Loading...
2006-12-20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2006 INDEX Area Variance No. 46-2005 Jean M. Hoffman 1. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-9.11 Area Variance No. 37-2005 Adirondack Girl Scouts 8. Tax Map No. 296.16-1-10 Notice of Appeal No. 8-2006 Holly D. Wheeler 13. KD Wheeler Custom Signs for RPS Property Holdings Tax Map No. 309.11-2-11 Area Variance No. 73-2006 Robert E. McDonald 18. Tax Map No. 308.18-2-29 & 58 Area Variance No. 74-2006 Jean C. Guyette 25. Tax Map No. 308.11-1-28; 308.11-1-26 Area Variance No. 75-2006 Thomas Groos 29. Tax Map No. 240.06-1-20 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 12/20/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES MC NULTY RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT MEMBERS ABSENT ROY URRICO LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. ABBATE-All right, ladies and gentlemen, before we begin our hearings this evening and move into the official more or less part of it. I’m going to be moving some resolutions to approve the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings as follows. So, Members of the Board, if you’ll just bear with me, I’d like to go through these, please, and I’ll make the motion. I have a list of the individuals, Sue was kind enough to present me with a list of the individuals who were present at the following hearings. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 21, 2006 June 28, 2006 July 19, 2006 July 26, 2006 August 16, 2006 August 23, 2006 MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 21 & JUNE 28, 2006, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: th Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 19, 2006, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NONE: NONE 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2006, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: th Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2006, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: th Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 2006, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: th Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-Now, ladies and gentlemen, we’ll move on to the next subject. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated December 20, 2006. Prior to setting this hearing in motion, I would like to acquaint you with information that will familiarize you with the responsibilities of this Board, the mandated legal requirements we are guided by, and the procedures for a hearing before this Board. The function of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to listen to and consider all evidence that appears on the record, and may bear upon the issue we are deciding. This Zoning Board of Appeals can grant (or deny) two types of relief; interpretive and variance. In either case, this Board will affirm, reverse or modify the enforcement officer’s decision. In doing so, this Board will either permit or deny the requested relief. If the appeal is for an interpretation, this Board’s decision will be based on the Town of Queensbury zoning regulations. If the appeal is for a variance, this Board’s decision will be based on the standards of proof contained in NYS Town Law 267-b. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeals may only authorize the minimum variance necessary to relieve the applicant. We will invite public comments on each appeal, however, in the interest of time please be crisp, organized and limit your comments to only the facts and information given this evening. On opening the public hearing the public will be allowed a maximum of 5 minutes to comment on a specific appeal. The purpose of this time limitation is to provide each member of the public an opportunity to be heard, and also to limit the length of the hearing to a reasonable time frame. Mr. Secretary will monitor the time, and before we hear our first case, Mr. Secretary, do we have any correspondence, if so, would you please read it into the record, and if so, would you please be kind enough to do so. MR. UNDERWOOD-None. MR. ABBATE-We do not. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2005 SEQRA TYPE: N/A JEAN M. HOFFMAN AGENT(S): WILLIAM J. KENIRY, ESQ. OWNER(S): JEAN M. HOFFMAN ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 159 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN 1, 170 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE WITH 978 SQ. FT. SUNDECK AND SEEKS 3.5 FT. OF RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH STRUCTURES. BOARD TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO PENDING LITIGATION. CROSS REF.: AV 46-2005; SPR 38-2005; AV 90-2004; SPR 50-2001; SUB. NO. 15-2003; AV 91-2001; SPR 15-2001; AV 30-2001; SUB. NO. 14- 1999; AV 60-1999 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A ADIRONDACK PARK 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 3.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-9.11 SECTION 179-5-050 WILLIAM J. KENIRY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-This has been in before us on numerous occasions, and again, this is an administrative item. We’ll be adjourning, after they give their brief to us here this evening, I believe. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 46-2005 please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and your relationship with this appeal. MR. KENIRY-Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, William J. Keniry, Tabner, Ryan & Keniry, on behalf of Jean M. Hoffman, here with me in person this evening. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and, Counselor, I understand you wish to put forward a proposed settlement to the litigation. MR. KENIRY-Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I’d ask, in the first instance, as you will recall, the current papers, if you will, that are before you, in this submission we rely on all prior submissions, together with the proof of professional studies and testimony in the possession of the Town. It is my understanding that for purposes of record this evening, we’re not going to fill the record with all that, it doesn’t have to be resubmitted. To cut right to the core, if you will, the matter before you, for your current consideration, consists of the applicant’s statement, which we filed, together with a plan that was prepared by Charles E. Hardnet. I believe that it has a date of October 16, 2006, and also what I would describe as a free hand rendering to try to give you some understanding of what the structure would look like, in the event the modifications as shown by Mr. Hardnet’s plans are, in fact, put into effect. The net result of this is there would be a removal of the waterfront railing, which we calculate trying to use Mr. Hardnet’s scale, approximately 16 feet on the waterfront side, and then removal of each side section, and again, if you look at Mr. Hardnet’s plan, there would be two side sections on each side that would also be removed. We would remove the railing and also remove the twig wood that appears beneath the railing and above the height of the structure. This also would involve, so you have some understanding of the work, the termination of the electrical service to those two points, the east and west corners, and also we would remove the wiring on the east and west corners of the top of the structure. We would then install a railing approximately 10 feet from the waterfront side to serve as a barrier, so that someone couldn’t get off the structure. The effect of this is the railing will be moved approximately 10 feet from the waterfront side in, if you will, toward the shoreline on the top of the deck. We do have one practical point that I had mentioned previously and I think you are aware of, and that is, because of the nature of the material, it would be our intention, we believe it’s cold enough now, that the logs can probably be harvested. We think that the sap has probably dropped, and so as a result we would anticipate being able to secure the material necessary to do this in fairly short order. As far as the work is concerned, it’s our expectation that the work would be done some time before May or June, in terms of it being complete. We haven’t done anything as far as lining anyone up, obviously, because we needed to come here first, and with that, to some extent, I think that describes it. If you have questions, certainly, we’re prepared to answer any questions. MR. ABBATE-We’re not going to have any questions at this time. I do have a question to you, Counselor. In your proposed litigation, your proposed settlement to the litigation, did you submit that to the Zoning Board of Appeals, to the Town, to put into our records, the comments that you just made, your proposal, has it been submitted to us? MR. KENIRY-Yes. MS. RADNER-I haven’t seen it, but I believe it has been. MR. ABBATE-I haven’t seen it, either. th MR. KENIRY-Yes, it was submitted on November 14. MR. ABBATE-Yes. We do have it. Thank you so very much. MR. KENIRY-Yes. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) MR. ABBATE-You have concluded, basically? MR. KENIRY-Unless there are any questions. MR. ABBATE-Okay. What we’re going to do, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, we are going into Executive Session, at this time, and I’m going to request that all members of the audience please recuse yourself to the outside, and then we will give you a call to come back in again. Thank you very much. MS. RADNER-You want to state on the record the purpose of this Executive Session. MR. ABBATE-Yes, you’re right. The purpose of going to Executive Session is to discuss litigation. Thank you. MS. RADNER-Why don’t you make a vote to go into Executive Session, so that’s on the record. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSSION MATTERS RELATING TO AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2005 JEAN M. HOFFMAN, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MOTION TO GO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you so much for your patience, ladies and gentlemen. We truly appreciate that. We’re now back in session, and prior to going into Executive Session, Counsel opened the door asking if Board members had any questions. They certainly may ask. So, what we’re going to do, what I’m going to do, is turn to my Board members and ask if they have any questions or ask if they’d like any clarification or if they have any additional input. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have any? MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you in agreement that the square footage would be 700 square feet of the deck up there? Is that what you come up with with your calculations? MR. KENIRY-We tried to do the best we could with respect to the calculations. We believe that the total square footage as it was built was 978 square feet, and we believe that the net result will be 704 square feet. Mr. Underwood, I must admit that I did, today, pursue Craig, because what I wanted to do, if you’ll recall, always I’ve taken the position that the object of this was not to get into some who’s numbers are correct or who’s measurements are correct, and I wanted to have his measurements available to you so that you would be able to rely on what the Town’s measurements were. I don’t have his measurements, but that was our best estimate. MR. UNDERWOOD-Essentially, though, if we go back to, by removing those two side sections essentially that’s where we were at anyway, as far as those measurements. MR. KENIRY-That is correct, yes, and what I did was I applied the scales, and it looks like the distance between two posts, if you will, is five feet. So you’re talking about a net 10 foot reduction from the waterfront going back to the shore. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, ladies? MR. BRYANT-The question was brought up, you had mentioned something about cutting new timber and stuff. Why aren’t you just using what’s there? You’re reducing the size of the railing. Why aren’t you just using the material that you’ve got? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) MR. KENIRY-I’d have to turn to my expert, Mr. Bryant. That part I can’t answer for you. JEAN HOFFMAN MS. HOFFMAN-They’ve drill holes and stuff in them to put all the twig work in, and if I don’t get the twig work back in the same spot, I’m going to have holes, so with this way, it’s better if I just, all it is is like three or four flares, and then I can put brand new twig work and brand new flares, and then I won’t have holes like a woodpecker was in it. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but my question is, what you’re basically doing is moving it back two posts. The twig work is going to be in the same position. It’s not going to change. Nothing is going to change. MR. KENIRY-But every log is different. It’s not dimensional lumber. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MS. HOFFMAN-The flares, and the electric comes up through the. MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, ladies, do we have any other? I have a couple of comments, Counselor. Would you agree that the cost of litigation will be borne by your client, Number One, and if we did settle this evening, there would be a stipulation that it would not set precedent, that this is a rather unique set of circumstances, and this is by no stretch of the imagination an issue to set a precedent. Would you also agree to paying legal fees as well? These are the three considerations. If you’d like to take some time with your client to discuss this, that’s perfectly okay. MR. KENIRY-I don’t need any time. I can certainly respond to any of those if you’d like. MR. ABBATE-And I have two other ones here as well. I’m sorry. Would you agree to the fact that there would be no further modification or expansion of this structure, as another condition, and I’d like to set the time limit, if Board members agree with me, to be st completed by the 1 of April 2007, and those would be the conditions. So if you’d like to take some time with your client. MR. KENIRY-I’m totally prepared. I can address all of them. I don’t know, to be very candid, with respect to April 1, 2007. I do believe that we have the ability to commit to stst May, and we could do May 1 or 31. MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me pose this to the Board. I think we’re fair-minded and what have you. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, the appellant has suggested that perhaps 1 April may be too tight a deadline, and that she and Counselor agree that it certainly th would be completed no later than the 30 of May 2007. Board members, how do you feel about that? Are there any objections? MR. BRYANT-I don’t have a problem. th MR. ABBATE-Counselor, we would agree to that one stipulation, the 30 of May, as a deadline. MR. KENIRY-I think that’s perfectly fine. I think with respect to, Mr. Chairman, your suggestion that part of the stipulation provide that there be no modifications, I think that that’s perfectly fine. I don’t know that there’s any problem with respect to that, and with respect to, and I’m not sure, you mentioned in two instances, one litigation costs and payment of legal fees, the standard stipulation in an instance like this is both parties are responsible for their respective shares of their fees. