects of the house re-build, especially given that the house re-build, the house wasn’t centered in the lot, much more so than it is now. MS. BITTER-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-So I think that’s why we’re, again, looking at that, because we do have additional requests for relief. MS. BITTER-Absolutely. BILL SPRINGNETHER 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. SPRINGNETHER-Good evening. My name’s Bill Springnether with CLA site. Peter and I worked on the ramp design, and you’ll see, I don’t know if you want to get into it now and mix the two projects, but the buffering and the additional planting is all addressed in the ramp design project. MR. JACKOSKI-I can ask my fellow Board members what their thoughts are. My personal thought is that we should address some of the planting stuff now, although I have to say that can be a Planning Board issue. I think the Planning Board will address that. So I think I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And poll the Board. Roy? MR. URRICO-I sort of feel like that we’re not getting much in return here. I think there is definitely an aspect to this that we approve the project and then the project change, and you're back here, but I don’t see much compromise from what you're presenting. What I’m seeing is, this is what we did, we’re sorry about it, but this is the way we’re going to leave it, and I’m afraid without having some give and take here, you’re requesting 16.7 feet from the 20 foot setback. That’s a lot of relief. MS. BITTER-Right, and I have to apologize, because I think we’re looking at these from the applicant’s perspective as these separate applications when you’re absolutely correct that they’re intertwined to a certain extent, and that, if, in fact, the Planning Board feels that additional plantings and rain garden really additionally, with regards to more closer to the house, we haven’t really thought of relative to focusing more on the lake and the ramp aspect, have to be incorporated, the applicant will be willing to do that, during site plan review. We’ll definitely make those accommodations. MR. URRICO-Based on what I’m seeing now, I would come down on the negative side on this. MR. JACKOSKI-And I should mention to everyone here in the audience this evening, that because we are short one member, we could be in a de facto no situation with a three, three vote. So I just want to make you aware of that before we actually go to a vote. MS. BITTER-Right, and I’d just like to request that after polling, if I could have the opportunity to respond. MR. JACKOSKI-You will. MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-That’s not suggesting which way we’re going at all. I should have brought that up at the beginning of the meeting. MR. OBORNE-If I could interject to maybe calm down some fears of Mr. Urrico, why don’t you offer some buffering now, give and take on this. MS. BITTER-Right. The areas of concern that you have, Mr. Urrico, please identify. MR. URRICO-Well, it’s a lot of relief for what you’re asking for, and basically, you know, if you take everything away, if this were being brought to us brand new, we would never say yes to t this, because it’s a new build, so you’re still asking for 16.7 feet relief from 20 feet. That’s a lot. I would request it to be moved to a more compliant parcel, but given where it is, I think I want to see some give and take. I’m not seeing that. MS. BITTER-Right. I mean, if you’re looking for landscaping in the sense of the setback area that we’re encroaching on it, we could probably incorporate something there. There’s vegetation there that one of the pictures Mr. Horning provided to you, I don’t think you still have it, if you could find that, Lee, demonstrates that it’s not visible from the other side because of the mature vegetation that’s there, but if there’s something that should be provided, that surrounds this platform, we’d be willing to do that. MR. URRICO-I’m only one person here. So maybe other people disagree with me. MR. JACKOSKI-What would it do to the relief numbers if that platform and those stairs were not there, and that became a windowed area instead? MR. SPRINGNETHER-It would put it back to, I think, 6.9 feet. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. CLEMENTS-Wasn’t that the original variance? MS. BITTER-Seven, because of the discrepancy in the survey. MR. SPRINGNETHER-And the surveyor measured to the stone veneer. He didn’t measure the foundation. So that added another nine inches. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I make a suggestion? I think some of you will recall, I think that it was the Johnson project that was up by the restaurant on Assembly Point there, and we had a very similar situation. We had the same exact thing happen, and they put the stairs out the side there, and it was only one or two stairs, not three stairs down, and as a compromise position, we had vegetation placed between the steps and the waterfront, so you could not see those steps from the lake. Okay, and I think that that’s pretty much what we did there, and, you know, that would be my suggestion would be do something similar. MS. BITTER-We’d be willing to do that. MR. GARRAND-We could eliminate the stairs on that side all together. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, yes, and we, I think, hemmed and hawed on that one. I think that was, I don’t know if you were on the Board at that time or not, but, I mean, we had a big argument about that, too, and it was the same thing, the construction was done after the fact, and the same thing that we had a discrepancy with the sideline measurements and things like that, so it came in back to us and I think the Board was much more conservative than our Board is presently, but, you know, if you’re looking for something that would make a difference, you know, a couple of arborvitae out there, doing something on the waterfront side made a big difference in that respect to that project. So that’s just my suggestion. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I have to agree with Mr. Urrico. I don’t like these after the fact, and we gave a variance for a renovation and a porch and went for the whole new building, and as you said, you worked with the Building Department, but it was the Zoning Administrator that found that you hadn’t complied. So I would not be in favor, without some kind of compromise, as Mr. Urrico said. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I think I have to agree with both my Board members here, and I’m really quite upset about this, because I think that this could have been done very nicely moved to a compliant, or a more compliant place. So I’m going to be against it also. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you want me to continue, Stefanie? MS. BITTER-I don’t know if your minds would be changed with the suggestion of Mr. Underwood, in the sense that we would be willing to incorporate the arborvitae or vegetation which would protect the viewing of these stairs from the lake. MR. GARRAND-But you’re also, you’re going to have people that are going to be able to ingress and egress from that area, and odds are they’re going to be stepping on the neighbor’s property. That’s the whole reason for setbacks is so that you’re not encroaching on other people’s properties. MS. BITTER-I don’t have the survey in front of me. MRS. HUNT-That tree, is that on Inwald’s property or the other property? MR. LOYOLA-That’s on the Inwald property. MRS. HUNT-Just about in. MR. LOYOLA-Yes. MR. GARRAND-When I was up there last time, there was a lot of low brush along that side of the house, too, and that’s all gone, and when this application was before us previously, I think it was that adjoining property owner that had issues with that side of the house. I think anything we can do to mitigate, you know, their issues that they have there, because that brush is completely gone. I had to walk between, the first time I went up there, or the last time I went up 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) there, you know, I was brushing up against the brush going through there. Now, according to that picture, there’s no dense brush there anymore, and there’s a set of stairs that are even closer to their property. MR. LOYOLA-Well, just keep in mind that that is very heavily wooded. That’s a winter shot, and no vegetation was taken off on the actual property, so, I mean, and again, I’ve only been to the site a couple of times. I don’t think I saw it before the actual new construction, but I do know that in the summer that’s very dense and we got, I don’t think there was anyone, was there someone who spoke at the Planning Board meeting that said they had no problem with the visibility of it from the neighbor’s side. I mean, you can see how dense that is, and that hasn’t been touched. MR. SPRINGNETHER-That had to have been taken a couple of weeks ago, a week or two ago, and the brush does (lost words) you could not see through that. MR. OBORNE-Two weeks, two weeks ago. MR. GARRAND-I was up there in the summertime, it was dense. MS. BITTER-Right, and in this application the neighbor hadn’t, actually, that neighbor. I know you’re speaking of the last sun deck application where that neighbor had voice his concerns, but I don’t believe, I think it was the Evans, I’m not quite certain, but I don’t believe they submitted an objection to this proposal. MR. LOYOLA-Yes, and then as far as access, I think there’s at least a five foot pathway, you know, between the property line and the structure, and there’s a little bit of an angle to the building, so it widens out as it goes to the east. MR. GARRAND-The survey says 3.3 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-But then, I mean, if you’re heading to the back of the building, you’re into the generators, right? MR. LOYOLA-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So isn’t the most logical path toward the lake and around. MR. SPRINGNETHER-The generator is at the other end of the building. It’s at the east end. MR. JACKOSKI-That’s what we’re looking at right there. MR. SPRINGNETHER-No, that’s an air conditioner. MR. JACKOSKI-Air conditioner, sorry. Right. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Now the original plan showed a couple of steps out of this door, the original construction plan, and because I had more than two risers, I knew I had to put a platform there, according to Code, and I did ask the Zoning Department about it. I didn’t just jump the gun on this thing, and they gave permission to do it, of course I did not get it in writing. MR. CLEMENTS-I don’t have any in this floor plan. MR. JACKOSKI-I think the door, wasn’t it supposed to be a screened in porch without a door? MR. SPRINGNETHER-My construction plans show a door there. I think those are just the proposed plans. MR. OBORNE-What was presented back in ’08 was a three season porch, so no entrance, except from the interior of the house. MR. JACKOSKI-I’m certainly open to suggestions from the applicant. MR. LOYOLA-Well, I’m thinking, in terms of compromise, I mean, what, you know, we have, in my mind, what, two alternatives here, buffer planting, and/or removal of the door, and the platform. I mean, those are the two alternatives, correct? MS. BITTER-Right. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, and I think there’s also on the table, I mean, we haven’t polled all the Board members yet to see if there’s any other suggestions from us. So maybe we could do that first. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, that’s fine. Rick? MR. GARRAND-With the current status of the porch on that side, you know, that wasn’t, the last proposal I saw didn’t have that on there, and that’s a lot of the relief right there. Without it would bring it more in line with what we previously approved. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I see the only alternatives, as to either being removal of the porch and door and that access on the side to bring it more into compliance, because then I think we’d only be giving a foot of relief. Barring the fact that it was built too close to the line, that it’s brand new construction, everybody realizes that we would place that structure in a brand new location from where it was, and I think it wasn’t done properly, regardless of whether the Building Department signed off on it or not. You guys know that by now. I mean, I don’t think it’s anything that you haven’t dealt with previously. I think that there’s other alternatives. Roy made the suggestion of vegetation, and I don’t think the vegetation even has to do with what you’ve done with this on the side there, too. Maybe there’s some vegetation that could be put in front of that structure to shield it from the lake more also, and I think that’s a consideration that we have to make at this time, too, because I think that, you know, had we replaced the structure completely and centered it on the property, probably the Planning Board would have dialed that in and put some vegetation in front of it, too, because we don’t need to see clear cut straight out to the waterfront, you know, and I think that that’s something that maybe we did in the past but we don’t do it now in the future and in the present time. So I think there’s a need on your part to maybe go back and think about a proposal with some vegetation in front and the possible removal of that, and then come back to the Board, because, as it now stands, it doesn’t look like you’re going to get approval, and I don’t know what the Board’s, the rest of the Board members feel like on that, and I don’t know what the Chairman thinks. MR. SPRINGNETHER-What about a landscape (lost words). MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m concerned, you know, we’re very lenient and understanding, and I think when we granted you the initial relief there, I think we did it in mind with protecting the structure as it existed, you know, and most of what’s been done there, but the modifications that have occurred in the building plans since that time, to me, suggests that maybe that was the intent to begin with, and, you know, to tell me that you didn’t know that it was two by four construction, to pull it off site and things like that, I mean, I’ve worked on plenty of projects up on Lake George, too, and other people’s building projects, and everybody knows what the possibilities might be, but there should have been a big stop sign put up at that point in time, and I think that you could have come back and we probably would have suggested it. You could have built the thing compliantly, and everybody would have been happy with it. So, I mean, it’s not our fault. That’s it for me. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MS. BITTER-I think if the Board’s willing, I know that obviously this is an old permanent structure, permanent residence, and she doesn’t have a CO and can’t utilize it. I can definitely contact her to see if she’s willing to remove that platform, if that’s something that’s the Board would be more inclined to approve, and obviously at the Planning Board level talk about additional vegetation and plantings during the site plan review of this application, as opposed to tabling it to a further date. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think that we would need to sign off on the vegetation, too, because I think that’s part of our purview to, you know, expect something. MS. BITTER-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I’ll weigh in now. My thoughts are that we probably would never have given that much relief to the old structure. I think that’s fair to say by everyone. We would have wanted to, what’s frustrating to me is that the house could have been picked up and moved, all the more reason to have centered it on the lot. If it could have been picked up to be moved and renovated, then we could have centered it on the lot, or we could have made it more compliant. So knowing that, it’s just a bit more frustrating for me. So I would prefer to have the applicant suggest that they will remove that deck and doorway, but I’m okay with allowing the Planning Board to establish the site plan requirements, and not doing it at this meeting. Does anyone else want to comment? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. URRICO-If we remove the deck, then what are we left with as far as side setback relief? MR. OBORNE-Well, less, obviously. MS. BITTER-I think it’s a 1.3 discrepancy. MR. OBORNE-Less than what they’re asking for now. MR. JACKOSKI-And I can understand the one foot being a surveying/, do you measure to the drip line, do you measure to the foundation, do you measure to the siding? I mean, we have all gone through that in the past. MR. SPRINGNETHER-This was actually, the property line was actually drawn by hand, and it was kind of drawn inaccurately. So it was scaled off of the drawing, rather than out in the field, and that’s where the discrepancy was. MR. JACKOSKI-Was that certified by a land survey? MR. LOYOLA-The original survey was done by Don Darrah, and it was certified. The site plan that was submitted by the architect was hand drafted, and he traced the survey. MR. SPRINGNETHER-And when he traced it, his line actually was a little bit more of an arch to it, rather than a straight line, and he measured to the arch as opposed to the straight line. We did an overlay when we took over the project, and it was pretty clear that it was just a hand drawn error. MRS. HUNT-How wide is that platform? MR. LOYOLA-It’s three foot six. MRS. HUNT-Three foot six. So you’d need 13.1 feet of relief. MR. JACKOSKI-Let’s make sure we get this correct. The stone on the front there actually projects into that three foot six. So are we requesting the right amount of relief from the lot line? I just want to make sure we understand where our final numbers are. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Our surveyor went to that stone. MR. JACKOSKI-To the stone, correct? So we can’t necessarily subtract the full three foot six. MR. URRICO-Keith, do you want to weigh in on the numbers? MR. OBORNE-Well, what is the Board looking to do? MS. BITTER-7.9, the Charlie Johnson survey is 7.9 from the addition. MR. URRICO-Well, I’m willing to consider going, proposing a motion to pass this tonight, if we are taking the, that platform out, and remove that, and let the vegetation become part of the site plan for the Planning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-That would require the door to also be removed from the structure. MR. URRICO-The door and the platform. