Loading...
2005-03-23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETIING MARCH 23, 2005 INDEX Sign Variance No. 21-2005 Target Corporation 1. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-92.12 Area Variance No. 10-2005 Jelenik Construction Co., LLC d/b/a 1. One-Stop Self Storage Area Variance No. 19-2005 Richard Selkow 10. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-5 Area Variance No. 22-2005 Mohammad Tariq d/b/a Rodeway Inn 14. Tax Map No. 288.00-1-56 Area Variance No. 23-2005 Donna Gagnon 17. Tax Map No. 301.7-2-31.2 Area Variance No. 24-2005 John E. Kelly 20. Tax Map No. 226.19-2-27, 26, 28, 29 Area Variance No. 25-2005 Timothy & Suzanne Hunsicker 26. Tax Map No. 289.9-1-8 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PAUL HAYES, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ALLAN BRYANT JAMES UNDERWOOD CHARLES ABBATE LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE ROY URRICO CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, a point of order, please. MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. ABBATE-This is information mainly for members of the Board. Once a motion is called for, any other business is considered invalid. No business may interrupt the motion, and that’s based on Roberts Rules, and I just thought I’d bring that to the attention of the members. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. First tonight we have a piece of housekeeping that we’re going to take care of. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 21-2005 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED TARGET CORPORATION OWNER(S): TARGET CORPORATION AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR ATTORNEYS RICK MARSHALL – MARSHALL SIGN CORP. ZONING: ESC-25A LOCATION: AVIATION ROAD, AVIATION MALL APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 35 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN “PHARMACY”. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN FOR AN OCCUPANT IN A BUSINESS COMPLEX. CROSS REF. SV 87-2004, BP 2004-948, BP 2004-084 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 9, 2005 LOT SIZE: 8.13 ACRES SECTION 140-6(B3d4b) 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MR. HAYES-The Target application is going to be tabled, I believe, based on the information requested by the applicant. So anyone here that’s here for the Target application, that will not be heard tonight. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 21-2005 TARGET CORPORATION, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Aviation Road, Aviation Mall. Tabled for no more than 30 days, until the April meetings. Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2005, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Rigby, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2005 SEQRA TYPE II JELENIK CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC D/B/A ONE-STOP SELF STORAGE AGENT(S): PAUL F. TOMMELL, L.S., P.C., CLARK R. WILKINSON, P.E. OWNER(S): FINCH PRUYN & COMPANY, INC. ZONING: LI LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SELF-STORAGE 35 FT. BY 140 FT. SELF-STORAGE BUILDINGS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 3- 2005 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-5 SECTION: 179-4-040 B & C CLARK WILKINSON & DAVE JELENIK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2005, Jelenik Construction Co., LLC d/b/a One-Stop Self Storage, Meeting Date: March 23, 2005 “Project Location: Sherman Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of two 35’ x 140’ self-storage buildings comprised of 60 storage units on the south side of Sherman Ave between Oak Tree Circle and Arbutus Drive. Relief Required: Applicant requests 5% of relief from the 30% minimum permeability requirement, per § 179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 10-2005: tabled 3/16/05, relief from the parking requirements. SP 3-2005: to be reviewed 03/22/05 pending this application. AV 10-2004: tabled 01/19/05, relief from the drive isle width and parking requirements for 4 self-storage buildings totaling 10,200 sq. ft. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct two 35’ x 140’ self-storage buildings comprised of 60 storage units. The applicant proposed no parking spaces for the buildings during the March 16, 2005 request for relief. A poll of the board revealed the vote would result in less than a majority for support of approving the application. The applicant requested the application be tabled until March 23, 2005 in order to appear before a full board with the same application. The board informed the applicant that any significant changes in the project would require re- advertising the public hearing for the project. On March 18, 2005, the applicant submitted a new site plan, which includes the 12 required parking spaces for the proposed use. The 12 parking spaces increase the impermeable area for the parcel resulting in the applicant requesting 5% of relief from the 30% minimum requirement. The applicant requests to be heard on the March 23, 2005 meeting to request the new relief. If the board chooses to review the project, the applicant is willing to have the public hearing reopened. The neighbor who wished to speak at the March 23, 2005 meeting, in order to submit a petition against granting the relief, was informed by telephone of the changes on March 18, 2005. Even though the Zoning Administrator is granting the applicant’s request to forward the application to the board, ultimately, it is the board’s decision whether they want to hear the request for new relief or require the new request to be advertised.” 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MR. MC NULTY-And it was a Type II and there was no County. MR. HAYES-Before I have you guys introduce yourselves and go into your presentation, we have the issue of whether we’re going to move forward with this application or not, and I think, as a matter of expediency, we’ll probably settle that right away. That would save your time and ours, or at least get a direction on that. So I’m going to poll the Board members individually, quickly, as to whether they feel they’re comfortable going forward with this application as presented or whether they feel it should be re-advertised for the differences that have been proposed by the applicant. You guys understand? Okay. So I guess we’ll start right in order with Leo MR. RIGBY-My sense is that it should be re-advertised. MR. HAYES-Okay. MRS. HUNT-I agree. MR. HAYES-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I agree. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. HAYES-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I agree. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I have to go along and say I agree also. It’s the kind of thing I think that probably all of us feel in one sense is kind of minor, but on the other hand, it’s when you re- advertise and somebody comes up with something that we hadn’t anticipated. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, before you comment on it, I was wondering how many people in the audience were here to hear this application? I know Mrs. Burton is here, and she may have numerous people here. So I realize the Board’s trying to be fair, but the intent of the Code is to make sure the public is informed. I, personally, informed Mrs. Burton, and, I mean, you have a lot of people that are here for this application. I’ll bet you they would like to have the application heard tonight. I mean, so if you’re trying to help out the public, I could understand your bests interests are definitely where they should be, but since a good majority of the crowd is here is for this application, do we really want to table it until next month and then have all these people have to come back again? And I’m sure the applicant would prefer to proceed also, but again, it’s up to the Board’s discretion. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, my question would be, then, what about the other neighbors who were here at the original public hearing in January? Are they here also? Because Mr. Frank may have a point. If all the people who commented in the public hearing were here for the initial hearing, well then maybe it’s a moot point at this juncture. MR. HAYES-Could we see those hands again? I just want to get a general? MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Burton could probably tell you better than anybody else. She’s the one that had the petition. I think she had I don’t know how many signatures, close to 100, I thought. So she’d be able to tell you right now if the majority of the people that were here before are here now, since she was kind of representing the neighborhood. If you want to hear here. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MR. HAYES-I certainly recognize her, but informally it looks like basically three-quarters of the people are here for this application, by the head count, by a straw count. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask, is Mr. Schille here, and Mr. Glen Preiss here? MR. HAYES-I guess we’ll do this democratically, one more time, now that we have new information. So I’ll take that informal vote one more time, based on what Bruce has said and the informal poll, and then we’ll live or die by that decision and go forward. MR. RIGBY-Can I ask a question. Can we have a public hearing and still table this? MR. HAYES-Certainly, but then, you know, we’d be forced with a situation that if there was a new Board, those people would be forced to come back and probably make their case again because it wouldn’t be the same people voting on the application, necessarily. I mean, not that that’s controlling. MR. RIGBY-We could leave the public hearing open. MR. HAYES-No question. So what’s your preference, Leo? MR. RIGBY-My preference is still to re-advertise, and maybe hear what some of the public has to say. MR. HAYES-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I agree. I don’t feel comfortable without re-advertising. MR. HAYES-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I think I could hear it tonight. MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes. I think we should hear it this evening. MR. HAYES-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would agree. We should hear it this evening. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I could go either way. I guess I could go along with hearing it this evening. It’s a slight gamble that there might be somebody out there that would have a problem with the permeability that did not have a problem with some of the other issues. I think as a practical thing, probably there isn’t. So, on that basis, and certainly the people that are here are going to be some of the more vocal of those that might have a problem. So I’d go with it, for this evening. MR. HAYES-I’d feel comfortable going forward as well, for two reasons. One is, I think when, and whenever possible, we should not table things because the issues are going to be presented and decided that I think that that’s what we’re here for, and the other thing is it appears to me that the opposition is fairly well organized and they’re well organized tonight, and that should be heard. So I’m going to vote to go ahead, and I think that makes it a five two vote to proceed with the application tonight. So, we will proceed with Area Variance No. 10-2005. Please introduce yourself for the record. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MR. WILKINSON-Certainly. For the record my name is Clark Wilkinson with Paul F. Tommell, LSPC, and to my left is Mr. Jelenik, the applicant. As you recall, we were here in January and discussed this project in detail, and at that time we were looking for, we discussed, in detail, actually, relief from not only the parking but also the drive aisle width, and there were issues with the fire and safety. Since that meeting, we went back and redesigned the site, met all the conditions for fire and safety. We’ve got good circulation around the buildings. We’ve reduced the number of buildings from four to two. We also rotated them 90 degrees so that the gable ends were the ones that were facing the road so there wouldn’t be as much noise and activity towards the neighbors. In addition, we also designed the site as much to the rear as we possibly could, so that we’re able to provide a buffer along Sherman Avenue with the existing trees, and that’s, again, that’s all been designed and is in the package that you originally got for last Wednesday’s meeting. Last Wednesday when we were here to discuss it, as some of you will recall, there was only five Board members present at that time, and a straw pole taken basically the members that were here, it looked like we weren’t going to get a majority. It was three, two, as a matter of fact, with the motion that was on the floor. We have since thought about, okay, what is the lesser that, because we heard the Board again stating that asking for 100% relief from something was a little different than asking for a portion of a relief of something. So we’ve regrouped and decided that we would design the parking spaces into the project and included the 12 spaces that are required under the Code, and in doing so, it increased the impervious area. One of the other reasons for this variance request for greater than impervious area, five percent increase, is due to the fact that we had to have the large turn arounds on a very narrow site in order for the fire apparatus to get circulation. We also felt, and argued both in January 16 and also last week, about the need and the necessity of the parking spaces, due to the fact th that self-storage places in particular are relatively low use, and the parking spaces, although they are required in the zone, there’s a question of the need or the necessity of them since the activity is for the people that are using the facility to come in, usually park right next to or near their storage unit, lift the door, take out, put in, whatever, lock it back up and leave the site. So there was a question, we posed the question in that regard, and there was definitely a question from the Zoning Board in the January 16 meeting as to, were they really necessary. Again, we th redesigned the site and reduced, actually, the size of the buildings and the square footage that we were proposing in order to fit everything on the site, and only have the one variance for parking, and again, after the discussion last week, we heard the Board that you’re asking for 100% relief, and it is somewhat of a difficult thing. We made the decision to, again, to reapply or to change the application for relief of five percent versus the parking, and that’s why we’re here tonight, and we’re hoping that the Board can make a decision on this project. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? MR. BRYANT-The front of the buildings on Sherman Avenue, are there going to be storage units on the very front? As the buildings face Sherman Avenue, narrower? MR. WILKINSON-I don’t think so. I think just the back end, not the front end. MR. BRYANT-Okay. They’re all on the sides. MR. WILKINSON-They’re all on the sides, correct. MR. BRYANT-That’s my only question, Mr. Chairman. MR. HAYES-So it’s essentially this permeability request occurred because of the parking, the stone and the parking. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions? MR. RIGBY-Have all the fire department concerns been cleared at this point? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MR. JELENIK-Yes, sir. MR. MC NULTY-Should we get to the point of approving this, you’d be willing to stipulate that the buffer between the buildings and Sherman Avenue would remain, the trees? MR. JELENIK-Yes, sir. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions at this time for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Would anyone like to come forward now at this time and speak on this application? I’ll remind everybody there’s a five minute limit. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NICOLE BURTON MS. BURTON-Good evening. I’m Nicole Burton, and as you can see, this is my lot in front of the proposed site. So it is obvious that I am the most passionate about this because it will directly affect me, I think, the most, but if you look to the right, that is the entranceway into our neighborhood, Hidden Hills, and I had looked up on the website, if you want to refer to the page I just handed you. There were five, I understand there’s five statements that the Board has in front of them when they’re deciding to pass or deny, and I would just like to review a few of them. Number One is the undesirable change. Will this be an undesirable change to our neighborhood. My petition, with 124 signatures and 8 statements, is proof of that. Our neighborhood value now is the houses sell $200,000 and up, and this lot is also directly next to a lovely log cabin. So property value is a huge, huge concern, for everyone. Number Two is the benefit. Can this benefit sought by the applicant be achieved in some other method, and obviously, it seems to be that this is overdeveloping this less than one acre lot, and I would hope that the applicant could see that and just purchase another lot. Number Three is the Area Variance, is it substantial, and we feel it is substantial. There is no easy way to access that lot, and, you know, a few, you could walk from that lot down to Northway Storage, which is on the other side of our overpass, and there is an access road that follows way back. That’s a huge concern. Number Four, the adverse affect has a physical or environmental impact, and I know that in our area there is the protected flower, the blue lupine, and I’m wondering, has there been any testing. We need to get a study done, I would feel. It is all around that area. Lupine Lane is a street next door to us, and I’m surprised that that hasn’t been brought up before, and, Number Five is, was this difficulty self-created, and will it be relevant to the decision of the Board, and I think that if the applicant had done the due diligence before the plans were drawn, then you would have seen that this lot is too small for a storage facility, and it’s in an inappropriate area and, I mean, it’s obvious that no neighborhood would want a public facility next to them. Nobody would want that. So I’m asking you to review this, and obviously I skimmed through because I know that little dinger is going to ding soon, and, you know, I guess to sum it up, we feel that this is going to junk up our area. After you go past the overpass, you’re on the bedroom side of Queensbury. There’s a knoll in the road. That’s another concern, and that could be for Number One. The knoll in the road happens before our neighborhood, and you cannot see past that. Cars come flying by. I have a statement from Mrs. Volino who is four houses to the right, who was severely rear ended trying to pull into her own driveway. That just shows the speed that is constant on this road. So we feel that having a business which could have 30 people or more in and out, trucks pulling in. They’re going to have people to help. They’re going to need to stop. It’s just going to be too much for this area, and just for the record, this is certainly not a personal attack on the applicant. I know that he’s a very well respected person in our neighborhood as well, and we just really feel that, you know, we wish him well with his business and hope that it would be on a lot more appropriate. MR. BRYANT-Mrs. Burton, if I may, it appears that you’ve done a lot of research on the criteria and these other areas, but the majority of these arguments are not really related to the discussion tonight. The traffic flow, the access, and all these items are really Planning Board issues, and we’re only dealing with the five percent of permeability that we’re talking about, and that’s all that we are charged to address. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MS. BURTON-And I understand that. My point, though, is I know you talk about the character of the neighborhood. That is one of your decisions, and I’m just showing you, yes, how this is going to affect the character of the neighborhood, traffic flow. That was another concern. I mean, those are things that we had discussed previously. MR. BRYANT-But as it relates to the relief, not, you know, as it’s a building, as it relates to the relief. MS. BURTON-I know. I understand, but I’m looking at it as proceeding, whether to proceed or not is how I’m looking at it. MR. BRYANT-I understand. MR. HAYES-I think Al, to expand on what Al said, and this is certainly not a forbearance of what direction we’re going to go, but the type of use that gets done there or should be allowed there has more to do with underlying zoning than this proceeding, I mean, that’s zoned Light Industrial, I guess, which you could easily make an argument that that, in my opinion, is not correct. Okay, but I’m just expanding on what Al is saying, as far as what happens there, the use, the self-storage use has almost nothing to do with this Board. We just want you to know that. That doesn’t mean we’re going to decide either way. MS. BURTON-And I understand that, and you all know that my battle next is to rezone, and to fight to have that rezoned. There’s a lot of little acres beside this lot that NiMo could easily sell off and then, bam, we’re going to have a ton of Light Industrial options that could go here. So that’s why I’m thinking, if we extend the residential line, it seems to be more appropriate because this is a residential neighborhood. MR. HAYES-All right. Thank you. MS. BURTON-Thank you. ROBERT SCHILLE MR. SCHILLE-Good evening. My name’s Robert Schille. Could I have a clarification on permeability? MR. HAYES-Basically it’s the area reserved in the Code where water can disperse into the ground, stormwater can flow into the ground. It can’t be paved or gravel. It’s designed to help mitigate stormwater and retain stormwater on the site, essentially there’s requirements for different style developments, different percentages, but in this particular case it’s 30. MR. SCHILLE-And this is the? MR. HAYES-The minimum is 30. So he’s apparently asking for 25% permeability. MR. SCHILLE-All right. I’ll go ahead with my statements anyway. To me, it does not matter how many storage units, four, two or one, it is. It’s still not the right fit for that property. This particular piece of property, I feel, is rather unique, in that the pole lines run behind it, which also run behind my house. Where it is, you have lots of kids or young people in the area who run their motorized equipment, such as dirt bikes or four-wheelers, and I feel that with the installation of the storage facility, that this would entice loitering and vandalism, and this, in turn, could possibly spill over into the Sherman Avenue row of houses. Also, just to end with, that there is already a storage facility less than a mile away, and that’s all I have. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Would anyone else like to come forward and speak on this application? That’s it. All right. We’re going to read some 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) correspondence or summarize some correspondence into the minutes, so that the stuff you brought forward gets recognized as well. MR. MC NULTY-We have three notes and then the petition that was mentioned before, and I’ll try to summarize the notes. One is from the Stillmans, and they cite concerns about additional traffic, and mention that the sports facility also will generate traffic, and has been mentioned before, they mention also that there’s another storage facility not too far away, and so they feel this one is probably not needed, and they also express a concern about tractor trailers loading and unloading with diesel fumes and backing on to Sherman Avenue without a clear view. This one looks like Tina and Hank Shower, or something like that. Anyway, they say they’re worried about the traffic, noise, lights, and they don’t feel that there’s a need for the facility as well, and we’ve got another one that mentions congestion, traffic hazards. The land is located in a residential area, and they believe that the property is inappropriately zoned, and the petition coversheet reads, the lot is located at the gateway of our Sherman Avenue entrance to our neighborhood. Rezone lot to residential. This is a one acre lot that is nestled in a residential area. There’s not enough room to occupy storage sheds to this magnitude. There’s already too much traffic on Sherman Avenue. We do not want the danger of fire hazard from these unattended shed contents. There’s not enough room for multiple fire trucks, ambulances and fire squad if need be. We do not want storage sheds with lights that are on 24 hours a day, and the frequenting people unattended at all hours for safety reasons. Our neighborhood children will be attending the new sports arena and must cross Sherman. Now with this there will be large moving trucks frequenting the area. It is obvious that this Light Industrial lot is detrimental to our neighborhood and could hurt the character of our neighborhood and surrounding streets. Signing this petition will help us fight for this lot to be rezoned residential and not occupy storage sheds or any other commercial or light industrial business. Please help us fight for our property value. This affects all of us. If you’d like to attend any Town meetings pertaining to this subject, please leave your phone number and I will contact you with day and time. And that’s it for the summary. MR. HAYES-Okay. Does that pretty much cover it? Okay. All right. I’m going to leave the public hearing open until we actually go to a motion. That’s the new modus operandi here. So would you guys like to come back up and we’ll see if there’s any last questions that were developed during the public hearing. Does anyone have any further questions for the applicant at this particular time? Having said that, I guess it’s basically time to talk about it. I guess it’s time to start with you, Joyce. MRS. HUNT-Well, I really feel that we’ve put these people into a Catch-22. They gave up the idea of no parking places, and in doing that they need permeability, and if that’s the only thing we are to consider, whether or not to give five percent relief of the permeability, I would go along with that. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-To the applicants, you’ve come a long way since January, and there has been major improvement on the project. To the neighbors, I agree with Mrs. Burton’s statements and Mr. Schille’s statements 100%. I wouldn’t want to have a storage shed in my back yard either, but had you continued the research on the web page, you would have found that one of the things we can’t do is deprive an owner of the use of his own property, and we, this is not the venue to question the zoning. You should go to the Town Board with that. They’re the ones that can change the zoning. We can’t change the zoning. So this is a proper use in that particular zone, and I agree with Joyce, that the five percent permeability is acceptable MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I’m going to disagree with my eminent friend sitting beside me. I do believe that, granted, we are focusing on a five percent relief from the 30% permeability. However, when the Board makes a decision, we basically are responsible for the totality of the results of our decision, and so I do believe that the five concepts that are required 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) by law, that is will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood, plays an important role. Now that is in no way determining how I’m going to vote on this thing. I just want it on the record that I disagree with him philosophically. Number One, this is a light industrial area. Number Two, the applicant has, indeed, made a number of concessions, and I suppose if I were living in that area I might have some concern, but we have, we are bound to make our decisions based upon the facts that are found in the record. Based on the concessions of the applicant, and the fact that it’s a Light Industrial area, I would support the application. MR. HAYES-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to agree with Allan and everybody else so far, too. I think that, you know, the initial application as it came in has been modified quite significantly, the layout of the buildings. The attempt has been made to keep that vegetative buffer between the residential areas to the north on the other side, and I think that we’ve discussed previously the fact that most of these facilities, I used to live down by one on Meadowbrook Road, and I really never did see very much action there, as far as generation of a lot of traffic. I think Doug Miller’s project to the south there, that new facility that’s going in, the hockey facility that’s going to be going in, is going to generate probably, you know, a multiplied factor of traffic on that road, and that is, was a concern of the neighborhood and the neighbors at that time when that application was before us also, but as my other Board members have said, this is a permitted use in the zone. It’s not within our purview to deny somebody the right to do something that’s permitted by the present zoning. The proper place to go for a change in zone is to go to the Town Board and see what they have to say about this matter, but our purview tonight is on the permeability on the site. They provided us with a stormwater management control plan and that seems, to me, to be quite adequate, you know, the addition of the swales that were originally in the plan, with the addition of the infiltrators in the ground is basically not going to permit any water to flow off site, even in a 100 year event, rain event. So at this point in time I think that we could approve this as asked for. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’ve been negative on this right along, arguing that no better time to put a conforming use on the lot than when you’re buying the lot. However, as has been pointed out, one, our decision tonight is based strictly on the permeability request that’s being made, not on the type of the facility, and also, as has been pointed out, this is a Light Industrial area, and certainly the neighbors may well want to pursue that issue with the Town Board, which isn’t going to come soon enough to solve your problem with the storage facility, and I think as we’ve also pointed out, though, a lot of the issues that are being brought up by the neighbors are Planning Board issues. They’re things that we can’t legally consider in our decision tonight. The Planning Board can consider a lot of these issues, traffic, traffic flow, and that type of thing. So you certainly shouldn’t give up, if it goes the wrong way for you tonight, show up at the Planning Board and make yourselves heard. Looking at this decision tonight, as I said, for me, it’s looking at the permeability, on the one hand, and certainly the applicant has offered mitigating actions to solve the problem regarding the five percent that he’s asking for. Two other things, I think, sway me tonight. One is the fact that the applicant has gone back to the drawing board a couple of times to try to meet the concerns of the neighborhood, and I’m not inclined to necessarily approve something simply because an applicant has made some compromises, but at the same time, this indicates that he’s trying to do the right thing, and it leads me to believe that he may continue to do the right thing, so when he gets this in place, if there is a problem, he may well be approachable to solve it if we find that there is too much traffic or something is too noisy or light shining across the road into somebody’s window or something. So I think he’s going to be a cooperative neighbor. Then the other thing that strikes me in this case is as we’ve said, this is a Light Industrial area, and if this doesn’t become a storage facility, with a buffer between the facility and Sherman Avenue, it could be something else that might be a lot worse for the residential neighborhood. So, based with what we can do tonight, I’m going to be in favor. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MR. HAYES-Leo? MR. RIGBY-Yes. I think everything that’s been said is pretty much what I’m thinking, too. I think, you know, the issue for us is permeability. The other issues are either Town Board issues or, you know, issues that need to be addressed by the Planning Board. So, I’m in agreement with what everyone else has said, and I think I’d be in favor of granting the variance for the permeability. MR. HAYES-Well, I essentially agree. I won’t belabor the point too long. I think the Board has done an excellent job of pointing out hopefully, probably not to the public’s satisfaction, but at least so they’re fully informed of the parameters of our decision. In this particular case, we’re really only dealing with whether granting five percent relief on the permeability requirement will have an effect too substantial for the neighborhood. The applicant has presented a stormwater plan, professionally done stormwater plan, in the end, that in almost every circumstance prior to this we’ve accepted. So as generally acceptable small amounts of relief in this particular case. So, I think the Board, and I’ll just re-emphasize that we are not sanctioning or in any way that this is the highest or best use for this property, but the elected officials in the Town who determine what is have placed this property as Light Industrial at this particular time, which we have no right or avenue to question in any way, and I’m glad the Board hasn’t done that, because it’s just not within our purview, as it’s been brought out. So I’m in favor of the application as it was set forth, and I certainly encourage the members of the public to appear at the Planning Board where your concerns can be much more embraced and considered in their decision. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, can I ask the applicant just one more question? MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. BRYANT-You have no intention for external storage, right? MR. JELENIK-None. MR. BRYANT-We’re not going to have boats and all that other stuff. MR. JELENIK-And we’ve stated that clearly, that even if the parking spaces were required, we’re not going to utilize them for external storage. MR. HAYES-All right. Having said that, I have seven votes for the application. So, would someone like to make a motion? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2005 JELENIK CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC D/B/A ONE-STOP SELF STORAGE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Sherman Avenue. The applicant is proposing construction of two 35 by 140 foot self-storage buildings comprised of 60 storage units on the south side of Sherman Ave. between Oak Tree Circle and Arbutus Drive. The applicant is requesting five percent of relief from the 30% minimum permeability requirement per Section 179-4-030. The applicant is proposing these two structures, these buildings will be comprised of 60 storage units and previously they have come before us and modified their original plans dating back to January of this year. A poll of the Board last time showed that we were not going to grant the 100% relief for no parking places on site, and they have agreed at this time to include the 12 required parking places for the proposed use. The 12 parking spaces increase the impermeable area for the parcel resulting in the applicant requesting five percent of relief from the thirty percent minimum requirement. It’s the feeling of the Board that the stormwater regulations can be met by what is proposed on this facility, as far as the infiltrators and other devices, and even though the neighborhood 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) seems to be opposed to this project, it is not within our purview at this time to make a decision on a use that is permitted within this zone. There will also be a stipulation of no other on site storage outside of the storage facilities to be constructed, and those parking areas are only to be used for temporary parking while accessing the storage site. We would recognize that the facility has been moved as far away from the road as possible, and that that buffer zone of trees will not be disturbed during construction or after construction. Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2005, by the following vote: rd MR. MC NULTY-I think we should recognize that the applicant has offered some mitigating remediation in terms of stormwater runoff control to compensate for the five percent. I want to make sure that that’s covered. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I mentioned that. MR. ABBATE-Yes, you covered that. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Rigby, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico MR. HAYES-Thank everyone for coming. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2005 SEQRA TYPE II RICHARD SELKOW OWNER(S): RICHARD SELKOW AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 160 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 20 FT. BY 24 FT., 18 FT. HIGH, ONE-CAR GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 FT. BY 30 FT., 20 FT. HIGH 2-CAR GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. AV 8-2004, AV 10-2003, SPR 11-2003, BP 2003-127, BP 98-437 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 9, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE: 0.35 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-5 SECTION 179-4- 030 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICHARD SELKOW, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2005, Richard Selkow, Meeting Date: March 23, 2005 “Project Location: 160 Lake Parkway Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes demolition of the existing 493 sq. ft. detached garage at 18 feet in height and construction of a 736 sq. ft. detached garage at 20 feet in height. Relief Required: The applicant requests 23 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement, 17.67 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement and 4 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 8-2004: 02/18/04, setback and size relief for a 9 sq. ft. stair-landing addition to the existing dock. BP 2003-127: 04/10/03, 926 sq. ft. dock/boathouse with sundeck. SP 11-2003: 03/25/03, 926 sq. ft. dock/boathouse with sundeck. AV 10-2003: 02/26/03, setback relief for a 926 sq. ft. dock/boathouse with sundeck. BP 98-437: 07/17/98, septic alteration. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to replace the existing 493 sq. ft. detached garage at 18 feet in height with a 736 sq. ft. detached garage at 20 feet in height. The front and side setbacks for the proposed garage are the same as the existing. On March 15, 2005, a height measurement of the existing garage revealed heights of 15.5 feet on the east side and 18 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) feet on the west side due to the downward slope from the road to the lake. If the proposed height is 20 feet on the east side, the resulting height on the west side would be 22.5 feet, which would require 6.5 feet of height relief and not the 4 feet of relief requested. Further clarification is necessary in order to determine actual relief requested.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 9, 2005 Project Name: Selkow, Richard Owner(s): Richard Selkow ID Number: QBY-05-AV-19 County Project#: Mar05-36 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of existing one-car garage and construction of a new 2-car garage. Relief requested from setback requirements. Site Location: 160 Lake Parkway Tax Map Number(s): 226.15-1-5 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to remove an existing one car garage and to construct a new 2-car garage. The existing garage is 493 sq. ft. and the proposed garage is to be 736 sq. ft. The new garage will be located 7 ft. from the front setback where 30 ft. is required, 2.33 ft. feet from the south property line where 20 ft. is required. The information submitted indicates the new garage will be in a similar location as the existing garage with expansion to the north and west side of the garage. The information submitted does not indicate stormwater control measures for the new construction. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition that appropriate storm water control measures are implemented to minimize impacts on the adjacent property and Lake. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 03/15/05. I presume No Action means that they didn’t have a quorum and didn’t do anything at their last meeting. MR. HAYES-Would you like to introduce yourselves for the record, please. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name’s Matt Steves. I represent Mr. Selkow on this application, and he is with me here tonight at the table. Briefly, Staff’s comments pretty much summed it up. This is an existing garage located on the southeast corner of the property. If anybody’s familiar with Lake Parkway, that area, that’s predominantly where all the garages sit, near the road. Our proposal is to increase that one car garage to a two car garage, maintaining the same easterly and southerly line of the wall of the building, and basically increase it slightly to the north and to the west. As far as the Staff’s concerned with the slope of the property, though our intention is that the maximum height on the westerly edge of the garage would be at 20 feet, we gave you a plan for the garage which shows you the type of garage that is being proposed, but you can accommodate the roofline from the eight twelve to a seven twelve, or in that range of a pitch, to allow for no more than 20 feet at the highest point of the garage from the existing garage. MR. HAYES-I have one quick question. The front plan says 24 by 30 garage, and the second plan says 24 by 24. MR. STEVES-It’s a 24 by 30. MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. MR. STEVES-That’s their package that, I believe Mr. Selkow could probably answer it better, butt that’s what Curtis Lumber has for packages, and you can adjust to it to size, but it is a 24 by 30 as it is stated on the first page of the design of the garage and on the application, as well as shown on the site plan. MR. ABBATE-For the record, Staff notes, as you probably heard, indicated that 6.5 feet of height relief is really the number and not the 4 feet. For the record, could you clarify that for us, please. MR. STEVES-I just stated that with the back of the garage, with the ground sloping away, our intention is to have the westerly edge of the garage no higher than the 20 feet. MR. ABBATE-Is that possible? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MR. FRANK-He’s guaranteeing that the maximum height won’t be any greater than 20 feet from the finished grade to the top of the peak of the roof, facing the lake, that’s the west side. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-So no matter how it’s measured, the maximum is going to be 20 feet? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fair enough. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? My question for you would be the area above the two car garage. Is that going to be a storage area? We always are concerned about that ultimately becoming habitable, as far as people being up there, and? MR. SELKOW-No, completely storage. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. SELKOW-No living facilities at all. Just to put lumber and whatever else I can get up there. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions? MR. ABBATE-Would you be willing to have it as a stipulation that the top portion of that garage will not be used for living space? MR. SELKOW-Without a doubt, sure. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of this application or against it? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-We have one short piece of correspondence, from Thomas Irish, and he says, “This letter is to inform you and the Board that we support the variance request that Mr. Selkow has submitted. We applaud his effort to remove the existing structure and replace it with a new one, thus enhancing the visual appearance of not only his property but also the adjoining area.” MR. HAYES-I guess if we have no other public input, we will go to polling the Board members for their positions. It’s time to start with Allan. MR. BRYANT-As far as the setback relief, the fact that the existing building, the new building is not going to change from what the existing building is, I have no problem with that aspect at all. The height, however, I do have an issue with. This height question comes up often, and quite frankly I’m not in favor of granting relief on the height. MR. HAYES-Okay. I have one quick question. How tall is that building now? MR. BRYANT-Eighteen. MR. STEVES-Staff was saying it’s roughly fifteen and a half feet on the one end, on the easterly, which would be the road side, and just over eighteen feet and a couple of inches on the lake side, but with widening it and the roof pitch, we’re only, actually, it’s nineteen foot and seven sixteenths, or something like that, but we rounded it off to say no higher than 20. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, that makes sense. Okay. Thank you, Allan. MR. BRYANT-I just want to clarify, I would go with, as far as height relief, with what we’ve got there now, the 18 feet on one side and the 15 and a half or 16 feet on the other side, but to go the 20 feet, I’d prefer not to. MR. HAYES-Thanks. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I would agree with Allan. Mr. Selkow is proposing to construct a 24 by 30 foot garage, which is a considerable size garage, and he’s already indicated that the top portion, at least is willing to stipulate for the record that the top portion is not going to be used for living space, I, frankly, agree with Allan, that I would not favor the application if it were to exceed 18 feet high. If the applicant was willing to come to some feasible alternative to bring it down to the 18 foot, well then I would support the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we need to reflect upon the structure that’s presently there and the height of that structure, when compared to what’s being proposed, and at 18 feet, if we’re asking for about one foot, seven inch of relief, I don’t really see that that tips us into a massive change. I think that the fact that this is 120 feet plus setback from the shoreline, somewhat mitigates this. It would be very difficult for somebody passing by in a motorboat looking at the new structure to tell it was any higher than the old one previously there. A foot’s not going to make that much bit of difference to me, as far as I’m concerned. I think that the additional space that’s going to be created upstairs obviously, if you look at the height of it, with the eaves coming down at that pitch, it’s not going to create any kind of appreciable living space or even storage space unless you’re a hobbit living up there, and I think that I would be in favor of what’s being proposed here. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m going to go back to the negative side. I think I’ll be opposed to anything in the way of height relief at all, and I’m not sure but what the setback bothers me, too. I know this thing is there now. It’s existing. If the request were to replace it, I’d be inclined to say okay with the setbacks, but 16 feet in height, but it’s going to be double the size. It’s going to be a two car instead of one car, and I think this is a perfect example of why there’s a 16 foot height limit next to the lake. Certainly, it probably isn’t going to be noticeable from the lakeside, but anybody driving along the loop around Assembly Point is no longer going to be able to see the lake at that point, because there’s going to be a garage in the way. Should the land across the road ever be made available for development, anybody building something across the road, at some point in the distant future, would also have their view blocked, and it just strikes me that the detriment to the larger neighborhood is going to be greater than what the benefit is for the applicant. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. I guess that brings us back to Joyce. Excuse me, Leo. MR. RIGBY-I think it’s a good project. I think you’re basically using the same footprint that you have. No additional side setback relief required. You’re going up another, at max, two feet in height, from where you are right now, which I think is probably reasonable given the design of the structure that you have, that you’ve given us prints for. I think the structure is a nice structure. I don’t hear any neighborhood objection to the project in any way whatsoever. Only positive feedback from that one letter that we heard. So I’m in favor of it. I think it’s a good project. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Joyce? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MRS. HUNT-I’m kind of torn. It looks like a nice project, but I really take exception to the 17 feet side setback relief and the 23 front setback, and we’ve said before that just because the existing structure was there doesn’t mean that that the replacement has to be in the same place, and I also take exception to the height. I would not be in favor. MR. HAYES-So you’re a no. Okay. All right. Well, I think in this particular case, the idea of the garage being where it is now, I think, as was pointed out by the applicant, is actually fairly consistent with the garage deployments in that neighborhood. I mean, they’re away from the lake and out to the road, and that probably makes it consistent with, you know, the use that’s going to be done there over time. I think the Board has expressed some more reservation in this particular case about the height and possibly the overall footprint of the building expanding a little bit into your property, which is essentially what you’re doing, you’re locking the tighter dimensional relief as it is and then moving the expansion into your own property. That doesn’t seem to be as problematic to the Board as possibly going up higher in this particular case. So I don’t see any, as has been brought out by other Board members, I don’t see any, as has been brought out by other Board members, I don’t see, with the distance from the lake in this particular case, I don’t see any negative impact on the neighborhood by allowing you to construct a garage in this spot when there’s already one there, and I also certainly was looking out for, as other Board members were, immediately affected neighbors positions, and I don’t find any alarmed neighbors at this particular point, either. Looking at my poll, however, it appears to me that you don’t have enough yes votes to get 20 feet. Okay. You have enough yes votes to get the garage, and the Board members can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’ve got a few yeses and a few yeses with 18 feet, and I guess that would be the consideration that you would now need to make, as far as getting a positive motion, and again, it’s up to you. You can, we can certainly take it to a vote at the 20 feet, but if it doesn’t pass, that would be tantamount to a denial. So, that’s up to you, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-Jaime, one other point of information, that the amount of increase in the square footage of this footprint is 242 square feet. That’s what it amounts to. MR. HAYES-Right. Yes. I think, Jim, hopefully I’ve paraphrased what you said. I mean, I think you weren’t troubled by the expansion into the property, it’s the height. Can be engineered, accomplished at 18 feet? MR. STEVES-I was just discussing that with my client. Looking at the roof pitch at I believe it’s a nine twelve pitch, trying to keep consistent with the buildings and the character in that area, and with the slope dropping off, with lowering the roof pitch down, to an eight twelve or thereabouts, and a little bit of grade work around the back, we could keep it at 18 feet. We wholeheartedly agree with the Board and their concerns, but we’re also trying to be concerned with disturbing too much ground around the garage, but with a slight amount of grade work around the back of the garage, and I don’t mean a substantial wall, I just mean a slight amount of grade work, then we could keep the garage to 18 feet. We wouldn’t want to lower it any more than that. We understand we’re right at the maximum, but then we believe if you flatten that pitch out too much, a couple of different things. Engineering wise, you get into snow load problems, and then you get into also character of the neighborhood as far as the roof pitches and the garages and homes in that area, but we can stipulate to 18 feet, if that’s suitable with the Board. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. SELKOW-Is it okay, you know, if I do have to build it up in the back by putting just a small retaining wall to get the height up, the ground height up in the back? MR. HAYES-Well, not to dodge that question, but that’s really an enforcement issue, all right, and the enforcement officers would have to decide whether that was tantamount to grade or not. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MR. FRANK-The way the Code is written, you can apply up to six feet of grade for residential development, six feet of fill, without any kind of review. MR. HAYES-Well, I think that answers that question. MR. FRANK-So raising it up a couple of feet just to soften the slope would be allowed by Code for this type of project. MR. STEVES-We’re talking 25 or 30 inches. MR. SELKOW-I think one of my neighbors had done the same project, built up the back and put a little retaining wall around it, a couple of houses down. So that’s not a problem or anything. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-As long as the retaining wall wasn’t right tight to the garage. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. No, it would not be. MR. HAYES-All right. MR. ABBATE-And the stipulation would be, no matter how you measure it, it would not exceed 18 feet. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-All right. Would someone like to make a motion, then? I think through the process we’ve arrived at some consensus. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2005 RICHARD SELKOW, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 160 Lake Parkway. The applicant is proposing demolition of the existing 493 square foot detached garage at 18 feet in height, construction of a 736 square foot detached garage at no more than 18 feet in height. The applicant requests 23 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement and 17.67 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement, and also that would be two feet of relief from the sixteen foot maximum height requirement per Section 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing 493 square foot detached garage at 18 feet in height with a 736 square foot detached garage also at 18 feet in height. This will be accomplished by the addition of fill on the lake side to make sure that it’s in compliance with that 18-foot height. It’s the general feeling of the Board that because this is being constructed on essentially the same footprint of the garage that is presently existing, that the additional square footage created in the creation of this two-car garage will not have a negative effect on the neighborhood. None of the neighbors have expressed any concerns about its construction. Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2005, by the following vote: rd MR. ABBATE-And we have the stipulation on the record that no matter how it’s measured, the new construction will not exceed 18 feet. MR. SELKOW-I’d agree to that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Hayes 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) NOES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico MR. HAYES-Okay. Thanks for coming. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. SELKOW-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2005 SEQRA TYPE II MOHAMMAD TARIQ D/B/A RODEWAY INN OWNER(S): MOHAMMAD TARIQ ZONING: HC-INT LOCATION: 1449 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A PORTION OF A 5 FT. BY 38 FT. SECOND FLOOR DECK (NORTH SIDE) AND PROPOSES TO CONNECT IT TO THE EXISTING DECK ON THE WEST SIDE. CROSS REF. SPR 19-05, BP 2005-015, BP 2000-286, BP 99-583, BP 99-065 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 9, 2005 LOT SIZE: 1.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-56 SECTION 179-4-030 MOHAMMED TARIQ, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2005, Mohammad Tariq d/b/a Rodeway Inn, Meeting Date: March 23, 2005 Project Location: 1449 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 5’ x 32’ deck addition on the north side of the motel office/manager’s apartment building, and proposes to construct a 6’ x 13.5’ deck at the northwest corner of the building, which will connect the existing deck on the west side to the north side deck. Relief Required: Applicant requests 3.7 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement, per § 179-4-030 of the Highway Commercial Intensive zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2005-015: pending, deck addition. BP 2000-286: 05/09/00, septic alteration. BP 99-583: 09/08/99, septic alteration. BP 99- 065: 03/11/99, commercial interior alterations. Staff comments: The applicant desires to connect an existing deck on the west side of the motel office/manager’s apartment building to a 5’ x 32’ deck on the north side. The proposed deck at the northwest corner is 6’ x 13.5’. The applicant claims a misunderstanding with the building and codes support staff led him to believe the deck would not require a building permit. Had the applicant applied for a building permit, he would have been informed of the need for side setback relief. The applicant ceased construction when he was informed of the need for a building permit. Shortly thereafter, when the building permit was reviewed for zoning compliance, the need for side setback relief was identified.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 9, 2005 Project Name: Mohammed Tariq dba Rodeway Inn Owner: Mohammed Tariq ID Number: QBY-05-AV-22 County Project#: Mar05-33 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a second floor deck with stairs. Relief requested from side setback requirements. Site Location: 1449 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 288.00-1-56 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a second story floor deck with stairs. The new construction will be located 16 +/- ft. from the north property line where 20 ft is required. The information submitted indicates the new construction is needed to access the second floor of the Inn. The plans indicate the deck is to be 60 sq. ft. and the new staircase is 24 sq. ft. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 03/15/05. MR. HAYES-Please introduce yourself for the record. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MR. TARIQ-Mohammed Tariq, owner of Rodeway Inn. MR. HAYES-Okay. Is there anything you’d like to add to your application, as far as information, or does that speak for itself? MR. TARIQ-Yes. That’s it. My main concern was, this is my daughter. She’s handicapped. She has a problem with walking. I bought the property last year, in 2003, and we have a residence upstairs, and there’s a very strong problem for this daughter, because she is right now going to Lake George school. She’s having therapies there. She’s going to Prospect. She’s having some therapies there, and she went through surgery last year for her bones, and to accommodate from upstairs to downstairs the office is way too tough for me, and that was the main reason I was trying to switch my residence down and take the manager’s and stuff like that upstairs. MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. All right. So you’re saying it was basically a misunderstanding with the Town? Just get that clarified for us. MR. TARIQ-Yes. I mean, I was in the meeting with Craig Brown two weeks prior to this one. I didn’t have any intention like this was the way it happened, but I was there and we were discussing another project. We had a site plan review meeting on that one, and I mean, if I have any concern about that, I should have discussed with Craig Brown, but I never had anything in my mind. I spoke with Dave Hatin, and since then I didn’t touch that spot, and it’s as it is still. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. MR. TARIQ-Yes. It was just a misunderstanding, and I do apologize. I (lost words) do something which I really needed, and I’m doing it, but all it was was a deck, and I called and I misunderstood. MR. HAYES-Okay. I think that’s a good explanation. Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor or in opposition to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT MR. HAYES-Okay. If not, then it’s time to talk it over with the Board. I believe it’s time to start with Chuck. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Here we go. Mr. Tariq, as our Chairman said, your explanation is accepted by me as well. I think, based upon what I read, that you acted in good faith. We all make mistakes, and so I’m going to consider this a mistake. I understand my fellow Board member indicated to me that you’re doing this because you’re moving a portion of it down to the first floor. That’s the real reason why you’re doing this? MR. TARIQ-Yes. This daughter, she, since she was born she’s had a problem. MR. ABBATE-I understand. MR. TARIQ-And we have stairs, a residence upstairs and an office downstairs. So you cannot block the children from coming down. It’s way too dangerous for her. I mean, I have a daughter younger than her. She is five. She is also going to Lake George School, but she’s perfect, but this is the one that has the problem, and, I mean, that is the main concern. The building the structure is there. The rooms were downstairs. It cost me (lost words) I’m just flipping the office and the residence, leaving the office downstairs, but just for the sake of my daughter I’m taking this step. It’s a small business. She went through surgery in June in New York City. Since then she’s been going through therapy and stuff like that. Anything, coming 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) from up to down, if something happens. Last season I was with my daughter downstairs, and we didn’t even rent the rooms downstairs, just because to make sure, you know, they are safe. So as soon as the season ended, I tried to do it, but things happened. That’s the only concern. Just because of my daughter’s sake, that’s all. MR. ABBATE-I appreciate your explanation, and as I say, I will take the application on good faith, but we only make so many mistakes. Okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-All right. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s a practical solution to the problem and I think that it’s fully within our purview to grant permission for this. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. Looking at it, even ignoring the reason for making this extension on the deck because of course the variance will go with the building, even if somebody else owns the building in the future, but it strikes me that it’s a logical thing to do, and in the particular area where it is, I can’t see how it’s going to infringe on anybody’s neighbor’s rights or view or anything else. So I think it’s a reasonable request, with definite benefit to the applicant, and as far as I can see, no detriment to anybody else. So I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you, Chuck. Leo? MR. RIGBY-I’d be in favor of it as well. I think if you’d started the project before and asked for the proper variance, you probably would have gotten it. I’m in favor of it and I have no objection to it either. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I’m in favor of it, too. It’s a small project, and really only the corner impacts on the side setback relief, 3.7 feet relief is really minimal. I would be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Yes. I agree with my fellow Board members, but I think that the applicant, I don’t want to ignore the reason why we’ve made the application, because this speaks to the benefit for the applicant, whether it’s, this is an actual need as opposed to just a desire or whim. This is something you need for your family. So the benefit of the applicant is, you know, well described and understood. So I’d be in favor of the project. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I think I agree with Allan in this particular case. She didn’t testify on the record, but she certainly was an effective witness tonight, and certainly the relief that you’re requesting is very minimal in this particular case. It’s a commercial area. You’re not encroaching towards someone’s private residence, or something like that, where we’d certainly be more guarded about approving that particular type of relief. So, having said that, would someone like to make a motion? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2005 MOHAMMAD TARIQ D/B/A RODEWAY INN, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 1449 State Route 9. State Statutes spell out five statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in deciding whether to grant an Area Variance. In making my motion to approve, I address the five areas. Number One, will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties be created by the granting of this 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) Variance. To this point, it is my opinion that this appeal will not violate the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to any of the nearby properties. Two, can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the Variance. Possibly. However, would a demand for other remedy excluding a variance that the applicant is seeking be consistent with the spirit and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. In this particular case, I see this as a need, based upon the explanation by the applicant. Number Three, is the requested Variance substantial? Not in my opinion. In my opinion this appeal is neither significant or extensive. Four, will approval of this Variance have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood? Based upon the applicant’s testimony this evening, and the information found on the record, it does not appear that approval of this Variance will adversely effect the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood, and, finally, Number Five, is this self-created? In the realm of reality, this may be subjective. However, listening to what the applicant had to say and reading the documents on the record, it’s my opinion that it may be self-created. However, it was the result of an absolute need. I have concerned myself with the evidence and testimony that appears on the record, Mr. Chairman, and I move that Area Variance No. 22-2005 be approved. Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2005, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Rigby, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico MR. HAYES-Thanks for coming, the motion is carried. MR. TARIQ-Thanks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2005 SEQRA TYPE II DONNA GAGNON OWNER(S): DONNA GAGNON ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION 236 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 FT. BY 32 FT. 2-CAR DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2004-970 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 9, 2005 LOT SIZE: 0.98 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.7-2-31.2 SECTION 179-4-020 DONNA GAGNON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2005, Donna Gagnon, Meeting Date: March 23, 2005 “Project Location: 236 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes construction of a 768 sq. ft. detached garage with 416 sq. ft. of second-story storage space. The foundation for the garage has already been constructed. Relief Required: The applicant requests 9 feet 8 inches of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the SFR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2004-970: 01/13/05, 768 sq. ft. detached garage with 416 sq. ft. of storage space above. Staff comments: The building permit for the 24’ x 32’ garage was issued on 01/13/05. After the foundation had been constructed, the owner was informed it appeared the foundation might be encroaching on the 20-foot side setback. After the property line markers were located, it was determined setback relief would be required. MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 9, 2005 Project Name: Gagnon, Donna Owner: Donna Gagnon ID Number: QBY-05-AV-23 County Project#: Mar05-25 Current Zoning: SFR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 2-car detached garage. Relief requested from setback requirements. Site Location: 236 Aviation Road Tax Map Number(s): 301.7-2-31.2 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a 2-car detached garage 24 x 32 sq. ft. The garage is to be located 10 +/- ft. from the rear property line where 20 ft. is required. The information submitted indicates the foundation has already been constructed on the site where the applicant thought it was in a compliant location. The plans shows the side property line has a tree buffer to the adjacent property. The applicant has indicated the garage will assist in the storage of items currently under tarps in the yard. The plan shows the location of the property is off of Aviation Road via long driveway. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 03/15/05. MR. HAYES-Okay. Would you like to introduce yourself for the record, please. MS. GAGNON-Yes. Good evening. My name is Donna Gagnon, and I’m the property owner mentioned. I wasn’t sure if you were going to have any pictures. I do have some pictures of the property. MR. HAYES-Yes, please. That would be nice. Thank you. MS. GAGNON-Essentially what I wanted to show in these is where we are thus far. The bottom line on this is that I hired a contractor. We went and got the permits, and was relatively confident that we were within all of the setbacks and zoning, and it was snowing, and they dug a foundation and we positioned what appears to be the northeast corner, and it’s kind of a tilted angle, but because we tilted the rectangle, if you will, a little bit too much in one direction, roughly 20% of it is about nine foot ten into that twenty foot zone, and that kind of got things rolling. So when we found out that we were in that situation, we stopped and got us to this point right now. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Ms. Gagnon, I’m going to request that the Chairman put in for hazardous duty pay in order to find your place of establishment. That is difficult. MS. GAGNON-Okay. It is. MR. ABBATE-Very difficult. All right. The question I really had was, how the devil was the foundation poured, but you just explained that to me. So now I have an explanation. Thank you. MS. GAGNON-Okay. MR. HAYES-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. BRYANT-Is this basically a contractor’s error? MS. GAGNON-Well, I don’t like to, I suppose it would be a contractor’s error. I guess I had a part in it by hiring a contractor and standing out there. Again, when we positioned the garage, it was, we had eyed what we believed to be the line. One of the pivot corners of the line, we found after the fact, was buried under a very old trash heap that had been in the fields for years and years, and it was not where we thought it was. So by pivoting that point, it got us to a point that we didn’t expect to be at, and that’s when we actually looked at it, we said, oops, it looks like we’re. MR. BRYANT-So you just eyed the line. You didn’t have a survey or anything? MS. GAGNON-I went on a survey that I had when I built the property 10 years ago. MR. BRYANT-And that’s the survey you provided here? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MS. GAGNON-Yes, it is. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions? It is kind of a funky lot. So it’s understandable how that could be a little bit of disorientation here. I mean, I’ve traveled Aviation Road most of my life and I didn’t even know that was back there. So, are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. BRYANT-Just one more question. Just out of curiosity, why did you put the garage there? I mean, why didn’t you, I mean, you have plenty of room there. Why didn’t you kind of move it over? MS. GAGNON-Well, I do have plenty of room and I don’t. If you look at Photo B I provided, there’s this birch tree, and I know this sounds crazy, but there used to be two birch trees, and one was blown over several years ago. So my original intent was two-fold. It was to preserve this birch tree and also the way that the driveway loops around, it’s a cul-de-sac and a stone driveway, and it just kind of made sense, when pulling in the driveway, that this was the opening, and when we measured it before we got the permit, it all fit and it was all fine. So we didn’t really see it as a problem. MR. HAYES-If there’s no more questions for the applicant, I’m going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of this application or in opposition? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT MR. HAYES-I guess it’s time to talk about it. It’s time to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think in this instance the project was started in good faith by the applicant, and although we could have the project moved to a compliant location, at this point in time, the fact that it’s been constructed and construction is underway, the fact that it’s pretty secluded from everybody else in the neighborhood, nobody in the neighborhood seems to be in opposition to it in its present shape and form, and it really is only one corner of the building that doesn’t meet the setbacks, that I could live with what’s been proposed here tonight, and I don’t think there’s going to be any opposition, you know, in the community as a result. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can kind of agree. My first inclination on anything like this is to say move it, but looking at our balancing test, I can’t really see a detriment to community, and certainly moving it would be a detriment to the applicant. So, not moving it is a clear benefit in this case. It is a minor point that the neighbors aren’t here complaining, but at the same time, I wouldn’t put total weight on that, because a lot of times neighbors will assume that we’re going to do the job and enforce the Zoning Ordinance. So I don’t think an absence of complaints should mean that we automatically approve something, but, that being said, nevertheless, as I said prior to that, I think in this case the balancing test clearly falls in favor of the applicant. I can’t see any harm to the neighboring properties. So, I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Mr. Rigby? MR. RIGBY-Given the location of the lot, where it is, and the amount of request for the variance, I’d be in favor of it as well. I think, you know, your parcel definitely is secluded. There’s been no complaints from your neighbor to the north. So I’m not opposed to it in any way whatsoever. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MRS. HUNT-Yes. I, too, would be in favor of it. It seems like it wasn’t deliberately put there. It was something that just happened, without them realizing what was going on. So I would be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I just want to ask the applicant a question before I make a comment. Who owns the lot above you that borders Aviation Road? MS. GAGNON-Do you know, I don’t know the gentleman’s name. The long lot? MR. BRYANT-Yes, he just blinked on it. MS. GAGNON-Okay. MR. FRANK-The last name is Waterston, Jason Waterston. MS. GAGNON-He’s a relatively new owner, I believe. I did speak with him. Again, neither my contractor nor I even realized that there was a problem until we got a phone call from the zoning saying, stop, we have a complaint, and we walked out to see what the problem was, and again, we didn’t see it with the snow and the ground cover and things. So I surmised that it was that gentleman, and I stopped, one Sunday, to introduce myself to him and ask him if there was a problem. He had said, well, he had called because he was concerned, it did look a little close, and I said, well, do you have an issue with it? I explained the situation, and I said, it certainly wasn’t my intent. You’ll see that there’s quite a buffer zone, even in the dead of winter, with all the leaves off, between our houses, and he more or less just said, you know, I was just kind of concerned that it was close but, no, it’s fine, and I said do I have, verbally, your permission, and he said yes, go ahead. So that’s the only contact. I never got anything in writing, but. MR. BRYANT-He didn’t send a letter or anything? MS. GAGNON-No. We met, actually, twice. He came back over on my side to look at where his yard was, and he confirmed that he was okay with it. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, my statement is, I’m going to disagree with our Board members, respectfully. It’s not like the entire building is built. We’ve just got a foundation there, and we do have the room to move the garage into a compliant location, and so I’m not going to be in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, can I add something before you poll the rest of the Board? MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. FRANK-The applicant brought this up, so I’m going to comment on it. It really wasn’t a complaint, and she said complaint, and I don’t think she did herself justice. She countered afterward, concern. A neighbor, and I didn’t speak directly with him, but I spoke with the Zoning Administrator who was in contact with the gentleman. He was concerned. He wanted to know what the Code was, and we discussed this with Mrs. Gagnon, and she did the neighborly thing to go to her neighbor, you know, this is how it happened, what can I do, and I think what she stated on record is the truth. As you can see, if the neighbor was really concerned, there would be a letter here or he would be here, because he had a concern. I think she did the neighborly thing and she rectified any concern that he had. So, if she’s stating that he has no more concerns anymore, I think you can take what she’s saying to be the truth. MR. HAYES-All right. I guess that leaves Chuck. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I agree with the majority of the Board. I disagree with Mr. Bryant, for the second time this evening. About the only way, and my fellow Board member commented this evening, about the only way you can see this is if you fly over by aircraft. Where I disagree with Mr. Bryant, my eminent good friend here, is that in my opinion, in the interest of justice, reasonableness, fairness, the application should be approved. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I essentially agree with the rest of the Board in this particular case. Normally, as Allan did point out, if we have the opportunity to rectify a detriment to the neighborhood by just moving something over and we have the room, we’d like people to do that, because the Code is the Code, but in this case there just isn’t any impact. I mean, based on the site photographs and the site plan that’s been provided to us, I just don’t see any negative impact on having that garage, moving that garage nine feet or whatever. I don’t think it’s really going to change anybody’s view or anybody’s view of your property, and certainly, you know, you’ve given us the fact that you want to clean up some of the items that are on the lawn, put them in storage. I mean, I think people around you might think that that’s an improvement, not that there’s a big problem, but I mean it certainly is a good reason to build a garage, especially in the Adirondacks. So I think in this particular case, when I balance out the factors that we’re charged with, I think that it falls in your favor. Having said that, would Mr. Rigby like to make a motion? MR. RIGBY-Yes, I would. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2005 DONNA GAGNON, Introduced by Leo Rigby who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 236 Aviation Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 768 square foot detached garage with 416 square feet of second story storage space. The foundation of the garage has already been constructed. The relief required, the applicant requests nine feet eight inches of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement per Section 179-4-030 for the SFR-1A zone. The reason I think that the motion should be approved is because there will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood, due to the seclusion of the lot and where it’s located. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method, as the foundation of the garage has already been laid. The requested Area Variance is not substantial. There’s minimal relief required, and given the location of the lot, it does not provide a burden on any of the neighbors. None of the neighbors have objected. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district, in my opinion, it will not have any adverse affect on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and whether the alleged difficulty was self- created. It was self-created in that the foundation was laid, but it was not understood that it was not laid in a place where it would be in compliance with the Zoning Code. Given those conditions, I’d like to make a motion to approve Area Variance No. 23-2005. Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2005, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Hayes NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico MR. HAYES-Thank you. The motion is carried. Thank you for coming. MS. GAGNON-Thank you. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2005 SEQRA TYPE II JOHN E. KELLY OWNER(S): JOHN E. KELLY AGENT(S): JAMES KELLY ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 241 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,779 SQ. FT. 2-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WHICH INCLUDES A 275 SQ. FT. ATTACHED CARPORT AND A 825 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE ONE GARAGE PER LOT REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF. BP 2004-771 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 9, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE: 1.03 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-27, 26, 28, 29 SECTION 179-5-020D JIM KELLY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-2005, John E. Kelly, Meeting Date: March 23, 2005 “Project Location: 241 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes construction of a 4,779 sq. ft. 2-story single-family dwelling, which includes a 275 sq. ft. attached carport and an 825 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for an additional garage where only one is permitted, per the accessory structure requirements, § 179-5-020(D). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2004- 771: 10/13/04, demolition of dwellings. Staff comments: The applicant has demolished two dwellings and proposes to construct a 2-story single-family dwelling with an attached carport and a detached garage. The property currently consists of 4 separate parcels, which must be consolidated prior to a building permit being issued, and should be made a condition of approval should the board move to approve this application. The applicant requests relief for an additional garage in order to construct the attached carport (carports technically qualify as a garage). The applicant claims the carport will only be used for the sheltered loading and unloading of passengers and will not be used as a garage.