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, these are two separate subjects. The cost of litigation is separate from the cost of legal fees. Two separate subjects. MS. RADNER-I think what they mean is will you take the responsibility for completing any paperwork that’s necessary, filing stipulations of discontinuance, doing whatever further correspondence is necessary for the court to tie this up, if there’s any filing fee, which I doubt there will be, for the stipulations of discontinuance, that would be your responsibility as well. MR. KENIRY-Yes. I don’t have any problem undertaking those tasks, and for purposes of your record, obviously with the understanding that the Town is responsible, I’m sure 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) the Town has its own arrangement for its legal fees, and the applicant pays her own legal fees, but, yes, with respect to the ministerial task of preparation of any of the settlement papers affecting the settlement, making sure that it’s followed through, I will agree to undertake those tasks. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, then it would seem to me that you have agreed with the stipulations we have set forward, with only one modification, and that is instead of the deadline being the first of April 2007, we have consented and you have agreed to a th deadline completion date of no later than the 30 of May 2007. Am I correct? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, one other thing. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please. MR. BRYANT-The outstanding litigation, I think there should be some kind of stipulation that we close the door on the three cases that we were experiencing, and that there be no further litigation relative to any agreement that we have tonight or whatever. We’re done, in other words, with the court. MR. KENIRY-Mr. Bryant, you’re suggesting that as lawyers we have the ability to spawn litigation. MR. ABBATE-No, never, I would never look at it that way. MR. KENIRY-We don’t have any problem with that. It’s certainly not our intention to produce additional litigation. It’s our intention to try to put something together, and that’s why we’re very candid with you with respect to the May date. It’s not our intent to be involved in those things. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. KENIRY-The only thing that I would point out, and I think it’s important for you to just know, I don’t know that you have any ability to do anything in this regard, and that is obviously what we’re seeking to achieve is the project that we started with essentially, and there is an additional component part that does not involve the Zoning Board of Appeals, and that is we must now also, if we can work this out, return to the Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-That’s correct. MR. KENIRY-And so as a result, what we’d have to do is this must be held in abeyance pending those results at the Planning Board. I can’t tell you the exact date, but it’s a January meeting that we are anticipating, but that’s the plan is that we would come here first as a prerequisite and then of course, if the next Board consents, our site plan has to be modified so that it is consistent with the result that you would affect here. MR. ABBATE-I agree with you. You’re absolutely correct. MS. RADNER-And just so we’re clear for the record, the three cases that are pending against the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Town are two pending against Judge Aulisi, Index No. 47083, and also pending against Judge Aulisi, 48187, and pending before Judge Krogmann, Case No. 46190. The fourth matter that’s pending against the Planning Board is before Judge Aulisi, and that’s Index No. 46203. This Board does not have the power to bind the Planning Board. So you’re on your own there, as far as this Board’s concerned. MR. KENIRY-Right, and the understanding is, obviously, that any result that’s achieved here must be held in abeyance so that there is complete relief and to some extent to Mr. Bryant’s point, the object here is not to resolve only a piece of this, but instead to resolve the totality of it so that there are no hang over lawsuits, if you will. So, in this instance, we’re certainly prepared to commit to all the things that we’ve discussed tonight, with the understanding that we will be back at the Planning Board some time in the month of January, and that will be the final piece of this, final result if you will. MR. ABBATE-Correct me if I’m wrong, I think what you’re suggesting, Counselor, and I’m not so sure I’m really comfortable with this, I’ll have to check, what you’re suggesting that you’d like to hold this in abeyance so that you’re not committed to us pending what the Planning Board may say? What you’re saying is that if the Planning Board says, yes, 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) everything is fine, then you’ll close litigation. You’re suggesting that you keep the door open to litigation. Is this how I’m interpreting you? MR. KENIRY-Specifically, with respect to Mr. Bryant’s point, he’s nailed it, and that is that is, I can’t do anything with you with respect to the Planning Board, and you can’t do anything with me with respect to the Planning Board, but certainly with respect to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the intent here is to achieve a complete result with respect to all of the issues at the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. ABBATE-There’s no reason we can’t have a complete result as to where it approaches the Zoning Board of Appeals this evening. Is there? MS. RADNER-Well, I think if you insist on, you refuse to accept that contingency, then what could potentially happen is this Board, tonight, agrees to the settlement. The Planning Board, for whatever reason, votes it down, under your scenario, the applicant would only then be able to continue the litigation against the Planning Board and that case that’s pending before Judge Aulisi would go to fruition. Under Mr. Keniry’s suggestion, all four suits would then go to litigation and there are pros and cons to both of those, and I’d be happy to discuss them with you, though I think that’s more appropriate for Executive Session. MR. ABBATE-Yes, and quite frankly, Counselor, that’s exactly what I was afraid of. It’s my desire, quite frankly, as one of the members of the Board, that if we could resolve this this evening, if we could close the door to litigation this evening, I could go home and sleep quite well, but I’m quite uncomfortable with the fact, saying this is fine, except for what another party may do, which we have absolutely no control over. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, see if I understand this correctly. I mean, if the Planning Board doesn’t like this arrangement, I mean, you’ll have to deal with the Planning Board. That won’t affect what we’ve done tonight. MR. ABBATE-Yes, it will. MR. BRYANT-Why? MR. ABBATE-Because if they say no, then litigation starts all over again. MR. BRYANT-It doesn’t necessarily have to, because we’ve agreed. MS. RADNER-Do you want a moment with your client to discuss this? MR. KENIRY-No. I think you’re right, in terms of where you’re going, and that is this. It’s got to just be clear, and you have to have an understanding that when you say that all of the litigation is resolved. MR. BRYANT-No, no. I said specifically that anything related to the Zoning Board of Appeals would be over with, and then whatever you do at the Planning Board, that’s great. We don’t want to know about it. MR. ABBATE-Let me try it this way. We can resolve the issues, we need an agreement from you that if we consent to your proposed settlement, that the doors of litigation are closed, regardless of what occurs between you and a separate entity, the Planning Board. MR. KENIRY-Right. Just so we’re crystal clear, the litigation with respect to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. BRYANT-Exactly. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. So then I think we have an agreement that the door is closed, if we settle this evening, as far as the ZBA is concerned. MR. KENIRY-As far as the ZBA is concerned. MR. ABBATE-Right. MS. RADNER-Case No. 46203 remains pending until and unless a stipulation or agreement is reached with the Planning Board. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) MR. KENIRY-I don’t have any ability to verify the index numbers, but I. MR. ABBATE-We’ll assume that it’s correct for the record. If not, we can correct the record later. I checked them, too, and as far as I’m concerned they’re correct, too. So, okay. Well, thank you. So then I’m going to approach the Zoning Board of Appeals members and I’m going to say, is there a motion to accept the proposed settlement with stipulations as we agreed to this evening between the ZBA and the client and her attorney? I’m open for a motion. MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE STIPULATIONS AS VOICE BY MR. KENIRY, ATTORNEY FOR JEAN M. HOFFMAN, AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2005, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: The applicant has constructed a 1,170 square foot boathouse with a current 978 square foot sundeck at 17.5 feet high and in reviewing this we’re going to be granting them relief of 3.5 feet. The present boathouse is in conformity because we previously granted one foot of relief for that boathouse, and what’s not in conformity here is the railings that surround the deck up on top. So that’s where the three and a half feet of relief will come from. As agreed to this evening here, they’re going to be removing two side sections of the present railings that are up on top, and then they will be moving the front railing back in line with the remaining logs that are on the sides there, and that will shrink the size of the deck from 978 square feet to approximately 704 square foot. We’re comfortable give or take a square foot or two of relief there on that number. So that usable deck space will be shrunk back from what it presently is to 704 square feet. They’ve also agreed to no future modifications of the boathouse or the deck up on top. In resolving this, that because of litigation, as discussed this evening, would be handled as discussed between both attorneys, and also this is we’re not setting a precedent. This particular case is unique in its circumstances, and we want to make it perfectly clear that this is not a precedent setting decision. We also have included in the condition that the project will th be completed no later than the 30 of May 2007. Relative to the litigation, as it pertains to the three cases against the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Town, that those would be concluded, come to an end, and there’d be no further litigation against the Zoning Board of Appeals in this regard. The litigation will be discontinued with prejudice. th Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. McNulty MR. ABBATE-By a majority vote of five to one, the vote is to accept the proposal submitted by the applicant as modified and discussed this evening with the conditions in the record. Any other comments? Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes, then, I would hope, that concludes the litigation to this Board, and you have our approval. MR. KENIRY-Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Board, I wish to thank you for your consideration. We’ve spent a considerable amount of time together. Thank you for your patience and your attention on this application. It’s appreciate it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Thank you, ma’am. We appreciate that. MR. BRYANT-Good luck with the Planning Board. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2005 SEQRA TYPE: II ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUTS AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ./T. HUTCHINS, PE/M. STEVES LS ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION: 412 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF CAMP MEADOWBROOK (ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED AT 4,428 SQ. FT. ALONG WITH FRONT PORCH/RAMP AS WELL AS REAR DECK/PORCH/RAMP WHICH ADDS AN ADDITIONAL 1,098 SQ. FT. TO THE FACILITY.) DEC WETLAND PERMIT HAVE BEEN ISSUED RELATIVE TO THE PROJECT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR THE CONTINUATION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: FW 1-2005, SPR MOD 30-02, AV 47-2002, UV 12-2002, SP 30-02, FW 1-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING: MAY 11, 2005 LOT SIZE: 13.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-10 SECTION 179-4-030; 179-4-070 JON LAPPER, TOM HUTCHINS & DEAN LONG, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) MR. UNDERWOOD-And we have previously heard this, dating back to, I think, 2002 was the earliest one. We had asked them to procure a DEC Wetland Permit, and that DEC Wetland Permit has been issued relative to the project. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-2005, Adirondack Girl Scouts, Meeting Date: December 20, 2006 “Project Location: 412 Meadowbrook Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicants have constructed a 4,428 sq. ft. administration building. Relief Required: The applicants request 8-feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback, per §179- 4-030 for the SFR-1A zone, and for expansion of a nonconforming structure, per §179- 13-010 E. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicants would be permitted to maintain the porch and ramp on the front of the existing building. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request from the minimum front setback (27%) could be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The degree of substantiality of the expansion of a nonconforming structure should be discussed. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood or community may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): ? SP 30-2002 Mod.: Pending, the applicant proposes modifications to their 2002 site plan approval, specifically, a 4,428 sq. ft. administration building with 1,098 sq. ft. rear deck/ramp, a 607 sq. ft. addition to the Winter Lodge, and a 1,098 sq. ft. splash pad. ? BP 2004-936: Commercial addition (patio, southside of Winter Lodge), issued 12/29/04. ? BP 2004-302: Demolition of building, issued 6/7/04. ? BP 2004-292: 41 sq. ft. addition, issued 5/14/04. ? BP 2003-556: New commercial building, issued 12/17/03. ? SP 30-2002: Construction of a 2800 sq. ft. addition to the existing administration building, approved 6/25/02. ? FW 1-2002: Wetland work associated with SP 30-2002, approved 6/25/02. ? AV 47-2002: 84.5-feet of relief from the shoreline setback requirements for a 2,800 sq. ft. addition to administration building, approved, 7/24/02. ? UV 12-2002: Expansion of a non-conforming use (administration building), approved 2/27/02. Staff comments: As you will recall, this Board tabled this application at the May 18, 2005 meeting pending a permit from the NYSDEC relative to wetland impacts as a result of site improvements and subsequent wetland mitigation (see resolution and meeting minutes). The DEC 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) granted Article 15 and Article 24 permits, along with Water Quality Certification on August 29, 2002. Subsequently, a new wetland mitigation area was proposed and the size of this area was increased from 1,500 sq. ft. in the original permit to 2,400 sq. ft. DEC modified the previous permits on August 16, 2006. The recently submitted package includes the previous and revised DEC permits, however, it does not include the approved plans (Prepared by the LA Group, entitled, “Girl Scouts of the Adirondack Council, Inc., Camp Meadowbrook, Wetlands Plan,” dated October 12, 2005). SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ABBATE-The petitioner, I see, is at the table with his client. Would you be kind enough, please, to speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself and your relationship with Area Variance No. 37-2005. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, I’m Jon Lapper, the project attorney. On my right is Tom Hutchins, the project engineer, on my left is Dean Long, the project wetland biologist from the LA Group and a number of the officers and members of the Board of Directors are here from the Girl Scouts in case there are any questions for them. Since you started off with technical difficulties and lost some time tonight, and by way of aside, I think 6:30 is good because it gets us home to our families a little earlier, I’ll just be brief and see where we go, but essentially what happened here, we’ve covered all the wetland issues and the wetland permits which you wanted in the record and those have been submitted. So that part of this is done, in terms of the wetland mitigation for the project. The reason we’re here tonight is the front porch and handicap ramp was not the subject of a variance when the project was first approved in 2002 because they were pre-existing. Originally this was going to be an addition to the rear of the building, and when they got into the building to start the construction, it was determined that the old building was rotted and actually needed to be replaced on the same foundation location. That determination was made with Dave Hatin, the Town Building Inspector, but the contractor never stopped to talk to the attorneys and ask whether that would have a legal significance that it required modifying the variance, as we had had a number of variances. We had had a number of variances that were granted for the project to begin with, but one of them was not with respect to front setback because it was intended that the front porch would stay in the same location. So, ultimately, the log porch and handicap ramp were built in the same location where they existed, but because they were taken down, as really a technicality, but as a matter of law as it’s interpreted in the Town of Queensbury, that grandfather was lost because they were removed, there was nothing there, and then they were replaced. So we’re here tonight to ask you to approve the eight foot variance and the front setback to put them back where they were, where they exist now, even though it was never contemplated that, it was contemplated, they were grandfathered and we wouldn’t need that relief, and so we’re here to essentially clear up the record and seek that variance and because it was a rebuild rather than an addition, it needs that expansion of a nonconforming building. So that’s my simple explanation of why we’re here, and we hope that that’s acceptable to the Board. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Counselor. Board members, do you have any questions for the appellant? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just have one question for you. The last time we came in, I think that we were, our major hang up was the DEC permit, which has been granted, and I know as part of the mitigation plan you were going to have to add on to that constructed wetland. Has that been completed? MR. LAPPER-No, because the Zoning Administrator wanted us to get through the Zoning Board first before we did the mitigation. So we have the permit and we’re ready to go. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I would assume if we agree to this this evening then you would complete that by Spring or something? I don’t know, do you have a timeframe with DEC on that? MR. LONG-Yes. There is a condition on timing, and, yes, I’m Dean Long from the LA Group, Director of Environmental Planning. I prepared the permit applications both for the Town as well as for the DEC and Army Corps. As far as timing, it’s all a matter of when we can get it excavated and when’s the optimal time for putting in, installing the plants. It’s always a little difficult to get it all squeezed in to a single Spring. So typically what we end up doing is we end up excavating as early as possible. We verify the water 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) levels and then plant to the water levels. So normally these things all take about a year cycle to get done, so that we optimize our survivability. MR. UNDERWOOD-My only other question was, is there anything pending with Army or anything, or do they just defer to the DEC on the size of this? MR. LONG-Army Corps of Engineers had already signed off on it, because all the prior permitting activities were all covered under Nationwide permit categories. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from members of the Board? MR. GARRAND-A question for Mr. Long. Mr. Long, anything that’s done as far as stormwater management on this property effects everything all the way back to the Quaker Road corridor. What exactly is going to be done for stormwater control here? MR. LONG-Well, of course all that was previously approved as part of the original actions, and I believe that all the repairs that were requested for the one stormwater basin that’s in the back of the site has also already been completed. So, there’s a stormwater basin in the back, and then everything else on the front discharges to the existing ditch. Basically, of course this thing’s been in approvals since 2002, or prior to that. So there’s been some changes and modifications in the rules, but I believe that even with those modifications, this system had anticipated most of the regulatory changes. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Because Spring is going to be here in a few months, and my concern is the flooding that can take place in that whole area. MR. LONG-Right. That’s another consequence, because the mitigation wetland is back up towards the golf course, and it’s right just inside of this property, which will make timing critical. We don’t want to excavate and then have a bunch of loose soil get washed down through the rest of system. So that’s another timing issue, as far as the construction of the mitigation wetland that we have to be aware of. MR. GARRAND-All right. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have any other questions before we continue? Okay. I don’t see any other questions. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 37-2005. Would those wishing to be heard please raise your hand, and I will recognize you and ask you to come before the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JIM PIPER MR. PIPER-Jim Piper. I live at 206 Meadowbrook, right across the street from the Girl Scout Camp. I also am the first Vice President of the Adirondack Council, and I’m here strictly as a neighbor at this point, to say that the process that we’re trying to go through here, as far as the wetland mitigation, is not going to have any effect on the stormwater that you mentioned. The stormwater drains are already in place. The retention basins are there. This has to do with a situation from the original acceptance and permitting process that we went through that said that we had to build this reclamation area. We’ve been trying to get this approved so that we could build the reclamation area, and that’s the whole thing, and as a neighbor of this, I can see no negative effect on the neighborhood. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else in the public who wishes to be heard on Area Variance No. 37-2005? I see no other hands raised. Counselor, would you and your clients please come back up to the table. Now, I’m going to ask the members of the Board to offer their comments, and I would like to inform the public that the comments that are going to be offered by members of the Board are directed to the Chairman, and the comments that are expressed by members of this Board are to the Chairman only and will not be open to debate. Do we have a volunteer who would like to start out first? Mr. Bryant, I see you raised your hand, sir, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) MR. BRYANT-Actually I know there was talk about stormwater and all that, but we’re only talking about, basically, the handicap ramp that was originally there in the first place, and I have absolutely no problem with the project. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and I thank you, sir. Do we have another person that would like to go? Mrs. Hunt, would you, please. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I did the balancing test. Whether the benefits could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant, and I don’t think so. It would mean taking off the ramp and the porch. There don’t seem to be many feasible alternatives, and while the relief might be considered substantial, it’s no more than has been there before, and I don’t think there’d be any real effects on the neighborhood or community, and it is self- created, but I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Let’s see. Jim Underwood, would you mind being next, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I really don’t have any problem with the request here this evening, either. I think that we’ve cleared the items up that we were concerned about. I think this was a misfortune that it’s taken this long to kind clean things up here, but at the same time I think that the stuff out on the front there isn’t going to have any real affect on the wetlands, and it’s an asset as far as the access to the building. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. This is a unique situation, and while you could argue that it conceivably could have an effect on the wetlands, since the entire building is within the 100 foot buffer for a wetland, it’s also where it was before. There was a building there before in this basic configuration on the front side at least. So, given that, I think for this particular situation it’s reasonable to give an approval for a front setback on this, and I’m pleased that they finally managed to get the DEC Permits for the pending work on the mitigation so we can be reasonably confident that’ll be completed. So I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also agree with my fellow Board members. I think eight feet of relief is moderate. I don’t think it’s going to have any overall impact on the character of the neighborhood whatsoever. So I’d also be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and I thank you very much. I, too, would agree with my fellow Board members. Quite frankly I think everything they had to say, they made an excellent point. I think the parties, it’s unfortunate that it had to last this long, but towards the end hopefully it’s been resolved. Do we have any Environmental Assessment Forms that we have to complete, Mr. Secretary? No? Okay. Good. Then what I’m going to do, I’m closing the public hearing for Area Variance No. 37-2005. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-I’m going to respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. Please, we know what our obligations are. I’m going to request that you please introduce your motion with clarity, and I’m going to now ask if we have a member of the Board who is willing to move a motion for Area Variance No. 37-2005. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2005 ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUTS, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 412 Meadowbrook Road. The applicants have constructed a 4,428 square foot administration building and they request eight feet of relief from the thirty foot minimum front setback per Section 179-4-030 for the SFR-1 zone and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure per Section 179-13-010E. The applicants would be permitted to maintain the porch and ramp in the front of the existing building. There don’t seem to be many feasible alternatives. The request from the minimum front setback might be considered moderate but it’s no more than was there before. The effects on the neighborhood or community would be minimal, and it is self-created, but I move that we approve Area Variance No. 37-2005. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) th Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 37-2005 is six yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 37-2005 is approved. MR. LAPPER-Thank you all very much. Happy Holidays. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. You as well. NEW BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 8-2006 SEQRA TYPE: N/A HOLLY D. WHEELER KD WHEELER CUSTOM SIGNS FOR RPS PROPERTY HOLDINGS AGENT(S): HOLLY D. WHEELER CUSTOM SIGNS OWNER(S): RPS PROPERTY HOLDINGS ZONING MU LOCATION 17 MAIN STREET APPELLANT IS APPEALING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION REGARDING PLACEMENT OF TWO WALL SIGNS FOR ADIRONDACK REHAB MEDICINE. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-657; BP 2006-658 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING : N/A LOT SIZE: 0.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-11 SECTION: 140-6 HOLLY WHEELER, PRESENT MR. ABBATE-Before you read the Staff Notes, Mr. Secretary, I’d like to ask the Zoning Administrator, in the Staff Notes, it’s shown as Staff Notes. Is this your rebuttal to the appellant, Mr. Zoning Administrator, on the Staff Notes? MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s correct, yes. MR. ABBATE-So, for the record, the Staff Notes are in fact the Zoning Administrator’s rebuttal to the appellant. Thank you very much. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 8-2006, Holly D. Wheeler, KD Wheeler Custom Signs for RPS Property Holdings, Meeting Date: December 20, 2006 “Project Location: 17 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to an October 4, 2006 decision made by the Zoning Administrator regarding the construction of two wall signs on the subject property. Staff comments: The issue at debate here is whether or not the proposed signs can be displayed on the side of the building or not. Both parties agree that the number of proposed signs is accurate and allowable per the Town of Queensbury Town Code §140, Signs. Apparently, the appellants’ argument offers that the proposed signs can be displayed at any location on the building and such signs should not be limited to the front or street side of the building only. It is the position of the Zoning Administrator that the proposed signs must face the street. Historically, this position has been consistently and evenly applied when issuing sign permits throughout the Town of Queensbury. Per §140-6, (3), (c); a business shall be granted a permit for either a freestanding sign and a wall sign or two wall signs. This paragraph continues to include businesses on corner lots and the allowable display configuration for such situations. Specifically, businesses on corner lots are only allowed to display signs on the building in areas that are “facing a public street.” Therefore, a reasonable interpretation is to require businesses that might only have a single frontage to only display signs that are “facing a public street” or seek a Sign Variance. While the October 4, 2006 denial letter from the Zoning Administrator references signage “…in excess of the allowable…” the specifics of 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) sign locations were discussed with the Appellant during a follow up telephone conversation on October 26, 2006. Please see attached examples of businesses along Main Street with “street side” facing signs.” MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see that the appellant is at the table right now. Would you be kind enough, please, to speak into the microphone and state your name and your place of residence and your relationship with this appeal. MRS. WHEELER-My name is Holly W. Wheeler. I am the co-owner of K.D. Wheeler Custom Signs. I reside at 16 Richardson Street, Queensbury. That is also our business location. We are the sign contractor for Adirondack Rehabilitation and Glens Falls Hospital Physical Therapy, RPS Property Holdings. MR. ABBATE-You haven’t retained an attorney for this, I take it? MRS. WHEELER-No. MR. ABBATE-All right. Then I wish to bring to your attention, before we proceed, that I have to advise you that the burden of proof, that is the duty to prove a disputed assertion, rests squarely on your shoulders. Okay. Fine. Having said that, would you like to make an opening statement? MRS. WHEELER-It’s my contention that, per the Code, as it’s stated, that a business located on a parcel of property shall be granted a permit for two signs, one freestanding double faced sign and one sign attached to a building, or two signs attached to a building. Period. End of statement. It doesn’t go on to state where the signs need to be placed, only in regards to a corner lot, which this is not the situation. To me, I don’t see the difference, you know, it would be silly to put the signs all in the front building when they want two wall signs. Initially, you know, when I met with my clients, we discussed where to put signs on this building, how best to increase their visibility. If you’ve seen the property, it’s very easy to miss. It’s between the bar and the cat hospital and it’s just kind of this non-descript building in there. It’s very easy to drive by. The signs on the front are the new ones. They were issued a permit. When we couldn’t get the permit for the two signs, we conceded and went with one permit for right now. We’re appealing the second sign. I initially discussed with my clients going for a variance because they lack setback to do a freestanding sign. If they do that, they lose parking in the front, and they don’t have a lot of parking in this building to start with. So they really didn’t want to lose parking spaces in the front for a freestanding sign. So per the Code, as I read it, they could put a sign on the front, and then a sign on the right hand corner, so that people coming up from Glens Falls on Main Street could see it and have time to stop and turn in there, and I thought it was a viable option. I didn’t realize I was going to have to go through this much. So, but that’s basically it. I’m trying to do my job and my business per the Code as written, and I would like to be able to just go in and say, you know, this is the permit, and they issue a permit based on the Code, and it’s very hard to work when I’m getting an arbitrary decision, basically. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you like to add anything else at this time? MRS. WHEELER-I don’t think so. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Zoning Administrator, would you like to respond? MR. BROWN-I can a little bit. I guess I summed up my position in the Staff Notes, and what may make the situation a little more unique than any other situation is in this case the applicant, from what I remember, desires to put up two sets of the same signs? MRS. WHEELER-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. MRS. WHEELER-One for each business. MR. BROWN-Right. It may not seem strange to have both signs that you may be allowed on both on one face of the building if they were different signs, if it was a car dealership and one said Ford and Chevrolet. They’re two different signs. You’re allowed two signs. You could put them both on the same face of the building. In this case, they want two Ford signs. So for them it wouldn’t make sense to put them on the same face 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) of the building. However, every other application for wall signage in the Town for single frontage lots we’ve restricted them to the street facing side of the building. So this is, hopefully you don’t find that it’s arbitrary. It’s certainly consistent with the dozens and hundreds of sign permit applications we’ve reviewed in the past, and issued as such. So if you have any questions, I’ll be happy to try and answer them for you. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Brown, the applicant points out something. I know that you’re dealing with what you’ve done in the past, and I understand that, but the applicant points out that it only really specifies on the street side when it pertains to a corner lot. Now there’s no other place that I can find, and Mr. Abbate was kind enough to make copies of the Sign Code so that all the members have it. There’s no place else in the Code that indicates that it always has to be on the street side, because, you know, we can go through the cases where it’s not on the street side. Just look at The Great Escape and some of these others. It’s not on the street side. MR. BROWN-Well, the example that you use, they were before you and sought a variance for that. MR. BRYANT-Yes, I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t see it in the Code, and you’ve got to be more specific, because your remarks don’t really point out in the Code where it says specifically it has to be on the street side. That’s my question. MR. BROWN-Okay. Well, you know, as you continue through that paragraph, as I reference in the Staff Notes, it does talk about lots that have two frontages, or corner lots, and the logic there is to have the signs face the streets. So I guess if you go backwards with the same logic of having the signs face the streets, it applies to single frontage lots in the same way. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but it doesn’t say that. That’s my question. It’s very specific about the corner lot allowing the extra wall sign on a corner lot, and it has to be on the street, and that makes sense, but this also makes sense, putting a sign in a parking lot, or at least facing the flow of traffic so they can see the sign and not having the wall sign, I mean, the freestanding sign. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Gentlemen, ladies, do we have any other comments? MR. UNDERWOOD-The only other one I would use as an example would be like canopies on gas stations where it doesn’t face the street. Sometimes those are on the, you know, facing towards oncoming traffic. I think the Mobil station up on Route 9 you could use as an example of one those also. I can understand where the applicant is coming from here, too, because, you know, not having adequate space out front to put a monument sign or any pylon sign out in front of there, the only other alternative would be the side of the building, you know. MRS. HUNT-I agree. I went to see the property on Sunday, no traffic, and I still went past, and I had to turn around and come back. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other comments? MR. MC NULTY-One thought I guess. I was going to throw it in later, but I might as well throw it in now. Looking at the sentence that the Zoning Administrator referred to that says that signs on a corner lot would be facing a street, if you read that, it says where a building is situated on a corner lot, one wall sign will be allowed on each side facing a public street. You could also interpret that to say only one sign can face the street, rather than saying that they have to face a street. It’s a poorly written section is what it boils down to. MR. ABBATE-Well, what I’ve written right here is ambiguous and unclear. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, that’s the basic problem. MR. ABBATE-So what I’d like to do, I’d like to ask the Zoning Administrator to explain to this Board, please, the following. What I’d like you to explain to me is this, two items. This sentence, the size of the wall signs and permitted roof signs will be further regulated by the distance of the building from the front property line. What does that mean? MR. BROWN-Could I ask you a question back? What does that have to do with, we’re not talking about sign size here. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) MR. ABBATE-No, we’re talking about 140-6, signs for which permits are required. MR. BROWN-Okay. I guess what it means, I’ll answer it anyway. What it means the further you go back from the right of way line, which is the street facing side of the building, the further you go back from the right of way line, you’re allowed to have an increased amount of wall signage up to 300 square feet maximum, and, again, that dimension is derived from the right of way which is, again, the street facing side of the building. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now the other thing is this. Buildings which are located within or at a distance of 100 linear feet from the front property line are permitted to have a wall sign or a permitted roof sign of up to 100 square feet. What does that mean? I guess what I’m asking you, I’m reading this section, and I find it ambiguous and unclear. MR. BROWN-I guess I’m not following you how it’s unclear. It says if you’re within 100 feet of the right of way you’re allowed to have a wall sign up to100 square feet, and if you continue through that paragraph, the further you go beyond 100 feet with your sign placement, you’re allowed an increase in square footage up to 300. MR. ABBATE-All right. Board members, do you have any other questions? If not, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Appeal No. 8-2006. Do we have anyone in the public who would like to address this Appeal? If you’d be kind enough to raise your hand, I will recognize you and ask you to come to the table. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I do not see any individuals. Okay. In the interest of time, I’m going to ask that the Board members offer their commentary on Appeal No. 8-2006, and again I’m going to respectfully remind the Board members that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions, and of course we all know why this is necessary, in case of a judicial review. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask one more question of Mr. Brown, if I could. MR. ABBATE-You may. MR. BRYANT-Is there any other paragraph that relates to the street? I mean, I looked through this thing 100 times. MR. BROWN-Well, there’s, the next section below talks about business complexes, and it also references setbacks. MR. BRYANT-The only Paragraph is C, and the only place that they mention street is on a building that’s in a corner. MR. BROWN-Right. Well, if you go to, well, two is for size, or section two of Chapter 140-6(2) Paragraph B1 talks about size and again that references the street when you measure for setbacks. MR. BRYANT-But what I’m getting at is the street thing. The only place it says anything about street that pertains to this particular situation, I’m not talking about business complexes, is on a corner lot. It’s the only place really it pertains. Is there any other paragraph any place else? MR. BROWN-No, and I think what you struck on in the very beginning here is this is an interpretation, which is something that I get to do when there are sections of the Code that come into question. It’s not ambiguous. It’s consistent. It’s, again, the same determination, the same position I’ve taken issuing dozens and dozens of permits in the same situation. MR. BRYANT-Good. Thank you. MRS. HUNT-I have a question. Are these two signs that they have up there, or is that one sign? MR. BROWN-It’s two signs. What they have are two separate businesses in the building and each business is entitled to a sign. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) MRS. HUNT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Having said that now, I’m going to ask members of the Board to offer their commentary, please, and remember the commentary is going to be strictly to the Chairman. So do we have any volunteers, Mr. Bryant or Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood? How about Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a case where Mrs. Wheeler’s presented a very valid argument as to the ambiguity of the Statute here. I’m of the opinion that any ambiguity should favor the applicant on this. So I would be opposed to upholding the Zoning Administrator’s decision on this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-I’m going to have to fall on the side of the appellant on this particular one, because I think the only place it really mentions the street is a corner type of lot, and I can understand how Mr. Brown made the determination based on the hundreds and hundreds of similar applications that he’s gone through, but in reality the section is a little ambiguous and more so it actually, it’s not clear that street issue in this particular case. So I think I’m going to be in favor of the appellant. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree. The way I read it, businesses will be granted a permit for either a freestanding sign and wall sign or two wall signs, and I think the fact that they can’t put a freestanding sign because of the closeness to the street causes a problem for them, and I would be in favor of the applicant. MR. ABBATE-All right. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think Mr. Brown has been correct in what he has ascertained as the normal procedures when we look at signs here, and I think that, you know, we don’t want to deviate from that and under most circumstances we usually back him up and we would, but in this instance here, I think due to the fact that this building is located so close to the road, if it were a two story building, certainly you could hang a sign on the front and it would be well above, but to put a sign out hanging over where the cars park in front, people would be reluctant to park under a sign that would be that low to where they’re parking their cars, plus there’s a danger of them blowing down at times. I would think in this instance here we can go with the request of Mrs. Wheeler here this evening, and I think that it’s reasonable. It’s a one time instance. I don’t think it’s something that’s going to pop up like every single week here. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, I don’t think that the Zoning Administrator’s been arbitrary. I think he’s obviously been trying to be consistent with what rulings he’s been making. Unfortunately, I have a problem with the way this section of the Sign Ordinance is written and I don’t think it really supports the logic that we’ve been using in permitting signs like this. I think I have to agree with the applicant that it really doesn’t say directly where these signs should be placed, and, given that, I think I have to side with the applicant in this case. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I find that Section 140-6 is not only ambiguous but unclear, and there is case history which has shown that when a local law is ambiguous and/or unclear, the pendulum should swing to the benefit of the appellant. So based upon that, and particularly with the fact that the Zoning Board of Appeals acts as a safety valve for the community, I would agree with every other of my Board members. So, having said that, is there a motion to support the appellant’s challenge to the Zoning Administrator’s decision in Appeal No. 8-2006? MOTION TO SUPPORT THE APPLICANT’S CHALLENGE TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DECISION REGARDING NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 8-2006 HOLLY W. WHEELER KD WHEELER CUSTOM SIGNS FOR RPS PROPERTY HOLDINGS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 17 Main Street. The applicant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to an October 4, 2006 decision made by the Zoning Administrator regarding the construction of 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) two wall signs on the subject property, from Section 140-6(B)(3)(c) in favor of the applicant regarding the Zoning Administrator’s decision. th Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: MR. BRYANT-I think it would be wise to cite the actual Code and the paragraphs, so that there’s no misunderstanding. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote is six to zero to support the appellant’s challenge to the Zoning Administrator’s decision. That concludes your case, ma’am. MRS. WHEELER-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT E. MC DONALD AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S): ROBERT E. MC DONALD ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: CORINTH ROAD, SE SIDE OF CORINTH ROAD, NEXT TO HUDSON POINTE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 4-LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE DOUBLE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS ABUTTING ARTERIAL ROADS. CROSS REF.: SUBDIVISION/SKETCH PLAN; BP 93-713 SFD ON PARCEL 58 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: DECEMBER 13, 2006 LOT SIZE: 4.13 ACRES (0.44, 3.69 ACRES) TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-28; 308.11-1-26 SECTION: 179-4-030 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 73-2006, Robert E. McDonald, Meeting Date: December 20, 2006 “Project Location: Corinth Rd., SE side of Corinth Road, next to Hudson Pointe Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 4-lot residential subdivision. Two of the lots are proposed to have direct access off of Corinth Road, a regional arterial road. Relief Required: The applicant requests 140-feet of relief from the double the minimum lot width requirement (for lots 1 and 2) for residential lots fronting on arterial roads, per §179-19- 020 for the SR-1A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 2. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct an individual driveway for lot 2 and maintain the existing driveway on lot 1. 3. Feasible alternatives: Possible feasible alternatives should be discussed. For example, reconfiguration of proposed lots 1 and 2, allowing both lots access from the existing driveway to lot 1. Possible access to proposed lot 2 from Kimberly Lane. 4. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 140-feet of relief from the minimum 300-feet (two times the minimum lot width of 150-feet) for each of the lots could be deemed considerable relative to the ordinance (47%). 5. Effects on the neighborhood or community: 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) Moderate effects on the community may be anticipated as a result of this action. “Unrestricted access onto arterial and collector roads can hinder the safe and efficient movement of traffic” (§179-19-020). 6. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SB 16-2006 Sketch Plan: Pending, 4-lot residential subdivision. BP 93-713: Issued, 11/24/93, septic alteration. Staff comments: Any possible feasible alternatives should be discussed. The Board could consider requesting that the Planning Board conduct their sketch plan review (on Planning Board agenda 12/26/06) of the subdivision to explore alternative layouts that may negate the need for the area variance. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review & Referral Form December 13, 2006 Project Name: McDonald, Robert E. Owner(s): Robert E. McDonald ID Number: QBY-06-AV-73 County Project#: Dec06-29 Zoning: SR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing a 4-lot subdivision. Relief requested from the double the minimum lot width requirement for residential lots abutting arterial roads. Site Location: SE side of Corinth Road, next to Hudson Pointe. Tax Map Number(s): 308.18-2-29 & 58 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a 4-lot subdivision where relief is requested from double the minimum lot width requirement for residential lots abutting arterial roads. The information submitted indicates two of the lots have frontage on Corinth Road where one of the lots contains an existing house and the second lot is vacant as part of the subdivision. The lots require double the lot width or shared driveways. The plans show the existing lot’s driveway would not be able to be a shared 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 County Impact.” Signed by Richard C. Merrill 12/14/06” MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner, I see he has arrived, would you be kind enough, please, to speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself, please. MR. STEVES-Good evening. I’m Matt Steves with Van Dusen & Steves and I represent the McDonalds on this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STEVES-The McDonalds are present in the audience if there’s any questions from the Board directed to them, they are here tonight. MR. ABBATE-Okay. You have nothing else to present at this particular time? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Proceed, if you’re prepared, please proceed. MR. STEVES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This property, as stated, is on Corinth Road, just to the north of the Hudson Pointe boulevard entrance to Hudson Pointe subdivision, and then goes easterly to Kimberly Lane. As Mr. Underwood had stated, it’s two tax parcels. One along Kimberly Lane, you can see the dashed line it says Lot 31 on the map, is a portion of the Southern Exposure subdivision. It is a nonconforming lot, and even though that isn’t part of the proposal, as far as in front of the Zoning Board, it concentrates on the frontages on Corinth Road, as you can see what we’re trying to accomplish is merge those two tax parcels together and then create four conforming lots, as far as area. We have looked at different scenarios for the driveway access. If you look at Lot One, the existing house with the asphalt drive coming into that garage, with the long side of the garage facing the road where all the garage doors overhead are, it’s 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) kind of impractical, and we really looked at that to see if there’s a way to create a driveway. The only other way would be to run almost like an access road parallel to Corinth Road in front of the existing home to get to Lot Two. So we didn’t think that was practical. The other aspect would be to go to the north side of the garage and put a long loop driveway all the way around, and that’s really affecting an awful lot of property on Lot One. The consideration that the Staff also mentioned is to try to have some kind of access for that lot off Kimberly Lane. We investigated that as well. Again, it would be in a terribly long driveway. You’d most likely want to try to front your house onto Corinth Road, and then coming off Kimberly Lane. Then you would also need a variance, not that it isn’t, you know, it would be required, as they say, to get a variance, because then you would not be utilizing your physical road access. So either way we’d need a variance in some respect to get to that driveway, or to that lot. What we tried to do is we can try to center the driveway, as we say proposed driveway location, as best we can to get the maximum separation distance. We could bring it farther to the south and get it closer to the boulevard entrance. We didn’t think that that was a good alternative either. So what we came up with is what we thought would be the best scenario. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and feel free, during the hearing, if you have anything else you feel you may wish to introduce, do it. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have any questions for the gentleman representing Area Variance No. 73-2006? MR. UNDERWOOD-Was any thought given to approaching Hudson Pointe about accessing on to their boulevard? MR. STEVES-That’s part of the Homeowners Association. I can check with my client, but I think he’s been in contact with them before. I don’t know the status of that, but since it’s not owned by my applicant, my client, I can’t propose it that way. We could certainly ask. Again, that’s on the exit to the boulevard. So somebody would have to come in and loop back into that area, and the purpose, if you go back into the Planning Board stage of Hudson Pointe, and I want to make sure you understand this, when we went through Hudson Pointe, I was part of that subdivision process. The point was that they did not want driveway access off the boulevard portion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other questions for this gentleman? All right. I see there are no other questions, gentlemen, so I’m going to continue. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 73-2006. For those members of the public who wish to be heard, if you’d be kind enough to raise your hand, I’ll be more than happy to recognize you. Do we have any members of the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 73-2006? I see none. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I’m going to continue on. Again, I’m going to ask the members for their comments, and again, the comments offered by members of this Board are addressed to the Chairman. They are not open to debate. Now, having said that, again, I remind you what our responsibilities are. We concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record. Having said that, I’m going to ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 73-2006. Do I have a volunteer? MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask one more question? MR. ABBATE-You certainly may. Go ahead, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-The wooden frame house that’s currently existing, is that a keeper or is that a possible? MR. STEVES-I believe that’s a keep. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-What is the argument against one driveway for both lots, a shared driveway, in this particular case? MR. STEVES-In this particular case? Okay. The argument’s saying, if there was not an existing garage on Lot One, and I know that it’s kind of self-created because the lot exists with that garage, but in a practical aspect, to call it a shared driveway under your Code, it must straddle the property line of the two lots. If you do not utilize your own road 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) frontage you need a variance for that as well. So in other words, if we wanted to utilize the existing driveway, somehow Lot One, Lot Two property line would have to go through the middle of the driveway that is currently there, and then try to loop back around onto Lot Two to the south, it’s just no way. The other alternative is to completely abandon that driveway, create a new driveway, center it on the property line between Lots One and Two, but then you would have to swing around to the back side of the garage, revamp the garage and put overhead doors in the back and not in the front of the garage. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? Okay. MR. STEVES-If the house and the garage were reversed, it would be a pretty easy situation. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Secretary, do we have any kind of an Environmental Assessment Form that we have to complete? MRS. BARDEN-It’s a Type II action. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a Type II, but there was one letter that was written in that I neglected to read. MR. ABBATE-Would you read it in, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I should probably read that, I guess. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-This is written from a Thomas Howard, at 10 Roberts Court. That’s inside the development, isn’t it? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s way around the bend, isn’t it? “Unfortunately my wife and I are unable to attend tonight’s Public Meeting concerning the Relief Request for Mr. McDonald. However, we are opposed to granting this request. The integrity of all homes in the neighborhood would be affected. Under the current setback requirements, many of the homes are already too close and make maneuverability in and out of garages difficult. If anything, we should propose that the current width requirement be increased. Thank you for your attention in this matter. If you should have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, Thomas A. Howard” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 73-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again, members, you know what our responsibilities are. We have five factors to consider. Having said that, is there going to be a motion from any member of the Board on Area Variance No. 73-2006? MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want comments first? MR. ABBATE-We didn’t do comments yet? Okay. Let’s go to comments. I’m sorry about that. Since you brought it up, Mr. Underwood, please start out. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would comment on the lot that’s specifically germane to what we’re going to make a decision on is Lot Two. I think that the ones that are going to go on to Kimberly Lane I don’t think anybody’s going to have a problem with them, but as far as any kind of a practical solution here out of the ordinary, I guess you could make some huge long drive that fed to three properties off of Kimberly Lane, but that seems a little off the wall to do that, and as far as the practical solution to Corinth Road, we’re suppose to have major separation zones because of the high speed of traffic on that road there, and I think that’s the problem there because we would have two driveways, but in this instance here I think that the property owner is going to be left with a lot that’s unbuildable if we don’t grant them the relief for the proposed driveway, and I think that as far as the proposed drives go, certainly we don’t want traffic backing out into Corinth Road, but I think that you could build a house on Lot Two as it’s depicted, as long as they had a garage that was built in such a manner that you backed around and came off facing traffic as you approached Corinth Road. I think it would be reasonable to do that. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) I don’t really see any other practical solution, other than tapping into Hudson Pointe and that’s not a feasible thing to do because of the fact it’s a boulevard. You’d have to loop in every time you came home, and that’s impractical also. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mrs. Hunt, why don’t we just move to you. MRS. HUNT-All right. I happen to agree with Mr. Underwood. I have concerns about Corinth Road and the speed that traffic goes. They’re going more than the speed limit, but I think that Mr. Underwood’s suggestion that there be a loop in the driveway so that they would pull out into the traffic rather than back into it. I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question first? MR. ABBATE-You certainly may. MR. BRYANT-What’s the argument against the Hudson Pointe driveway? MR. STEVES-There’s two arguments. It’s owned by the Homeowners Association. Our property does not abut the Town highway that’s there. MR. BRYANT-Okay, but this is not a public road? MR. STEVES-Hudson Pointe boulevard is a public road, but our property does not abut the road bounds. There is a separate ownership of Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association between our subject to the property and to the south of our subject property and the north bounds of Hudson Pointe Boulevard, and that was left in there at the request of the Planning Board during the approval of Hudson Pointe to not have driveway access off the Boulevard. MR. BRYANT-That would seem it would be a logical way to resolve this issue. MR. STEVES-I can’t. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I understand that. MR. STEVES-No, I understand. What is depicted here as the line is not the edge of the pavement. That’s the property line of the road, and in the planning stages of Hudson Pointe subdivision, they purposely left the strip in there that conveyed to the Homeowners Association because they did not want driveway access on the Boulevard portion of the road. MR. BRYANT-With that being said, I’d like to see another solution, but I don’t think one exists. So with that I would be probably in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Yes. Mr. Chairman, at this point what they’re asking for is relief for Lots One and Two. To me, it’s not just one lot they’re asking relief for. I think a feasible alternative would be just not develop this Lot Two at all, in which case you wouldn’t need relief, or, you know, we could, as emphasized in Staff comments, we could always send it back. It’s apparently on the Planning Board agenda for next week, for Sketch Plan review, but at this point, I wouldn’t be in favor of approving this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-While we’re being asked to grant relief on Lots One and Two that face Corinth Road, this is a four lot subdivision that’s being proposed, and I think we’ve got to consider that to some degree. Skipping ahead, and then I’ll come back to that in a moment, Corinth Road, I think, like West Mountain Road, is a classic example of why this rule is in place, and there are two streets, the entrance to Hudson Pointe and then the street that goes the opposite direction down the road just a little bit, already fairly close to this, and I think all of that argues for having no more than one driveway off this property area onto Corinth Road. It strikes me that one very viable solution is a shared driveway. Now, going back, this is a four lot subdivision. Sure it’s going to cost the developer a little more money to jack that garage up and move it or to pull the overhead doors off the front and put them on the back, but that’s the cost of being able to develop 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) that property and adhere to the zoning rules, and for that reason I don’t think that this Board has got any obligation to help the applicant make every last penny that he can possibly make off that by granting relief that’s not necessary, and I think he’s got a viable alternative with a shared driveway, and therefore I’d be opposed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. All of the members have made points, excellent points, no question about it. There is the issue of, how far do we go in accommodating an appellant? I go back to the fact that our obligation, by law, is to base our decision on the evidence that’s contained in the record, and having said that, at the present time, I’m not quite sure where I am on this thing. I need something to push me over, I need something to give me 51%, and at this particular time I don’t have it, and I have to take a couple of more minutes, in my own mind, to decide where I’m going to go on this, and so I’ll take the couple of more minutes by asking Mr. Secretary if we have anything in terms of the assessment for this. It’s going through some kind of site plan review anyway, is it not? This is category two, is it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Everything’s Two tonight. MR. ABBATE-It is Two. Okay. So we don’t have anything to worry about, here, then. Again, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, we know what our factors are. There are five factors we have to take into consideration. I’m going to request, again, that if you move a motion, please move it with clarity. I’d appreciate that. MR. BRYANT-Can I make a comment? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Frankly, Mr. McNulty, rare as it is, has made a legitimate argument. I mean, that is a possibility, albeit it may include additional cost to the owner of Lot One, but it is a reasonable solution to this problem. So when I said I would almost before it, I think Mr. McNulty has changed my mind. MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. Mr. McNulty has changed my mind, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-My only comment would be that if you look at the plan, you’ll see that if you move the garage over on the other side there, I don’t think you’re going to meet the side line setback requirement, you know, if you move the garage around to the south side of the house that’s presently there. I think if you look on the plot plan, that would be the case. It is an alternative. MR. BRYANT-Well, setback is not really a major issue, but Corinth Road, I mean, I drive on Corinth Road occasionally, and I’ve got to tell you, it’s a dangerous, dangerous road. In fact, I try to get off of it as soon as possible, cutting over Van Dusen and that because people are just going 55, 60 miles an hour on that road, and there are joggers and bicycles and everything else and it’s a dangerous situation. So from a health, you know, and a safety issue standpoint, adding another driveway may be a big issue. MR. STEVES-Can I make a comment on that? MR. ABBATE-By all means. MR. STEVES-Thank you for that. We’d also have to look, I believe the septic system for the house is right in back of the house. So in order to move the garage to the back or even swing a driveway around that house, and the position of the house and trying to equalize the road frontage and I, you know, understand the Board’s concerns. It would be awful tight to that house for sharing a driveway. I like Mr. Underwood’s idea that we would stipulate that a turnaround be placed so that any traffic that would be back out onto Corinth Road would be not backing onto the road. In that particular area of Corinth Road, there is good sight visibility in both directions and there isn’t a lot of driveways right in that particular area, and you do have the Hudson Pointe Boulevard entrance there, you know, not a lot of houses right there. We’re only talking about one additional driveway. I do understand it’s one more driveway. The increased traffic isn’t going to be there. If you share a driveway, you’re still going to have the same number of cars exiting out onto Corinth Road as you would if you have two separate driveways. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions before I go on for a motion? MR. BRYANT-Where exactly on Lot Number One is the septic system? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) MR. STEVES-I believe it’s right behind the house. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m going to continue. I’m going to ask for a motion for Area Variance No. 73-2006. Do I have one? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2006 ROBERT E. MC DONALD, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption Corinth Road, next to Hudson Pointe entrance. The applicant is proposing a four lot residential subdivision and two of the lots are proposed to have direct access off of Corinth Road, a regional arterial road. By Town Code we are supposed to have a minimum of, I believe, 300 feet of distance between driveways. The one driveway currently exists, and we would not meet that. We would need 140 feet of relief from double the minimum lot width requirements for both Lots One and Two. As far as benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct an individual driveway for Lot Two and he would also be maintaining the existing driveway on Lot One. As far as feasible alternatives, I think that we looked at the different scenarios that might take place as far as combining a driveway between the two properties, but the present garage on Lot One is located on the opposite side of where that driveway would be constructed, so it doesn’t seem practical. We also considered moving the garage around to the other side of the house, so it could be used, but that would bring it pretty close to the property line. As far as other alternatives, we looked at also using the boulevard at Hudson Pointe, but that’s not their property and it’s also not a permitted activity on the boulevard where on driveways access that boulevard. As far as the request, it is a substantial request because it would be adding a single driveway onto busy Corinth Road, but I think that as a practical alternative, unless you’re going to tell these people they can’t build on that lot as proposed in the subdivision, I think with the proper turnaround so traffic exited forward onto the road, it would be practical in a practical sense a solution. As far as effects on the community, obviously we don’t want to add a continuous number of driveways onto Corinth Road but this, again, would be only one single driveway accessing onto the road and the applicant also made the argument that the site line view there because of the boulevard there is quite good. So as far as seeing a single car exiting out, it would be all right. Again, it would be a self- created difficulty as far as this goes. th Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood has made a motion to approve Area Variance No. 73-2006. Are there any questions on the motion? Hearing none, is there a second? For the second time, Mr. Underwood has made a motion to approve Area Variance No. 73- 2006. Is there a second? I hear no second. Then I’m going to request, since there is no second to the approval, that we have a volunteer do a motion for disapproval. Do we have a motion? MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I’ll make a motion to deny Area Variance No. 73-2006. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2006 ROBERT E. MC DONALD, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Corinth Road next to Hudson Point. The applicant proposes a four lot residential subdivision. Two of the lots are proposed to have direct access off of Corinth Road, a regional arterial road. The applicant requests 140 feet of relief from double the minimum lot width requirement for both Lots One and for Lot Two for residential lots fronting on an arterial road as per Subsection 179-19-020 for the Suburban Residential One Acre zone. Can the benefit be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant? Possibly it can be, on the surface it looks like he can’t achieve the same benefits by any other means. Will this result in an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties? Probably not. When we get down to whether this request is substantial. Yes, I do believe it is substantial in that we are asking for relief, 140 feet of relief on not just one but also two lots, both of them fronting on an arterial road, both lots adding potential for traffic onto a highly traveled road. Will 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) the request have adverse physical or environmental effects? Well, it may have adverse physical effects in that we are increasing the amount of curb cuts along Corinth Road, which is a very well traveled road. It’s something we’re trying to limit in the Town of Queensbury. Is the difficulty self-created? And I do believe it is. The applicant always has the option of not building on Lot Two. Mr. McNulty submitted that the possibility of a shared driveway may be a feasible alternative for both Lot One and for Lot Two. th Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to that, Mr. McNulty pointed out a feasible alternative, and I’d like to ask Mr. Garrand if he would mind adding that particular alternative which was a shared driveway scenario. MR. ABBATE-Yes, by all means, Mr. Garrand. MR. BRYANT-There were a couple of feasible alternatives batted around, and I think Mr. McNulty’s was the most feasible. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Garrand, would you consider that, please. MR. GARRAND-Adding to my motion to deny Area Variance No. 73-2006, Mr. McNulty submitted that the possibility of a shared driveway may be a feasible alternative for both Lot One and for Lot Two. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Underwood MR. ABBATE-The vote is five to one to disapprove Area Variance No. 73-2006. Area Variance No. 73-2006 is disapproved. MR. STEVES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II JEAN C. GUYETTE OWNER(S): JEAN C. GUYETTE ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 463 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO LOTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SR-1A ZONE. CROSS REF.: BP 86-655; BP 89-959; BP 94-249; BP 2001-311; AV 37-2001; AV 24-1994 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: DECEMBER 13, 2006 LOT SIZE: 0.60 ACRES, 0.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-28; 308.11-1-26 SECTION: 179-4-030 GLEN GUYETTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 74-2006, Jean C. Guyette, Meeting Date: December 20, 2006 “Project Location: 463 Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between their property and the Kennedy property that would result in the conveyance of 1,407 sq. ft. of land from the Kennedy property to the Guyette property. The existing Kennedy property is .44-acre and the proposed is .41-acre. This would allow the existing site improvements of a pool area and hedgerow to be fully located on the Guyette property and in conformance with the required setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests 25,590 sq. ft. (.59-acre) of relief from the minimum 1-acre lot size requirement, per §179-4-030 for the SR-1A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the pool area and hedgerow in their present location on his property. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) 3. Feasible alternatives: A possible feasible alternative may be parcel consolidation. The Kennedy’s own an adjoining parcel of 1.52-acres. If the two parcels were combined, totaling 2-acres, no variance would be necessary. 4. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for .59-acre of relief from the 1-acre minimum is considerable relative to the ordinance (59%). However, the existing lot is a nonconforming .44-acre (19,377 sq. ft.), the proposed will increase the nonconformity of the lot. 5. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 6. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): 308.11-1-28 (Guyette): BP 2001-311: Issued 6/22/01, in-ground pool. Staff comments: The abovementioned feasible alternative should be discussed. The owner (Kennedy) will need to authorize the applicant (Guyette) to represent the application (by completing the signature page in the application or signed authorization). This should be done prior to any approval. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 13, 2006 Project Name: Guyette, Jean C. Owner(s): Jean C. Guyette ID Number: QBY-06-AV-74 County Project#: Dec06-26 Zoning: SR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing a boundary line adjustment between two lots. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements of the SR-1A zone. Site Location: 463 Luzerne Road Tax Map Number(s): 308.11-1-26 308.11-1-28 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment between two lots. The land to be conveyed is 16 ft. by 86 ft. making the parcel a total of 25,317 sq. ft. This would change the lot size from 0.55 acres to 0.58 acres and the adjacent lot would change from 0.45 acres to 0.42 acres estimated. The zoning requires a minimum of one acre. The applicant has indicated this will allow for existing features including a pool and shed to be located on their property. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 12/14/06.” MR. ABBATE-I see that the petitioner is at the table this evening. Good evening, gentlemen. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone, please and tell us who you are. MR. GUYETTE-Yes, Glen Guyette. ALAN KENNEDY MR. KENNEDY-Alan Kennedy. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, sir. MR. ABBATE-You are not represented by counsel. I understand that. MR. GUYETTE-No. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, since you’re not represented by counsel, I’m going to ask you to present your case and if, during the course of this hearing, if there’s anything else you wish to bring to our attention that will help support your case, feel free to tell us. If there’s something you don’t understand, feel free to ask. Okay. Do you understand that? MR. GUYETTE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now are you prepared to proceed? MR. GUYETTE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you kindly tell us why you think we should grant you what you are requesting, please. MR. GUYETTE-Can I back up a hair? MR. ABBATE-You can back up as far as you’d like, sir. MR. GUYETTE-Okay. Just make it real quick. I bought the house from his son, okay. The piece of land was a pie shape, sort of, and he owns the property around it. Well, needless to say, what Al wanted to do, and he came to me and I said yes it would be great, if we could square it up a little bit before one of us passed on. The thing is, right now, neither one of us can really do anything in the back part. It’s only used for a park for his grandson, and we could straighten it up, and the way my shrubs are and stuff, it looked a lot better cosmetic wise. I realize that it states we’re taking away a piece of his property and it doesn’t coincide with SR-1A zone, but we do not understand why, if it’s just between the two of us, and that was it, and we were told to write out something else and present it to you with Al and Eunice’s name on it. She’s here also. So is my wife. We just don’t understand. We aren’t affecting anybody except our own, this section of land, our own area. MR. ABBATE-Yes, sir. Would you like to say something? Please. MR. KENNEDY-That piece of land is 100 by 200, and I want to give him 14 feet by 88 feet. That will make his back line conform with the rules of the Town of Queensbury. My lot is too small, and it’s landlocked. Nobody can build anything there anyway, and for his property to conform, it’s fine by me to lose that 88 feet by 14 feet. Do you understand? MR. ABBATE-Yes, I understand. MR. KENNEDY-And it’s just between he and I, and it won’t affect anybody in the Town or the County at all. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. I have an administrative matter I’d like to address. Before applications come before this Board, there’s what’s called a Chairman review. I review all the applications, and in your particular case, I looked on the signature page, and, Mr. Kennedy, I have reason to believe that you did not sign this document. We can rectify that this evening if you would be kind enough to sign this document. This says Allan Kennedy, but this, I suspect, is not your signature. So if you would come before me and sign this, I will enter it into the record, for administrative purposes. Thank you so very much, sir. Mr. Secretary, I would like to enter into the record the fact that the signature page on the application has, indeed, been signed by the owner as agent. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Kennedy, one of the suggestions that Staff has made, as a feasible alternative, you have another lot right next to yours, right? MR. KENNEDY-The lot next to that I gave to my son. MR. BRYANT-They’re under different names? MR. GUYETTE-Yes. It’s real hard to see, you’d need a magnifying glass, but it’s under William A. Kennedy and Audrey Kennedy. MR. KENNEDY-Right. MR. BRYANT-Yes, I see William A. So that belongs to your son. MR. KENNEDY-Right. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) MR. BRYANT-Do you ever intend to give that lot to your son? MR. KENNEDY-No. MR. BRYANT-No? Thank you. MR. ABBATE-All right. Gentlemen, ladies, do we have any other questions for the Area Variance No. 74-2006? If not, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 74-2006. Do we have any members of the public who would like to be heard, raise your hand and I’ll recognize you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I have no hands raised, so we will continue to march here. Again, I address the members of the Board, and I would like to inform the public that their comments are addressed to the Chairman and it’s not open to debate. So, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, would anyone like to start off commenting on Area Variance No. 74-2006, please. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I’ll feel free to comment. MR. ABBATE-Would you please. MR. GARRAND-Basically I think that the relief being requested here is minimal. As stated by Mr. Kennedy, the land is landlocked, and there isn’t a lot of potential for development here. I really think that it’s an insignificant request, as far as requests come before this Board. So I’d be in favor of this applicant. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other comments concerning Area Variance No. 74-2006? Any other ladies or gentlemen wish to comment? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I would just say that, you know, if you’re going to change the lot from a .44 acre to a .41, that minimal change, no one’s going to notice it, and as Mr. Garrand said, it’s a landlocked lot. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mrs. Hunt, would you like to comment, please. MRS. HUNT-I would have to agree with the two previous speakers. I think it’s minimal, and it seems to make a lot of sense. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Some of the other comments, I understand, they say it’s minimal. They say that the land is landlocked. I mean, eventually something will have to be done with those lots. There’s got to be a right of way. I really don’t know, Mr. Chairman. It sounds logical to say yes, but my question is why are we making a lot that already doesn’t conform even more nonconforming? So, right now I don’t know, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll leave you as a question mark. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m kind of where Mr. Bryant is. However, I guess, as other members have pointed out, the size change is minimal. On the one hand the unwritten rule, when you’re dealing with zoning issues, is you always consider the worst possible case, because sooner or later somebody will figure out how to make that happen. So, it is possible some day somebody will want to build a house on this lot that’s going to be made a little smaller, and I think we have to consider it from that viewpoint. Nevertheless, it’s a fairly minimal change, making a nonconforming lot slightly less conforming. So I guess I’m leaning towards being in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I suspect that my position is going to be with the majority. I think that it is minimal. It will have basically no adverse effect whatsoever on the health and welfare of the community. So I would suspect I’m going to support the majority of the Board on this. I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 74-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) MR. ABBATE-And again, members of the Board, I don’t have to go through again stating what our obligations are, balancing the benefit of the variance on the impact on the area, if you will. I’m going to ask for a motion to be made with clarity. Do I have a volunteer, please. , Introduced MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2006 JEAN C. GUYETT by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 455 Luzerne Road. The applicant is proposing a lot line adjustment between the properties of the Guyette property and the Kennedy property that would result in the conveyance of 1,407 square feet of land from the Kennedy property to the Guyette property. The existing Kennedy property is .44 acres and the proposed will be .41 acres. This allows existing site improvements on a pool area and a hedge row to be fully located on the Guyette property and in conformance with the required setbacks. Specifically, the applicant’s requesting 25,590 square feet, or .59 acres of relief from the minimum one acre lot size requirement per Section 179-4-030 for the SR-1A zone. In considering this factor of whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties would be created, in this case while making a nonconforming lot a little more nonconforming might normally be a detriment, this particular lot that’s going to be effected is landlocked and not too likely to be developed, at least in the near future. So I think the undesirable change, if there’s any, is going to be minimal. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue, although it’s been suggested that the nonconforming lot might be combined with an adjacent one, I think we’ve established tonight that actually the adjacent one is in ownership of a different member of the family. So combining it is not a practical solution at this point. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial? The amount of land that’s being transferred over is minimal. The total request for 0.59 acres of relief I guess could be called substantial, but we’re only doing a minimal change on what currently exists, and whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? In this case I think we can say no, there’s going to be no real effect in that area, and finally whether the difficulty is self-created, I think we can argue that it’s not self-created in this instance because of the improvements that are currently on the lot that this move will help place in the proper location on the proper lot that already exists. It’s not something that the applicant’s did in the last month or two months to cause the problem. So I think we can say that it’s probably not self-created. Based on that, I recommend that we approve this variance request. Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 74-2006 is four yes and two no. Area Variance No. 74-2006 is approved. Good luck, gentlemen. MR. KENNEDY-Can I give him a deed to that property now? MR. ABBATE-Yes. I don’t see why not. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume so. You’ve just got to file at the County. MR. GUYETTE-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II THOMAS GROOS OWNER(S): THOMAS GROOS OWNER(S): THOMAS GROOS ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 11 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 198 SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT (9L) AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. CROSS REF.: BP 2006- 758 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: DECEMBER 13, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.06-1-20 SECTION: 179- 4-030 THOMAS GROOS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 75-2006, Thomas Groos, Meeting Date: December 20, 2006 “Project Location: 11 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 198 sq. ft. covered porch. Relief Required: The applicant requests 4-feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback (9L), and 8-feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback (north), per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the proposed 198 sq. ft. covered porch as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 4. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for relief for both front (13%) and side (40%) could be deemed considerable relative to the ordinance. 5. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 6. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2006-758: Pending, construction of a 198 sq. ft. covered porch. SP 49-2006: Pending, construction of a 198 sq. ft. porch, expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Staff comments: The property is unique in that it has two fronts (9L and Hanneford Road) and two sides. The proposed enclosed porch will not increase the existing nonconforming front setback from 9L of 4.7-feet to the wood deck. However, the resulting encroachment into the side setback will increase the overall nonconformity of the existing residence. It appears that any impact to the neighborhood as a result of this action would to the property to the north. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 13, 2006 Project Name: Groos, Thomas Owner(s): Thomas Groos ID Number: QBY-06-AV-75 County Project#: Dec06-25 Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing construction of a 198 sq. ft. covered porch. Relief requested from minimum front (9L) and side setback requirements of the WR-1A zone. Site Location: 11 Hanneford Road Tax Map Number(s): 240.6-1-20 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant is proposing to construct a 198 sq. ft. covered porch. The porch is located 12 ft. from the side property 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) line where 20 ft. is required and 26 ft. from Route 9L where 30 ft. is required. The information submitted shows the location of the porch in relation to the house. The plans shows the parcel is boarded by two streets 9L and Hanneford Road where the access to the house is from Hanneford Road. The applicant has indicated the porch will allow for outside seating during the seasons. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: Warren County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 12/14/06. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see the petitioner is at the table right now. Would you folks be kind enough to speak into the microphone and identify yourselves, please. MR. GROOS-I am Tom Groos, property owner, and my wife, Polly Groos. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now you know the procedures, basically. You haven’t retrained an attorney. All we’re asking you to do is explain to us, justify to us why we should approve what you’re requesting. MR. GROOS-Okay. Sure. MR. ABBATE-Go right ahead. MR. GROOS-I think it’s easier if we follow the site plan here. What we’re trying to create is, there’s no decks on the house right now, outdoor decks. There’s a small wood deck that’s basically a platform, like a four by four to get at the entrance of the house. So there’s really no outdoor seating area. The proposed area is where we have our barbeques right now. It’s outside the kitchen door, and there’s no protection above from the roof or from the mud in the spring and fall. So we just wanted to make as minimal as possible wooden deck area that we could go out and have some cover from the elements. Ideally we’d probably want something larger to wrap around the house, but we know that’s not practical with the proximity to 9L. So we figured 22 by 9 would kind of give us enough for the barbeques and a small table, and as far as where the placement of it, again, it’s outside the kitchen door. It’s kind of hidden by the garage and kind of out of view from Hanneford. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s okay. All right. And if there’s anything else you’d like to add during the hearing, feel free to do so. Okay. MR. GROOS-Okay. Thanks. MR. ABBATE-So I’m going to ask if any members of the Board have any questions concerning 75-2006, Mr. Groos, Mr. or Mrs.? MR. BRYANT-Why can’t you put the deck on the Hanneford street side? MR. GROOS-Well, that’s the front door. MR. BRYANT-Yes, a lot of people have front porches. MR. GROOS-Well, the barbecue area. I didn’t want to put the barbecues out front, and the actual kitchen door is off that back corner. So when you’re running in and out, it’s more practical that way. MRS. GROOS-I think it would be a detriment to the neighborhood to have like a barbecue or a seating picnicking area in the front of the house because when people drive by it would look, I just think it would take away from the neighborhood. MR. BRYANT-What about that little corner in the back of the house, and I know you’re close to 9L at that point, but that little corner where the house comes together as an “L”, why can’t you put a little deck there? MR. GROOS-In the inner one where the oil filler vent is, that part? MR. BRYANT-Yes, in that area. MRS. GROOS-There’s no entrance to get to that area. You’d have to walk around the house to get to it. MR. BRYANT-What rooms are they? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) MRS. GROOS-A bedroom and a bathroom. The dryer vents are right in that corner, the washer and dryer are right there. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anybody else on the Board have any questions concerning 75- 2006? All right. If not, I’m going to move on, and I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 75-2006. Do we have any folks in the audience who would like to be heard? If so, raise your hand, and would you be kind enough, please, to come to the table. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOE BARONE MR. BARONE-Joe Barone. I’m a neighbor on Hanneford Road right next door. I think it would be a really good idea to have that on that side of the house, and the other part where we were talking, there is, their holding tank, there’s a septic, too. That’s where the guy comes to empty the holding tank is right in that back corner, too. So I’m just saying that I think it would be a good idea to help them out there. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-Are you to the north or are you to the south? MR. BARONE-I’m to the south. MR. BRYANT-So the deck wouldn’t affect you anyway, you’re on the other side of the house. MR. BARONE-Yes, I’m on the other side of the house. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have anyone else in the audience? Yes, sir, would you come forward, please. Would you speak into the microphone and tell us who you are, please. MICHAEL DI PALMA MR. DI PALMA-I’m Michael DiPalma. I live across 9L. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. DI PALMA-That’s the old Stevenson house where Mr. Groos lives now, and I know exactly where he wants to put it, and I can’t see any reason on this earth why it can’t be put there. It’s where it should be put. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So you don’t object. MR. DI PALMA-Of course not. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anything else you’d like to add? MR. DI PALMA-No. MR. ABBATE-All right. Well, thank you very much, sir. MR. DI PALMA-You’re welcome. MR. ABBATE-Do we have anyone else in the public who would like to be heard on 75- 2006? I don’t see any other hands raised. Members, you know what our duties and obligations are. I don’t have to say it again. So I’m going to ask for a volunteer to address 75-2006. Do we have a volunteer? MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can understand wanting a deck and a barbecue area, but frankly a feasible alternative can also be not to build, and in this particular case, because of the positioning of the house, and the fact that it’s in this really unique situation, with two fronts, the way it is, it might be difficult to put a deck in just about any location on the lot. My question is, a feasible alternative might be to put a patio in, as opposed to a deck, for a barbecue area, but as it stands, I agree that, I 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) believe that the feasible alternative, is, in this case, not to build a deck and therefore I’d be opposed to it. MR. ABBATE-You’re opposed to it. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Well, it’s a very modest request and I think because it has two fronts and two sides, it makes it difficult and although the requested relief could be considered considerable I don’t think there’d be any adverse effects to the neighborhood, and it’s self-created only in the fact that the Groos want an area to sit and barbecue, and I would have no problem with it. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I, too, would be in favor of it. I think if you’re on a .22 acre lot like this there’s not a whole lot of alternatives that are really, in a practical sense, worthwhile trying to move forward on, and in this instance here, I think the neighbors have also pointed out the fact that this is the only real practical place to put this thing. I think that if any of us owned this property, we might be requesting the same thing and it’s reasonable to assume that people can have a deck in this day and age. I don’t think it’s a big, grand request. The amount of relief might be considered substantial, based upon the setbacks, but 9L, I don’t think we worry too much about having an effect on 9L, and as far as the side setback relief, I mean, I think that’s about as small a deck as you could build. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you’re driving down Hanneford Road, you’re really not going to see any deck off the side of this house for the most part. There’s what looks to be a garage in the way. So you’re not really going to see it from Hanneford Road. Looking at it from 9L, it’s not going to be real obtrusive from over there either. I don’t think the request is significant in that the visual impact is going to be minimal. So I’d be in favor of this project. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I’m a little bit torn on this one. On the one hand, I can agree with Mr. Bryant, and I think we have to say on some of these small lots, and some small lakefront lots, that the alternative may be don’t do it. It’s like we’ve said before on pools in backyards, some lots and houses are not meant to have pools. Sorry, but that’s what the story is. On the other hand, this is a minimal sized proposal. I think it may have a little bit more of an overwhelming effect on somebody going down 9L if they happen to look up at the right time because it’s going to be a little bit more mass to the house that’s kind of hanging out there over the, on the ledge overlooking Route 9L, but at the same time, this is a balancing thing. It’s not a strictly yes or no and there’s clearly some benefit to the applicant here, and I think I’m coming down in this case that the benefit to the applicant slightly outweighs the detriment, and I’m going to be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I, too, agree with the majority. I think this is a minimal request. As far as I’m concerned, from what I’ve heard and what I’ve read, and what I’ve listened to my fellow Board members, I don’t see any adverse impact on the health and welfare of the community. So consequently I also will support the application. The public hearing is closed for 75-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And ladies and gentlemen of the Board, we know what our five factors are, and so, having said that, I would like a motion put forward with clarity concerning Area Variance No. 75-2006. Do I have one? Do I have a motion for Area Variance No. 75- 2006? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2006 THOMAS GROOS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 11 Hanneford Road. The applicant is proposing construction of a 198 square foot covered porch, and he is requesting four feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback from Route 9L and eight feet of relief from the twenty foot minimum side setback from the north side of the property. As far as benefit to the applicant, he would be permitted to construct the proposed deck or covered porch as desired, and I think in a practical sense this is the only real place that he could do it on such a small lot, since it’s 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) only .22 acres. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. It was suggested that the other side of the house might be appropriate, but that’s where the septic clean out is, so it wouldn’t provide much ambience out there. As far as the effects on the neighborhood or community, it will have a moderate effect because it does kind of load that side of the property where the relief is going to be granted on the north side there, but as far as 9L, I don’t think anybody will even notice that it’s there. As far as the difficulty being self- created, it is self-created, and we have to remember that the property is unique and that this is not going to change the neighborhood to any great degree. th Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 75-2006 is five yes, one no. Area Variance No. 75-2006 is approved. Have a nice holiday. MR. GROOS-Thank you, you, too. MR. ABBATE-Now, we have one other administrative procedure we have to go through this evening, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, please, and that is we are required by law to set a reasonable timeframe for the hearings for the Year 2007, and what I have done, with the help of Ms. Hemingway, she was kind enough to present a schedule of meeting dates. So you have that in front of you. The only changes that are made, other than November and December, all of our meetings from January to October are on the third and fourth Wednesday of each month. That has not changed. The only change that I recommended that we make was for November and December. Now, there is one little other change. We may have a conflict with the County. So what I am suggesting, th that in November 2007, we have one hearing date on the 14, and on December of th 2007, we have the hearing date on the 12. There is no conflict with the County if we do that, and I hope that there will be no conflict with the Thanksgiving vacation as well as the Christmas vacation. Now, this is up to you. The beginning time of 6:30, ladies and gentlemen, is strictly up to you. I will do whatever the majority wants to do. So I am proposing, if you look at the agenda, that we meet on the following dates from January to December of 2007, beginning at 6:30 in the evening to 10:30 p.m. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a statement about that 6:30 thing, okay. MR. ABBATE-Sure, by all means. MR. BRYANT-I mean, for somebody who’s retired, 6:30 is not a problem, but for us that are working, you know, 6:30 is difficult to get here, and me being a diabetic, I’ve got to eat before I come, and today I wasn’t able to eat, so my head is all swarming. So honestly it is a hardship at 6:30, 7:00 I push it. Sometimes I get here a few minutes of seven. That’s my opinion. MR. ABBATE-It’s not a problem. MR. BRYANT-I don’t know how everybody else feels. MR. ABBATE-Let’s take it two steps at a time. Do I have a motion for a beginning time for our hearings? Let’s take that first step. Step Number One. Either 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. Do I have a motion for that? MOTION TO START ALL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETINGS AT 7:00 P.M. DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 2007 , Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: th Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Underwood MR. ABBATE-The motion is five in favor and one against. So that beginning in the Calendar Year 2007, we will begin our hearings at 7:00 p.m. to end at approximately 11:00 p.m. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/06) MR. UNDERWOOD-I would make the motion that we always leave ourselves open, like say we’re going to have a big agenda with a lot of deliberating things that we’re going to argue that you may want to think about starting earlier on nights when we have extreme agendas. MR. BRYANT-We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, it might be once in a blue moon. It might be twice a year. MR. ABBATE-Since you brought the issue up, what I try to do, when I go through the completion review and I finally try and set up the final agenda, I take that into consideration, and if I see there may be a lot of deliberation, I’ll split it up. Say there’s two that I know that we’re really going to deliberate on, I’ll put one for one meeting and one for the other. I try. It doesn’t always work out, but we can always take that into consideration. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I would move that we accept these dates. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE DATES FOR ZONING BOARD MEETINGS, INCLUDING ONE DATE IN NOVEMBER AND ONE DATE IN DECEMBER FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2007, Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-All right. So we will, then, begin our meetings at 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. during the Calendar Year 2007 and we’ll hold our meetings on the third and fourth Wednesdays of every month, with the exception of November and December. thth November will be the 14 of the month and December the 12. Now, before we finally adjourn, one more time. I really and truly mean this. I would like to thank Ms. Radner very much for the tremendous amount of help. She and I have worked a number of hours together over the last 18 months, some of it good, some of it bad, but in the final analysis, she was a tremendous asset to this Board, trust me, and I wish you the very best in the future. So, ladies and gentlemen, could we have a round of applause for her, please. Thank you very much. MS. RADNER-I’ll miss you guys. On motion, meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 35