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. There’s no way to have a door that high, and I understand your thought of doing it with landscaping, but then in my opinion, based on what I can see there are limited, you’re going to end up with some retaining walls. MS. BITTER-Yes. I’m not sure that that lessens the relief. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, landscaping doesn’t require calculation into the variance relief, correct? MR. OBORNE-No, it does not. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we’ve heard from Roy. MS. BITTER-I mean, that way we wouldn’t have to change the structure in the sense of removing the door. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. SPRINGNETHER-Correct. You just take those steps out, and somehow assign a landscape set of stairs there, or a ramp or something. MR. JACKOSKI-But again that’s Planning Board and that’s site plan review, and that, I don’t want you to be into a position where you might not be able to make that work. MS. BITTER-What we could do, I guess, is, and if, in fact, the Building Department would sign off on that, would that be something that they would find compliant? I guess that would be a question as well. MR. SPRINGNETHER-They do not really have any governing say over landscaping. MS. BITTER-Okay, but because of the door, that would be my concern. MR. OBORNE-The door would have to be removed, I would imagine. MS. BITTER-Because the outward swing requires the platform. MR. OBORNE-As a result of that door, you need that three foot platform. MS. BITTER-Right. That’s the way I understood it. MR. JACKOSKI-How close were you on your energy calculations for windows and what not? MR. LOYOLA-I don’t recall. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, could you get into a situation where all of a sudden that would start to trigger something? That’s a glass, is that a glass door? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I just didn’t know if you maximized your available glass. MR. SPRINGNETHER-I couldn’t answer that. We don’t need a platform there, if you’re talking going to grade. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, then that’s bringing in fill. MS. BITTER-Right, and that would have to be dealt with at the site plan level. MR. URRICO-Sounds like you guys need to reconfigure what you want to do. I mean, as much as I’d like to get this off the docket, I think there’s too much, too many compromises and too many different aspects to this that you have to consider. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think it would have to be re-submitted to the Zoning Administrator, too, to see if it meets must with disturbance in that setback, too, whatever you're going to build. MR. GARRAND-I agree with you. You shouldn’t build anything if you’re taking the door off. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. I think the best alternative is take the door off. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. I think that if you take the door out and go back, I mean, I assume you have enough exits, take the door out and get your CO. Because if they do re-submit, it would be th May 15 for the June meeting, and your into your summer. MR. URRICO-If they take the door out, does it go back for a variance? MR. JACKOSKI-You’d still have some relief. MR. URRICO-Okay. MS. BITTER-I’m sorry, what was that question? MR. URRICO-I was saying if you took the door out whether it reverts back to the old variance. MS. BITTER-No. Right. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. OBORNE-So my number that I come up with is three foot six inches is what the width of that is? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-In that location. So as far as what the surveyor says to the stone, it doesn’t matter, because it’s to this location. There’s no stone involved in that location. I see 13.1, as opposed to 13.7, if that is a six inch veneer of stone. I don’t know what the ledge is on the stone. It’s where the location is of that. MR. JACKOSKI-The nice thing about this is we’ve got some nice rain gardens. They look like they’re working. I mean, they certainly, of course there’s no vegetation that’s sprouted out yet, but we’ll see. MS. BITTER-It seems to me, and I don’t want to be talking out of turn, that if, in fact, we’re willing to remove this platform, these stairs, as well as the door, and replace it with a window, you know, so that the door doesn’t provide, there’s no door providing ingress or egress, that the Zoning Board would be more on board with seeing this variance be granted, with the understanding that obviously during site plan review, we would incorporate additional plantings to protect the house, and if that’s the case, I can honestly make a quick phone call to the client, because I know that she would probably much rather move forward with an approval tonight, as opposed to waiting until June, since the doesn’t have, obviously, a CO on the home. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I would get what you can get. MS. BITTER-Okay. I just want to make sure. MR. JACKOSKI-I’ll be glad to give them an opportunity. MR. OBORNE-6.5 is the closest. So you would, the stairs, the way that house goes, if you look on your survey, it’s kind of (lost word) so you would go to the stone, and you would provide that relief at 13.5. MR. JACKOSKI-And what was the original relief? MR. OBORNE-Seven and change, I believe. MR. JACKOSKI-So six more feet. MR. OBORNE-No, no, the setback was seven feet. So relief is 13. MR. JACKOSKI-So what do we need for relief now? MR. OBORNE-13.5, or 13 and a half feet, is what it is. These are in tenths. MR. JACKOSKI-I apologize. MR. URRICO-There’s still going to be a significant, it’ll be about 72%. MR. OBORNE-It’s 13.5. So we’re (lost word) 67.5. MRS. HUNT-That’s pretty good, considering it was 83 before, 67. MS. BITTER-Yes, she said that she’s willing to remove that platform and replace the door with a window. MR. JACKOSKI-So I’ll poll the Board again. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I would still be opposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I would be in favor. MR. URRICO-I would be okay with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I would be okay with it. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be okay with it as long as the Planning Board puts more vegetation in front to shield it from the lake. MR. JACKOSKI-And I would be in favor of the applicant’s suggested correction as well. MR. OBORNE-A reasonable approach is to require that vegetation now. That’s a reasonable request. MR. JACKOSKI-I personally am okay letting the Planning Board decide that. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. MR. JACKOSKI-Would Roy like to make a motion? MR. URRICO-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2011 ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 38 Gunn Lane, Cleverdale. We are granting side setback relief of 13 and a half feet from the 20 foot side setback requirement as per 179-3-040, and also we’re approving expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA requiring the approval of this Board. In making a determination, we’re going to consider that there are minor impacts to the neighborhood that may be anticipated. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved through some method feasible for the applicant to pursue at this point. With the structure completed, there doesn’t look like there’s any feasible alternatives. They’re very limited and I think we’ve done what we can. The requested Area Variance is substantial. We’re talking about 67.5% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement of the WR zone as per 179-3-040, and we see only minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and definitely the difficulty is considered self-created. We’re asking that the applicant, in approving this motion, remove the door, which seems to be the crux of the problem, and replace it with whatever they want, but you suggested a window, and in doing so will also take out the platform all together, and strongly suggest that the Planning Board consider some vegetation in front of that area also to shield it further. I move that we approve this motion. th Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Clements ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II 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 AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE GREATER THAN 100 SQ. FT. (ACCESS RAMP) WITHIN SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACKS. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION CROSS REF.: AV 68-2008; SP 39- 2010; AV 26-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 MARCH 9, 2011 NO CTY IMPACT ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION: 179-5-060A7 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2010, Inwald Enterprises/Robin Inwald, Meeting Date: April 27, 2011 “Project Location: 38 Gunn Lane, Cleverdale 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 697 sq. ft. boathouse location. The applicant 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) 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 side setback 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 side setback 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 as per §179-3-040 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 to moderate impacts may be anticipated as an earthen ramp with catwalk would be unique to the neighborhood. 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 to include a handicap lift and 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 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: 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) 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 distributed. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review needed” MR. URRICO-The Planning Board did meet and they made a recommendation to re-submit the information package of the Inwald deck, specifically Site Plan No. 39-2010, and Area Variance th No. 45-2010, to the County Planning Board for their review, and that was done on February 15 th and I believe the County did meet on March 9, and they said there was No County Impact. Their recommendation was No County Impact, and they recommend No County Impact. That’s it, and then the Queensbury Planning Board met again, and this time they identified the following areas of concern. The plan is presented as a permanent structure and some Board members are concerned with this. There was discussion of a special use type of approval with finite approval time or perhaps an expiration date for the handicap access, and this was approved unanimously as well. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Roy. Thank you. Good evening. MS. BITTER-Stefanie Bitter, for the record, together with William Springnether and Peter Loyola from CLA Site. As was described, and as some of you may remember, we were before you last June seeking the variances necessary for the sundeck with the supporting ramp, which would be constructed over the existing docks. Unfortunately the picture’s not up. At that time, it was our understanding that only the sundeck required relief. That relief was obtained, and then later Craig Brown issued a determination that the ramp also needed further variances and relief. Ms. Inwald requires this ramp due to the disabilities that she has that restricts here mobility and has rendered her handicap. She has severe osteoporosis, disk deterioration in her neck and her back, and fractured vertebra. She has no expectation of change. If anything it’s going to get worse as she gets older. The ramp that was being proposed had an opportunity to be reviewed by both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board last summer, at which time CLA Site was retained to do whatever was necessary to try and lessen the visibility of that ramp, since that concern was presented by both Boards. Since that time, they’ve decreased the size of the ramp from 58 feet to 50 feet. They’ve incorporated ideas of putting on glass panels on the railings or cable wires to, again, limit the visibility. They’ve also presented plantings that would protect the visibility of that, and we’ve also talked about the alternative of a lift. The pictures of that lift demonstrate that it would be a very industrial looking structure, which our opinion is that that wouldn’t be the best alternative, due to the fact that it wouldn’t be as visibly attractive in that area and wouldn’t really fit with the other wooden structures that are present on the lake. From Staff’s comments and the Planning Board’s discussions, we’ve also agreed to doing such things as incorporating pavers in the project as well as adding additional plantings to protect it even further. Again, when you’re reviewing the factors necessary for granting the variance, we feel that this weighs in favor of the applicant. The first, should this be considered an undesirable change? We’ve, again, incorporated a design to try and protect it and limit the visibility of the ramp as much as possible, not to mention, I don’t know if Keith still has the pictures, but they were presented in your packet. There are similar type structures in the area. There’s a deck just immediately south of our property that has a ramp that accesses it. Also would the benefit be achieved by some other method, the lift concept was examined and we feel wasn’t an alternative that would be best in this situation. The relief, again, may be numerically considered to be high, but the results, that this is considered an accessory structure as opposed to attached to the sun deck has really put us in this position, that that number is so high. Again, it’s similar to other structures, and the owner needs the ramp in order to enjoy the shoreline. We don’t believe there’s going to be adverse effects. Again, we’re doing whatever we can to be as least intrusive as possible, and it should not be considered self-created because unfortunately the condition of the applicant requires a ramp and whatever ramp is proposed needs relief from this Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MS. BITTER-You’re welcome. MR. JACKOSKI-Would the Board members like to ask the applicant any questions? MR. GARRAND-Question for Staff. They mentioned that there’s another ramp similar to this up there also. MR. OBORNE-There are multiple ramps on the lake in Queensbury. It’s not uncommon. MR. GARRAND-I think what you have are lifts, handicap lifts and things like that. MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure if there are any on the lake, to be honest with you, but there may be. WILLIAM SPRINGNETHER MR. SPRINGNETHER-Our research indicates there was one handicap lift on the lake. MR. UNDERWOOD-It probably pre-dates. MR. JACKOSKI-A lift structure wouldn’t be able to be shielded, somewhat, with wood in order to create a more wood like appearance if that’s the concern? PETER LOYOLA MR. LOYOLA-Yes, I mean, just the position of the lift itself, when we were taking a look at it, first of all, it’s very opaque. I mean, there’s no transparency whatsoever from the bottom of the boathouse to the top of the boathouse. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes. You end up, if you put in a lift, this being the boathouse here, if you have a lift structure at the end of a long ramp, you’re going to end up blocking the entire view of the property from the lake with a combination of a lift and a stairway. We need to have the redundancy (lost words). So between those two situations, I think you’re really going to block the view as much or more than the current proposal. Additionally, the whole intent of the project was to make this handicap accessible according to ADA Code. To do that we’d need to have 152 foot ramp traversing the property. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you mean ramp or walking path? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Ramp. MR. JACKOSKI-Ramp, as in concrete or wood? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Well, ramp as in greater than an five percent slope. In this case it would be an eight percent slope with handrails in order to meet the ADA Code, that’s the most gentle slope that you could get. So you would have a large ramp. MR. URRICO-So it would have to be serpentine in order to accommodate the gradual assention? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes. If it went straight down it would be like 15%. MR. JACKOSKI-It needs handrails because it’s elevated up off the ground? MR. SPRINGNETHER-It needs handrails because it exceeds five percent slope. So it needs handrails because it would exceed a five percent slope. By ADA Code, any ramp, the definition of a ramp is a walkway that exceeds five percent slope. Any walkway that exceeds five percent slope for more than six feet, so that excludes curb ramps, needs handrails. MR. JACKOSKI-But is the elevation change a result of the fact that during the entire site plan setting of the rain gardens and everything else, we could have gained back some of that slope if we didn’t have such a steep incline forward of the house or toward the lake? MR. SPRINGNETHER-I don’t believe so, because the grade of this elevation here is essentially the same as it was prior to construction. MR. JACKOSKI-And you couldn’t traverse the grades? You couldn’t have this ramp go. To avoid the handrails. MR. SPRINGNETHER-For the alternative proposal? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. Bringing in fill. MR. SPRINGNETHER-To traverse this back and forth to avoid the handrails, you’d have to bring it to below a five percent grade. MR. JACKOSKI-We couldn’t utilize an entrance to that serpentine structure, so to speak, more toward the north lot line and start it there instead, to help minimize the slope? MR. SPRINGNETHER-It’s the same, elevationally, vertically, it’s the same starting point, whether it’s here or here. MR. JACKOSKI-So you can’t go from your index finger to the first “U”, so to speak, that one. You couldn’t traverse the hill, you can come to that bottom, right there, I’m saying start from the top. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Start from up here. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and then traverse all the way across, right, because that’s pretty much flat there, isn’t it? If you traverse those gradations? MR. SPRINGNETHER-But the grade from here to here is, we have to get from here to here, and that’s where we have to traverse, so, you know, the serpentine has to make up grade as we’re coming down through to get to what we had a finished floor elevation of 321. We have a top of slope, it was a three. MR. LOYOLA-It’s almost 332. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Right. So we have 12 to 14% grade that we have to make up from this point down to this point, and it’s the same grade all the way through here, without making this all ramp, you know, going all the way down, to build a structure and a lift up to the sun deck, I mean, feasibly it would just look like a lot of construction for, you know, what we felt was a short run, an extension of some landscaping and, you know, bringing out the grade would be a nice balance of landscape and earth and structure. I mean we tried to do as much as we could to shorten up the amount of structure that we had here, without encroaching too much on that shoreline. So, you know, this whole design was just in an effort to, again, balance out landscape and structure. MR. JACKOSKI-What does it look like for the neighbor to the north would be looking south toward the lake, no, neighbor to the north looking south, and I know you’ve got all that vegetation on your plan, but if you’re really up there you can see, it’s quite transparent. Aren’t they going to be looking at a big ramp, especially six months of the year when there’s no foliage. MR. SPRINGNETHER-They’re actually set back. MR. JACKOSKI-From their property, I understand from their home, but from their property itself. MR. SPRINGNETHER-From their property potentially they could see it. MR. JACKOSKI-Potentially? MR. SPRINGNETHER-There is a significant grade change already, rising up between this location and this location. You’re going up about four feet in grade. So they’re higher up over here already, and it would be visible to them, that is true. However, there is a lot of mature vegetation along here, and in the summertime, it’s dense. MS. BITTER-I want to just show you a picture. The structure that they have on this, they have this little cabana I refer to on top of their sundeck that they utilize in the summertime, and then this is the vegetation that exists. MRS. HUNT-I have a question. How would the applicant feel about the suggestion made by the Planning Board that maybe when the property was sold that that ramp be taken out? MS. BITTER-I mean, that was something that we discussed last night with the Planning Board, and what I had mentioned is that we’d definitely be willing to discuss it. I think there’s just concerns that we should also consider, and even talked to Staff about this, is it would be difficult to enforce. We could incorporate a deed restriction or something of that nature, but if in the event, you know, the Inwalds lived there for the next 60 years and it didn’t change hands, and there was no deed to bring it to their attention, I guess it would be difficult to change. The other 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) concern I have is the work that’s going to be done to construct this ramp, would obviously be an investment, but yet the work to remove it would be more impacts to the site that might be more of a deterrent as well. MR. OBORNE-And I would have to chime in, if I could, that that would be very difficult to monitor, to be honest with you. MR. JACKOSKI-How is this client going to get to their boat? If they meet all of this serpentine, how do they get to their boat? MR. SPRINGNETHER-They don’t, and I’ve asked this question. She won’t be able to just because of her disability, but she wants to be able to, any part of her family that does recreate and use the boat, she wants to be able to go out to the deck and just enjoy at least being out on the deck and partaking in a little bit of way with the folks that are boating. So it’s just creating accessibility for her to the waterfront, and to the structure. It’s as simple as that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why couldn’t you just have a feasible alternative of using the patio that you portray there as the closeness to the shoreline? I mean, it’s the same idea. You could just build something at ground level out there that’s handicap accessible. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Where, are you talking about down here? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. SPRINGNETHER-We’re impacting shoreline. This is at a really low elevation. MR. LOYOLA-And again, to get a handicap accessible ramp down there. MR. SPRINGNETHER-We’d have to go to 120 feet of ramp, and then railing and, you know, we have to traverse 12 to 15 feet in grade. Yes. I will admit that this is a tough one in terms of, you know, the design aesthetic. We were looking at compatibility in the context of the surrounding area, and quite frankly, I mean, there are some God awful structures that are on boathouse decks, and that was one of the things that we were looking at, well, what’s the most visible piece of this. Is it the flooring itself, the ramp itself? Not really, it’s the actual railings that actually create the opacity. So when we were at the Planning Board, they were talking about, well, let’s make this all glass and what’s the railings going to look like and can we create some transparency in the railing piece, because I mean the landscaping, and we feel we’ve done as much as we possibly could do with the slope. We didn’t want to fill too much out to the shoreline because then we get into some of the shoreline restrictions, and, you know, impacts to the actual shoreline itself, and so, you know, we wanted to bring the landscape out as much as we possibly can and then shorten that railing and then provide a detail for the railing piece. The ramp is not going to be that visible. It’s the railing piece that I think is what we needed to focus on, and I, personally, didn’t like the whole idea of the glass, but that was a suggestion that was made by the Planning Board at the time. We took it to the County, and the County had a huge issue with reflective surfaces, you know, what happens when the sun is hitting those surfaces, how do you actually mitigate that. That reflective surface could have actually more of an impact. So we’re willing to entertain, you know, whatever design features the Planning Board and this Board is willing to entertain, but we feel that a cabling system would be the most transparent railing system with the strength, and that, to me, makes the most sense. You have the framework of a rail, but all the spindles and all the pieces that actually create, you know, the visual clutter that you see in the context of the whole entire site, or in the surrounding area, it’ll help mitigate that, and that’s what we were looking for. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim, maybe you can help me. Isn’t a laddering effect of cabling against New York State Building Code when it comes to children being able to walk up? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. LOYOLA-That’s correct, and that image, that’s an image from the manufacturer, they also make them as vertical pickets, and we would specify vertical pickets for that very reason. They didn’t have an image of that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the other, you know, even more pertinent to this is the County, us, the Planning Board, you know, those are, anything that we approve is still going to get reviewed by the APA, and I think that the major hurdle you guys have is the fact that the last time that we considered this proposal, the Board carefully considered, we approved the boathouse, but we had real concerns about the ramp, and, you know, the APA sent us a letter afterwards, you know, dialing it in and saying, and I’ll just read to you. It says, it is noted that the ZBA did not grant a variance for the 60 foot long ramp and recommended in its approval that an alternative 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) be found. The Agency shares the ZBA’s concern over the proposed ramp which is an accessory structure greater than 100 square feet that would require a variance from the shoreline setbacks, and I don’t know of any instance, and you can correct me if you know of one, where the APA has approved one of these things, you know, within the Adirondack Park. So you’re asking us to do that. We could approve it based upon our judgment tonight, but that’s not saying that the APA’s not going to say no, and, you know, I realize what you guys are trying to do, trying to do it in the least intrusive way that you can, but all I’m saying is, is that for us, you know, we have to consider that they may say no, and then you’re out of luck. MR. URRICO-Could I ask what the handicap device would be used to access this area? Will it be a motorized wheelchair, will it be a golf cart, will it be? MS. BITTER-I think it would be a wheelchair. MR. JACKOSKI-But doesn’t the APA have restrictions on how much of a straight run you can have with a ramp like that? If she passes out in a wheelchair, she’s going to go flying down that ramp? MR. SPRINGNETHER-No, this section of ramp, is not a ramp. That’s flat, well not flat, but it doesn’t exceed five percent slope, 4.75, and then this section is a ramp, and by ADA Code, every 30 inches of rise or 30 feet of length, you need to have a five foot landing, and that’s incorporated into the design. MR. JACKOSKI-Fifty something feet, so there should be two landings? MR. LOYOLA-One landing, two runs. MR. OBORNE-And it’s less than 60 feet. MR. LOYOLA-Yes. The ramp itself is absolutely Code compliant to New York State Building Code. Again, I mean, your point with the APA, again, I think because of the hardship of the handicap accessibility piece, and us trying to balance the landscape, I think we’re willing to take our chances on it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, all I’m saying is, you know, if we do this, you know, we all age. We all get debilitated as time goes by, you know, regardless of who we are, and I understand your individual case here, but, you know, anybody could come in and say I have a relative who has, you know, a handicap permit on their car, they can’t access this. I mean, we could be looking at a zillion of these things, and I think that’s probably why the APA is a little bit concerned with it. It’s not that they’re not considering the debilitation of the applicants, but at the same time, you know, my suggestion would be that, you know, you could have the ramp and then have the access thing go up to go over there. You’re still going to be in a land bridge situation at that point, set back so you couldn’t see it from the shoreline or something to that effect, but I don’t know if we can really do it, you know, and you’re asking us to do. I mean, we could, but. MS. BITTER-Right, and like you said, it’s going to be on a case by case basis, because the way Craig determined it, anything that’s considered a ramp is considered an accessory structure. So it’s already within the 50 foot setback of the shoreline. So anybody requesting a ramp is going to be before this Board, so that safeguards and, you know, buffers and visibility is going to be reviewed each time to make sure that that’s been addressed, and that’s why we’ve presented this is in such a way that we’ve tried to protect it as much as possible, because of the need of the applicant. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there an opportunity to utilize a combination of a ramp and a lift? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Again, the lift was just not deemed feasible, just, again, because of the bulkiness of it, the footings that had to be created with it, and it’s a very, very heavy structure. It’s mechanical. I mean, just the logistics of it just didn’t make sense. MR. LOYOLA-You’d be dealing with construction in the water, significant construction with concrete footings poured (lost word) again, because of the lift, I mean, we would have to start at the bottom of the boathouse. We, again, would have to traverse this whole, you know, just to get down to it. So what we’re doing is we’re creating a ramp down to the boathouse, or down to the (lost word) and then lift up to the top of the boathouse. So it just, to me it made a lot of sense, and when you take a look at this picture here, this is another key point that we were looking at here. Just the cove itself, I can understand if this were a peninsula, if we were actually extending this ramp out into the water, but, you know, we have this cove here, and there’s a lot of cove and there’s a lot of land that’s actually in and around here. So this is really nestled into the lake as opposed to, you know, protruding out into the lake, and that’s what we 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) looked at, you know, visually. When you take a look at the shoreline itself, you have so much visual clutter that’s in front of this cove and this landing that, you know, visually and aesthetically, there’s no impact, and that’s what it really comes down to is more of an aesthetic thing. It’s going to disappear into the landscape, 200% more than anything that you see out on the water’s edge and in addition to the boathouse. This is behind all of that, so, you know, again, I’m of the mind that if we’re going to design something, we certainly don’t want to add to the visual clutter. If this were in a very prominent location out on the peninsula, I think that the argument, we probably would have told Robin that there’s no way this is going to get approved, but because of the positioning of it, and juxtaposition of it within the landscape, and the fact that we’re just bringing some land out, some of the ramps that are there are, I think, twice as long, and they have much more of a bridge effect. By mitigating with a planting on the bottom of the shoreline, which the plan, I think we’re going to completely hide it. There’s a ravine here with a lot of existing plant material. If we can, you know, and we’re willing to, I think Chris Navitsky wrote his letter, we just saw this last night, all the comments that he’s mentioned are very attainable. I had no issue with any of the comments that Chris had. I mean, we’ve worked with Chris on many projects along with the lake, with the exception of just the slope. He actually wanted us to increase the slope and the steepness of the slope, so that we would minimize the footprint of the landscaped area and the landing, and I kind of disagree with him in that regard, because I think, you know, we want to create kind of an accessible slope down, and we can certainly mitigate it with planting. So that was what we were looking at and what we were charged with. MR. SPRINGNETHER-And also if we were to go that route to create steeper slopes, that would reduce the overall build footprint, then you're going to also have a sharper structure, sharper landscaped feature that will be more visible, whereas if smooth grade it with more gentle slopes it’s easier to hide it. MR. LOYOLA-Yes, it’s eventually going to look like part of the landscape. So, I mean, we didn’t want something that was just abrupt and an abutment. We’re constricted on this side, because there’s a little bit of a ravine here, but as Bill mentioned, the grade comes up at least four feet on the other side. So, again, it kind of buries this whole, our whole landscape piece is actually the, where the ramp starts is actually four feet lower than the grade here. So, again when we’re looking at it from all different angles, from a visual standpoint, the biggest piece that I, job that we had, I think, was to design it with, you know, with the least obtrusive railings as we possibly could, and that’s what we were charged with. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, is there any way this is going to get reviewed by the APA until we do something with it, or is it just, I mean, it’s not something they could just go and ask because, you know, I really feel like, before we do something like this, we should really consider the long term effect, because, you know, if this is just the first one, you know. MR. OBORNE-There are multiple ramps on the lake. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we realize that, and, you know, a lot of them are ugly as sin, and this one looks 900% better than anything else that’s ever been done, but, nonetheless, if the APA is going to, you know, not follow through and allow it. MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, obviously the applicant has to apply and they’ll be reviewed, the Lake George Park Commission. MR. LOYOLA-And we are going to need a permit, obviously, and I’ve been doing this a long time. It’s always this cat and mouse game. We go to the APA, do the locals approve it, and the locals say will APA approve it, and it’s always this cat and mouse game. So, you know, we’re pushing this forward and we’re moving this forward hoping that you can come to some consensus and give us an approval so that we can take it to the next step. MR. OBORNE-Peter is correct in that. I can guarantee you that is what the comment will be from APA, let the locals take care of it. MR. LOYOLA-Yes. So if we can come to terms with, you know, the actually, the aesthetic of it and, you know, the form that it’s going to take and, you know, design it as best we possibly can with the additional plantings, we’ll take into consideration, like I said, everything that Chris has mentioned here. He talks about stormwater a lot here, and we have, we’ve designed this, we took the comments from the last time the Planning Board to heart with impervious pavement and we’re now going to do, it was originally going to be built on concrete, you know, unit paver on mortar, but we’ll do that on sand. We’ll spread those out and make them pervious. So we did have a French Drain that was designed into this. Quite frankly, there’s just not a lot of impervious surface in this whole design, and we’ve mitigated 100% of it. We originally, we started out with a French Drain that didn’t even need an outlet. It’s just because there’s so 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) minimal storage that’s required from the pervious piece of it, but we can clearly mitigate the stormwater and any of the concerns that Chris has. I mean, we’ve worked with Chris in the past. MR. OBORNE-If I could add one thing, as far as a steeper slope, that’s a non-starter with Staff, I’ll tell you that right now, I mean, and that’s just basically from an erosion and sediment perspective. It’s just, that doesn’t work. MRS. HUNT-That’s your final plan, then. MR. LOYOLA-Well, with the exception of, I don’t think we have the cabling system and the railing. MR. SPRINGNETHER-I included that today. MR. LOYOLA-You haven’t seen that. So the only change would be that we’re going to go with this cabling system for the railing as opposed to, you know, this glass, plexi glass type of rail system. I mean, I wasn’t all for that at all. MR. URRICO-Let me ask you a question about that. If you’re going to put in enough plantings, would the reflection of sunlight on the glass be a factor at all? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes, because you have glass out here. MR. LOYOLA-Right, because, yes, the railing would get extended and then we have railing all the way around the boathouse, and again, as I say, what we’re trying to do is create, that’s the most visible piece on the boathouse and the sundeck, and I think, you know, hopefully set some precedent for any other applications that come through because it’s a really nice system, and the technology’s come a long way. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is it no glare glass so it doesn’t? MR. LOYOLA-Well, yes, that glass, the glass products that are out there, they’re going to glare, you know, at whatever angle, they are going to, and they have a tendency to get, you know, dirty over time, and, you know, the ultraviolet rays have a tendency to just cloud up the glass. You’ve seen this on, you know, technology’s come a long way, but it’s still not quite there yet. UV protection is the big one. MR. URRICO-On the cabling system, getting back, is it safe? If she has kids over, would it be safe? MR. LOYOLA-Absolutely. We’ll meet New York State Building Code. MR. SPRINGNETHER-These systems, you don’t see them very commonly up here, but you’ll see them in office buildings, doctor’s office buildings, all over in more urban areas. MR. LOYOLA-Interior structures. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Interior structures, and they’re just going to be, just starting to move up into landscaping. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don’t think Building and Codes would, I mean, it has to meet Code for them to sign off on it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and do we have anything in the regs on the glass, is that something? We’ve never done that before. I’m going to guess APA’s going to flip on that one because. MR. OBORNE-They don’t want to do the glass. MR. LOYOLA-We do not want to do glass. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I know, you want to cable. It makes more sense. MR. LOYOLA-Yes. MS. BITTER-(Lost words) APA understanding we have we’re going to submit, and they’re going to review this, but for what we’ve described to you, the practical difficulties in this application do exist. I mean, but we’re dealing with a grade and an individual that has a disability, and access to that sundeck, as they’ve gone into full detail, this is really the only method. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. SPRINGNETHER-I would just like to reiterate that when we were asked to work on the project, we went through several iterations looking at lengthening wooden ramp and reducing the landscape form, but, you know, that was going the opposite direction of what we were looking for. That was just looking at different options, extending the landscape form further out, but that was determined to be imprudent because of infringing on the 15 foot buffer. So, you know, looking at all the different issues, placing this along the northern property line, so that it’s hidden with vegetation as much as possible, keeping the large green area open to the center, so that that is really visible from the lake, and maintaining it as a visual amenity, and then adding additional plantings to mitigate any impact that we currently have, and looking at ramping down to the docks to create an ADA compliant ramp that’s 152 feet, and that’s, you don’t even have to design it. You can just do the math for that. You can say, okay, we have 12 feet of grade change, 12 feet times 12 is 144, and then you throw in your landing. MR. URRICO-You say ADA compliant. This is the new regulations, the latest? MR. SPRINGNETHER-I’m sorry. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled. So why don’t we give the audience an opportunity to address the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-I will make note that Roy did read in to the previous variance request a letter from the Water Keeper of Lake George that is in common with this variance request as well. So, having said that, Roy, are there any other public comment? MR. URRICO-I do not see any. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and I’d like to open up the discussion to anyone in the audience who’d like to address the Board. Having seen no one, what would we like to do? MR. URRICO-I think we should go ahead and do a motion on it. I think the burden is on the applicant to get it through the various agencies. From my standpoint, I think they satisfied all the questions I have. I think they’ve made this as green as possible, as safe as possible. They’re compliant with the Disability Act. They’re compliant with our regs, for the most part, and, you know, if the APA disapproves it, that’s something they’re going to have to present, and also to the Warren County Planning Board as well. So I think I’m okay with it. I think they’ve done everything they can with it, and I think it’s needed. It’s obviously something that they have to do. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I was against this variance to begin with, but after thinking about it a little bit, and I also had some experiences, as Chairperson for the Committee on Special Education for six years, and I know the, understand the requirements of the ADA and what you’re going through, and I think you’ve explained tonight some of the things that you can do to mitigate the visual aspects. So I’d be in favor of this, if the cable rail was put in, and that you followed whatever recommendations from the Planning Board for plantings. I think other than that, I’d be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. I think the applicant’s done their homework, designed the least obtrusive structure to serve the purpose, and with the elimination of the glass panel guardrails, I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m still going to be against this. I think that there are feasible alternatives, that is not using the boathouse deck as any kind of a waterfront structure. I think something can be done at ground level, and I think we have to take into consideration the fact that everybody eventually is unable to be as mobile as they age, and the fact also is that there are feasible alternatives. I mean, if you want to take a boat ride on the lake, you can go down and get on one of the big boats down in the Village. There’s access at waterfront level elsewhere, even though it’s not on your own property, but no one lives forever and properties change hands, and I think that even though this has been carefully considered and designed, it’s still something that we don’t need to do. It’s not necessary. So I would be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you want me to go next? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. GARRAND-I’ll go next. MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead. MR. GARRAND-I agree with Mr. Underwood. There are feasible alternatives. In all my years on this Board, we have never once approved a land bridge. I think the request is substantial, and you approve something like this, and the floodgates are going to open up. What we’re dealing with right now is an aging population on the lake, and everybody and anybody who has a sundeck on the lake is going to want a land bridge. So I’d be against it also. MR. JACKOSKI-I’m afraid I’m against it as well. I think that we can come up with some other alternatives, and as I’ve been sitting here, believe me, I think all those hand railings in the serpentine path worried me greatly, but I have to wonder if we could incorporate what I would call a lift and a half, so to speak. Maybe there’s a lift at the patio, and then maybe there is another lift down at the dock, because if you get rid of that steep slope area to the south, and walk across that flat lawn, or roll across the flat lawn, I think there could be a way to incorporate maybe and avoid all that fill and avoid all that ramping there. The other alternative I was trying to think of is if we created some switchbacks, right at the end of the dock that’s over the water, but not being utilized right now, eliminate some of that ghosted docking that’s there, and then create our ramp, I think we could minimize the length of it. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes, the ghosted docking and the existing docks. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. MR. SPRINGNETHER-And we looked at switchbacking here, however that would impede the view from the lake. MR. JACKOSKI-For who? MR. SPRINGNETHER-From anybody looking from the lake, because that would block, everything under here would be blocked. MR. JACKOSKI-For me, personally, I live on the lake. I mean, I look at this property from my property. I don’t, very rarely do I think anybody would be concerned about the view under the dock and through the dock, with a boat in there especially. I mean, most of us just see spiders. I just feel that there could be some other alternatives that didn’t require such an amount of fill and all that work there. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Well, I’m not quite understanding the half lift and the half lift. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I just wondered if, I mean, I can’t recall the lift that we used at the ice cream place on, by Gambles, that little lift that they have there. It lifts how many feet, maybe four, five, six. MR. OBORNE-Probably, maybe four feet at that. MR. JACKOSKI-I just wonder if you could have a lift at the patio. MR. SPRINGNETHER-So a lift down to a certain elevation? MR. JACKOSKI-Look how flat all that is there. MR. SPRINGNETHER-It’s actually pretty steep. MR. JACKOSKI-No, but, I mean, in order to avoid that. There’s got to be a way of planting that and landscaping it. MR. SPRINGNETHER-You’d end up with a big gulley with a walkway going up the gulley to the bottom of the. MR. JACKOSKI-Where’s the 50 foot off the water line mark? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Right there. MR. JACKOSKI-So we’re not within the 50 feet. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Right. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-To me it just seems, you know, the lake is full of nooks and crannies all along the lake. The landscaping is that. I just have to wonder if there would be a way to minimize that, what’s going on there. That’s just my opinion. I’m only one person on the Board. MR. URRICO-Well, as it stands we’re deadlocked. MR. OBORNE-Then you want to offer. MR. JACKOSKI-I know they’ve had lots of discussions. I don’t know if there’s other alternatives that you folks can think of that might, you know, make us more comfortable than what is currently presented. MR. SPRINGNETHER-In our mind, this was the best design. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any opportunity at looking at it one more time? MR. SPRINGNETHER-I mean, if you’re looking at structure, I mean, that’s nothing that. MR. JACKOSKI-I’m not saying that other Board members would agree with that. I’m trying to find an alternative to what we’ve got in front of us. MR. SPRINGNETHER-We’d have to go back to the drawing board and just investigate, and, you know, with a defacto vote three/three, what does that mean? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. JACKOSKI-That’s a no vote. MR. OBORNE-That’s a no vote, right. You may be, you may want to request a tabling, keep the public hearing open. MR. JACKOSKI-I have kept the public hearing open, just so you know that. MR. URRICO-It would give you a chance to come back with an alternative plan. MR. OBORNE-Is there any additional guidance that the Board could give the applicant that may further this application? MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I’ll be honest. I was originally thinking that the lift from the dock would be the most comfortable for me, but when you explained it, and we saw what you had to do for it and all those railings, to me, just wasn’t appropriate. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes, it really becomes a bulky mass, attached, that just didn’t need to be there. MR. JACKOSKI-I have a child with special needs. Believe me, I understand handicap accessibility. I have a father-in-law with MS who can’t use his legs. I understand getting him down to the dock it’s very difficult for us, but we all do it. I don’t, you know, this, he doesn’t have access to the boat because he can’t get to it. I can’t imagine wanting to put a ramp down to it so he could. Mr. Underwood’s correct. It’s difficult. I mean, sometimes it’s just hard. MR. LOYOLA-I guess, one thing that’s, in reference to Mr. Underwood’s comment. The, it’s not a relative or a visitor. It’s the owner of the property who has the handicap issue, and I’m just posing this question back to the Board, but if the statement is made that if this is approved the floodgates will open and you’ll have lots more of these coming before you, have you ever had one before? MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve had land bridges before. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. LOYOLA-Okay. MR. GARRAND-We’ve turned them down every single time since I’ve been on the Board. MR. LOYOLA-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-So has the Planning Board. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t think any one of the people here would want to restrict the rights of the individual to use the property. We’re suggesting that, is there some other alternatives that can be thought of? I mean, had you ever thought about, quote unquote, two lifts, one at the house and one at the dock? So I’m just suggesting that there could be some other alternatives that wouldn’t be so, and I don’t know that this Board would agree to that. We’re just trying to find a way to minimize that impact. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Well, I mean, I know that we’ve gone through a lot of different alternatives here, and the half lift and the half lift, I will say, I’m still not seeing it or visualizing it, just knowing the grades out there. MR. URRICO-Did you say that there were other handicap ramps nearby? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Land bridges. MS. BITTER-Land bridges. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes, the property just. MS. BITTER-South. MR. SPRINGNETHER-There’s a 35 foot ramp. MR. OBORNE-Not necessarily handicap. MS. BITTER-It’s just a land bridge, a ramp to the sundeck. MR. SPRINGNETHER-A bridge that extends out to the land. MR. GARRAND-Isn’t that the one that’s involved in the Article 78, to be removed? I think it is. MR. JACKOSKI-The Hoffman property? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MS. BITTER-No. This is directly south. It’s the next property. MR. JACKOSKI-It’s not too far from this. MS. BITTER-I guess we would request it be tabled and then we can consider the possible alternatives that we might be able to bring back to you at this point. MR. SPRINGNETHER-We can certainly investigate it. Again, we take all these to heart. We’ve investigated every suggestion from the Board, and from this Board we’ll take a hard look at it to see if there’s another way to actually get Mrs. Inwald up to the top of her deck here, but I really felt good about this one. That’s a difficult piece. We’re trying to do a combination of landscaped and bridge, in looking at the cross sections. So, okay, we’ll have to table. MR. JACKOSKI-But the landscaping was wonderful. Could the height of the deck be reduced? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Well, I mean, that was one of the things I was looking at, but I mean that was Code, too, for the dock, and we’d have to take a look at that to see if we could maybe cut that down six inches or so, but even if we knocked down the height of that. MR. JACKOSKI-What is the height from the water line to the bottom of the drip edge of the deck? MS. BITTER-Sundeck? MR. LOYOLA-It’s 11 feet to the finished floor from the water line. MR. JACKOSKI-I’d be curious as to what the clearance was from water level or high water level to the bottom of the drip edge or the deck, whatever you want to call it, the ceiling of the boathouse, so to speak. MR. SPRINGNETHER-If we were able to drop that. MR. JACKOSKI-If you were able to drop that a foot or two, you might be able to accommodate a much shallower ramp. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. SPRINGNETHER-We still have to get from Point A to Point B. So even if this was lower, the only thing that would change here is that the ramp would actually be, well, first of all, the whole ramp would be a little bit lower, but the ramp up to the sundeck wouldn’t be as steep. It would still be long. There’s no way of getting around that unless we, again, brought out more landscape, if we filled further out towards the water. We’re stuck with a, what’s the overall dimension of the ramp? From here, that’s where the slope starts coming down, and when you look at the actual bridge portion of this, I would say probably about a third is really where you start seeing it come over the land. This, from here to here, is our slope going down, that we could mitigate with plant materials. So, you know, that 50 feet is looking more like, you know, maybe 35 feet coming out into here. So, again, that’s why we thought we had a nice balance here. It wasn’t like we were just trying to go for a whole long, without any landscape improvement. MR. LOYOLA-One thing we could do would be to bring a retaining wall closer down to the water’s edge, to support a berm, and then have the deck attached to that berm. MR. OBORNE-You’re still looking at a ramp. MR. JACKOSKI-With a significantly modified plan, Keith, are they going to have to go back to the Planning Board for a recommendation again? MR. OBORNE-They’d come back. We’ll have to see how markedly different the plan would be. I would imagine, yes, but that’s something that we’d determine by the submittal. MR. SPRINGNETHER-I mean, if we were able to shorten the length of the actual bridge stand to about 30 feet, is that? MR. JACKOSKI-It’s still the elevation of it, for me. There’s just so many things. MR. SPRINGNETHER-So, Steve, what you’re saying here is that, you know, your recommendation would be? MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t know that it works. I mean, I feel like I’ve dominated the conversation here, but I’m trying to find a solution to what I think is not working. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think you could go simpler and just go out to a, like your old dock there, you know, on the shoreline, you’d accomplish the same thing. You’d still get down to the water’s edge, and you do away with that, the riser going up on the ramp to the top of the deck up there, you know, to me it’s way over the top. I can’t imagine going to all the trouble to do it. MS. BITTER-How do you do that with that grade? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Yes, you can’t do that without. MR. JACKOSKI-And none of that is fill that was brought in to do the rain gardens and everything. MR. SPRINGNETHER-No, it was all natural grade. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-So we’re going to table them? MS. BITTER-Yes, please. MR. JACKOSKI-I guess to table it. The applicant has suggested that we do a tabling motion. Can someone make a motion, please. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES/ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 38 Gunn Lane, Cleverdale. Until such time that the changes are re-submitted and it goes to the Planning Board, first of all, prior to us, for their purview. th Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MS. BITTER-Thank you for your time. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Thank you. MR. LOYOLA-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2011 SUSAN CLERMONT AGENT(S) STEPHEN B. BEAN OWNER(S) SUSAN CLERMONT ZONING WR LOCATION OLD ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 200 +/- SQ. FT. DECK OVER AN EXISTING PATIO AND PROPOSES RECONFIGURATION/DOWNSIZING OF EXISTING 120 +/- SQ. FT. NON- CONFORMING DOCK TO 48 +/- SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK FOR BOTH THE DECK AND DOCK AS WELL AS SHORELINE RELIEF FOR THE DECK. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. CROSS REF SP 28-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 13, 2011 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-13 SECTION 179-4- 010D STEPHEN BEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2011, Susan Clermont, Meeting Date: April 27, 2011 “Project Location: Old Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 200 +/- sq. ft. deck over an existing patio and proposes reconfiguration / downsizing of existing 120 +/- sq. ft. non-conforming dock to 48+/- sq. ft. Relief requested from side setback for both the deck and dock as well as shoreline relief for the deck. Site Plan review is required for hardsurfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief Required: Parcel will require an area variance as follows: Deck portion of project ? Side setback relief – request for 12 feet of north and south side relief from the 12 foot side setback requirement for the WR zone as per §179-3-040. ? Shoreline setback – request for 50 feet of shoreline relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement for the WR zone as per §179-3-040. Dock portion of project ? North side setback - request for 12 feet of north side setback relief from the 12 foot side setback requirement for the WR zone as per §179-3-040. ? South side setback – request for 9.6 feet of south side setback relief from the 12 foot side setback requirement for the WR zone as per §179-3-040. 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. Lot limitations and the nature of the project preclude any feasible method by which to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 12 feet or 100% relief from both north and south side setbacks requirements associated with the deck as per §179- 3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 50 feet or 100% relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement for the proposed deck as per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 12 feet or 100% relief from the north side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) considered severe relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 9.6 feet or 80% relief from the south side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this request. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. Lot limitations appear to dictate the need for an area variance and may not be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 28-11 Pending Staff comments: The 0.01 or 235 sq. ft. parcel in question is associated with a land-locked parcel located approximately 600 feet to the southeast and separated by both Assembly Point Road and Old Assembly Point Road. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review necessary” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board did make a recommendation on this, and the motion was a recommendation on behalf of the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variance No. 20-2011 and Site Plan 28-2011 for Susan Clermont, and the Planning Board, based on its limited review, has not identified any significant impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was approved unanimously as well on April 26, 2011. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Roy, and good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. BEAN-Yes. Good evening. I’m Stephen Bean, and I’m speaking on behalf of Sue Clermont. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Welcome. MR. BEAN-Thank you. As is stated, and as I submitted, all the photos and the survey and everything of it, we’re asking, she’s asking for the setback relief so that she can build this deck in place of what was existing there, over top of what was existing, and that’s for the deck portion. The property is, as you see, is only 10 feet wide, and there was an existing tiered patio system, when she bought the property, and she would like to have the deck just built over top of the tiered patio system to make it a much safer decline to the dock, and for more usability, and as far as the deck itself, I mean the dock itself goes, previously she got a permit from the Park Commission to reconstruct the dock, and she would like to be able to build it the way the permit says. MR. UNDERWOOD-So the old dock was five feet wide, this one’s three feet wide? Narrowed down? MR. BEAN-Well, no, it’s going to be narrowed down at a point about two feet on the end, and it goes down to one foot, the way the permit goes, but I’d like it to be two feet the whole way, but they’ve got it permitted from, down to one foot. MR. JACKOSKI-Do any Board members have any questions at this time? MR. CLEMENTS-How do you get there? MR. BEAN-Yes, that’s kind of a funny thing, but she’s got a deeded right of way to go across these people’s front yard. MR. CLEMENTS-Front lawn, at the end of the old? MR. BEAN-At the end of the Old Assembly Point Road. MR. JACKOSKI-Does she have parking capability at the end of that road? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. BEAN-No, the road just dead ends and the one, people park there, but she walks from her house. MR. UNDERWOOD-So this one, the other lot, it’s been there for years. It’s nothing new. MR. BEAN-No. It’s been let go. I guess the previous owners didn’t do much with it, and she would like to be able to use it, and she would like to be able to put a small boat on her side of the dock. MR. JACKOSKI-Can you help me better understand her side of the dock? Are you referring to the north side, or are you referring to the south side? MR. BEAN-No, I would be referring to the south side of the dock. MR. JACKOSKI-In here? MR. BEAN-Yes, that’s why I would like to narrow the dock, down so she could fit a small boat in there. MR. JACKOSKI-What size beam of a boat would that be? MR. BEAN-Well, it wouldn’t be any more than an eight foot beam that could fit, because the other neighbor’s dock, as you see, he can’t put anything on, you know, technically on that side of his dock. If you look at this picture, that’s the neighbor’s dock, and the property line goes, well, a foot and three tenths off of his dock. So it’s not. MR. URRICO-So it would be on her property, more or less if you put a boat there. MR. BEAN-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Last evening at the Planning Board, I think you may have mentioned that the Lake George Park had requested not cribs? MR. BEAN-No. The permit calls for a pile driven dock for the arm and the first section of the dock, the wire section. She doesn’t, is not going to put in the pile driven stakes. She wanted to re-build the existing wider portion of the dock because the base was good, and she just did the top. Now, it is permitted for a stake driven or a pile driven dock on an arm. I’ve talked with Molly down there, and if she wanted to put a crib dock, you know, for that arm, she said that it wouldn’t be a problem. You could come in with a new set of drawings if we wanted to make it a crib dock, but as permitted, it’s a pile driven dock. MR. UNDERWOOD-So this on shore part just got re-built so that would be considered a re-do, I guess, since you didn’t go below the water line. I think that’s the way we’ve done it in the past. MR. JACKOSKI-I believe what we’ve done in the past, with the Andrews property, and the Miller property on Glen Lake was because they replaced more than a certain percentage it became a re-build period. When I was on site and I walked this dock and I stood on it and I walked on the stairs and stuff, it’s all new. I mean, the upper deck is new. The lower deck is new. I realize that the, I’ll call, you called it the arm. Is that what you called it? MR. BEAN-Yes, the arm that goes out. MR. JACKOSKI-The longest part is obviously weathered, and, you know, it’s been there for a bit. MR. BEAN-From the water up on the other part is new. The base is still there. MR. JACKOSKI-Why wouldn’t the applicant be willing to get the dock to be more into what we will call her water, even though I understand it’s not really her water? Why would it have to still be over the projection of the property lines? Why couldn’t it, if it’s going to be pile driven, be brought in more into compliance? MR. BEAN-Well, because by bringing that over, you still don’t, if you made that narrower, and he brought that over, you're not gaining any, the width that you need to have the boat in there. I don’t know how long it’s been in there, but it’s been in there for a long time. MR. JACKOSKI-What is the extension from the most out into the water point, the end of the dock, back to the shore where it gets wider at the end? How long is that there? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. BEAN-Well, it’s 20, the arm is like 21 feet, and I think that’s, I’m trying to think what the old part, the back part was. It was about eight by eight, I think. MR. UNDERWOOD-So if a boat’s going to be there, that’s going to be on the Ferry side or the Randall side? MR. BEAN-Randall side. You can’t do anything on the other side. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you couldn’t do this and still have accommodation for the boat in there, because you’d narrow down (lost word). MR. JACKOSKI-But what I’m hearing you say is you can’t park on the northerly side. Correct, because it’s in their water. MR. BEAN-Right. So if you swing it over to, you know, if you’re looking down the dock. MR. UNDERWOOD-So 2.3 this way would narrow this gap, so you could get a row boat. MR. JACKOSKI-I struggle because the Lake George Park Commission back in 2001 has a document that establishes that the former owners, Wharf Information Registration, says, quote, an attempt was made to register this dock in 1989. Check was returned as we only use this dock for swimming. This says this is a change of use for me, and now they’re going to store a boat. MR. OBORNE-I understand because they already have their permits in place under the Park Commission. MR. JACKOSKI-Do we have that in the packet? MR. OBORNE-Not in the packet, no. MR. BEAN-I submitted the permit that the previous owner got and Ms. Clermont bought the land about a year ago or so. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. I see that the Lake George Park Commission issued a wharf permit has been issued for wharf repair. Modification or construction at this site. That’s in 2009 addressed to Darcy Harding, the previous owner. MR. BEAN-Yes, and then they have renewed the permit to Susan Clermont for, I don’t have it right here. MR. JACKOSKI-That would be helpful for me to understand. MR. BEAN-But she’s got a permit to, that’s why this, on the back of this permit, it says remove a five foot wide, twenty-four foot long crib pier and replace it with a two to three foot wide twenty- one foot long pile supported pier in accordance with plans attached as Schedule A and made part of the permit. That’s what I got. MR. JACKOSKI-So you’re saying the Lake George Park Commission has issued a permit for this work that you’re doing now? MR. BEAN-No. I’m not, I built the deck over, I put the deck over the top of the thing. We weren’t aware of this 50 foot rule and building right on the lake. I did that without a permit and I got stopped, which is fine. So I came to Keith and the Building Department and am going through the process now. MR. JACKOSKI-You opened up Pandora’s Box. MR. BEAN-Well, I don’t know, you know, to me, it just seems like pretty commonsense, that the previous condition of the property, you know, when she bought it, it would make sense that we would put a nice, even, flat surface that was safe, easy to get down, to do the deck, and of course it has to have railings and the stairs are just temporary stairs for a work stairs, but they would be railing and everything like to the Code, but, you know, I didn’t think it was, the whole 10 feet was being used prior to this, and I didn’t think putting a deck would constitute having to get all this variance and stuff. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand. We’re now, here’s where we are, and we’ve got to try to find a solution. Had you given any consideration at all to the dock as it reaches out into the water? I 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) can think of a dock on Assembly Point that we have a 50 foot lot where they put a 10 foot structure in, an eight foot beam, and they basically had, at the end of the dock, maybe two or three pylons, posts, whatever you want to call them, so that you could moor the boat, but then the actual walking surface was, you know, halfway out into the lake, so to speak, so that you could get into the boat, so that you could widen that area, so that a boat could stay within, I hate using that term your water, but within those lines of being projected out into the water. So that you could still moor the boat and you could still access the boat, but you wouldn’t have such an encroachment. MR. BEAN-I guess I’m not comprehending what you’re trying to tell me. MR. URRICO-Are you suggesting a wider base for the deck? MR. JACKOSKI-What I’m suggesting is could we, and I’ll try to hold it up and I’ll move it over to Rick in a minute. Could the dock be a pier dock to a certain length and then continue with just the pylons in order to moor the boat, so that we can get a boat in there, but not have the dock? Because this projection out into this other person’s water, so to speak, if we can make this dock be more in conformance, we’d certainly have at least probably nine feet of beam there. Do you see what I’m saying? But no walking surface there. MR. BEAN-I guess what you’re, if you put a 19 or 20 foot boat in there, so the boat’s going to hang out off of the dock you’re saying? MR. JACKOSKI-I’m trying to find a way to keep within a 10 foot area, and I think that’s very difficult on Lake George, especially in this area where it’s very rough. How we allow a boat slip in that tight space when you’re really required to be 20 feet off of each line. So you’ve got negative. MR. BEAN-I understand what it is now, but. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, the Park Commission’s also asked for pile stakes, correct? MR. OBORNE-According to the previous permit, yes. MR. BEAN-It’s a pile driven. MR. JACKOSKI-Pylon stakes. Do you recall the dock I’m talking about on Assembly Point Road? MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the nature of the bottom over there, is it rock? MR. BEAN-No, it’s pretty sandy. MR. UNDERWOOD-Pretty sandy, so you can drive them right in. MR. BEAN-I don’t know how far you’ll go until you hit. MR. JACKOSKI-Do any other members have any comments at this time? MR. CLEMENTS-I just look at this and say, you know, part of this is over on the other person’s property, so to speak. As soon as you get off of the main point on that deck, I’m wondering if you’re going to run into some legal problems at some point, but. MR. JACKOSKI-I think the dock has been there for many, many, many years. MR. CLEMENTS-But it says here that what they’re going to do is they’re going to remove the dock, five foot wide by twenty four foot long crib and replace it, and I think, to your point, if they’re going to replace it to make it more compliant, putting less dock and then just some stakes out there to tie it to. MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t even know if that’s the Code. I’m trying to find a way to deal with the situation. Do you know if it’s a Bow Rider or if it’s a Cutty? MR. BEAN-No, she hasn’t bought a boat yet. MR. OBORNE-The dock’s going to dictate the boat I guess. MR. BEAN-Exactly, and the only other alternative is that we just repair the dock that’s there, and leave it, and we get a couple of jet skis, because that’s all they can fit in there. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I think you can see we’re trying to find if there’s an alternative. MR. BEAN-Yes. I don’t know how we can bring the dock, I don’t understand, really, shortening the length of the dock to get a back, you know, towards the shore. I don’t understand how that’s going to benefit or change anything. You’d have to bring it back all the way to the shoreline in order to really get. MR. CLEMENTS-Is this side of the dock right here, the one that’s proposed, is that the line of the current dock, right here? MR. BEAN-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-That’s the edge of this current dock right here? MR. BEAN-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-So basically all you’re doing is you’re just making it smaller, and taking it off of this side? MR. BEAN-Correct, well, that’s what I wanted to do. MR. CLEMENTS-But there’s a crib there, so if you did that, you’d have to remove some of the crib because a boat would, it would be too shallow for a boat. MR. BEAN-Right. If we put in the stake dock, you’ve got to take the crib dock out. There’s a big crib dock in there that’s been damaged by the ice and stuff. MR. JACKOSKI-That’s a lot of work. Is there electricity there? MR. BEAN-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, at this time maybe we’d like to open the public hearing. Roy, do we have any letters in the file? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no letters in the file, is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Board at this time? Just to remind you for the record, if you could state your name and your address, that would be great. GARY BROWN MR. BROWN-My name’s Gary Brown, 45 Assembly Point Road, Lake George, New York. It’s the property north of Steve’s project. Without taking a lot of your time, I spent twenty some odd years on this project, twenty some odd years. That property there used to have a stake dock on it. They took the stake dock out somewhere around 19, I’ve got the right dates, I’m not going to tell you what date it was, because I do have the paperwork. They took the stake dock out of there, so they wouldn’t have to remove it every Fall and put it back in the Spring, and they built a crib dock on that property. They took the stone off the seawall, now Steve is not, this has been sold two or three times since all this has been going on. They took the stone off the seawall for 45 Assembly Point Road, and put them in the dock. I visually saw them. It was reported to the Lake George Park Commission. Mr. Finlayson worked at the Lake George Park Commission at that time, and when he left somewhere our file left. When the stake dock was made into a crib dock, (lost words) stated we’re going to move this dock a little further to the north to give us room for a boat here. Sir I just gave you paperwork that says from the Lake George Park Commission without permission from another adjoining landowner, there’ll never be a boat on that piece of property. I am not going to give them permission to put a boat there, and Mr. Randall’s here, and he may want to give them permission to put a boat there, all right, but they’re not going to put a boat there. As far as this deck that he wants to build over there, he’s building it over the property line. He’s building it six feet off the ground. If they fall off the deck, they’re going to fall onto 45 Assembly Point Road or Mr. Randall’s property. Who’s going to be responsible for it. I mean, I am a little sore. I have talked to Steve, and as gentlemen we can talk today, but this has been a 20 some odd year headache between having land surveyors in there surveying the property, to lawyers. It’s been a 20 year, and I certainly hope it’s not allowed to continue. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question? Has there ever been a boat there, then, over all these years? MR. BROWN-I’m going to be honest with you. When Darcy Harding bought the property, she tried to put a boat there and I approached her, and I’m trying to work with somebody that bought 10 feet of lakefront and doesn’t know what their legal rights were to it. So I went over and I spoke to her and I said, Darcy, you cannot put a boat there, but I said leave it for Memorial Day weekend, enjoy your weekend, I said, and if you’ve got any questions, come back and discuss it with me. Well, it became a big headache. I want to say, before Darcy Harding bought it, on occasion, there may have been a row boat there, but was it parked there, was it docked there? No. It was there for an hour or two and gone. The Randalls use that area for a canoe and a rowboat, all right, and his kids swim off of it. So was there a boat ever there? No. As the paperwork says from the Lake George Park Commission, this was used as a swimming platform only, all right, never a boat, but when Finlayson lost my paperwork and the ball was dropped, when the dock got moved from a stake dock to a crib dock, and it got moved over the property line, it’s just a continuing, ongoing headache, and I would like to see them use their property. I have no problem with them using their property, but as far as that deck being the height of it is, they’re going to fall on somebody else’s property if they fall off that deck, all right, and it’s certainly an eyesore. He’s got pictures right here. If that property was cleaned up and terraced off like it was originally, that would be a really cute little piece of property, all right, and it would be accessible to them. I mean, they supplied you with the pictures. If that was terraced off, cleaned up and terraced off just like that, with the stone wall terraced off to stop the stormwater runoff from Old Assembly Point Road, which is 30 feet from the end of it, all right, that could be a cute piece of property, and I would like to see them enjoy and use their property, but stop using everybody else’s property and creating headaches for everybody else. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. BROWN-Any other questions? MR. JACKOSKI-Not at this time. I did receive your packet, although I don’t know what this Board’s general policy is on receiving paperwork the night of the meeting. MR. BROWN-That’s fine. MR. JACKOSKI-We’ll take it as public comment and then it’ll go into the file and Board members will have access to it if that’s okay with you, and the public. MR. BROWN-Okay. We just got this paperwork a week ago, we haven’t had a. MR. JACKOSKI-I just wanted to let you know what we would do in the process. MR. BROWN-That’s fine. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience? Yes, sir. Good evening. If you could state your name for the record, and your address. JEFF RANDALLS MR. RANDALLS-Sure. I’m Jeff Randalls, and we are at 42 Old Assembly Point Road. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that the brown house next door? MR. RANDALLS-It’s actually red. MR. JACKOSKI-Red. Is it for sale? MR. RANDALLS-No, the brown house is. MR. JACKOSKI-The brown house, okay. Fine. Sorry. Go ahead. MR. RANDALLS-So I think Gary’s given you some history, and I’d like to give you some history from my perspective. We’ve owned the house since 1968, and as Gary said, the Grathlmals, or the people who owned it from the 30’s through some time in the 90’s, they have access, as Steve said, they cross our yard, and I have no desire to be here, just so you know. So they have access. They go across our yard to get to their deck, and the Grathmals did for 40 years or however long they did, and in my, since 1968 and going there every summer, the Grathmals would have a boat maybe one or two weekends during the summer for fishing trips. They had access to another dock somewhere else, Assembly Point or Cleverdale, and so they didn’t keep 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) a boat there. When they wanted to use their boat, they went somewhere else, and when they did use the boat and dock it at their dock next door, they actually asked permission from my father and, you know, asked him if it was okay, even though when you look at the survey it’s really their water, but we used it for, like Gary said, our canoe and our rowboat that had, you know, a little six horsepower motor on it that I would drive as a kid, and we just left it there basically all summer unless a storm came up, and so we used it as a boat slip. We currently are in the market for a new motor for my kids to use that same rowboat, but we use it for swimming and fishing, and if guests come, we park the boat over there so we could swim on the other side of the dock. Our dock is a “U” shape dock. So we still have the other side. So in terms of what the Grathmals did and the previous owners, the previous owners were barely there. The Grathmals were the ones who had been there for most of my life, and it was swimming only. They’d have a lot of people down there, but it was swimming only, and I remember when they built the crib dock. I remember watching them do it, and it’s my mother’s recollection that they actually angled that dock, some of the reason is to give us a wider space on our side. So that’s maybe a little history of why the dock is crooked. Now, the Lake George Park Commission, I’m not sure about that permit that the previous owners got a couple of years ago. We had gone, when those same owners tried to put in a boat lift, and argue that permit, and successfully they were not allowed to put in a boat lift, but I’d be surprised if you could get more than just repairing the existing structure, just from looking at the Lake George Park Commission regulations, where one of them, and this is why I’m giving you the history of how we’ve used the dock and how the other people have used the dock. It says, the Lake George Park Commission Regulation 646- 1.1C3, no dock, wharf or mooring shall be constructed or placed so as to interfere with the normal navigation or reasonable access to adjacent docks, wharfs, moorings or lands. So if they’re going to, if you’re going to move a dock closer to our dock, right now they’re at the very tip, there’s only nine feet between our dock and their dock, and if they’re going to move it closer, if we were to bring a boat in on our side, like we have for the past 40 years, it’s getting pretty narrow. Now, when you get, it’s nine feet at the very tip, and it kind of angles in, as you can see, and it’s only four feet when you get to shore. So as you bring that in, it’s likely we couldn’t bring our rowboat in, and now they’re going to have a boat there. So there is, there is, it’s essentially taking away any use of that side of the dock for us, especially, if you put a boat in there, they’re going to have to have those whips to tie the opposite side, and I’m not sure how those work or how they might even, this boat is going to be right up against our dock, and the only other thing is we also have our water supply line for the house that goes through that slip and I just want to have, make sure that that’s known that our supply line goes through probably, I’m don’t know if it’s on the property line or if it’s in their water, but we just have to be aware of that, and the other thing is, you know, I do feel bad about this, and I want them to use their dock as well, but it was a known issue. I spoke to them when they were looking at the property, before they even bought it, and made them aware of the problems that the previous owners have had, and that, you know, that’s one of the reasons it was on the market for so long, the price was so high, but the lake access was really just a swimming access, and not a true boating lake access. So I clearly remember that conversation. So I do know that it was a known issue, and I guess that’s my main concern. My main concern is that dock rather than the deck itself, as long as, I think the deck itself, as long as we get a good railing system, you know, obviously it’s mid construction. So there’s no railing going around, and as Gary was saying, if somebody falls off, it’s going to be on our property, and so we’re going to have some liability there, but I think if the deck was made a little bit more safely, you know, if we had a good railing system, we’d probably be okay with that. My issue is with the dock. MR. UNDERWOOD-You were aware that the dock was going to get narrower than it is now? MR. RANDALLS-I haven’t seen the to be. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. If you want to look at that, just so you have an idea of it. Currently you’re five feet all the way out. So he’s going to narrow it down to two feet back here and it’s going to grow out to three feet here, so this’ll actually get wider than it is now. MR. RANDALLS-So I guess two things, one, so it would still go over this property line? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s still going to go over that property line, the same as it is currently, but your space is actually going to increase. MR. RANDALLS-It’s actually going to decrease, if you put a boat in there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So is it your opinion, then, that you have adverse possession of the water in front of their lot to store your boat, is that what you’re saying? MR. RANDALLS-Yes. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and you mentioned to the Board that you did have discussions with the current owners prior to them purchasing the property, as to the concerns that you had with your rights to the area? MR. RANDALLS-I clearly remember when they were walking up and looking at the property and discussing why the price was what it was. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-But for 40 plus years you got to use it without any questions asked. MR. RANDALLS-Right, and actually having the old owners ask us for permission. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, right. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. RANDALLS-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to address the Board? Okay. I am going to leave the public hearing open at this time, and ask the applicant to come back to the table. Would you care, at this time, to possibly address any of these issues, or would you rather request a tabling of this application? MR. BEAN-No. I’m not requesting to table. I guess I don’t understand, this water right issue, you know, that who owns what water, you know, he owns the water, I guess, on that side of the dock that comes on to Sue’s land, but we don’t own the water that goes on Gary’s side of the property line. I don’t understand the whole thing. MR. JACKOSKI-This Board is not in a position to offer any legal advice whatsoever on that. That is a legal matter that has to be addressed between, or among all the property owners. We can’t tell you whether you have those rights or don’t have those rights. MR. BEAN-Well, I’m just trying to state what they were talking about. They brought it up like they had adverse possession, or whatever you want to call it. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, that’s generally why we have setbacks to avoid these kinds of issues for usage of structures. MR. BEAN-As far as this deck, of course the deck is going to be built to Code. We had a Stop Work Order on it, so nothing else got done with it. They didn’t put the railings on. They didn’t put the steps on with the railings or anything. There was a Stop Work Order, so we stopped work. MR. JACKOSKI-And when you say it’s going to be built to Code, what you’re suggesting is it’s going to be built to Building Code, not necessarily Zoning Code. MR. BEAN-Building Code, I’m sorry, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. MR. BEAN-For the deck and the staircase. MR. JACKOSKI-It’s unfortunate that you may be in this position, but it sounds to me like there was already a pre-understood history here. MR. BEAN-I would like to clarify that. We spoke I guess maybe with Sue or, no one ever, to my knowledge, was ever told that this was just a swimming dock. Now, when she bought the property, she bought it under the thing that she could get, the dock permit could get transferred. That was all done by the lawyers and stuff, and that the dock was going to be, after a building permit was issued for the dock, they’d take the crib dock out, because you’ve got the Park permit for the dock. Nowhere in the deed of the property, nowhere in the. MR. URRICO-I think I can clarify that. I think it was one of the permits, it was a 2001 Lake George Park Commission permit, they refer to a previous attempts to register the dock, and I can’t find it right now, but in that write up they said there an attempt, in 1989, was made to register the dock, and at that time they said it was just for swimming. I think that’s where that came from. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. BEAN-Well, it’s registered now. MR. URRICO-And the registration in the letter from 2001 says that it can only be repaired. It cannot be expanded. That was from the Lake George Park Commission as well. MR. JACKOSKI-It’s interesting that this actually isn’t an expansion, well, the dock or the deck. MR. URRICO-In regards to the construction, but. MR. JACKOSKI-I empathize. I don’t know the right solution. I’d like to poll the members of the Board as to what they are currently thinking, and then maybe try and find a course of action, if that’s okay. Why don’t we start with Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. This is a tough one. I think that I would be inclined to be in favor of this because the dock is going to be narrower. I’m not talking about the deck now. I’m just talking about the dock portion. The dock is going to be narrower. It’s not going to be any more out of compliance than it is over the property line now. I think it’s been confusing about whether a boat can be put there or not put there, even though Mr. Urrico said what he said. So I guess at this time I’d be in favor, but I really think that it ought to be tabled, and I think that you ought to get some other information and get some other people involved, lawyers and talk with the owners on both sides. That would be my recommendation. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Brian. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Caveat emptor. MR. JACKOSKI-Buyer beware. MR. GARRAND-Yes. She should have done her research before she bought this. This should be brought more into compliance, and in doing so it’s going to restrict the navigable waters for one property owner while as you’ve stated her only viable option’s going to be the pole. That’s going to be the only way to get a boat in there. She shouldn’t be encroaching on the northerly property owner’s navigable waterways. My opinion. MR. JACKOSKI-I’ll give my opinion next. I’m very concerned about this dock, a new dock or a reconfigured dock projecting out and into or over any of the projected property lines, or water lines. So in my opinion it needs to be brought more into its own space. I further think I’d be more in favor of trying to find pylons or poles to tie to, however, I would not in any way, shape or form guarantee that if, you did decide to move that dock, that you wouldn’t have problems legally with your neighbors who may have rights, or who have suggested that they have rights to that water space. So I, too, would be in favor of, I wouldn’t recommend the current proposed application. I’d be not in favor of it, and I’m hoping that you’ll table it until you do have a discussion with your neighbors to try to find some kind of a solution to maybe put to bed what sounds like a difficult situation for the last 20 plus years. It seems to be difficult. I don’t know. I can only know what I’ve heard tonight. I put you right smack in the middle of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t live on Lake George, but I live on Glen Lake, and I have almost exactly the same situation. When I purchased my property, I had a crib dock. It’s right over on the property line. My neighbor has their dock right next to me, and it’s the exact same situation, and when I moved in there, my neighbor had a motor boat. I’m one of the few people in the universe that doesn’t have a motor boat. I’ve got a fleet of human powered craft, you name it, I have it, but, nonetheless, I don’t see this as an unworkable solution here. I think the situation actually is going to be improved from what it is currently, and I think that the people most affected are the Randalls. I don’t think the Ferrys are affected at all. I mean, that property, that dock has had legal permit. It’s been over the line for all these years. They’ve lived with it. The Randalls have lived with what they have also, and they’ve also had the benefit of utilizing property over their property line for over 40 years. I don’t see that they’re going to bring in some immense huge boat, because, I mean, you’re talking that the space out there is less than 10 feet. So, I mean, there’s going to be a narrow boat that goes in there if anything at all. I mean, I don’t know that they’re going to find that’s going to fit, but at the same time, because the dock’s going to be narrowed, there’s probably going to be times of the year when a boat is moored there. I can’t imagine that the Park Commission’s going to deny somebody the use of a dock for tying up a boat, and we’ve already said in the record that boats have been tied up there previously, you know, and they always asked permission previously, but I don’t really see that’s any grand, big thing that all these years they’ve benefitted by having a boat there and then suddenly somebody else brings a boat in, now it’s verboten and no one can do it. So, I think that the situation is improved. I see no reason to bring the dock into compliance, back over the property line, which would negate any boat being brought on site there. It might not hurt for us 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) to table this and ask the Lake George Park Commission what their take is on it, because maybe they want to say something about no boat being there, and the fact that it probably was pre- existing primarily as a swimming dock, but at the same time, I don’t think this is an unworkable situation, and I think the neighbors to the north are not going to be affected. Yes, there’s going to be a boat there. What’s one more boat on Lake George? You’ve got millions up there anyway. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I’d like to defer to Mr. Urrico. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m trying to find the sequence here, and I understand, in 2001, there was a letter, a revocable registration of the existing wharf by the Lake George Park Commission. In that letter, they said that the authorized structures may be repaired and maintained without further approval or permits, and seasonal structures may be removed and then re-installed and then however construction which would result in any modification, alteration, relocation, enlargement or increase in size of the structures or work below the mean high water level, such as crib repair, requires a permit from the Commission. Okay. Then I find another application for a permit for the dock in, looks like 2002, July 2002, in which the project description is remove the existing five by twenty-four crib dock and replace it with a two by twenty-four stake dock, and now we’re back to a crib dock. I’m not sure how we got to that point. MR. BEAN-Well, I’m not back to a crib dock. MR. URRICO-You have a stake dock? MR. BEAN-No, there’s a crib dock there now. MR. URRICO-There’s a crib dock there now. MR. BEAN-Yes. MR. URRICO-So we went from crib dock to stake dock back to crib dock, but I’m not sure how we got there. MR. BEAN-Well, I don’t know who built the crib dock and the stake dock and back to a crib dock, I don’t know how that all happened. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. BEAN-But that dock looks like it’s been in there for a little while. It’s not like something that’s been in there five years ago. MR. URRICO-It sounds to me that when you first got the permit it was done so with only repairs allowed to be made, but I agree with Mr. Underwood. I think the three affected parties need to sit down, figure out what is workable and put a plan together, because I think as it stands right now, I can’t say yes to this, but there’s a good reason to say yes, and that is it had been workable for a long time, but apparently not to everybody’s satisfaction. So I would recommend tabling this. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce, do you want to comment? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Well, I’m a little concerned that it’s alright for the dock to encroach on someone else’s property line, because it’s been there, and yet when there’s an agreement between the owners before, for years, what was it, 50 years, that not having a boat dock there permanently, yes, I would not be in favor of it now. I think we should be tabling it and I think it should be thrashed out among the parties. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, after polling the Board, I mean, it sounds like we have a couple of options. It seems like most members are not in favor of the current application as it stands. Some of the members have suggested possibly tabling the variance to try to work something else out, or we could certainly make a motion and take a vote. MR. BEAN-Well, I guess what would be, if we sit down and try to, I don’t know, I guess we’ve got two different problems on each side, you know, and so we try to mitigate the things, and then if the parties are in agreement, and we come back to you, we all sing Cumbaya, then you’re going to say I get the variance. Is that what you’re saying? 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-I’m not suggesting that to you at all. I’m suggesting to you at this point in time that this current application seems to be that if we make a motion now. MR. BEAN-I understand that part. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I can’t tell you what the Board will vote when you come back with a new application. I don’t know MR. BEAN-Well, you’re also not giving me any guidance, other than just to sit down with the people. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I make a suggestion? Is that okay? This is what we currently have up there, a five foot wide dock, and what they’re proposing to do is to narrow it down so it looks like that. So this situation, as far as the Randalls go, is going to be improved by doing that. That’s what’s on the table. That’s what they’re proposing. The issue aside of us is the boat issue. We’re not going to decide the boat issue. That’s neither here nor there for us. If they decide they want to do a boat there and the neighbors want to have a knock down drag out fight about it, they can go to the Park Commission, that’s not within our purview, because we don’t issue the Park Commission permits for boat docks, and the Park Commission probably will dial in. I would make the suggestion that you, in the interim, contact the Park Commission, get it in writing what their interpretation is, as to what you can do on that dock, whether it can only be for swimming or whether you can accommodate a boat by proposing to do this, all right, and then when we have that in writing from the Park Commission, then we can render our decision. MR. JACKOSKI-Certainly if the Board wants to take that position, but I also think the Board needs to spend a bit more time, then, also on the whole upper deck situation and the covering over of the terracing and the new structure that’s there, which is clearly 100% relief, on both sides, which we haven’t focused on because it seems that the waters issues, so to speak, are most contested. MR. UNDERWOOD-So again, on that issue, one neighbor was not in favor of the deck that’s been done up on shore, and one neighbor decided that they could live with the deck. Is that in essence what it was? AUDIENCE MEMBER-I think the biggest concern with that deck is the safety issue, when somebody is on that deck, they’re going to fall off onto somebody else’s property. MR. BEAN-Can’t fall off onto your property. You’ve got a fence, wire fence on top of your wall, if you look at the picture, I can’t fall onto your property. MR. JACKOSKI-Could you help us and explain to us, I stood on the current decking that is there. So could you maybe help us better understand your plans for the finished product of that upper deck? MR. BEAN-I guess this picture, the deck that I put was over top of what was existing, and as it goes back to the back property line which their wall that is there extends over on to Clermont’s property line, but it’s just going to step up, probably two steps, and then it’s going to have a smaller landing at that, you know, from when you come down, get on to the property, there’s going to be a small deck, short deck, and it’s going to step down to the bigger deck. It’ll have a railing across it and it goes back up to that birch tree there, and then it’s almost level with the ground. So it’ll have railing around the front and it’ll have railing down the steps, when they put the steps there down to the dock, and that’s all that’s going to be there. MR. JACKOSKI-And will there be railing on the fence side? MR. BEAN-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Why? MR. BEAN-Well, because the, I mean, I can put them there, but the wall’s there, and the fence is already, there’s a fence there. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that your fence? MR. BEAN-No. MR. JACKOSKI-So that fence could be removed? I’m saying you’re relying on the safety factor of that fence being there. Could that fence be removed by the current owner? 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. BEAN-Yes, it could. So at that point I’ll put a railing across. MR. JACKOSKI-Is the stone wall that is there to the left of your stairs as I see them on the picture, on my left, is that your wall or is that the adjoining neighbor’s wall? MR. BEAN-The adjoining neighbor’s wall. They’re right on top of the property line. MR. JACKOSKI-And what is the proposed skirting if you will, so to speak, of the area under the top deck down to the dock? MR. BEAN-Well, I was just thinking that I would just put vertical boards running this way, up and down. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you’re going to leave slats so the water can go through and go into the ground? MR. BEAN-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I couldn’t necessarily see so well under the dock. I mean, I could have climbed in, but, was it a concrete pad and all those different levels of the terrace, or was it actually, you know, permeable surface? MR. BEAN-Not a concrete pad. It was a stone, slate stones, but they had cement in between them. MR. JACKOSKI-So it was non-permeable. Every one of those terraces was non-permeable, all the way to the back property line? MR. BEAN-Well, this and that one, yes, these two terraces, that’s just a little wooden platform on that. MR. JACKOSKI-Does anyone else have any questions? MR. URRICO-Well, I think the issue, for me, is clarification by the Lake George Park Commission. I need to see what their, where we are with it right now, the most recent letter that we have that really applies to this is 2001. It could have changed, but we don’t have anything that suggests that. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand Mr. Underwood’s position that, you know, the applicant could take the chance of skinnying up their dock and getting all the approvals to skinny up their dock, but then they could, in order to utilize the water in front of their property, but that doesn’t, that’s not a guarantee because it sounds to me like there is a conflict of rights, so to speak, to this area, and that’s not for this Board to address. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the Park Commission can clarify that for us, and if the Park Commission signs off and says you can put a boat in there, then you can put a boat in there. MR. BEAN-Well, if you read the letter from them, clarifying their position. MR. JACKOSKI-And as I stated before, I, personally, would not approve the application unless the dock was within your, I hate using that term, but water. That’s just my opinion. I don’t want it crossing over the water line. Okay. MR. BEAN-This is a no go, right? MR. JACKOSKI-We haven’t taken a vote. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re going to table. MR. JACKOSKI-We’d like to table it. MR. BEAN-I’m just asking a hypothetical. I’m just saying what happens if you say no? If I walk out of there, let’s just say you say no, I walk out of here and I go back to the property and I’ve got a dock that’s sitting there, all busted up, screwed up, and I just want to replace some boards on the top part of it, and fix a couple of loose boards on there. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-I think at this point, however, you’ve got quite a bit of new structure there, and I think that the Zoning Administrator has suggested that that’s the problem. That’s why you have a Stop Work Order. MR. BEAN-I thought it was on the deck, but my understanding, from the Building Department was it’s just, anything you’re replacing or repairing above water doesn’t need a building permit. So I’m just trying to clarify, you know, we can take it all down, I can take it down, in a few hours it’s gone, as far as the deck. We’re just going to repair the ground as it is, we’re going to put new slate on there, we’re going to straighten up the patio, and we rebuild the deck from the water up, and we put a jet ski in there. We’re going to use the water. I don’t care what the neighbor says we’re going to do, but we’re going to use the water. She’s got water rights, and we’re going to use it. So we’re going to use it one way or the other. I thought we were improving the property, and, you know, making it, for the owner, that she can use her property. We don’t want to fight with the neighbors. She would love to just be left alone. She thinks she’s improving the property, getting rid of an eyesore that was previously there, and it’s kind of crazy to me. It seems like it’s so, it seems like it’s crazy that it’s such a hard decision to get to this point, but we can do it the other way, and we will if that’s what we have to do, of course, we’ll do it the other way, but the dock isn’t going anywhere. MR. JACKOSKI-I think Mr. Underwood made a very point, that we can certainly go forward and attempt a resolution this evening that suggests that you skinny up the dock, leave it in place, that the decking is acceptable. I think we were just trying to make you aware that we were not in any way suggesting to you that you actually could put a boat there. That’s not our responsibility and we’re not suggesting that at all. You might go through all that effort and find out that you have a legal battle on your hands. MR. BEAN-We may very well have one anyway, but we, if the Park Commission says they can skinny up the dock but they can’t put a boat there, you know, why would they say go ahead and skinny up your dock and not thinking that you’re not going to use it for a boat. It’s better to have a big old wide thing if we’re going to use it as a landing and a deck. MR. JACKOSKI-I can’t answer for the Park Commission. I don’t know what made them make their decision. MR. OBORNE-If I may, just to get focused on get on task, it sounds like the Zoning Board’s going to table, and I would suggest that in that tabling motion that you give the guidance that has been discussed, and the dye has been case. MR. UNDERWOOD-I can do it. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I just want to clarify for the client, would you prefer that we take a vote on your application? MR. BEAN-Table it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that you were comfortable with that. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2011 SUSAN CLERMONT, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Old Assembly Point Road. The applicant has constructed a 200 plus square foot deck over an existing patio and proposes reconfiguration or downsizing of the existing 120 plus or minus square foot nonconforming dock to a 48 plus or minus square foot. Relief is requested for side setbacks for both the deck and the dock as well as the shoreline relief for the deck, and site plan review is required for hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline. The Zoning Board would like a clarification from the Lake George Park Commission in regards to the narrowing of this dock. It does not seem that narrowing the dock would create any difficulties for the neighbors. Other suggestions from Board members were possibly moving the dock into compliance, and the Park Commission can comment as to whether they would prefer that or to leave it as is on the current permit. Secondly, we would ask for a clarification on the part of the Park Commission, even though it’s not our purview, is this suitable with about a 10 foot wide plus or minus narrow space to the south of that dock for a boat to be moored there, and that’s actually to your benefit if the boat is allowed there, but that’s not anything that we make a decision in th regards to, and I guess we’ll just wait until we hear back. Tabled until the May 25 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. th Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2011, by the following vote: 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. UNDERWOOD-And get together with your neighbors. So we’ll put you on for which meeting next month, Keith? th MR. OBORNE-May 25. th MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So the May 25 meeting. We’ll see you again. MR. BEAN-Do you send a letter? MR. OBORNE-You’ll get a resolution, yes. MR. BEAN-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. MR. BEAN-Thank you very much. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. BEAN-Thank you. AUDIENCE MEMBER-May I withdraw that information that I gave you, because it’s the only copy that I have. MR. JACKOSKI-Sure. That’s fine with me. MR. OBORNE-Sir, if you wish to submit it for the record, by all means, just send it to my office and I’ll put it in the record. AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2011 SEQRA TYPE II CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS AGENT(S) MICHAEL CUSACK, ESQ. OWNER(S) TREEMONT, LLC c/o MIKE DUFORT ZONING CLI LOCATION 89 EVERTS AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING 182 +/- GUYED AM RADIO TOWER WITH A NEW SHIELDED 180 +/- FT. AM TOWER (PLUS 4 +/- FT. LIGHTNING ROD) AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 360 SQ. FT. SUPPORT STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE/WETLANDS SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 11-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 13, 2011 LOT SIZE 4.35 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.08-2-4 SECTION 179-3-040 MICHAEL CUSACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2011, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Meeting Date: April 27, 2011 “Project Location: 89 Everts Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes replacement of existing 182 +/- guyed AM radio tower with a new shielded 180 +/- ft. AM tower (plus 4 +/- ft. lightning rod) and construction of a 360 sq. ft. support structure on a 4.35 acre parcel off of Everts Avenue. Relief Required: Parcel will require an area variance as follows: Tower portion of the project ? Shoreline/Wetland setback relief – Applicant requests 69 feet relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement for the CLI zone as per §179-3-040. Support Shelter of the project ? Shoreline/Wetland setback relief – Applicant requests 75 feet of relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement for the CLI zone as per §179-3-040. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) 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 expected as a 182 foot high guyed tower currently exists on site. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could potentially place the proposed tower at a different location to reduce the amount of relief requested; however, the chosen location has a pre-existing tower and site disturbance would be minimal as compared to an alternate location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request concerning the tower potion of the project for 69 feet or 92% relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement for the CLI zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request concerning the support shelter portion of the project for 75 feet or 100% relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement as per §179-3-040 for the CLI zone may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Any disturbance within a wetland may be potentially detrimental; however, the plan has erosion and sediment controls designed that may mitigate any wetland impacts. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 28-11 Pending Staff comments: Currently there exists a 182 foot guyed radio tower with support structures that are slated for removal. The applicant proposes to access from the existing asphalt parking to the south of the office with a dedicated gravel drive to the proposed site. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review necessary” (DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES SOME OF DISCUSSION WAS NOT RECORDED) MR. CUSACK-The height of the tower, in this case, is dictated by the AM radio operations. We’re only going to be at 135 feet, even though the tower is 180 feet tall. So the AM radio has a license to broadcast. That’s predicated on covering a certain amount of area, which they do off a 180 foot tower. MR. URRICO-Now, at one point, we’ve all heard, we’ve been through various iterations about, we all know we need the cell phones. We all know about the coverage, but it was anticipated, at some point, that the poles will actually shrink, that you would have to supplement the bigger towers with smaller ones in order to blanket an area. Are we ever going to reach that in this area? Is there a master plan? MR. CUSACK-Yes, we are. Yes, the other project that we’re working on with the Town Board right now, and you haven’t seen it yet because it hasn’t been filed is on a Town water tank property, and that’s approximately 100 to 120 feet. The height hasn’t been settled yet. We’re still working through the due diligence on it, but the lease has been approved at the Town Board level, and we do see the heights coming down. Most of what we’re building these days, unless it’s in a flat, rural area, such as the Canadian border or St. Lawrence County or Jefferson County, most of what we’re building is in the 120 foot range to 100 feet, right now, and in this particular case the radio engineers actually wanted to be a little bit lower on the Tremont’s tower, but when we did the structural design for the new guy wires we’re coming in to attach to the side of the tower right where we wanted to put our antennas. So we had to go either a few feet higher or lower. I can’t remember, but it seems to be a valid consideration. Our engineers did not want to be too high, because they don’t want this site interfering with the coverage in Glens Falls from the CNA building where our next adjacent site is in the network. So they’re trying to run that balance very, very closely. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. GARRAND-This area has been very subject to flooding throughout the years. One thing we don’t want to do is fill in any wetlands over there. We’ve had water issues there. The residents in that area have been flooded out how many times? Every time? MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s been mitigated through certain, are you talking about Homer Avenue? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s been mitigated at this point, but you’re right, there’s a high water table. MR. GARRAND-Yes, I still see over at the dental office there’s a lot of water there, too. MR. OBORNE-There’s water on the site right now. MR. GARRAND-I don’t see any boats in there, though. Also, there’s a lot of wildlife in there, and cited in your study here was also the Darren Green Falcon. I’ve seen just about every kind of wildlife in that plot of land. What’s going to be done to mitigate destruction of the wildlife in that area? MR. CUSACK-The plan for mitigation here, which has been very carefully thought out and designed, is to put the replacement tower right next to the existing tower and the Verizon equipment shelter right next to that, so in other words, in other tower applications, you will see that they’ll come in and they’ll clear and fence in an area greater than 100 by 100. So they’ll flatten it, level it, put the crushed stone in the base, and they’ll fence in 100 by 100 and clear beyond that so that they can keep the vegetation away from the yard, and it winds up being a 10,000 square foot more or less change on the area, and here they’re confining it to basically the size of the equipment shelter with some stone around it. The equipment shelter, the change that you will see, is 12 feet by 30 feet or 360 square feet, plus some base around it, and it’ll probably be on piers for the reason that you’ve mentioned, but no paved areas. Everything’s going to be left pervious so that the water can seep through it and we’re not changing the existing grade and the Corp of Engineers, in their requirements, which is what took us two or three years to get through this, they’re very stringent on what we can and can’t do. MR. GARRAND-Yes. It’s in there, too. Putting the anchors in, normally that involves bringing a truck in, screwing the anchors into the ground for these towers. MR. CUSACK-Yes. MR. GARRAND-How much damage is that going to do? MR. CUSACK-There’s a foundation associated with it, and the anchor basically screws into a concrete pylon. So the ones that are there now won’t be there anymore, and they’ll just be pulled out a little bit into different spots which have been approved by Corps of Engineers, and we’re also restricted in that work. We have to do all the restoration, and, you know, bring things back as close to the existing conditions as we can. MR. GARRAND-A big part of that is not disturbing a lot when you go in there and do this work. I think this is the kind of project, if they do it carefully, they can go in there and not disturb a whole lot of what’s in there, because once they get in there, they’re going to find that there is a lot of wildlife in there. MR. CUSACK-But that’s the overall plan is just be as unobtrusive as possible in not removing any vegetation or changing the grade again. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions, comments? Okay. Well, I’ll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, do we have any written comments? MR. URRICO-None. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. No written comment, and I see no one in the audience that wants to address the Board. Any other additional questions? Should I close the public hearing? Okay. I will close the public hearing. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Would you like to poll the Board? Start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Well, I think when the Town put together its plans for the co-location, I think this is kind of what they had in mind. I think this is replacing one tower with another one, and it’ll service multiple users and have multiple reasons to exist. I think it’s a good plan, and I do not see a problem with this. I’d be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have to agree. It’s really a replacement of what’s already there, and looking at the picture and looking at it, it’s very unobtrusive as it is, and though the relief seems severe, it’s really no more than you’ve had already. So I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with it. It makes sense. I’m sure the Army Corps gave it a lot of thought as to what was going to happen there within the wetlands, and as far as the extra anchors, everything, I mean, there’s going to be a few more guy wires. That’s about the only change in, and of course the co-location of the cell stuff up on (lost words) minor change. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Hopefully they can mitigate the environmental damage or the damage to the wildlife and what’s in there. There’s a tremendous amount of wildlife in that swamp, and I’ve seen it for the last 12 years. So I’d like to see them do whatever they can do to mitigate that. I’d be in favor of it, though. MR. CLEMENTS-I have to agree with the rest of the Board. I’d be in favor. I think it’s a good project. Having several different things on one tower is the way the Town wants to go. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-I, too, think I’m in favor. I’m just curious as to what the construction period would truly end up being. Do you have any idea what that’ll be? MR. CUSACK-We think, because there’s a cut over and you know, you have the one tower to take down and the other one to put up, we would have to say about eight weeks on this, maybe a little longer. We ordinarily say four weeks, four to five weeks, but, you know, counting the tower removal and any clean up at the site, let’s make it eight weeks. We usually say four to six weeks in our standard answer, but if we run into weather or something, I want to leave a little bit of a buffer. MR. JACKOSKI-And will there be more than one row, I guess I’ll call them, of the cell structures, the rectangular? JEAN MARIE FRAWLEY MS. FRAWLEY-Not originally. MR. JACKOSKI-But there will be more above that point or below that point than is currently dictated on the plan? There’s one row there now. MR. CUSACK-Yes. If another user came to Treemont to rent space, they would have to apply to the Town for their own permits, and that would go through another review, I think. MR. JACKOSKI-Would they come back to us, Keith, another user of the tower? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think so. MR. OBORNE-Co-location? MR. JACKOSKI-Co-location. MR. OBORNE-I believe so. MR. JACKOSKI-They would come back? MR. OBORNE-For you, no. This is an allowable use in that zone. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, would you like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2011 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 89 Everts Avenue. The applicant is replacing an existing approximately 182 foot AM radio tower with a new shielded 180 foot AM tower plus four foot lightening rod and construction of a 360 square foot support structure on 4.35 acres off Everts Avenue. The parcel will require the following Area Variances from 179-3-040. One is for shoreline setback relief. Applicant is requesting 69 feet relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback, and the second is 75 feet of relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback for shoreline wetland setback relief. In making this determination, we’ve considered the criteria for granting this variance. We think minor impacts to the neighborhood may be expected, as a 182 foot high guy tower currently exists on this site. The applicant could potentially place this proposed tower at a different location to reduce the amount of relief requested. However, the chosen location has a pre-existing tower and a history, and the sight distance would be minimal, as compared to an alternate location. The Area Variance, as I mentioned earlier, will concern the tower portion of the project, 69 feet, or 92% relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement, as per 179-3-040, and the 75 feet from 100% relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement per the same 179-3-040 for the CLI zone. Any disturbance within the wetland may be potentially detrimental. However, the plan has erosion and sediment controls that control it, and the difficulty is definitely self-created. I move that we approve this Area Variance. th Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. GARRAND-It seems a little bit weak when you’re applying Rosenburg to this. Unsafe level, when you’re applying Rosenburg to this, because you use Rosenburg with every application. I mean, some you can, sometimes the argument has more weight when putting towers in different areas. This area has pretty good coverage compared to most areas in Queensbury. MR. CUSACK-Studying it closely, you’re on the verge of exhaustion of spectrum. MR. GARRAND-It’s a capacity issue right now. MR. JACKOSKI-Upper Bay Road, we need coverage, Upper Bay Road. All right. For fellow Board members, just real quick, we wanted to establish maybe a workshop opportunity and discuss some dates, if that’s possible, talking about protocol, procedure, motion writing, all that kind of stuff. Is anyone interested in trying to establish that date for a workshop? MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have a month coming up with not much, or is everything, two meetings every month now? MR. OBORNE-You can anticipate that, because people are going to going to want their fences and pools. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Pools in side yards. th MR. URRICO-Could we do it on the 11? MR. OBORNE-It doesn’t necessarily have to be a Wednesday, but if that works better, that’s fine. th MR. JACKOSKI-Would Wednesday work for you? I hear the 11, at what time? MR. UNDERWOOD-At 7. MR. JACKOSKI-Seven. Is that okay, Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Does that work for you, also? th MR. CLEMENTS-May 11 at 7? Sure. MR. OBORNE-Put that in resolution form. MR. JACKOSKI-Should we make a resolution? MR. OBORNE-Please. MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Roy. MOTION TO SET UP A WORKSHOP FOR THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF TH APPEALS FOR MAY 11 AT 7 P.M. FOR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN THE SUPERVISOR’S CONFERENCE ROOM OR THE PLANNING CONFERENCE ROOM, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2011, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-And location to be determined, or can we use this room? MR. OBORNE-We will probably get the Supervisor’s Conference Room. If not, we’ll do it in the Planning Conference room. MR. JACKOSKI-All part of the motion, right? AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Do I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2011, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: th Duly adopted this 27 day of April, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 47