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 9, 2005 Project Name: Kelly, John Owner: John Kelly ID Number: QBY-05-AV-24 County Project#: Mar05-29 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of 4,000 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a car port attached to the front entrance of the dwelling. Also, the applicant proposes construction of a 825 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief requested from accessory structure requirements for a second accessory structure (car port) on the property. Site Location: 241 Assembly Point Road Tax Map Number(s): 226.19-2-27, 26, 28 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct an 825 sq. ft. detached garage with a 2,395 sq. ft. footprint house with an attached carport. The applicant requests relief from the number of accessory buildings on the lot. The information submitted shows the location of the proposed house with the carport and the detached garage. The applicant indicates the carport is to be used only for loading and unloading where the garage is to be used for the storage of vehicles. The carport and the garage are located away from the Lake view. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommend no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 03/15/05. MR. HAYES-Please introduce yourself for the record. MR. KELLY-Yes. My name is Jim Kelly. I’m representing John Kelly in the construction of the single family house at 241 Assembly Point Road. In regard to the covered entranceway, in the front of the proposed home, what we’re going to be using it for is basically not storage of vehicles. It’s going to be used for cover for the entrance. It faces, it’s on the front of the home, which is actually facing away from Assembly Point Road. It’s not going to be readily visible from the road. The design is consistent with the house, with the rest of the architecture of the proposed house. I don’t believe that this will negatively impact the neighborhood. The proposed garage will be under the 900 square foot garage limit, the detached garage, and it will conform to all the setbacks and the height requirements. As I said, the covered entrance will not be used for the storage of vehicles. If it was used for that, it would deter the use of the entrance 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) to the house. So I feel that the addition of this covered entranceway should be approved, and that’s so. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? MR. BRYANT-Yes, Mr. Chairman. You’ve stated in your application, you just stated in your comments, that the carport is not used for storage of a vehicle. So what you’re saying is it’s a beautiful summer afternoon, and it’s 85 degrees, and the sky is clear, and you’re going to let people off and then pull that car into the garage. You’re not going to leave the car accessible, right by the carport, right by the door? MR. KELLY-I would say not, because that would obstruct any other vehicles from coming into that area. That is the only entrance. MR. BRYANT-That’s assuming that other vehicles are scheduled to come into the area. If you’re the owner of the property and you’re just coming for the afternoon, to have a picnic, you’d drive the car into the carport, you’d stop the car, you get out, you go into the house, do your thing, sit on the deck, eat your food, and your car is there waiting. I mean, that’s not a possibility, you’re saying? MR. KELLY-It may be used for the parking. The size of it only allows for the parking of one car. It may be used for temporarily parking while using the home, but not for the storage of a vehicle. The storage of the vehicle for any length of time won’t be in that area. If it was left in that area, again, it would deter anyone else from driving and unloading passengers. So it wouldn’t be a permanent parking area. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I also have some questions. Let me point out what I see as a discrepancy here. Mr. Kelly’s letter dated February 14, 2005 indicates that he wants to construct a 4,000 square foot home. The Warren County Planning Board indicates the applicant proposes to construct a 4,000 square foot home. However, the description of your project indicates a 4,779 square foot. Why the discrepancy? MR. KELLY-It’s actually 4,075 square feet. I think that’s on the application. MR. ABBATE-But that’s not what Mr. Kelly indicates. His letter here, that he signed, indicated the enclosed information is in regard to the proposed new construction of a 4,000 square foot home and an 825 square foot garage. So I was just looking for an explanation. There may very well be one. So I’m looking to you for an explanation. MR. KELLY-The difference in the area of the home, the actual area of the home is 4,075 square feet. The carport may have been added in. That’s an additional 275 square feet. It’s possible that the porch, there are covered porches that are attached to the home. They could have been included in that figure. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, can I make a point for clarification purposes? This is a common mistake made by applicants. When they describe their project a lot of times in a letter they’re talking about the space they determine to be living area, the space inside of the house, not the covered porches, not the attached garage, even if it’s part of the footprint. So, when I make my description, what you see for the advertisement, I look at the Floor Area Ratio worksheet, and when you total up the first floor and the second floor, along with the covered or enclosed porches, that’s where I came up with 4,779. So I only go by that. MR. ABBATE-I agree with you. MR. FRANK-Even though his cover letter says, this is not an uncommon mistake. A lot of times they’re looking at the floor area, living space inside the walls, not those exposed to the elements. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) So it’s not uncommon for you to see that. Just for the record, even with what they’re proposing, their total FAR is going to be 10.7, well below the 22%. So just keep that in mind. It’s more than half below what they could be allowed to build for floor area for this property, once they consolidate the four parcels. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, thank you, Staff, for the explanation, thanks much. The second part of my position here is we address what the applicant requests, and the applicant is requesting an additional garage where only one garage is allowed in the Town of Queensbury. I still haven’t, I read all the documentation here. I think it’s lovely that we have a garage where we could drop people off so they don’t get wet, but unfortunately, in this geographical location, we can expect rain, snow, ice, etc. At the present time I would not be in favor of the application. I need more justification for a second garage, and that’s where I’m at. MR. KELLY-The carport, the covered entranceway, is not conducive to storing a vehicle or bicycles or kayaks or any of that type of thing. I wouldn’t want to store that in front of the house. I’d like to store that in a covered facility. I think it would be unsafe to store things in the covered entranceway. I’d like to have an enclosed area. I’d also like to have a covered area at the entranceway of the house, in order to drop off passengers and/or goods. So I wouldn’t want to use that for any type of permanent storage. MR. ABBATE-I agree with you. Do you know what I’m going to suggest as a feasible alternative, you get rid of the carport. If the carport is not conducive to storage, and I agree with you. You just made my argument for me, then why don’t we do away with the carport and that way there there’ll be less opposition, at least on my part. In other words, as a feasible alternative, just do away with the carport, and that way there, guess what, you’re not requesting two garages. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I would just make the comment. I think that if you look at the proposal as in the photograph of the identical one, this one here, I think that it’s a reflection of kind of an old fashioned type architecture. I think that there are quite a few older homes around the Town of Queensbury and also, you know, on lake front properties, that included these old covered places like dating back to the time of the horse and buggy days, for that matter. Where they were more common. The only one that I could come up with of recent vintage that we had visited was the Miller one down on Birdsall Road there, where he had a garage and he had one of these carport type things on the side of the house also, but just as a point of information. MR. HAYES-Okay. If there’s no other questions of the applicant at this time, then I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor or in opposition to the application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Board members. My name is Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I come regarding this application neither supporting or against it. My concern was, I spoke with Staff today and my understanding was that this application would not go to site plan review. Based on that, if the application is granted, I’d request a couple of conditions that would go along with the approval. First off, that the proposed or the existing wastewater treatment system be evaluated, as per DOH requirements, and I did attach a copy of that for, to my comment letter. Also, it appears, I didn’t see any existing information on the impervious coverage, but it appears there would be more impervious coverage, and, again, under the Zoning section 179-14-020, you may impose conditions similar to those provided for site plan review usage, to protect the best interests of the surrounding properties, and again, I would hope that there would be a stormwater 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) management plan, as a condition on this. I left a message with Mr. Brown. I did not hear back from him today on that. So, those are my comments on this application. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Navitsky, could I ask you a question, just out of curiosity? Are you a resident of the Town of Queensbury? MR. NAVITSKY-No, I am not. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Do you own property surrounding, or that would be affected by Mr. Kelly? MR. NAVITSKY-Just Lake George. MR. ABBATE-Just Lake George? You own Lake George? MR. NAVITSKY-We all do. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. If there’s no one else that would like to speak on this application, I will now move to polling the Board members. I believe it’s actually time to come, actually, it’s Chuck. You’re first. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I have a problem with the two garage concept. I can see that there’s some benefit for the applicant, but I think, in general terms, for the greater neighborhood, there’s a negative aspect of allowing two garages, and in this case also I’d note that if you combine the square footage of the carport and the square footage of the garage, then they exceed the 900 square feet that’s allowed for garages in the Town of Queensbury, not by an awful lot, but it does exceed it, but I have a basic problem with the concept of two garages. I don’t think the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the neighborhood. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Rigby? MR. RIGBY-I’m kind of torn. I don’t really view this as a garage. I view it as an architectural enhancement to the house. I mean, it’s definitely a positive to the design of the house, and probably a positive to the neighborhood. I wouldn’t see the neighbors being opposed to this in any way whatsoever because of the design of it. I think it looks, it’s got an Adirondack look, an Adirondack feel. It’s certainly a plus. Whether it’s going to be used as a garage or not or whether it really is a garage, I mean, a car would pull up in front of the house anyway and park and the people would go in and out. Whether we call it a carport, I guess that’s what it has to be called, but whether it was there or not, people would still drive up to the front of the house and stop the car and go into the house. There’s no question about that. So, from an architectural standpoint, I think it’s a good, I think it’s a plus. From a stipulation standpoint, I mean, we talked about stipulating that it wouldn’t be used for storage in any way. I mean, we’d have to make that part of the motion, I believe. I don’t see it ever being used as storage. So I don’t see that as an issue. Mr. Navitsky brings up some good points, too, that probably bring some questions in as to whether this would go to the Planning Board in any way for site plan review or not. I think we’d have to talk about that a little bit, too, but on the whole, I think it’s a plus. I like the design. Chuck brings up a good point in that the overall square footage of, for lack of a better word, this carport and the garage exceeds the maximum. So I would probably like to see the two of them combined fit within that maximum. So I think I like the initial proposal here, but I think I would probably like to see a little bit of work on it before I would approve it. MR. HAYES-Okay. Joyce? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MRS. HUNT-When I first read the application, I was against the carport and the detached garage, but looking at the picture it really doesn’t look like a carport. It just looks like part of the design of the building, the front entrance, but I had some of the same concerns as Leo, that the two together are excessive, and maybe some adjustment could be made. MR. HAYES-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the project, as shown in the photographs and the floor plan, it’s a spectacular project. One of the criteria that we have to address is whether or not the amount of the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, and when you’re asking for a second garage, and whether it’s a carport or a garage, it’s still deemed a garage, that relief is 100%. You’re asking for 100% relief. That’s an awful lot of relief for any application. So, I’d have to say that it’s a little bit too substantial for my taste. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I agree with Mr. Bryant. I think that one of the considerations we are charged with is the amount of relief required, and in fact, this is 100% relief. As I understand it, the home is not currently constructed. So I don’t see any real hardships by not including the carport, but, in addition to that, the reason, in addition to the fact that you are asking for two garages, no matter whether you call it a carport or not, it qualifies as a garage, it would be this. An applicant now comes before us who has, living on Cleverdale, has a garage, and now he wants to add a carport. What do we do? If that individual came before us, I would say, absolutely not, because you’re asking for two garages. No matter what the construction, what the appearance of the construction may be, a carport, based on the Ordinances in the Town of Queensbury, includes a carport as a garage. So in effect the applicant is requesting a two car garage. Now, are there any feasible alternatives? Yes, there are. What are they? Either do away with the garage, and keep the carport, or do away with the carport and go for the two garages. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would basically have to be in agreement with everybody. In looking at the project, I think it would add character to the home. I think one consideration is the fact that it’s not going to be visible from anybody’s property except the next door neighbor’s if they’re looking sideways through the lots there. I don’t really have the same concerns of everybody about this creating some precedent. I mean, I don’t see this as something that’s ordinarily done. It’s unique. I can’t think of another one up on the lake up there, anybody else that has one of these in that area, and as far as it being construed as an extra garage, it is open to the elements. It’s facing west into the prevailing winds, and, you know, it’s an individual difference in taste from everybody else’s, and I’m willing to accommodate that. I think that Mr. Navitsky’s comments about the septic and things like that, containment of those on site, should be addressed, but that’s usually a normal part of the review process, or the building permit process that it’s sized to fit the size of the home that’s going to be constructed on site. So, at this point in time, I don’t really have any concerns with it. It is a one acre lot, which is a very large lot, considering, for the size of most of those properties along the roadway there, and I don’t think it would have any detriment to the neighborhood or the lake, at this point. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Well, I think in this particular case, I agree with Jim and Leo, in the sense that, and we have a balancing test, and I think we certainly want to protect the Code, but I think that, to some extent, this is a technical variance. Carports are counted in the Code as a garage, but I think that we have to factor in the fact that carports are open structures. They really should not or really could not effectively, in the Adirondack area, be meaningful storage there. I mean, if you stored kayaks and those type of items there, they’d be snow bound and, I mean, it’s, I don’t want to say absurd, but it certainly would be impractical, at the very least, to count that as true garage storage space. I think, in this particular case, I think it’s been pointed out that this carport is more of an ancillary function in design of this log cabin in this particular case. It’s part of that old look. That’s certainly the choice of the applicant. I mean, that’s self- 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) created, but I think it does actually, as I look at a picture of that building, it seems to flow with the building. If I was a neighbor, I would not be troubled or bothered by this carport. As Bruce pointed out in this particular case, I also would be much more skeptical if this was part of a further tight development on a site, if our floor area ratio was getting at or above requirements, then I’d say this carport is just something that the applicant is adding. He doesn’t have to have it, and it’s making the site tight, it’s pushing the line, but in this particular case, it’s a gigantic lot for Lake George. The applicant is only talking about developing 10%, roughly 10% of the lot, and so I don’t find that the carport or the idea that we’re going to have a couple of hundred square feet over what would be the garage requirement, independent of this carport, I just don’t see that as being an overuse of this property in this particular case. I mean, my own vision of the two car garage restriction has more to do with the idea of having several parcels all around the parcel, and that, in a way, becomes visibly unattractive and it’s not the intention of our Town to have people having, you know, building extra garages on top of each other, and I think that that, I certainly would be much more stringent if that was the case, and I would certainly oppose that, even on a lot this size, but in this particular case, I think the carport would be used for what is described as a transitional area, covering of a transitional area. So as I balance the criteria that’s applied in this particular case, I think the benefit to the applicant, as has been pointed out, accepted by me, and I don’t see any detriment to the neighborhood or community, and I think, in the end, the relief that’s being requested, I look at the cumulative square footage, in this particular case, and say that the relief is something that I can live with, when compared to the other elements of the balancing test. So, having said that, it’s a little bit complicated, because there’s four yes votes, but two of the yes votes have some contingencies. So we’d have to iron that out and then we’ll get a resolution here for you, one way or the other. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, can I offer a comment? MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. FRANK-It’s not my job to try to provide help above what it appears might be not necessary for the applicant, but also last week I heard one of the Board members talk about, you know, if we knew more about the intent of the Code, a lot of times it would make things much easier for us to understand, and we could make our decisions based on knowing what the intent was. You may notice already, I’ve heard it commented on before. When the Town decided to regulate the size of garages and the number of garages, it was the result of a problem with, and I’m not going to state any name, but it happened prior to my employment with the Town, where a garage was built that was much, much larger than 900 square feet, and all of a sudden it turned into the owner’s business, you know, running out of, he had a trucking company or something and he was running his business out of the garage. The other intent was to try to prevent an extra garage from going up, so all of a sudden you’ve got an auto repair use, all of a sudden, in this additional garage structure. So I know for a fact that was part of the intent when they decided to limit the size and the number of garages in the Town. So, again, I’m not trying to sway any Board members. I just want you to know I happen to know a little bit of the intent of this Code, and if you think there’s a chance that that could happen to this structure, then definitely vote the way your mind tells you to do so, but that’s all I want to state. It’s up to the Board members to make their own decision, but I can guarantee you that was one of the intent of reducing the size and number of garages in the Town when they did so. MR. ABBATE-I would feel much better, Mr. Chairman, if someone could tell me, the Town, that they have no problems with the second garage. I would sleep easier this evening. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, he’s not going to say it. So I want to comment on what Mr. Frank just said, because I want to extrapolate on that, for this particular case, or any case, and the reality is, you know, it’s human nature to pile stuff in a garage, and we start doing the kayaks, and then it’s the boat, and then it’s the riding tractor, and then it’s this and that, and before you know it, the car is in the carport. Okay. It’s covered. It’s out of the elements. We just don’t have room in the garage anymore. I mean, this is just human nature, and that goes along with the intent that you just described. I mean, you know, you get two garages, and before you know it, they’re fixing cars in it or whatever they’re doing. The same thing happens if you get a 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) carport and a garage. The garage all of a sudden is full of storage and then there’s no room to put the car. That’s human nature. You ought to see my garage. MR. HAYES-Okay. MRS. HUNT-Mr. Chairman, I would be in favor of this. Listening to the other arguments. It really doesn’t look like a carport, and I don’t think it could be used as a carport, really. So I would be in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. MR. RIGBY-Bruce, a question for you on wastewater evaluation that Mr. Navitsky brought up. What is the evaluation process for that? MR. FRANK-Well, of course, when the applicant submits a building permit, whether you grant this relief or not, he’s going to build this home, obviously. He’ll submit a building permit and then the Zoning Administrator will review it, and so will the Building and Codes Department. It definitely has to have a septic system that meets today’s standards by New York State Building Code. So, really there’s no concern there. As far as the stormwater management plan, the Zoning Administrator, he reviews those applications in the waterfront properties and the Lake George Drainage Basin, and, depending on certain thresholds, he determines if you need to submit a stormwater management plan. Well, he doesn’t have anything before him, so there’s no way he can comment on this obviously the applicant was looking to see if they could get the relief that they’re seeking first before they submit a building permit. They’re still going to submit a building permit, I can guarantee one way or the other. Whether you grant this relief or not, it’ll be without the portico or not. Will the Zoning Administrator then say, you need to submit a stormwater management plan? I mean, you can ask the applicant, would he be willing to submit a stormwater management plan with a building permit, whether the Zoning Administrator identifies it or not. I mean, that’s a fair question to put to him. You could also condition it on whether he offers that or not. So, in a nutshell, if I’ve answered your question, but that might be a question you might want to put to the applicant. MR. KELLY-We are having a groundwater test done this week, to determine the position of the waste septic and any other runoff concerns. So that is going to be addressed. MR. RIGBY-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. Well, apparently we have four yeses, three noes, and Mr. Rigby still has a, I have a condition circled on mine. MR. RIGBY-I’m a yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. So we need to, I think we need to make a motion in favor, and we’ll see if it carries. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2005 JOHN E. KELLY, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Leo Rigby: 241 Assembly Point Road. The applicant is proposing construction of a 4,779 square foot two- story single family dwelling which includes a 275 square foot attached carport, as well as an 825 square foot detached garage. The applicant is requesting relief for an additional garage where only one is permitted per Accessory Structure requirements under Subsection 179-5-020D. Again, the applicant has demolished two dwellings and proposes to construct a two-story single family dwelling with an attached carport and a detached garage. The property currently consists of four separate parcels which must be consolidated prior to the building permit being issued, and should be made a condition of this approval, as I am proposing this evening. The 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) applicant is requesting relief for an additional garage, as this open carport has been construed to be, and claims that the carport will only be used for sheltered loading and unloading of passengers and will not be used as a garage or for any kind of outside storage. It’s the general feeling of many of us on the Board that this Project will be architecturally pleasing, and will not have any detrimental affect on the neighborhood. There doesn’t seem to be any opposition from the nearest affected neighbors. It is located on the back side from the Assembly Point Road and the fore shore of the lake and it’s not felt that there would be any impact as a result of this extra structure being attached to the house. At the same time, there were concerns about, that during site plan review, the septic issues be addressed to be adequately done for the size of this home and the number of bedrooms included. It also should be noted that this is a very large lot, almost one acre in size. Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2005, by the following vote: rd MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, would you also make the condition that the four parcels be consolidated into one? I think the applicant’s going to have to anyway. A building permit never would be issued unless they do because of the setback problems that might occur. MR. HAYES-He did say that. MR. FRANK-He did? I’m sorry. AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico MR. HAYES-The motion is carried, four to three. Thanks for coming. MR. KELLY-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2005 SEQRA TYPE II TIMOTHY & SUZANNE HUNSICKER OWNER(S): TIMOTHY & SUZANNE HUNSICKER AGENT(S): CUTTING EDGE GROUP, LLC ZONING RR-3A & RC-15 LOCATION LAKE GEORGE RV PARK, ROUTE 149 60 EAST-WEST BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 680 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE ONE GARAGE PER LOT REQUIREMENT. LOT SIZE: 2.03 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-8 SECTION 179-5-020D TIMOTHY HUNSICKER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-2005, Timothy & Suzanne Hunsicker, Meeting Date: March 23, 2005 “Project Location: Lake George RV Park, Route 149, 60 East-West Boulevard Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes construction of a 680 sq. ft. detached garage in addition to the existing 1300 sq. ft. detached carport. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for an additional garage where only one is permitted, per the accessory structure requirements, § 179-5-020(D). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2005- 001: pending, 680 sq. ft. detached garage. Staff comments: The applicant desires a weatherproof garage, which is not provided for by the existing open carport.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 9, 2005 Project Name: Hunsicker, Timothy & Suzanne Owner(s): Timothy & Suzanne Hunsicker ID Number: QBY-05-AV-25 County Project#: Mar05-28 Current Zoning: RR-3A & RC-15 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 680 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief requested from number of allowable accessory structures. Site Location: Lake George RV Park, Route 149 60 East-West Blvd. Tax Map Number(s): 289.9-1-8 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 680 sq. ft. detached garage. The applicant requests relief from the number of accessory buildings on the site, where there is an existing carport on the site. The information submitted shows the location of the proposed garage, existing carport, and existing dwelling as well as elevation drawings of the garage. The applicant has indicated the garage is to be 13 ft. in height, the location was chosen due to the location of the septic, and the garage offers weatherproof for vehicles where the carport does not. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 03/15/05. MR. HAYES-Please introduce yourself for the record. MR. HUNSICKER-My name is Tim Hunsicker. If there’s two quick changes I could just make. The existing carport is actually 1200 square feet, and Mr. McNulty mentioned in the comments that the garage that I’m applying for would be used for vehicles. That is not the initial intent of this structure. MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. Is there anything you’d like to add to your application at all, as far as comments? MR. HUNSICKER-Yes, there is. Basically, the main purpose of this building is purely for storage. It is not meant for automobiles. It’s not going to have any automobiles stored in it. The only vehicle that would be in it is my snowmobile. It basically started out as just a storage building. It wasn’t meant to be used as a garage. I didn’t even know about the duplicity until I started to consult a builder to build the project. The existing carport is 30 years old. I would have torn it down, other than the fact that when we first bought the house back from our own business, I ended up putting a $4,000 roof on the thing. It does have a termite problem. We do have plans to actually tear the carport down, but right now that is the only structure I have for parking my vehicles under. I do own three vehicles and it’s a four bay parking structure. My house is, it’s a 1300 square foot ranch. It does have a partially finished basement. I have very small storage in the building. The main part of the living area is only 20 feet wide. Closets are small, and the furnace room leaves for very little storage as well. Like I said, the initial point of this whole building that I want to construct is purely for storage. I do have a plow. It’s a seven and a half foot plow, and I would like to store that inside. The existing carport we have doesn’t have anything stored under it right now whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the two inches of ice that were under it just melted away. I still have some patches under. The whole driveway, which, what you’re looking at right now is basically this circular driveway that you come around either side, but from three-quarters of the house, it slopes right over toward the carport. So every time it rains, if it’s heavy enough, I can have a two inch river literally running underneath the carport right now. So, again, as I said, the initial point of this building is purely for storage. I have no intention, if it wanted to go on record, I’m not going to be parking any vehicle inside of this building for any kind of long term storage. I would have to pull inside to drop the plow off to set it down. I have a boat, but at present time the boat is stored at one of our property, our business property storage buildings. So the boat itself, if it ever did come to be stored in the building, is 24 feet long. That’s pretty much it. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? MR. RIGBY-Bruce, I have a question for you. He wouldn’t even have to do anything for a 500 square foot storage building. Correct? Five hundred square foot or less, there wouldn’t be any need for a variance. Correct? MR. FRANK-He is entitled to an accessory structure other than a garage up to 500 square feet. MR. RIGBY-So if this application were for a 500, he wouldn’t even need to apply for this, is that right? So why are we calling it a garage? Does it have to be called a garage? MR. FRANK-Well, the applicant called it a garage. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MR. HUNSICKER-Actually, I kept calling it a storage building. I was told, by Craig Brown, it’s a garage. MR. BRYANT-Once you have the overhead doors. He’s going to drop a plow in there. MR. HUNSICKER-I need a door bigger than six feet to put the plow in. The door is actually a nine by eight. The only reason it’s nine is because when I went down to purchase the door, a nine foot door and an eight foot door are exactly the same price. MR. RIGBY-So the overhead door makes it a garage? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. FRANK-It’ll facilitate the accessibility of an automobile, and therefore a garage. MR. BRYANT-Question. If your intention, ultimately, is to tear down the carport, is that your intention? MR. HUNSICKER-To tear it down and possibly re-build a smaller structure, but I won’t remove it because that’s the closest structure I have to my house to be able to park cars into, to keep them somewhat protected. MR. BRYANT-So it’s not your intention to remove it for ever and ever? MR. HUNSICKER-Well, basically I can’t. There’s electrical components that are inside of a very small enclosed portion of the carport that basically power my well, and it would be rather expensive to remove those, because all the electric goes underground into the house, and to tear it all up and tear up my yard and anything else that’s there, to try to put those back into the house. MR. BRYANT-So somewhere down the road it might not be your intention to convert the carport into a storage shed? MR. HUNSICKER-No, I don’t intend to convert the carport into a storage shed. MR. BRYANT-It’s always going to be a carport? MR. HUNSICKER-It’s always going to be used for parking vehicles. The intent, actually, is to probably tear the thing down within less than a three or four year plan, to turn it into a two car garage with an overhead door on the front of it, so that the automobiles would be protected from the, I have a lot of pines on the property. So I get a lot of pitch that comes down, and a lot of the yellow pollen and needles. MR. ABBATE-How critical is the 680 square foot? Before you answer, let me explain to you why I’m asking. You just heard earlier that you could construct a 500 square foot utility building, if you will, and not even require a permit. MR. HUNSICKER-Yes. I know that. Originally the structure that we wanted to build was over 800 square feet, and with talking with my wife and with the contractor, we found that that was definitely way too much square footage. We didn’t need it all. I was fully aware of the 500 square foot difference, you know, the almost 200 square feet. Just, all we’ve done is my wife and I have just tried to determine the amount of square footage that we can use for everything that we have to store, and it’s no excuse. I have a lot of junk, but it would just meet our needs, basically, the almost 700 square feet, to store the items that I have, and like I said, if all that stuff was in there, and I did want to park my boat in it, that would give me adequate space. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MR. ABBATE-See, what I’m faced with right now is this. In effect, you’re requesting the Town to grant you a variance so that you could have 1,980 square foot, either garage and/or storage. That’s quite significant. MR. HUNSICKER-I understand that, yes. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, can I add a comment? I misspoke. The applicant would be entitled to a 500 square foot accessory structure, if he didn’t have any accessory structures. He has a shed on the property. So he has his one accessory structure. It’s not on your plot plan, I’ve got a photo of it. I didn’t catch it until just now. So, he would not be entitled to another accessory structure. MR. HUNSICKER-The shed that’s on the property basically, it’s a playhouse. It’s finished inside for kids to play in with a foam floor. There’s a playground that’s on the property, and I bought the playground. I had the option of buying, actually, like a 70 to 80 square foot playhouse connected to actually part of the playground swing set. It was actually cheaper just to buy a shed and just make a little playroom for my daughters to play in. MR. ABBATE-What’s the size of the shed? MR. HUNSICKER-I believe it’s eight by twelve. It’s not anchored to the ground or anything. It’s just. MR. ABBATE-Would that qualify as an accessory? MR. FRANK-An accessory structure. MR. ABBATE-So then he would not, even at 500 foot, then, technically. MR. FRANK-I believe that’s how the Zoning Administrator interprets it. MR. ABBATE-I see. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSICKER-That I wasn’t aware of. I do apologize for that. Like I said, the shed isn’t storage of anything. It’s literally, it’s just got some shelves in it and a foam floor and a lot of my kids’ extra toys there to play with in the summertime. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does your lot, was that there previous to the Lake George RV Park, all the property around you sort of? MR. HUNSICKER-Yes, actually the existing lot was almost seven acres. I believe it was 6.19 acres, and it belonged to another family member. My wife is a family member and owner of the Lake George RV Park, and we actually, the existing owner moved, moved to Georgia, and basically the property was purchased back by the business. I own property over on Glen Lake. We sold that property and purchased this one back from the business to make our home and raise our family, and we restructured it down to two acres. I have no neighbors that are around that are going to be affected at all by this structure. MR. UNDERWOOD-So do you work for the RV Park now? MR. HUNSICKER-I do. This site that we’ve chosen to build it basically has the least amount of trees on it. I think there might be two very small trees. One is diseased and dying, that might have to be taken down. There’s a small natural depression which would help, basically, in the construction, because they would have to dig for the foundation and footer that would go in, 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) and I know you did comment about the total square footage, and other than my word, basically my wife and I really do not like the carport because it offers very little protection for our vehicles, other than over top. We do intend, and do have plans to remove the carport and build a much smaller sized structure that would be there. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HAYES-All right then I guess it’s time to poll the Board members. I believe it is time to start back with Mr. Rigby. MR. RIGBY-Well, there’s a big contrast between what we’re looking at here with this carport and what we were just looking at with the other one. The other one was architectural. This is functional. If the carport weren’t there, obviously, we wouldn’t have an issue. If this variance is granted, and you build a garage, you’ll be back here at some point in time probably asking for a variance for another garage somewhere down the road. That’s my guess, because when the carport goes, you’ll want to put in a garage. Six hundred and eighty square feet doesn’t seem like a lot. It’s almost, what you’re laying out, it’s a storage shed, and really that’s the way I’m viewing it, too, it’s a storage shed. A little bit over 500 square feet. It’s going to have an overhead door. So it’s got the capacity to be a place where you’re going to store a vehicle. So I have to assume that, you know, even though your intent is not to put a vehicle in it, you could, and it could function as a garage. So it really is a garage, I guess is what I’m saying. I’m looking at it and I’m saying that, you know, the total square footage of both, what you’re proposing and the carport, as Chuck brought up, is 1880 square feet. That’s a lot of square footage, but I understand, also, that you’re in an area where you have no neighbors that are going to be affected by it in any way whatsoever. So I really haven’t decided yet. I think I’d like to listen to the rest of the Board members. I could be swayed either way, looking at it and saying that, you know, there’s no neighbors that are going to be affected by this in any way makes me say, yes, I think you should be entitled to it, particularly because you’re going to have the carport removed at some point down the road. So, I guess I would say, I’m just forming an opinion now. I guess I would say I am in favor of it, but I want to listen to the rest of the Board members first. MR. HAYES-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I think this is kind of a tough one. In a sense, I mean, the carport is considered a garage. There’ll be two garages. There seems to be, the way of combining the two, but as you’ve said, you put a new roof on. Instead of that carport you could have put a larger garage to accommodate everything, and it is substantial. I don’t know. I’m confused, too. Undecided. MR. HAYES-Undecided. I doubt the next one will be, but, Allan? MR. BRYANT-I’m basically going to say the same thing I said at the last application. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? It’s 100%. You’re asking for 100% relief. To make matters worse, you indicated that, during your comments, that eventually you’re going to tear down the carport and you’re probably going to build a garage. So, you know, there is no question in my mind that you’re going to end up with two garages somewhere down the road when I’m dead and buried. So, I couldn’t be in favor of it. I’m sorry. What Mrs. Hunt says is a good feasible alternative. Convert some of that carport into garage. Try to make it a garage and just build your garage there, and then you don’t have this discussion, but as it stands now, I’d be opposed. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I have to be consistent. I do not believe it is the intention of the Town of Queensbury, based on the Ordinance, that we grant approval for two garages, whether 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) they are described as a carport or as a garage per se. In this instance, Mrs. Hunt made a, I think there’s a feasible alternative. It may not be economically feasible to the applicant. I understand all of that, but at the present time, I have to be consistent with my position to the prior application and state that under the local ordinances, two garages are not permitted, and so in view of that, I would not be in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. James? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think this is a tricky one here, again, and it’s not that similar to what we just decided on the previous case here this evening. If you’re looking at the lot itself, it’s divided half into RC-15 and half into RR-3 Acre, and it is a two acre lot in totality. I don’t know what the actual requirements in the RC-15 zone are for storage buildings or for commercial type buildings in that zone, what the actual stipulations would be, but I would have to agree with Mrs. Hunt. I think if it were me, and I were thinking of constructing a building as large as 20 by 34 feet, given the fact that you have a carport there that’s in negligibly old condition, probably has a limited lifespan in it, it would certainly make more sense, from my viewpoint, anyways, I think to construct the garage as what you’re proposing where the carport is, or even to construct a larger garage than what you’re proposing. I think you could do that as an alternative. I mean, it is a little bit onerous to say you’re going to have to take the carport down if you want to put it up, but I think in the long term, it’s probably, you know, if you are going to replace the carport with another garage, I think it would be very difficult to come in before the Board and ask for a variance for a new garage on that site also. So I don’t think I could grant it at this time. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a difficult one in many ways, because, yes, you’re asking for two garages and I think I’m going to be opposed because of that. Also because of the total square footage, but the other side of the coin is this is kind of an isolated lot that’s well buffered from anybody else. It’s not going to be in front of anyone. So we’re looking more at the rules than the effect, but I think still it’s two garages and it’s way more square footage than what the Town allows for garage type space. About the only alternative you have, that I can see, is what was just suggested, I guess, is tear down the carport, which obviously you don’t want to do having just put a new roof on it. Making part of the carport a garage would still leave you in front of the Board because you’d still be over your square footage. If, you know, part of it was a garage and part of it was an attached carport, you would still have to get some clearance, but that, I don’t know, might end up being easier for us to approve than what’s being requested now, but, nonetheless, my bottom line, I guess, is it’s still back to the 100% on getting two garages, and the total square footage bothers me. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, Mr. Hunsicker, you don’t have the votes. I’ve made it a policy of not wasting the Board’s time or yours if it’s not going to carry, continuing to comment. I guess you’ve got some good suggestions from the Board. If you want to withdraw this particular application and come back with a new one. We would certainly entertain that. I think everybody would be fine with that. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. Sure. MR. HAYES-I think the point is well taken that you do have an isolated area there, and that if some relief was requested, whether it was a larger garage or whatever, that there certainly is some merit to the fact that you’re not impacting really anyone with your application, in this particular case. So I guess I need to know what your pleasure is. MR. HUNSICKER-I just have one quick question, and I don’t know if you can answer it or not. Seeing that the original footprint of the carport is 1200 square feet, am I limited to that size or smaller, if I tore it down and built a completely and built a garage there? MR. HAYES-Well, your options? 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MR. HUNSICKER-Yes. MR. HAYES-I mean, Bruce will correct me if I’m wrong, but your options are to build a compliant garage, which would be 800 square feet, 900 square feet, or if you wanted to build a garage that was slightly larger than that, you could come in to this Board and ask for relief, and that also is within your right. MR. HUNSICKER-But if I built a 900 square foot garage, I don’t need to come before the Board? MR. HAYES-No. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, as long as it replaced the carport. MR. HUNSICKER-Right. MR. HAYES-Right, which may, in the end, be better for you than two 600 square foot buildings, or whatever, but that’s up to you. So I guess, we can make a motion on this, or would you like to? MR. HUNSICKER-Well, what I think I’ll do, then, obviously, it’s a financial issue for me, because I have to correct the drainage problem that results from heavy rains that flow down that way, but if you’re asking if I withdraw the application, then I would say, I do, because I’ll reconsider removing the carport, and building another structure, and not considering building a second garage at all. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-We have, in the past also, on a lot of the rural lots that are secluded, granted permission for larger garages than are permitted, too. MR. HUNSICKER-Well, 900 square feet would actually be beyond what I would need, because I could still park, I have three vehicles. I could park the three of them in with the plow, and still have storage. So, would it be a problem if the building went higher? So that I had storage space above? MR. ABBATE-What is it? MR. BRYANT-Sixteen. MR. FRANK-You’re limited to the height for your principle structure in your zone. A 16 foot height max is only for residential, or waterfront residential zones. MR. ABBATE-And what would be the restriction for his area? MR. HAYES-Twenty-eight feet. MR. FRANK-I could find that out for you. I could look it up. Whatever the requirement is for the principle structure in that zone. I can look it up for you. MR. HAYES-It’s most likely 28 feet. MR. ABBATE-So it’s at least 20 feet. MR. HUNSICKER-That’s higher than I’d need to go. MR. ABBATE-Yes. So that would work out. It’s at least 20 feet, at least. I think it might be even 26 or 28. I’m not sure. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/05) MR. HUNSICKER-Either of those two would give me more substantial pitch of the roof. MR. ABBATE-Yes, plenty of storage for the garage as well. MR. HAYES-Ultimately it could be more effective for you. MR. ABBATE-Sure. MR. HUNSICKER-Well, there’s the parking the vehicles away in the meantime. MR. HAYES-Yes, that’s true. MR. HUNSICKER-The pine trees tend to drop a lot of garbage. MR. FRANK-The maximum height is 40 feet. If it’s in the Park, 35 feet. So it’s more than. MR. HUNSICKER-Gee, no, I wouldn’t need that big. MR. ABBATE-See, now aren’t you glad you came before the Board? We did you a favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming and presenting yourself. We appreciate it. MR. HUNSICKER-Well, thank you. MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess there’s no further business before the Board, I’ll adjourn the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Paul Hayes, Chairman 39