Loading...
2007-03-28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 2007 INDEX Area Variance No. 24-2006 Stephanie and Travis Norton 1. EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 290.00-1-84 Area Variance No. 17-2007 Robert J. and Colleen S. Rayno 2. Tax Map No. 309.15-1-23 Area Variance No. 18-2007 Peter and Nancy Kudan 9. Tax Map No. 295.19-1-29 Area Variance No. 14-2007 Katherine Lapham 17. Tax Map No. 239.16-1-11 Area Variance No. 19-2007 Kelly E. Carte 24. Tax Map No. 300.16-1-3 Area Variance No. 20-2007 Catherine A. Melucci 32. Tax Map No. 295.10-1-26, 27, 28 Area Variance No. 21-2007 William Craig 38. Tax Map No.289.19-1-10 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY RICHARD GARRAND ALLAN BRYANT JOYCE HUNT ROY URRICO CHARLES MC NULTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-BLANCHE ALTER LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN ATTORNEY-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. ABBATE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated 28 March 2007. 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. The 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. Other than administrative items, public comments will be invited 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. Any administrative items, that is items not on the agenda, will be considered after all of the Zoning Board of Appeals official business. 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. All questions from the appellant or the public will be addressed to this Board. All dialogues during the hearing will be between the appellant and this Board, and I’m going to request that the Secretary please monitor the time, and, Mr. Secretary, I do believe we have some correspondence that soul be read into the record and it may require a motion. Would you read it, please. AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2006 STEPHANIE AND TRAVIS NORTON MR. UNDERWOOD-This was a letter dated March 22, 2007 to the Zoning Board and the Queensbury site plan board. RE: Stephanie and Travis Norton, it’s the garage project located at 920 Ridge Road in Queensbury. “To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter in order to request an extension of my site plan and Area Variance approvals. My project is currently on hold while most of my time and resources are being concentrated on a family matter. I am quite certain this matter will come to a close no later than April 15, 2008. Based on the above information, I would like to request an extension of one year. Thank you for your time and consideration. Stephanie Norton” And just to remind everybody, we granted them relief for 50 feet of relief of shoreline setback relief from the 75 foot minimum from the wetland that surrounds that property so they could build their garage, and so I’ll just make a motion. MOTION TO EXTEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2006 STEPHANIE & TRAVIS NORTON, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th For one year, to 30 March of 2008. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) th Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: MR. BRYANT-I don’t even know what that’s about. MR. ABBATE-Well, if you don’t know what it’s about, then just abstain. MR. BRYANT-I abstain. AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote is six yes and one abstention. Area Variance No. 24-2006 is extended to 30 March 2008. Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT J. AND COLLEEN S. RAYNO OWNER(S): ROBERT J. AND COLLEEN S. RAYNO ZONING SR-1A LOCATION: 41 THOMAS STREET APPLICANTS PROPOSE A 535 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 845 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SR- ZONE. CROSS REF.: BP 2001-496 POOL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 14, 2007 LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.15-1-23 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-13-010 ROBERT & COLLEEN RAYNO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-2007, Robert J. and Colleen S. Rayno, Meeting Date: March 28, 2007 “Project Location: 41 Thomas Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicants propose a 535 sq. ft. (footprint) addition to an existing 845 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: The applicants request front setback relief of 21.3-feet (Knight Street), from the minimum 30-feet required, per §179-4-030 for the SR-1A zone. Additionally, relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure is required, per §179-13- 010. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicants would be able to construct the proposed residential addition in the desired location. 2. Feasible alternatives: A feasible alternative may be to locate the proposed further north, thus increasing the setback to the front property line. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for front setback relief of 21.3-feet from the required 30-feet may be deemed considerable at 71%. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2001-496: Issued, for pool. Staff comments: Although the proposed will not encroach any further into the existing nonconforming setback of the dwelling, feasible alternatives to the siting of the addition could be explored. However, it does not appear that the request will impact the neighboring community. The Warren County Planning Board recommended No County Impact for this project at their March 14 meeting. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 17-2007 please approach the table. Mr. and Mrs. Rayno, please. Would you have a seat, please and be kind enough to speak into the microphone and tell us who you are and then we’ll go from there, please. MR. RAYNO-Robert Rayno. MRS. RAYNO-Colleen Rayno. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now you’re not accompanied by an attorney. Have you ever been before us before? MRS. RAYNO-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. It’s a very simple procedure. All we’re going to ask you to do is just explain to us and convince us why you believe your variance should be approved, and if at any time during the hearing there’s something you don’t understand, stop us please, and I’ll do everything I can to explain to you what we’re doing. If at any time during the hearing perhaps you may have forgotten to tell us something that you feel may assist your claim for approval, stop us again and bring it to our attention, and it’s as simple as that. Nothing complicated. Fair enough? MRS. RAYNO-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Are you folks ready? MRS. RAYNO-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Tell us why, please. MR. RAYNO-Right now we have a non-working garage. I mean, it’s very small. You can’t fit a vehicle in it, really. We need more room, and we just figured that’s the way to do it, get rid of that garage, put this addition on. We’d definitely have more room. We have three kids and we have a two bedroom right now. It’s pretty tough. MRS. RAYNO-What we’re also taking off is an old, defunct breezeway. So what we’re taking out is going to have to go anyway because the breezeway is shot. Like he’s saying, the garage is just full of stuff because all you can fit in there is the lawnmower. There is no vehicle made today that will ever fit in there because our house was built in the 40’s. So what we’re doing is trying to improve our property’s exterior appearance as well as making it a livable home for teenage girls who are sharing a bedroom who are not happy. If any of you have teenagers, they’re very good friends one minute and then arguing over a shirt the next. MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, ladies, have you concluded to this point? MRS. RAYNO-I think that’s pretty much self-explanatory. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Ladies, gentlemen, do you have any questions for Mr. or Mrs. Rayno? MR. BRYANT-A couple of questions. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-You’re eliminating the garage totally. So later on you’re going to come back and build a garage. Is that what’s going to happen? MR. RAYNO-I don’t see doing that, no. MR. BRYANT-Your survey shows two different lots, 91 and 90. You’re on 91. Is that one lot, or what is that? MR. RAYNO-It was two lots like eons ago. I don’t think we could do a, it’s not legal to build a house on now. MR. BRYANT-Is it now one single tax lot? MR. RAYNO-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. You own the entire lot? MRS. RAYNO-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Why aren’t you building the addition behind the house? MRS. RAYNO-Well, we’re on a corner, and the one lot that you’re speaking of is off of our bedrooms. So to go to the family room, we would have to take out the bathroom, pass all the bedrooms, and then have the addition, which does not make a good flow of a house if we go to re-sell it at any time. Basically houses are probably better if you have a family room attached to a living, more livable space or kitchen. Kind of a great room effect. MR. RAYNO-And the addition where we want it is on the gable end now, whereas that’s going down towards the roofline, and it would just be a really tough thing to do. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but based on your floor plan, there’s no reason why you couldn’t have a hallway down from the bedrooms to the new area in the back. MRS. RAYNO-I don’t think a family room is something that you pass through the bedrooms to get to. That’s usually something off the kitchen. MR. BRYANT-Well, I don’t think you’d have to pass through the bedrooms. I’m looking at the floor plan you have, and I’m just assuming that. MRS. RAYNO-Well, we’d have to eliminate a bathroom, and we don’t want to do that. That’s our only bathroom, which would be more expense for us to figure out. MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other members of the Board who would like to speak to Mr. or Mrs. Rayno, any other questions that we have? All right. I see no other hands in terms of questions. So what I’m going to do is open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 17-2007, and what I’m going to ask is if there’s any members of the public who would like to address what you’re attempting to do, please. Do we have any members of the public? Would you come to the table please, sir, and would you please identify yourself and tell us where you reside? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOYD AKINS MR. AKINS-My name is Boyd Akins. I live directly across the road. I live at 88 Knight Street, and I would like to state that the Raynos, they do need to expand their home. They have outgrown their home quite some time ago, and they have one boy that should be graduating or going to college, and so there’s only the two girls that will be an issue in the near future. The things I’ve jotted down that I think need to be heard tonight, the proposal doesn’t meet the 30 foot setback. No accommodations for street parking, which, that’s what they do all the time. They park just off the front of their home. Like 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) they say, they can’t use their garage because it’s full of stuff. The traffic flow cannot see at intersections. So if you stop at Thomas and you take and look west on Knight, you have to edge out to see past their vehicles because that’s where they are, and that’s a safety issue that I’m really concerned about for motorists, pedestrians, kids, our kids, their kids, ourselves. Increasing the nonconforming by almost 60%. Feasible alternatives could be met, the conformity by going to the north, which means behind their home. Need to use existing driveway, which they do have, or make a new one and use it. Why weren’t the neighbors that live across the street in Glens Falls notified, and I have some pictures I would like the committee to take a peak at. MR. ABBATE-Would you like to pass those around. You can start with the members. I really don’t need them right now. Okay. If you have any other comments, please feel free to make them while the Board members are looking at the pictures. MR. AKINS-At this point I would just like to say, I respectfully request the denial of this proposal, as they have failed to meet the criteria and Area Variance. MR. ABBATE-Is there anything else you’d like to say? MR. AKINS-Thank you for your time. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much for your comments. Do we have anyone else in the audience, the public, who would like to address Area Variance No. 17-2007? Would you be kind enough to raise your hands please. All right. I see no other hands raised, so I’m going to continue on. I’m going to move to the members, and I’m going to, before I ask the members to offer their comments, I would like to inform the public that the comments offered by the members are directed to the Chairman and comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate. I’m going to respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions, and the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated, and any position you take must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective preferences. Now, having said that, do we have any volunteers who would like to go first? MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, before you proceed to that, I’d like to hear if the applicants have to say in response to what you’ve heard. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty, you’re right. Would you like to rebut anything? MRS. RAYNO-Well, I don’t know what you’re looking at. MR. ABBATE-Here you go. MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, there was some comment made about the notification of the area residents not being complete. That needs to be addressed. MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll address that issue. Before we give you an opportunity to rebut what was said, please, I’d like to address my question to Staff. Apparently there was some concern that not all the folks who live within the prescribed, I believe it’s 500 square feet, did not receive notification. Would you please comment. MR. URRICO-I think he said Glens Falls. MRS. BARDEN-Right. He said the City of Glens Falls, in the City of Glens Falls. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m just looking to see where they are on here. Everybody on here has got a Queensbury address, you know, that was notified. There’s no Glens Falls ones on there, but that may be their actual addresses, you know, are in Queensbury proper. I’m not sure if they are. MR. URRICO-So I guess the question is, do we only notify people in Queensbury? MR. ABBATE-Staff, would you address that question, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there a name you had in mind on that? If you give me an actual last name, I can tell you whether they were notified, because I have a list of all the letters that were sent out. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MR. AKINS-Well, I actually can’t. I was just curious. Their home is within the 500 feet range of Glens Falls. I mean, Thomas, the line is right down basically the middle of Thomas Street, and we’re all so close to Glens Falls anyway that I just thought people that, you know, it’s a visible thing, right there for people that live right across the road. All those are in Glens Falls. We’re all looking at Queensbury property. MR. ABBATE-Would you address the question please? Could you provide us with names of those individuals you feel who should have been notified and were not notified? MR. AKINS-I really can’t. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MRS. BARDEN-Jim, do you have that list? MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, the list is here, and there are a bunch of Thomas Street addresses that were notified, I mean, like at least seven or eight of them on there. So I would assume that would be the parties nearest this home going down the street. MS. ALTER-Are there both odd and even numbers? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’ve got 35, 14, 31, 27, and all the ones on Fifth Street, you know, there’s more of them on Fifth Street. So it looks to me like they were notified. MRS. BARDEN-Does it show, do you have the GIS that shows the buffer, the 500 foot that they use? That’s often helpful, if it’s a specific parcel that he’s looking for. MR. AKINS-I guess the most important thing is that, I know Bob and Colleen need to expand their home, improve their home, and improve the value of my home, their home, and the whole appearance of the property, but they also need to meet the variance, the 30 feet variance, and I agree with Mr. Bryant that they more than likely should go off the back of their home to the north side, and the amount of construction they plan or want to do, I mean, moving a bathroom and situating it in that plan would satisfy the 30 foot variance and the other issue that is really important to me is some sort of driveway, and the safety issue at the Thomas Street stop sign. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. We do appreciate your input. Staff, are you satisfied? MRS. BARDEN-I’m satisfied. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’ve got my answer. MR. ABBATE-All right. Now, Mr. and Mrs. Rayno, would you be kind enough to give us additional comments, please. MR. RAYNO-With or without the addition, I mean, we use our front. I mean, that’s just, if you see the way the lay of the land is, I mean, we use the front of our house. Another thing is, he probably hasn’t seen the addition and what it’s going to look like, but I think it’ll look decent. Believe me, I want it to look nice, and I want it to go with the flow of the house and everything. I’m an electrician by trade. I’ve been in the business, Rayno Electric, for going on 20 years in this area. MR. AKINS-Could I say something? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, look, let me say something here. This is going to be the last time you come forward. Okay. I asked in the beginning please, if you’re going to comment, please have your notes prepared and be concise because we’re concerned, also, about time. So go ahead and make your speech right now, say what you have to say, but this is the last time you come before the microphone. Go ahead. MR. AKINS-I have seen Bob’s plan. I stopped here last night and took a look, and it is a nice looking plan, and I just think it needs to meet the 30 foot variance. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Folks, do you have any additional comments? Okay. Go ahead, into the microphone, please. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MRS. RAYNO-Okay. I’m sorry to take so much time here. MR. ABBATE-That’s quite all right. Take your time, please. MRS. RAYNO-Okay. If you take a look at our house, on the left hand side is a gate, and that’s where we park at night, when we’re permanently in. I mean, he has a picture of my son’s car, who’s to school, back to school, back to work, back to school. So he doesn’t always pull it in out back. He pulls in front of our garage. Myself and my contractor, my husband is a contractor. He comes home for lunch, he leaves from lunch. He comes home and makes phone calls and he leaves, and then we park out back. So as far as the parking, that’s not going to change. It will still be out back and we have replaced a whole bunch of fence, except for that gate, just so we can make accommodations for this parking issue that I know that we have, right where we are, but we’re on a corner. MR. RAYNO-We plan on pulling in after, the addition’s only going to go three foot, if three foot past where the garage is. I mean, it’s not going to be this huge thing, and it’s going to set back to where you can see our base house, our footprint of our house, that’s basically where it’s going to be. It’s not going to be as close as that garage. So I don’t think it’s going to look that bad at all. MRS. RAYNO-And we still have our parking that we need out back. MR. RAYNO-We still have the pad on the left, which we plan on getting rid of that gate and pulling right in and out there using that as our traffic. MR. ABBATE-Any other comments you’d like to make at this time? MRS. RAYNO-No. MRS. HUNT-I have a question. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Joyce. MRS. HUNT-You have driveway on here. Are you going to have paved driveway on the other side of your addition? MR. RAYNO-Well, it’s already paved. We’re just going to take maybe, almost three feet, not quite, and that’s going to be our driveway. That’s it. We’re going to get rid of that gate, and that’s going to be in and out right there. MRS. HUNT-How large is that? What will that accommodate? MRS. RAYNO-Two trucks. MR. RAYNO-It should take two vehicles, yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other questions before I begin again? Okay. Here we go, folks. I indicated to Board members the responsibilities and duties and what have you. Now, do we have any Board members who’d like to further comment on Area Variance No. 17-2007? Do we have a volunteer? MRS. HUNT-I’ll volunteer. MR. ABBATE-Please, Joyce, thank you. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I can certainly see the need for an addition. I mean, 845 square feet is not a very large dwelling, and I see that the addition will really not be out as far as the main house. So you’re really not, I mean, that’s there. You’re not going to be able to change that, and I do see how putting the addition on the back really does not look feasible. So I would be in favor of this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else? MR. GARRAND-While I think that some of the neighborhood concerns should be addressed, in so far as parking and safety issues with respect to pulling up to that intersection and having your line of sight blocked by the vehicles, I think that’s an existing condition that won’t be changed whatsoever by the addition. I can definitely see their need for an increase in square footage. Like Mrs. Hunt said, it is a small dwelling. I 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) don’t think it’s going to change the character of the neighborhood too terribly much. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else? Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. Obviously there is a need here, and I think the applicant has shown to me at least that the benefit to them outweighs any detriment to the community. I understand the problem with the parking, but I see that parking problem existing whether this relief is granted or not, and they seem to be making accommodations for that as well. So I would be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Jim, would you comment, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I too, would be in favor. As mentioned by the applicant, this house has been there since the 1940’s. So people are pretty used to it by now. The new addition, as mentioned also is going to be set back further than the garage is. So that’s an improvement. It’s not going to be a detriment. It’s not like you’re extending the footprint further out towards the street there, and at the same time, I think it’s impractical to make people completely rearrange their house to put a small addition on. I don’t think that makes sense either. I think that the parking issue could be resolved, and maybe you guys could take it upon yourselves to park off the street all the time. I mean, that’s why people have driveways, and it’s not too much to ask if you’d do that in the future. So I’d be for it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MR. BRYANT-I think I’m going to be in the minority here. One of the criteria is whether or not there’s a feasible alternative, and I actually think there is a feasible alternative. A comment was made that, you know, the parking is always going to be an issue, and in reality the parking situation is exacerbated by the fact that the house is already so close to the street. A feasible alternative, in my mind, would be you’re going to remove the garage and breezeway, and to make that the parking area, and then start your addition 15 or whatever back, 15 feet back, and then you may still need relief, but it’s not going to be the amount of relief that you’re requesting at this point, and it would also allow for a reasonable area to park the vehicles. So it would make more sense to park off street than it will blocking the view of the travelers from the corner. So with that in mind, and I think somebody made a comment that it’s not a big deal to move a bathroom, and it really isn’t if you’re going to put an 800 square foot addition, or whatever the amount is, 500 square foot or 800 square foot, you know, you can easily move a bath to accommodate that configuration. So, Mr. Chairman, I’m going to be opposed to this. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I guess bottom line there’s two issues here. The parking issue certainly is something that can be important for the neighborhood. However, I’m not sure that it is immediately tied to what we’re being asked to consider. Also it strikes me that the addition as proposed is not going to make the parking any worse. As the applicant has pointed out, it’s going to be set back so they’re not making the intrusion into the setback worse. It’s a house that’s been there for years. They used to like to put houses close to the street because you had less driveway to shovel, before the advent of snow blowers, and that’s a very practical reason why a lot of your older houses are that close to the street. At the same time, I think it would behoove the applicants to listen carefully to what the neighbors are saying and it’s not just parking off the street, because as the photographs that were passed around show, even parking in that front yard makes it difficult to see as you’re coming down the street making the corner whether somebody’s coming the other way. So maybe a good careful look at how practical it would be to park cars out in back. If that’s not where the addition is going, then there should be some space back there to park cars further back and also make the property look neater than having two or three cars parked haphazard on the lawn, but having said all that, I think there’s some good justification for the proposal as it’s been presented. I don’t see a need to redesign the people’s house for them. So I’m going to be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. One of the reasons that the Zoning Board of Appeals is in operation is to act as a safety valve, to act as a safety valve to provide 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) what we refer to as due process to provide a standard of fairness, if you will, and you heard me earlier when I indicated that we base our decisions on the evidence that’s contained in the record, and in my opinion, there’s not sufficient adverse evidence in which I could say that I don’t support your claim, but I do. I will also support your application. Having said that, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 17-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to remind, respectfully, the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and while State law sets forth five factors to take into consideration, again, unlike a Use Variance test, this Board need not find in favor of the applicant on every one of the five factors. Now, having said that, I’m going to request a volunteer to introduce a motion and please introduce it with clarity. Do I have a motion for Area Variance No. 17-2007? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Please, Mrs. Hunt. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2007 ROBERT J. AND COLLEEN S. RAYNO, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 41 Thomas Street. The applicant’s propose a 535 square foot addition to an existing 845 square foot single family dwelling. The applicants request front setback relief of 21.3 feet, that’s on Knight Street, from the minimum 30 feet required per Section 179-4-030 for the Single Family Residential One Acre zone. Additionally, relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure is required per Section 179-13-010. Using the balancing test, whether the benefits could be achieved by some other means feasible to the applicant, and while some suggestions were made for other locations of the addition, they were not feasible to the applicant. Whether there would be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, I don’t think so. I think it would be an improvement. Whether the request is substantial. While it is substantial, the building is standing now, needing that relief, and actually the addition will need less relief than it would have before. The request will have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and it’s self-created only in the sense that the Rayno’s want to improve their home. So I would suggest that we pass Area Variance No. 17-2007. th Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 17-2007 is six yes, one no. Area Variance No. 17-2007 is approved. MRS. RAYNO-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II PETER AND NANCY KUDAN AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): PETER AND NANCY KUDAN ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: 10 PINEWOOD AVE., WESTLAND SUBD. SECTION 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONTRUCTION OF A 645 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING TWO-BAY-GARAGE TO A TOTAL OF 1,,173 SQ. FT. IN SIZE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM SIZE ALLOWABLE FOR GARAGE AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ALSO, RELIEF FOR FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFR-1A ZONE. CROSS REF.: BP 90-738 ADDITION; 95-507 ADDITION LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.19- 1-29 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-13-10 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2007, Peter and Nancy Kudan, Meeting Date: March 28, 2007 “Project Location: 10 Pinewood Ave., Westland Subd. Section 2 Description of Proposed Project: Applicants propose a 645 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing 528 sq. ft. (2-bay), totaling 1,173 sq. ft. (3-bay) attached garage. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) Relief Required: The applicants request 273 sq. ft. of relief from the maximum 900 sq. ft. for garages in residential areas, per §179-5-020. Additionally, 20.5-feet of front setback relief from the minimum 30-feet for the proposed addition, per §179-4-030 for the SFR-1A zone is requested. Lastly, relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure is also required, per §179-13- 010. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicants would be able to increase the size of their existing garage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives to the setback relief requested may include placing the proposed on the north side of the existing residence. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 273 sq. ft. over the maximum 900 sq. ft. for a garage is moderate at 30%. The request for 20.5-feet of front setback relief from the minimum 30-feet for the zone is considerable at 68%. The relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure may be deemed considerable due to the existing nonconformities with regard to the setbacks from both fronts (Pinewood and Sherwood), as well as increasing the nonconformity with regard to the setback on Pinewood. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood 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.): BP 95-507: Issued 9/8/95, 280 sq. ft. residential addition (living room and foyer). BP 90-738: Issued 10/26/90, 240 sq. ft. residential addition (bathroom and closet). AV 28-1990: Approved 6/20/90, 20-feet of rear setback relief (Sherwood Drive) for a proposed addition to be located 10-feet from this property line. Staff comments: Feasible alternatives could be discussed by the Board. Cumulatively, the request is substantial. As identified in Craig Brown’s determination letter with regard to this project, the submitted survey map identifies noncompliance with two previous approvals. Therefore, additional area variances are required. These, however, have not been requested with this application. The Board could request that the applicant make application with regard to the existing conditions, bringing the site into compliance, prior to consideration of any proposed project. The Warren County Planning Board recommended No County Impact for this project at their March 14 meeting. SEQR Status: Type II” 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 14, 2007 Project Name: Kudan, Peter and Nancy Owner(s): Peter and Nancy Kudan ID Number: QBY-07-AV-18 County Project#: Mar07-20 Current Zoning: SFR- 1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 645 sq. ft. residential addition for the expansion of an existing two bay garage to a total of 1,173 sq. ft. in size. Relief requested from maximum size allowable for a garage and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Also, relief for front setback requirements. Site Location: 10 Pinewood Ave., Westland Subd. Section 2 Tax Map Number(s): 295.19-1-29 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the construction of a 645 sq. ft. residential addition for the expansion of an existing two bay garage to a total of 1,173 sq. ft. in size. The maximum size garage allowed is 900 sq. ft. The garage is to be located 9.5 ft. from Pinewood Avenue where a 30 ft. setback is required. The existing home is a on conforming structure where it is located 20.32 ft. from Pinewood Avenue and 6.6 ft. from Sherwood Avenue where 30 ft. is required. The information submitted indicates the garage will be used to store their vehicles and it will match the existing house. 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, Warren County Planning Board 3/16/07. MR. ABBATE-I see that the applicants are at the table, Mr. and Mrs. Kudan, and I see that you folks have an attorney, and so I always like to ask the attorneys if they understand what the burden of proof is all about. Correct, Counselor? MR. LAPPER-Yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Are you prepared to proceed? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Go ahead. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Peter and Nancy Kudan. They’ve lived at the property for 32 years. They’ve done two relatively modest expansions in the past. It is certainly not a large house. It’s about 2,000 square feet of living space, modest sized home, and what is most unique about this application is this piece of property which has a front setback on most of the property because it’s on this peninsula with Sherwood and Pinewood on either side of it. Certainly when they bought the property in 1975, they weren’t the original owners, and they weren’t aware of setback constraints, and the first time that we learned about the non compliance that was mentioned in the Staff notes, was after we applied for this and got a survey, because previously the application that went in in 1990, a survey wasn’t required nor submitted, and I think the distinction was the measuring from the property line versus the edge of pavement. In the back on Sherwood they’ve got this very thick hedge which certainly buffers anything in the back, and for the public hearing we’ll submit, we’ve got a petition signed by 52 neighbors on both just Pinewood and Sherwood, in support of the application, which means they must be good neighbors because I don’t usually see that, but it’s really just a very unique piece of property. They’re trying to clean up the garage and provide storage, and it seems, while it seems like it’s a very big garage, it’s really just an attachment to the house, and it’s not like a freestanding garage where it’s going to look like something over 900 square feet. It’s just another wing on the house. It does get close to the property line in this one space by the driveway, but there’s, you know, well in excess of an additional 10 feet there to the edge of pavement. So even though when you look at the map from the property line it seems like it’s close, from the edge of pavement it’s not close at all, and I would submit that these are existing roads in an existing subdivision, and, you know, not any kind of connections anywhere else, and I can’t imagine that the Town would ever have any reason to widen Pinewood or Sherwood. So I think that when you take into account the green space that they mow and maintain that’s obviously Town property, but from the edge of pavement to their property, it really makes this a much less significant variance, and in terms of alternatives, if they go to the north side, that’s really their only private area where they have the screened in porch. I’m sure you all saw the property, and that might impact their neighbors by getting too close to the property line, and on the south side, that’s a lovely landscaped lawn area that all their windows look out onto, and that wouldn’t be a good thing. I mean, they could just stick a garage in the middle there and not need a variance, but that would not be aesthetically pleasing for the house, for the layout or for any of the neighbors. So they talked to the neighbor right across from the driveway, and they signed the petition, and nobody seems 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) to have a problem with this. It’s just a very strange piece of property, and they’re here to answer any questions, of course. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have any questions for Area Variance No. 18-2007? MRS. HUNT-I do have one. MR. ABBATE-Please, Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-The garage. Does that enter into the house? And what room would that be? PETER KUDAN MR. KUDAN-Yes, the kitchen. MRS. HUNT-The kitchen, okay. So if you moved it somewhere else, it would be a problem. MR. KUDAN-Yes, ma’am. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other Board members? Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Staff. You reference Mr. Brown’s determination letter, which is clear, one of the issues is relative to a building permit which will be, will go away if this variance is approved, but the other one is relative to an Area Variance that was issued in 1990, and my question is, if we know that that exists, why isn’t that in the documentation? Why isn’t that part of the application? MRS. BARDEN-They didn’t request it with this application. They were advised to request that variance with this application. They did not. MR. BRYANT-So in other words, you told the applicant that that was an issue and they should apply for a variance as part of this package, and they decided not to apply for a variance, and yet you consider the application complete? I mean, you know, there is an issue there. MR. ABBATE-I think we have a problem here. Did that actually occur? MR. LAPPER-I did not know about it until I got the Staff Notes. th MRS. BARDEN-It’s in the February 14 denial letter. MR. LAPPER-Personally I didn’t learn about it until I got the Staff Notes this week. Stephanie put the application together, and she’s not here. So I would have to ask that question, but the Kudans, you didn’t know about until this week when we were preparing for the hearing. MR. BRYANT-But there was a determination letter. The determination letter is dated th February 14. MR. LAPPER-If I was aware of it, I would have certainly asked for that relief at the same time, but I wasn’t, and if the Board, you know, if we need to ask for that relief, we’ll ask for that relief procedurally, but it was something that I was only made aware of preparing for this hearing this week. MRS. BARDEN-I mean, to answer your question a little further, that will still be non- compliant, but you’re talking about a different area, a different addition. So it is separate from here. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but we know that the issue exists, and I’m not understanding why we’re not addressing it. That’s all. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it comes down to discovery, though. I mean, if it’s something that occurred in 1990, it’s hard to look at the context of 1990 and superimpose that on 2007 and say that you’ve got to go back and fix a problem from 1990. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MR. BRYANT-I would agree with you. I would agree with you. However, there was an Area Variance issued, okay, a specific condition was studied and the Board decided they would grant an Area Variance, and now it’s just discovered, 15 or whatever it is years later, and I understand, but it’s not like it could have been in the Code then and we’re just kind of, this was a specific condition that was addressed by this Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s understandable, but I think that the applicants also expressed the comment that people measured from the edge of the road in 1990. I don’t know if that was standard across Town or whether that was the difference, you know, in the two feet and the four feet. I think if you went over there and measured with a tape measure, you’d probably get that for your numbers. So nobody went back and measured, obviously, back then. MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s understandable. That happens. I agree. MRS. BARDEN-At that time, I think that they submitted a plot plan, and so it was when they submitted the survey with this application that it was discovered that that was not in compliance with their Area Variance. MR. LAPPER-That’s completely correct. This was the first time there was an actual survey. I want to respond this way. I was hear last week listening to somebody who had asked for a variance and then added an extra four feet or something to their garage, where they built more than they were permitted. What was built here was exactly what was permitted. The size of the room was the right size. The difference is where the property line is, and when we found out about this and we sought the copy, we have the Certificate of Occupancy from the Town and I mean part of that is that now you need to have an as built when you build, which is a good idea because then you find out, you don’t get a CO, in terms of a setback issue. MR. BRYANT-Are you saying, Counselor, then, it’s the Town’s responsibility because we didn’t go out there with a laser? MR. LAPPER-No. I’m saying that they thought they did everything right and applied for a CO and they got a CO and so this is why this just came up as a surprise to them, and it’s rectified by the fact that the new procedure is you have to submit a survey once you build it. MR. ABBATE-Right. That was a result of a resolution by this Board. MR. LAPPER-Yes, which was a good idea. MR. BRYANT-I don’t really find a problem with it, but I think it should be addressed. My question to you, really relative to the last case that we heard where they had a situation with parking, and you realize you’re going to build your unit, now your building is going to be closer to the street. That’s your garage. Now, does that mean that your cars, when they’re not in the garage, are going to further impact the view on Pinewood? MR. LAPPER-No. There’ll still be room on the driveway for three cars, and three cars in the garage. They don’t have six cars. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but you’ve got to understand, though, the corner of the garage is nine feet away from the. MR. LAPPER-From the property line, but not from the road. It’s 20 feet from the road, because there’s all that extra. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. MR. GARRAND-Counselor, don’t you think it would be prudent to visit the other Area Variance and this Area Variance all in one session? MR. LAPPER-It certainly, we realize coming in here tonight that if that was what the Board wanted, we’ll certainly do it that way. I think that what somebody said, this moots the front issue, the 1996 building permit for the small porch addition, but what’s not addressed, because this is closer to the road than that, but what’s not addressed is the issue in the back, the four foot difference where the hedge is along Sherwood, and if the 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) Board feels like they’d like us to amend the application and address that, certainly we’ll do that, whatever’s appropriate. MR. URRICO-It sounds to me that you’re going to have to address it at some point. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Now that it’s been made, brought to everyone’s attention, of course that’s the case. MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have any other comments from any members of the Board concerning 18-2007? Okay. The public hearing will be open for Area Variance No. 18-2007, and those wishing to be heard, if you’d be kind enough to raise your hand, I’ll be more than happy to recognize you and ask you to come up to the table and speak into the microphone. Do we have any members of the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 18-2007? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. LAPPER-I’m going to submit, Mr. Chairman, this petition. I’ll just read what it says on top. “We, the undersigned, have no objections to the proposed addition to the home of Nancy and Peter Kudan, 10 Pinewood Avenue. We respectfully request that you grant them the variance that they’re seeking”, and the names are signed by 52 people who list either Pinewood, Sherwood or one person on Lynnfield, I think, all of their neighbors. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you be kind enough to give it to our Secretary, please, and he’ll enter it into the record. Okay. I’ll move on, and I’m going to ask, again, members to offer their comments. I’ve already gone through the fact that they’ll direct their comments to the Chairman. There’ll be no debate over it. We know what our duties and responsibilities are at this time. Do we have any members who would like to comment on Area Variance No. 18-2007? I hear none, then I’ll move on. The public hearing is now going to be closed for Area Variance No. 18-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again, I remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit, and we understand that there are five factors, but unlike a Use Variance, we do not have to satisfy every one of those five. I indicated this earlier. I’m going to ask for a volunteer to introduce a motion. I’d merely request that the motion be moved with clarity. Is there a volunteer to move a motion for Area Variance No. 18-2007? MRS. HUNT-Do you want input from the members first? MR. ABBATE-I asked that earlier and I didn’t hear anybody say anything. Did I not, guys? I think I said, let me go over it again. It might be an aging process I have. I said, I asked members to offer their comments, and I said, do I hear anything, and nobody raised their hands. However, Mrs. Hunt, if you wish to say something, please do. MRS. HUNT-Well, I would like to see us address all of the variances that are needed. I think that would be fairest to the petitioners. MR. ABBATE-Good idea. Let me go back. Maybe the members, after hearing what you had to say, let me move back about one step and again ask any members of the Board if they’d like to offer their comments on 18-2007. Mrs. Hunt has already indicated her little concern. Gentlemen? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’ll offer some. MR. ABBATE-Please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that as you’ve proposed this with the three bay doors on there, I don’t think that it’s something that we could approve because I think that, you know, we’ve been pretty strict about looking at the size of the property compared to these oversized garages that we’re going to create, and in this instance here, because we’re on less than a half an acre lot, and it is kind of an odd sized weirdo type lot, too, because of the streets going on two sides of it there, I’m not really concerned about those previous setback allowances that we have not granted and we have not discussed in depth, but I think that that house has been there for a long period of time. If it’s been there since 1990 and no one’s complained about it, I can live with them. I don’t think it’s something that we would deny them at this point in time, but I think that the garage itself could be modified. I think that you could add an addition on the side of that house that 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) wouldn’t appear to be a garage. Maybe you could put some kind of a smaller door on there to access that port. I don’t know what your arrangement was going to be, if the cars were going to be on the right hand side of that new addition. MR. LAPPER-It would be three doors on the front, so the cars, all three bays, and the cars would go in all of them. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you’re going to have three cars in there, I think that would be asking a little bit too much. I think if you had a side bay on there for equipment and things like that, but not with a garage door facing the street. I’m talking coming out the other side, if that’s a possibility, that I might consider that. MR. LAPPER-Would you like Peter to respond? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure. MR. KUDAN-We have three cars, and hence we want a three car garage because after the snow we’ve had. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would basically say that, you know, we have plenty of people in Town who have three cars. Some have four or five cars even, and if we created garages for all those automobiles, you know, it wouldn’t look right, and I think in this instance here I wouldn’t be able to approve it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Do we have any other members who would like to comment? MR. BRYANT-I’ll comment. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have five cars in one garage. I agree with Mr. Underwood, as far as the old issues, but I think they should be addressed, just for administrative purposes. We’re not going to deny a building that’s been there for 20 years already. I could go along with the setbacks, or I could probably go along with a slightly oversized garage, but when you add all these things together, it becomes a monumental variance, and I’m just wondering if we can re-think the size of the garage, maybe, bring the garage down closer to the 900 square feet, and, you know, then the variance, the setbacks, accumulated with the size of the garage don’t make such a monumental, that’s where I’m at. I mean, as it stands right now, it’s just too many things coming at once. If we could just re-do something, I think I’d feel a little bit more comfortable with that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, given the lot size, I think the presence of a three bay garage in this neighborhood is a little out of character. I don’t have so much of a problem with the square footage or the setback. So I think something could probably be done with the configuration, you know, to maintain the square footage for storage space as they need it, but a three bay garage just doesn’t fit in here. So I wouldn’t be in favor of this at this point. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I guess for me this is one of those that fits like some of the pool situations. Saying some lots are not intended for pools. It strikes me that what’s proposed is just plain too much house for the lot. Like some of the other members, any of the individual discrepancies that are hanging from 10, 15 years ago on variances don’t bother me an awful lot, one by one, but considering them all along with the variances that would be needed for this new proposal, the size of the garage and it’s closeness to the lot line, it strikes me as just being too much, and I know it leaves an applicant in a tough position if we deny this, but that’s about where I’m at at this point. I think it’s too much. I can’t say that I would agree, even if it was re-configured. I’d certainly listen to what was proposed, but I can’t promise I would change my stance. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would any other Board members like to say anything at this time? Yes, Mr. Urrico, please. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MR. URRICO-I’m basically in agreement with the majority of the Board, and I think the maximum size of a garage is something that we always but heads against with the public because maybe it’s part of the Code that’s outlived its usefulness as far as size, but the fact of the matter is that it does exist, and we do have to address it, and again I made the comment last week it doesn’t make an accommodation for a size of a lot either, but I think in this case an over-sized garage extends further out on the piece of property than the property was intended to, and I do agree with the three bay part of it, that it would be excessive for this neighborhood. I also think it would be a lot neater if we could wrap this up into, all the variances into one package. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a proposal. After listening to everyone’s comment, I think that I’d like to ask you to re-open the public hearing, and allow us to amend the application, so that we can address the prior variance issue, and we’ll go back and modify the request to reduce the size of what we’re asking for and maybe do something a little bit different architecturally. Certainly, you know, when we submitted, we weren’t aware that there was this other issue, and that colors it as well. So we’ll clean up everything and we’ll try and do something a little bit different and ask for different relief, less relief, if that’s okay with the Board. MR. ABBATE-Board members, do we have any objections to that? MR. UNDERWOOD-No/ MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then what I’m going to do is honor your request, and I’m going to open up the public hearing again to include both variances. Okay. MR. BRYANT-The Area Variance that it relates to is AV 28-1990. MR. ABBATE-28-1990, good. I’m going to open up the public hearing once more, and I’m going to request that any members of the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 28-1990, as well as Area Variance No. 18-2007. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. LAPPER-It probably has to get re-noticed. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes. We’ll re-notice it. Let me go through the procedure first. Raise your hands and I’ll be more than happy to listen to you. Raise your hands. I see no hands raised, so what I’m going to do is keep the public hearing open, Counselor, and I’m going to suggest that you want to address everything now, or do you want to go for a tabling? MR. LAPPER-No, I’d like to ask that it be tabled, and we’ll come back with something that hopefully the Board will like better. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So then you’re officially asking the Chair to honor a request for a tabling? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Before you do that, Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify the setback on Sherwood, because in Mr. Brown’s letter, it says 10 feet from the property line. Is that setback 30 feet? What is the actual relief? That would have to be calculated in order to. MR. LAPPER-I can answer that. They got 20 feet of relief. So it should have been 10 feet from the property line, and it’s 6.77 feet from the property line. MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. That’s it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I’m going to move a motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2007 AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 28- 1990 PETER AND NANCY KUDAN, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) 10 Pinewood Ave., Westland Subd. Section 2. Scheduled to a hearing in April. th Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: MR. LAPPER-We’d have to just submit a new drawing that shows the smaller. MR. ABBATE-You’re going to have to get it in to us ASAP. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we will. MR. ABBATE-Okay, because we’re setting the agenda tomorrow. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No .18-2007, as well as Area Variance No. 28-1990 is seven yes, zero no. The motion is carried. Area Variance No. 18-2007, as well as Area Variance No. 28-1990 is tabled for the April 2007 hearing. MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry, a couple of things. When would you like the new information by, considering the deadline for April just passed? MR. ABBATE-I want it in as soon as possible. When can you get it in to us? MR. LAPPER-Next Wednesday? MR. ABBATE-Is that satisfactory to everyone? Okay, then, Counselor, by next Wednesday, Staff, make a note of this, please, and if it’s not in, let me know, that the deadline is going to be by next Wednesday, and then I will consider your application tomorrow when I do the final agenda for April. I have yet to come up with a date because we have so many. Okay? MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II KATHERINE LAPHAM AGENT(S): STEPHEN AND BONNIE LAPHAM; MICHAEL O’CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S): BONNIE M. LAPHAM ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 19 SIGN POST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RECONSTRUCT EXISTING DOCKS, AND SUNDECK (TOTAL 444 SQ. FT.) RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR DOCKS. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-903; LAKE GEORGE PK COM. PERMIT NO. 5234-34-06 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 14, 2007 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.16- 1-11 SECTION: 179-5-050 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-This was postponed from a previous meeting. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-2007, Katherine Lapham, Meeting Date: March 28, 2007 “Project Location: 19 Sign Post Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes reconstruction of an existing 444 sq. ft. dock structure and sundeck. Relief Required: 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) The applicant requests north side setback relief of 20-feet, and south side setback relief of 17-feet, where 20-feet is the minimum setback for docks from adjacent property lines, per §179-5-050. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to reconstruct the proposed structure in the existing location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include abandoning the reconstruction of the wooden decks along the shoreline on either side of the piers, lessening the amount of relief required. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 20-feet of relief from the north side setback is substantial at 100%. The request for 17-feet of relief from the south side is substantial at 85%. 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.): BP 2006-903: Pending, replacement of dock. SP 9-2007: Pending, construction of a 444 sq. ft. dock and sundeck. Staff comments: The Lake George Park Commission issued a standard activity permit on 12/14/06 for, “Repair of cribs, dock and sundeck, no change in size, shape or location of existing wharf authorized” (see permit no. 5234-34-06). A feasible alternative may be to reconstruct the dock and sundeck only and remove the damaged wooden decking along the shoreline and not replace in kind. This would increase the setbacks to 12.4-feet (south side) and 14.7-feet (north side), and greatly reduce the amount of relief sought. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 14, 2007 Project Name: Lapham, Katherine Owner(s): Bonnie M. Lapham ID Number: QBY-07-AV-14 County Project#: Mar07-22 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to reconstruct existing docks, and sundeck (total 444 sq. ft.). Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for docks. Site Location: 19 Sign Post Road Tax Map Number(s): 239.16-1-11 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to reconstruct a u shaped dock with a sundeck (total 444 sq. ft.). The dock is located 14.7 ft. from the north property line and 12.4 ft. from the south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The information submitted indicates the docks and sundeck are in disrepair and the reconstruction is to occur in the same location with no change of size. The applicant also indicates that the shoreline portion of the dock is connected at the north side with the adjoining neighbor and on the south side it is 7 ft. from the property line. The structure is a nonconforming structure due to the setbacks and has received approval from the Lake George Park Commission. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 3/16/07. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see that the petitioner and attorneys are at the table right now. Would you be kind enough to identify yourselves, please, folks. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and I’m here with Stephen and Bonnie Lapham, who are the parents of the parents, in fact were the owners of the property. This property has been in the Lapham family since 1928, and for estate purposes it’s in the daughter’s name at this point. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-But Stephen and Bonnie are the principle occupants of it and users of it. This is a unique piece of property, having been in the same ownership as long as it has been. In fact, the property to the north of it, that’s shown as being in the family of Lennox, they’ve been there since some time before 1928, and the people to the south of it, the Wrigley’s have been there since the 1960’s. I make that point because I have two letters that I want to submit to you. One is from Doug Wrigley, which says, is addressed to Steve Lapham. It says “Dear Steve: As discussed, I understand you are going to rebuild your current dock and piers and in the same place and the same size as before. As your neighbor on Dunham’s Bay, I have no objection whatsoever to your doing so and know that once the project is completed you will enjoy your new dock. Sincerely, Doug Wrigley” I also have a letter to Steve. “This letter is written as next door neighbors to you in Dunham’s Bay. We wish you well in your endeavor to rebuild your dock to its former configuration. We have no objections and applaud you in your desire and efforts to keep your property a beautiful, functional and safe area. Good luck and warmest regards, Anne Squires Lennox ½ owner “Squires” property Debora J. Irwin – 1/6 owner “Squires” property 21 Sign Post Road Dale T. Hager 1/6 owner “Squires” property Jean C. Herman 1/6 owner “Squires” property.” It signed by the four parties that have an interest in the Lennox property. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Counselor, would you hand it to our Secretary so we can enter it into the record, please. Okay, then, if you wish to proceed, Counselor, you may, unless you have nothing else to add at this time. MR. O'CONNOR-I always have something else to add. I don’t know what was in your package. Steve submitted this directly to you, with some copies with me, and went back and forth, but these are color copies of the photos, I think that were there that probably show a little better the dock. This is a dock that was damaged by the wind storm in the Spring of 2006, and they began repairs of it, and you’re going to see some of the debris. They started taking it down and started re-building it, and were told that they needed a variance to re-build it. So they stopped it for the summer, and also were told that they needed a survey to actually show where the dock is located on the property, which they obtained. The survey, I would ask you to look at specifically with regards to Staff comments. Staff comments seem to think that the relief requested is substantial because mathematically it comes to a high percentage, but if you take a look at the north side of the dock, the piece that we’re talking about is the piece that runs along the shoreline. If that’s there or not there, we don’t interfere in any manner with the docking of the party that’s next to us to the north. This 20 foot no man’s land, which is on each side of the extension of the property lines into the lake, was put in place so as not to interfere with your adjoining neighbors’ docking rights. In fact, I’m told by Mr. Lapham that that extension from the Lennox property, or to the Lennox property, was actually built by Lennox. They have a post that’s a little bit either a little bit on our side of the line or not, that they use on that walkway to tie their boat up to their dock. It’s a relationship that’s been a good relationship for better than 75 years, and I submit to you that even though we measured, and when Staff first reviewed this application, and you look at the Staff comments, and you look at what was submitted by Mr. Lapham, at that time, they talked about a variance using only the piece that extended into the lake. It’s when I got involved in it, and maybe I get too technical. I said, wait a minute, this is part of the wharf, too, and you ought to consider your setback from the wharf in its entirety. So what is the maximum that you’re going to be looking for relief, and you are going to be looking for 100% relief, because that extension runs all the way to the property line, in fact it runs across the property line, but Staff, if you look at their comments when they reviewed it, said you were looking for 5.3 foot relief, because they accepted what Mr. Lapham initially thought, well, I’m 14.7 feet or 14 feet from the property line. I’m only looking for six feet relief. I’ve talked to Molly Gallagher at the Park Commission. I’ve had this issue with them before. She says it’s simpler to call that part of the dock, and we understand that 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) this is there. It was on his application. In fact, I’m not sure what you have submitted from the Lake George Park Commission, but if you take a look at the mapping that was attached to it, it shows the extensions all the way to the property line, and they say it pre- existed all the regulations on the lake for dockage, so that they had no problem with simply saying that they’re re-building what’s there. Go ahead and rebuild it. So, I think that the requested variance on the north side is very inconsequential. It’s not going to interfere in any manner with that adjoining owner’s right or ability to get to his dock. In fact, it accommodates him because he has a post that’s on that property. Hopefully you’ve all got the survey, so you can see what I’m talking about. MR. ABBATE-We do, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. On the south side, again, part of the same argument is in place. If you look at the blue line or the angled line that’s between that swimming platform, if you will, which actually gives us the three foot setback, that’s the shore that’s underneath it. So if we remove the swimming platform from above it, we’re not going to greatly increase that area that’s going to be exposed one way or another to the adjoining owner to the south. The adjoining owners to the south, and I think you can see in one of the photos, his dock is quite a bit south of us. It doesn’t even show in the pictures. I don’t have an exact measurement how far off his property line he is, but we’re not interfering with his ability to get to his dock or his use of his property, and both of these two people, the two people that are affected, have submitted letters to you, which are in your record at this point, saying that they have no objection to this proposal. That’s the dock to the south of us, an indication, and you can see the little swim area that’s by the shore. That swim area is, you’ve got to take a look at this line is over, probably half of that is over land. It’s not all extended out over the water. The balance of the project is simply a replacement of what was there. It’s going to be a sun deck. It’s the same size as what was there before. It falls within the criteria for height. I don’t know if you have any particular questions as to that or other portions of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Counselor. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have any questions for Area Variance No. 14-2007? Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-I want to understand the scope of the project. You’re tearing the dock and the deck completely down. Is that what you’re doing? STEPHEN LAPHAM MR. LAPHAM-Except for the cribbing. BONNIE LAPHAM MRS. LAPHAM-We’re using the cribs. MR. O'CONNOR-They’re using the cribs that are there in place, MR. BRYANT-But I mean as far as the structure, because if you, what is the formula, 75% if you, isn’t it up to 75%, you can take down up 75% and not require a variance? MR. O'CONNOR-I think that depends upon what percentage you consider the cribs to be. If I were going to say what percentage the cribs are, cribs usually, when you do costing, it’s at least 50% of building the dock, and if you were talking about removing existing cribs and starting over again, you’d probably be talking about more than 50% of the cost of a project, but I don’t know if they necessarily, I haven’t gone through that formula with Craig Brown as to whether they go by cost or what he does. I understood that if you were going to take your dock down to the water line, which is basically what this is, he considers it automatically a new construction. MR. BRYANT-Yes. Okay. That was the question I was asking. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. BRYANT-According to this survey, it looks like your walkway almost goes right into the next guy’s dock? MR. O'CONNOR-It does. MR. BRYANT-Okay. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MR. O'CONNOR-If you take a look at the picture, he built it. The next guy built it, and it’s a continuation of his dock onto our property. MR. BRYANT-So that’s where you have a zero setback? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it is. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe I should say that for the record. The spar itself, on the north, is 14.7 feet from the projection of the adjoining property line. So if you were looking at the spar itself alone, we’d be talking about relief of 5 feet 3 inches. The spar on the south side, at the closest point to the projection of the property line, is 12.4 feet, and we would be talking about relief of 7.8 feet. The only reason that we get into the bigger numbers and the higher percentages is because I included those two pieces along the shore. MR. BRYANT-Now you’ve confused me. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not intentional. If you look, the figures on the map. Did I confuse everybody? MR. ABBATE-I’m fine. I understand. MRS. HUNT-Mr. Chairman, I have a question. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Mrs. Hunt. MRS. HUNT-What are the widths of this walkways or dock, not the dock, but the areas, piers, along the dock. MR. O'CONNOR-The piers that go out are six feet. MRS. HUNT-No, no, I mean the wooden decks. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The deck on the south side is eight feet by nine foot five, and the deck on the, and the pier that goes to the north is 3.5 feet as it attaches to our dock. As it gets up to the property line, it’s a little wider, but it actually goes back over shore. You see there’s a line in the middle, so it’s about a three foot walkway going to the north property. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Any other comments, gentlemen, ladies? No other comments? Then I’ll continue. I’m going to open the public hearing for Area Variance No. 14-2007, and those wishing to be heard, would you be kind enough to raise your hand and I’ll be happy to recognize you? Do we have any folks in the audience, in the public, who wish to comment on Area Variance No. 14-2007? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised, so I’ll move on, and again I ask the members to offer their comments, and I’d like to inform the public that the comments that are going to be offered by the members are directed to the Chairman, and as a result, they will not be open to debate. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I reminded you earlier about precedence and what our mandates are concerning evidence and what have you. I don’t feel I have to go over it again. Do I have any comments by any members of the Board concerning 14-2007? Mrs. Hunt, would you please. MRS. HUNT-I’ll go. Yes, at first I was going along with what the Staff had said about not replacing the wooden decks along the shoreline, but they seem rather innocuous, considering the size of the docks are 30 feet, and since they are doing nothing but replacing what they already have, I would go along with this. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Underwood, would you mind, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I was a little concerned when I got the new survey, and I think that’s one of the things that, you know, we need to be careful with, because not knowing whether people added those decks at a previous date after they were permitted to put in the deck, but I did stop at the Lake George Park Commission today and it exactly 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) matches the survey that you guys submitted to us this time. They told me that, you know at the time that the Park Commission started to permit docks, they just had to accept whatever people had at the time, and everything that’s there now was there at the time that this occurred. So, I mean, I really don’t think it’s, I mean, it’s an extraordinary amount of relief that’s requested, but it’s not going to be changing anything from what hasn’t been there before. So I don’t think it’s a request that we can’t honor at this time. So, I mean, I’d be all for it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. This strikes me as just a repair of a previously existing dock, and I think the benefit to the applicant is readily apparent. I don’t think it’ll be changing the neighborhood in any way. The request seems substantial, but only in numbers. If you really take a look at what’s really taking place there, it’s not as drastic as it seems. I don’t think it’ll have any adverse affects on the neighborhood or the environment, physical or otherwise, and the difficulty wasn’t really self-created either. So I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MR. BRYANT-I just want to just touch on something that Staff said, relative to the alternative of getting rid of the walkway, you know, the deck area. That’s not really feasible because it already exists. Is that correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I have to agree with Mr. Urrico. This structure already existed, and all you’re basically doing it putting what’s there up again. So I’d be I favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Well, Mr. Chairman, I may be a dissenting opinion on this, but I think part of reconstruction could include removal of the decking along the shoreline. I think that there’s enough shoreline congestion in that area. I think, from a visual standpoint, I think it would improve the area to remove that decking. I agree with the Staff Notes on this one, and I wouldn’t be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Garrand. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-If this were a new application, I definitely would object to the walkways along the shore, but given that they’re there, and I’m trusting that what is proposed is what’s going to happen, an exact replacement of what exists, and given that, I think the benefit to the applicant, in my mind, at least counterbalances the detriment of allowing that there. I can see some environmental advantages to focusing activity just on the docks, but at the same time, I can also make a case that having that walkway along the shoreline may help protect the shoreline from erosion. So I can see some pluses and minuses. Given it was there and we’re just, in essence, repairing by replacing, I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Well, I’ve listened to the majority of the Board members, and quite frankly I agree with the majority of the Board members, and again, I go back to saying, and I listened carefully to what every member had to say, and they all touched upon this, but we are a safety valve. That’s the function of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We act as a safety valve. We provide due process. We make a decision based on the evidence in the record, and quite frankly, I will support the application because I see nothing in the record that would be adversely adverse to where I could not support the application. So, consequently, I’d go along with the majority of our Board members, and I’d support the application. The public hearing is now closed for Area Variance No. 14-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-I again respectfully remind the members we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and we know there are five factors to take into consideration, but unlike the Use Variance, we need not find in favor of the 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) applicant on everyone of the five factors. So I’m going to now move and request that members of the Board volunteer to provide a motion, and I’d request that the motion provided be made with clarity. Do we have a volunteer for a motion for Area Variance No. 14-2007? Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-I don’t feel that strongly about it. MR. ABBATE-Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I’ll do it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2007 KATHERINE LAPHAM, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 19 Sign Post Road. The applicant’s proposing the reconstruction of a 444 square foot dock structure and sundeck, and the applicant’s requesting north side relief for setback of 20 feet and south side setback relief of 17 feet where 20 is the minimum setback for docks from adjacent property lines per Section 179-5-050. The benefit to the applicant is the applicant would be permitted to reconstruct the proposed structure in the existing location. The feasible alternatives might include abandoning the reconstruction of the wooden decks along the shoreline on either side of the piers, which would lessen the amount of relief required, but as we mentioned during our discussion, I think there’s also some environmental benefits to having that decking along the shoreline to protect the shoreline from erosion, and I believe that the benefit to the applicant, having had that there, at least counterbalances the fact that it adds to the relief required. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? No question but that it is, given that we’re going for complete relief on one side, and almost complete relief on the south side. However, I think that is counterbalanced a little bit by the nature of the relief, that it’s not putting a dock structure on the lot line. It’s simply a wooden walkway along the shoreline that we’re granting relief for. Effects on the neighborhood or community? While Staff suggests that moderate effects on the neighborhood or community may be anticipated, and I would agree if this were new construction, given that it is simply replacing what has already been there for a number of years, I think the actual effect on the neighborhood or community is going to be minimal, and is the difficulty self-created? To some degree it is, in that the applicant wants this to happen, but aging of the structure, combined with storm damage and weathering I think has also contributed. So I don’t believe we can put the total burden on the applicant. Considering all the factors, I think the benefit to the applicant at least counterbalances any potential detriment to the community, and so I move that we approve this application. th Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Garrand MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 14-2007 is six yes, one no. Area Variance No. 14-2007 is approved. Thank you, gentlemen, ladies. Good luck. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Do you have a comment? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Please. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I get back the original photos that I gave you? Because I know there are photocopies, but they don’t show up as good as the originals, and can I ask Staff to make sure that a copy of those two letters gets put in the site plan application or I will be happy to take them back from you, at this point, and submit copies for your records, so I have the originals to give to the Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please. Would you do me a favor, Counselor. When you submit anything, would you address it to the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, please. MR. O'CONNOR-I’d be happy to do that. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. MR. O'CONNOR-I’d be happy to do that. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome, and good luck, folks. MR. O'CONNOR-I might ask Counsel if there’s a two year Statute of Limitations on violations, so you don’t have to worry about 22 year old variance violations. The other thing I think you might ask Counsel, you don’t give notice to residents across the boundary. MR. ABBATE-You’re absolutely correct. MR. O'CONNOR-You give notice to the County Planning Board who then supposedly takes care of that. He wasn’t here, or he would have told you, I’m sure. AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II KELLY E. CARTE OWNER(S): KELLY E. CARTE ZONING: LC-10A LOCATION: 207 FULLER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BARN (1,000 SQ. FT.) AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE (1,440 SQ. FT.) AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE FOR GARAGE. CROSS REF.: AV 82-1993 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 14, 2007 LOT SIZE: 45.99 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300.16-1-3 SECTION: 179-5-020 KELLY CARTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2007, Kelly E. Carte, Meeting Date: March 28, 2007 “Project Location: 207 Fuller Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,440 sq. ft. barn. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for an oversized garage on the property of 540 sq. ft. (in excess of 900 sq. ft. in floor area in a residential district), per §179-5-020 for the LC-10A 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 an oversized garage on the property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to constructing two separate buildings, a maximum 900 sq. ft. garage and maximum 500 sq. ft. storage shed, totaling 1400 sq. ft. (relief required would be 40 sq. ft.) 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 540 sq. ft. of relief over the maximum 900 sq. ft. is considerable at 60%. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minor effects on the neighborhood 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.): 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) AV 82-1993: Approved 10/20/93, two-lot subdivision of a 38-acre parcel. Staff comments: The request for relief is moderate at 60%, however, minor impacts to the neighborhood or community can be anticipated due to the substantial lot size at 46-acres. Staff does have a concern that if the stream is not intermittent as identified by the applicant, that the classification of “D”, DEC correspondence 10/27/06, may be erroneous. Furthermore, the applicant should contact DEC regarding the relocation of the stream and whether a permit is required for this action. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 14, 2007 Project Name: Carte, Kelly E. Owner(s): Kelly E. Carte ID Number: QBY-07-AV-19 County Project#: Mar07-14 Current Zoning: LC-10A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of existing barn (1,000 sq. ft.) and construction of a new garage (1,440 sq. ft.) at a different location on the property. Relief requested from maximum allowable size for garage. Site Location: 207 Fuller Road Tax Map Number(s): 300.16-1-3 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the demolition of existing barn (1,000 sq. ft.) and construction of a new garage (1,440 sq. ft.) at a different location on the property. Garages are limited to 900 sq. ft. The information submitted shows of the house, the existing barn, and the new location of the barn. The property is 46 acres and the applicant has requested a waiver from providing a survey as the new barn is to be located over 170 ft. from the nearest property line this is based on a survey pin and blazed tree line. 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, Warren County Planning Board 3/16/07. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 19-2007 be kind enough to come to the table, speak into the microphone, and identify yourself please, sir. MR. CARTE-Ladies and gentlemen, Kelly Carte. I’m actually wanting to build a barn, not a garage, but Queensbury doesn’t have any provisions for barns, even though LC-10 Acre allows agricultural use as one of the accepted uses for this land, but, be that as it may, Craig said that a garage was as close as we could come. So I have an old barn on the property that is, I think you have pictures there that I’ve submitted that are, it’s in pretty poor shape, and I also have several things stored around with various tarps and stuff on top of them. So it’s actually not a garage that I’m building. It’s more like a workshop and a place to store some of these things. The original barn is probably like, I don’t know, I measured it here, 75 or 100 feet off the road, or something like that. I’m building this one back 440 plus or minus feet from the road, 170 feet from the closest property line. It’s going to be something that you have to look for, you know, in order to find it. It’s certainly not anything that’s going to be any of the neighbor’s views or anything like that. The only neighbor that would be affected by this is the one to the east, and he has, I’ve spoken with him. He has no problems with what I’m doing. We have no quarrel over the property line or anything else like that. The comment made about the stream is something that I have already addressed that with the DEC. It’s not part of this application. If I move it or don’t move it, it has nothing to do with the construction of the barn. I’m wanting to do that to make it so that it doesn’t run across the middle of the property, and I have already talked to the DEC and obtained a letter from them that says that this is an intermittent stream. It has no, they have no jurisdiction over it or whatever, and so there’s no problems with that, and the project, if you see my drawing on the thing here, consists of the 1440 square foot building which will be framed construction, insulated, heated, etc., and a fabric temporary building that’s going to be on the end of it. I say fabric, like the balloon type of thing with a vinyl covered or whatever, which is temporary, and I understand that the Town does not regulate those type of buildings. So I didn’t include it in this application or whatever, but it’s going to be there on the end of it, and I have, you know, quite a few pieces of equipment. I have a tractor. I have a camper and a boat and whatever, and I just want to get all this stuff under cover and not have to tarp it and whatever every winter here. That’s it. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and feel free, any time during the hearing that you wish to add anything else or don’t understand something, feel free to stop us and ask, please. Okay. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) I’ll continue on here. I’m going to ask Board members if they have any questions for the appellant. MR. BRYANT-I have a question for you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Yes, go ahead. MR. BRYANT-I notice in the package that Mr. Carte requested a waiver for the survey, and I see there’s no survey in here, but I don’t see any letter from you stating that the waiver was accepted. The reason I ask that is in direct relation to the issue that Staff raises about the stream. Okay. If we had a survey, and we could see where the stream was, you know what I mean. MR. ABBATE-Hang on for a second. Do you have that Chairman completion review with you, please? MRS. BARDEN-I’m sure that it should be in the file. MR. ABBATE-It’s in the file. Jim, could you check that for me, please. MR. BRYANT-I see Mr. Carte’s letter requesting the waiver, but I don’t see your response. MR. ABBATE-Let me see what I said. MR. UNDERWOOD-You said no. MR. ABBATE-I said no. MR. CARTE-Mr. Bryant, I have the original response to me from it, if you want it. It may not be in your packet, but I have the response that he sent back to me. MR. ABBATE-I didn’t sign a waiver. MR. UNDERWOOD-I says waiver, yes. MR. ABBATE-Where is the waiver letter? MR. CARTE-I have the original you mailed to me. MR. ABBATE-I signed so many. Let me take a look at that, please. It should have been included in the file. That’s my signature, and this definitely should have been included in the file, and I apologize, Mr. Bryant. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s in there. You granted it. You granted a waiver. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I did. MR. BRYANT-A question for Mr. Carte, if I may, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Yes, by all means. Please. MR. BRYANT-Relative to the Staff comments and the DEC and the stream and so forth and so on, you said you had correspondence in that regard. Did you submit it at all with your package? MR. CARTE-Yes, sir. I sent, not with the package, no. I sent a copy of it to Craig Brown’s office. When they had, one of the inspectors came out to the property and we spoke about that, and he requested that I get a ruling from the DEC, and I did get it, and I did submit a copy of it to his office, but they didn’t put it in with this packet here because, you know, it was a separate thing. I don’t really know why that’s in here because the stream aspect has nothing to do with the variance for the size of the building. MR. BRYANT-Well, obviously if they made a comment in Staff Notes and you had a determination, and you submitted it to the office, I would think in order to complete the circle, that we would also see a copy of the determination. Just one other question. You wouldn’t need a variance in this case if you wanted a 900 square foot garage. You’d be entitled to a 500 square foot storage structure and accessory structure. I mean, it adds up to the same 1400 square feet. Why aren’t we doing that? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MR. CARTE-Well, you mean to build two separate buildings? Is that what you’re saying? MR. BRYANT-Sure, and then you wouldn’t have to be here. MR. CARTE-I don’t know. Economy of scale. Everybody, I mean, you call it a garage, but I’m not going to store vehicles in it or whatever. It’s a workshop. It’s a, you know, I mean a barn. The use, the things that you use a barn for. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but it has a garage door. So you can get vehicles in and out. MR. CARTE-Well, yes, I expect to work on a truck or a tractor or something like that. MR. BRYANT-So that makes it a garage, but all I’m asking is you have other equipment and other items. Why can’t you just put those in a storage shed, 500 square feet, build your 900 square foot garage, and everybody goes home? MR. CARTE-I guess, I mean, I could. It just seems to me to be much more cost effective to build one structure, I mean, to encompass everything and not have to scatter things around on the property here. I mean it is, after all, 46 acres of land, you know, and I’m putting it way back in the woods, more or less. MR. BRYANT-Yes, I know, but if a tree falls in the forest and nobody’s there to hear it does it make a sound? The fact that it’s 40 acres, it still has to comply with certain, you know, requirements, but anyway, those are all my questions. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, do we have any other comments from members of the Board on 19-2007? Okay. I see no other individuals. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 19-2007, and if we have any folks in the public who’d like to address this issue, if you’d be kind enough to raise your hand, I will recognize you. Yes, sir. Would you be kind enough to come to the table, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOE BRAYTON MR. BRAYTON-I just have a couple of questions. MR. ABBATE-Have a chair. Speak into the microphone, sir, and please tell us who you are and where you reside. MR. BRAYTON-My name is Joe Brayton. I live at 231 Fuller Road. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BRAYTON-I have a couple of questions about Mr. Carte’s property there. He clear cut that whole area, probably five acres of that, and now he says it’s going to be hid. It’s going to be right in the middle of that clear cut. Plus, this stream issue. I know I shouldn’t say anything. It’s on my son’s property where both of those streams run right behind me, and that stream to the north, it’s heavy water flow in the Spring of the year. He wants to divert that water into the stream between my son and I, which is actually still on my son’s property. It’s going to wash my son’s driveway right down to the pond down at the end of Fuller Road in the Spring of the year. That’s my big problem. (Lost words), I don’t know why he’s, I even hear he’s going to put an Ultra Light airplane in there. How the hell he does that either I don’t know. Excuse my language, but I don’t like the issue, he has a lot of ideas that don’t agree with me at all. I know my son says it’s fine to go across, let the stream go on my property. My son’s going to be damn sorry in the Spring when he doesn’t have a driveway. That’s all I have to say. MR. ABBATE-Thank you for your comments, sir. We appreciate it. Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 19-2007? Sir, would you like to comment on the comments from the public? MR. CARTE-Again, just for the record, I look at this as being two entirely separate issues. The only reason that the stream was mentioned is because I mentioned to Bruce Frank when he was over there that I thought I might try to move the stream which runs across the field. I did clear about four acres of land, which is under the five acre 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) minimum that needed to get a permit for. I plan on making a field of it, a level field, the same as Mr. Brayton’s son has on the other side of the property line, the back of his property is a field there, and so I told him that I might want to move it, and he simply said we need to find out whether or not it’s regulated by DEC, and I found that out, and it’s not regulated, so as far as that goes, I’ve talked with his son, who’s property the stream runs across. He’s in agreement with me that he has no problems with me moving it. We’ve discussed what we’re going to do with his driveway, as far as a culvert going underneath his driveway. There’s one there now, and he and I have already discussed putting, you know, a couple of other culverts there, taking care of this. I’m not going to do anything that’s going to be detrimental to anybody’s property. This stream that we’re talking about, there’s already a stream that runs underneath his driveway that comes off another part of my property in the Spring. It doesn’t run year round. Neither does this other one run year round for that matter. So all I’m wanting to do is to combine the two of those so that they run off one part of my property instead of two separate things. So the whole issue has been addressed by the only people that are affected by that, which is myself and my neighbor. MR. URRICO-I have a question. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Mr. Urrico. MR. URRICO-Do you currently have a storage shed on your property? MR. CARTE-Just the old barn that’s there now. MR. URRICO-Just the old barn. MR. CARTE-Yes. MR. URRICO-At a later date, pending approval of this, would you be seeking to add a storage shed at this point? MR. CARTE-No. I mean, this is going to give me all the space that I want, and it’s going to be under, you know, one roof. That’s basically what I’m looking for. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay, folks, do we have any other comments on 19-2007? MR. BRYANT-Yes. I have a question. MR. ABBATE-Yes, sir. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-This new barn is not going to be in the place of the old barn. MR. CARTE-Correct. MR. BRYANT-You’re going to build a road, and it’s going to go right across that stream. MR. CARTE-No. I already have the road to the barn now, and it isn’t anywhere near that stream. The stream that we’re talking about is in the middle of the cleared field. MR. BRYANT-Yes, I know, right behind the house. MR. CARTE-Probably 600 feet back from the road, or 700 feet back from Fuller Road. MR. BRYANT-Okay, but the new driveway does cross that spring drainage runoff? MR. CARTE-The new driveway crosses the spring, which is, it runs parallel to the road about 100 feet back from the road, but that’s, I mean, that’s already there. The driveway is there. The culvert is there. I mean, I put that in 15 years ago when I bought the property. MR. BRYANT-How far is the barn away from that spring? MR. CARTE-Three hundred and forty feet. MR. BRYANT-It doesn’t look like that in the drawing. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MR. CARTE-Well, I don’t know how. MR. BRYANT-He’s got a spring here, and he’s got this other spring drainage here. MR. UNDERWOOD-This is the intermittent stream. MR. BRYANT-Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. I mean, that’s right up against the garage. MR. CARTE-Well, this stream that’s shown on here, let me begin again. The stream that we’re talking about, where it’s located now is not even on the map. It’s not even on there. I didn’t draw it in because it’s not part of this, I had no idea they were going to even mention it from the Staff. It’s not part of the application. It has nothing to do with an Area Variance. The stream that’s on there, showing on the drawing that I put in there, is where I want to locate it to. I want to locate it from running across the cleared four acres, to running down along the side of where the barn is, and it’s going to join a spring that is existing that runs along behind the existing barn. MR. BRYANT-And farmhouse. MR. CARTE-And farmhouse, correct. So that they runoff the property at the same place, that’s all. MR. BRYANT-So you’re saying that drainage doesn’t even exist now. Is that what you’re saying? MR. CARTE-No. Well, it’s a like a swale that has a little water in it in the Spring that I mean it runs down there. It’s a drainage. That’s one of the reasons why I can re-locate the stream to run there, because it is a depression that runs along the foot of the mountain there like that, and the water, instead of running across the cleared area that I have cleared, if I divert it up on the side of the mountain a little ways, will run down the other way. I mean, you know, it can go either way. Up near where I’m talking about there’s about a 50 foot strip that it would run either way, but we’re not talking about Halfway Brook here. We’re just talking about something you can step over. In the Spring, when we get a lot of runoff, there’s a fair amount of water that comes there for a month maybe or something like that, you know, that it runs, and then it tapers off and then most years by mid-Summer there’s no water in it at all. Last year there was water in it all year round because it was so wet, but, you know, nine out of ten years there’s no water in it after July. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anyone else have anything they’d like to address on Area Variance No. 19-2007, any other questions? Okay. I’ll continue on here. Again, gentlemen and ladies of the Board, I’m going to ask for your comments, please, and we know what our duties and obligations are. Do we have any members of the Board who would like to make any comments concerning 19-2007? MR. BRYANT-I will, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MR. BRYANT-Two things come to mind in regard to this application. We rely on the Staff to scope out the project and to point out, you know, the actual conditions. I mean, I went up there, and I’ve been up there before, and frankly, that whole drainage thing didn’t even dawn on me until I read the Staff Notes. It might be an issue or it might not be an issue, and if it has been addressed by the DEC, I would have liked to have seen the paperwork on that. Back to the application, one of the criteria is feasible alternatives, and I know that you don’t like the idea of building two buildings, but the reality is, the way you have the shop and the barn scoped out, in reality they’re two buildings in one. So, I think the feasible alternative is to build what is allowed by the Code, which is a 900 square foot garage, and a 500 square foot storage building, and you can go home a happy person and we can go home too. As it stands right now, the over-sized garage, I would not be in favor of it. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have any other comments, any other members? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ll go. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the request is reasonable based upon the size of the property there. I think that it will be an improvement to the neighborhood, although it’s sad to see the old barns come down around Town. There’s not going to be too many of them left probably in another 50 years or so, but this one’s outlived it’s usefulness and Mr. Carte has requested a structure that he can use for multiple purposes. Call it a barn. Call it a garage. We call it a garage in the Town of Queensbury, but I don’t think it’s an extraordinary request. I mean, he’s going to have a workshop on part of it. It’s going to be set back over 400 feet from the road, and I think that that mitigates any difference in the size from the 900 feet that he’s requesting. So I do think it is reasonable. As far as the stream issue goes, although it was noted by the Staff, I don’t really think it’s our purview. It would come up, and if we can take his word that the issue has been addressed by DEC and that’s a moot point at this point. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I think given the fact that this is a 46 acre piece of parcel, I don’t see any adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood here. I would wholeheartedly support this application. I don’t think it would be feasible to build two separate structures on a parcel like this. I think one structure would be more appealing. So I’d be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I don’t have a concern. Let me back up a little bit. This goes back to a comment I made last week and earlier tonight, in that the Code calls for 900 square feet. It doesn’t make mention of size of property. I understand that’s a mitigating factor in this but it does not make mention of that. I just want to go on the record again of saying that. My concern would be that, in addition to this oversized garage, that maybe another structure would be built later on which would be another 500 square feet on top of this, which would bring the total of 1,000 feet above what we’re allowed. So I would want to condition this so that a storage structure could not be added on at a later date. I would approve the oversized garage, but not without that condition. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So you would approve the application, but with a condition. MR. URRICO-Right. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, sir. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I think the size of the property makes a big difference for me, and the zoning which at least encourages us to believe that this won’t be split into a little 50 by 100 foot lots and have little cubicles built on it at some point. As Mr. Bryant says, there are obviously some alternatives at least that somebody might consider feasible, but this is also an Area Variance which says that we don’t have to deny it simply because there is a feasible alternative. We need to consider that, and I think considering what the applicant said that what he’s designed is what will meet his needs, I think that given that he’s setting it back further from the road than the existing barn, the size of the property and everything I think speaks to the balance falling in favor of the applicant. So I’m going to be in favor. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much, Mr. McNulty. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MRS. HUNT-I also would be in favor of it. I think that the fact that a 900 square foot garage and a 500 square foot shed, this would only be exceeding that by 40 square feet, and I think, considering the size of the property and the setback, it really doesn’t make much difference. In fact, it would probably be more aesthetically pleasing to have one building than two. So I’d be in favor. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much, Mrs. Hunt. I guess we’ve covered it all except for me, right. Yes. I listened to what the Board members had to say, and I listened to what you had to say, and I listened to what the public had to say, and I agree with the majority of the Board. I believe that it’s not an unreasonable request, and quite frankly, at the present time, I see no negative impacts that would cause me to not support your case, but I would like to say one thing. That I’m concerned, in this particular instance, about Staff Notes and the fact, and I apologize to the Board, that my letter of waiver was not included as well as the other document as well. So I apologize to the Board for that. Having said that, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 19-2007, and again, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, we know what our duties and responsibilities are in terms of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and the five factors to take into consideration. So I’m going to ask for a volunteer for a motion, please, and would you mind keeping in mind, please, that one of our Board members, Mr. Urrico, has suggested and recommended that he would be for the application variance request with a condition, if you would please take that into consideration, unless of course Mr. Urrico would like to do the motion. It’s up to him. MR. URRICO-Well, I didn’t hear any other comments about the condition. So I’m not sure if it’s something that the Board wants. MR. ABBATE-All right. Before we then do that, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, would you like to comment the concerns of Mr. Urrico and the conditions? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just say, though, I mean, it is LC-10 up there. So it could be subdivided down at some point in the future. So, I mean, you don’t want to like create a can of worms that you can’t enforce. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I would think on the parcel proper down on Fuller Road there, I mean, that’s going to have to remain 10 acres. That would be my guess. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Gentlemen on the left side, do you have any comments you want to make about any kind of conditions? Well, if not, we heard what was being said, and I’m going to be looking for a volunteer, then, please to move some sort of a motion for Area Variance No. 19-2007. Do I have a motion. Would you, Mr. Garrand, be kind enough to do that, please. MR. GARRAND-Certainly, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2007 KELLY E. CARTE, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 207 Fuller Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 1440 square foot barn. The applicant requests relief for an oversized garage on the property of 540 square feet in excess of 900 square feet in floor area, in a residential district, per Section 179-5-020 for the Land Conservation 10 Acre zone. As a condition, I believe the condition was that no further structures be erected on the property. First in the balancing test, whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible. There are feasible alternatives, and that is to erect two separate structures, but once again, that’s not a very cost effective way of doing it. Whether this will cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood, or character of nearby properties. I do not believe it will. The request may be considerable relative to the Ordinance, but it is not substantial, given all factors involved. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental impacts Since we’re simply talking about the garage, I don’t see where it can have any adverse environmental impacts, simply talking about the garage. Is the difficulty self-created? I would have to say yes. Therefore, I’d make a motion that approve Area Variance No. 19-2007. th Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 19-2007 is six yes, one no. Area Variance No. 19-2007 is approved with condition that the appellant has agreed to. Thank you very much. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MR. CARTE-Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II CATHERINE A. MELUCCI AGENT(S): MICHAEL A. MELUCCI OWNER(S): CATHERINE A. MELUCCI ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: 1061 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 900 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 900 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFR-1A ZONE. CROSS REF.: BP 91-798; BP 89-029 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 14, 2007 LOT SIZE: 0.17; 0.21; 1 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.10-1-26, 27, 28 SECTION: 179-4-030 MIKE MELUCCI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2007, Catherine A. Melucci, Meeting Date: March 28, 2007 “Project Location: 1061 West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicants propose a 900 sq. ft. second-story addition to an existing 900 sq. ft. single-family dwelling situated on lot 26. Relief Required: The applicants request side setback relief of 19.3-feet (south side), and 10.8-feet (north side) from the minimum 20-feet required, both per §179-4-030 for the SFR-1A zone. In addition, relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure is requested. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicants would be permitted to construct the proposed second-story addition to the existing dwelling. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for side setback (south side) is 96.5% and the side setback (north side) is 54%, both could be deemed considerable. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood 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.): BP 91-798: Issued 11/12/91, single-family dwelling (lot 27). BP 89-29: Issued, 2-story detached garage (lot 28). Staff comments: The project includes a proposed realignment of the lot lines between parcel 26 and 27 and to subdivide parcel 28 into two portions to then be consolidated with parcels 26 and 27. Subsequent to that, a second-story addition to the existing single-family dwelling on lot 26 is proposed. The side setback (existing and proposed) as identified on the site development data page in the application for the shared property line between lots 26 and 27 is a bit 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) confusing, the existing is 14.3 (to the existing property line) and proposed is 9.2 (proposed property line). While the request is substantial, feasible alternatives appear to be limited if the applicant desires to expand the existing dwelling. Warren County Planning Board at their March 14 meeting, recommended No County Impact with the condition that the septic system is adequate for the project. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 14, 2007 Project Name: Melucci, Catherine A. Owner(s): Catherine A. Melucci ID Number: QBY-07-AV-20 County Project#: Mar07-23 Current Zoning: SFR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of 900 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing 900 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief requested from side setback requirements. Site Location: 1061 West Mountain Road Tax Map Number(s): 295.10-1-26, 27, 28 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the construction of 900 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing 900 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. The addition is to be located 0.7 ft. from the south property line where 20 ft. is required and 9.2 ft. from the north property line where 20 ft. is required. The information provided shows the location of the house in relation to the parcel. The project also involves a review at the local level of a subdivision and lot consolidation. The information does not indicate if the septic system capacity. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition that septic system is adequate for the project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation Warren County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the condition that the septic system is adequate for the project.” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 3/16/07. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 20-2007 be kind enough to come up to the table, speak into the microphone and proceed. MR. MELUCCI-My name is Mike Melucci, 161 Sherman Avenue. We had purchased this property three years ago for the use of our two sons. One lives at 1065. One lives at 1061, which is two of the lots. Then there was an acre lot behind it. What we propose to do, or what we are doing, is we’re splitting the acre lot behind it so both children or both sons have roughly .67 and .69 acre lots. Because right now the way the lots are is .17 and .27. The south side of the house that we’re trying to put the addition on, her line has been there. That was there when we bought the property. We haven’t done anything to the property at all. There are no other alternatives. We’ve basically taken an acre lot and split it. So now it’s no longer a buildable lot. I own the property to the left of it, which is a .34 acre lot, which is a buildable lot, you know, small buildable lot, but it is a buildable lot. The septic system is a 1,000 gallon with two eight by eight drywells. I’ve talked to Mr. Hatin today. That meets the requirements for the existing to make it a three bedroom home. Right now the roof needs to be replaced. The upstairs, there is no access to the upstairs except from the outside of the building now. As you can see, it’s a one and a half story, but the flooring upstairs is on a two foot center. So you’re going to have to put money into making each of those rafters, making it one foot, or at least 16 inch on center, and then replace the roof. So my biggest thing is to have all the family on one floor and have the bedroom capacity. We’re not having any impact on the property. We’re not going out any side of the building. So we’re not encroaching on any more of the footprint than what’s there exactly. I noticed that there was a confusion on the line. Mr. Underwood stated that in the Staff comments. The line went through, after we got it surveyed, the existing line went through the property at 1065. So it went right through the corner of the building. That’s why, it was 14 feet, but it was running 14 feet into the building. So that’s why we removed the line, which is to the left of the building on the right hand side, so it would make it feasible to have a car to go up that driveway. So right now all the lines make it feasible so no matter who lives there, nobody’s going to be affected. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and you probably heard me earlier. If during the hearing there’s anything you don’t understand or perhaps during the course of the hearing you wish to add additional information, please feel free to do so. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have any questions of Mr. Melucci? 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-I just wondered. Did you give any thought, since you’ve got that upper land there now, to moving further away from the main drag down there? MR. MELUCCI-The problem is, Mr. Underwood, that, first of all, foundation, moving the septic, and again, that .7 is behind it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. MELUCCI-So now I’ve got to go closer to the house on the right. I had thought of possibly moving to the left and giving them that other piece of property, but I mean, I’m already giving up an acre, and now I’m going to give up another, you know, it’s really the more feasible less cost factor. Still gives them the availability of having three bedrooms, and, you know, they have some property behind them. Like I said, as you can see on the survey map, that .7 point is in the back part of the property. So if I go back, I can’t go back big enough to give them their accommodation. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I remember when we had a previous proposal for that lot down on the corner there. MR. MELUCCI-Yes, we bought that from Osgoods. I bought that from them, because they were trying to put a larger type home on it, and I bought it as protection, for one sense, and at the same time, you know, if I want to build an 1100 square foot building, I can build it. It meets all the requirements and everything else. It’s a cute little lot. It’s not a big lot. It’s not feasible to build a 2,000 square foot house on, but if I take that, now I’m taking an acre and that to, and it’s really, again, it’s going to be the same thing. I’m going to have to, because it’s such a difference in height from the lot on the corner and there, it would make, we’d have to put a bigger foundation in. So you’re talking about cost factor. MR. UNDERWOOD-The garage that’s down in front, was there any consideration given to moving that behind or anything? Because I know, in the past, that was brought up as an issue because it’s so close to the road. MR. MELUCCI-Yes, but that’s still probably 35 feet away from the road . I mean, it’s quite a distance. I mean, the problem is because there isn’t so much room in between the two houses. MR. UNDERWOOD-To pass through. MR. MELUCCI-I mean, we bought it thinking it would be a place for the children to own some day and take care of and you don’t think of some of these things, and that was our fault, but again, we thought that the acre lot was accessible, until we got the survey, which again was our error, that acre lot is a waste. I mean, why these people didn’t separate it, I don’t know, but again, our biggest problem is that the house on the left has got that, such a narrow spot, which didn’t occur to us, and the house is only 15 years old. So somebody goofed some place, but again, we can’t do anything about that. So that’s why we think, we’re not doing anything to the footprint. We’re going up. It gives them the three bedrooms. We’re not adding any more encumbrance to the area at all, and again, the permeability before was like 60%. Now it’s going to be 6.6. So you’re going to have .69 acres and you’re only going to use six percent of the property. MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have anymore questions? Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is for Staff. We’re looking at a variance for the addition, based on the assumption that eventually the line is going to be moved, is that correct? MRS. BARDEN-Correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. With the moving of that line, doesn’t that create variance situations in Lot 27 also that some time down the road are going to have to be addressed? MR. MELUCCI-Well, that’s why it’s proposed. MRS. BARDEN-There’s no new construction on that, on Lot. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but you’re moving the line. So you do create a setback issue. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MRS. BARDEN-But there’s no construction proposed on Lot 27 at this time. If you wanted to put a second story on the house on Lot 27, there would be a setback issue. MR. BRYANT-Okay. We’ve had variances where we’ve moved lines, and they created this type of setback issue with no construction, okay. So my question is, you’re creating a situation that’s nonconforming. Won’t they have to get a variance on that in order to move the line, or no? MRS. BARDEN-Nonconforming in what sense? MR. BRYANT-Well, you’re nine feet away from the property line, or five foot nine. MRS. BARDEN-That’s not the lot itself being nonconforming. MR. BRYANT-The structure itself. MRS. BARDEN-The structure itself is not changing. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Well, maybe you don’t understand my question, but that’s fine. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Why don’t we just clear it up. MRS. BARDEN-Do you want to give it another try? MR. BRYANT-No, you’re suggesting that a line is going to move. It’s going to create a situation that requires setback. Yes or no? MRS. BARDEN-It’s right. It’s improving the existing setback. MR. BRYANT-Yes, well, whether it improves it or doesn’t improve it, you still require some kind of variance to allow that condition to exist or you can’t move the line. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you look at Lot 27, though, the existing property line goes through the house itself. MR. BRYANT-That’s not the issue. The issue is that a condition exists, as a result of moving the line, that requires a variance, and all I’m asking, if that is true, yes or no. MR. UNDERWOOD-Only if you improve Number 27. That’s the only one. MRS. BARDEN-That’s where I’m coming from. I mean, I can certainly look into it for you. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Another question for Staff. Mr. Hatin was out and inspected the septic system? MR. MELUCCI-No, I asked him a question. I told him what the septic system entailed, and he told me that’s substantial enough to basically, because we’re only adding one more bedroom. MR. GARRAND-Okay, because in the Staff Notes it says verify the size of the septic. MR. MELUCCI-No. The County says as long as the septic system was compatible, they had no problem with the impact. That’s what the County said. MR. GARRAND-Yes, County, No County Impact as long as the septic system is verified to be adequate. MR. MELUCCI-So before I came today, I wanted to know, you know, this is what we have, is that substantial enough. I mean, if it boils down to it, as much as I don’t want to, if the septic system wasn’t compatible, then I’d give up the other lot on the corner to give them the septic system, but I’d rather not do that, and that’s when I talked to Mr. Hatin today and he made me aware that as long as that septic system is what you’re saying it is, which we’re going to have it inspected, to make sure, it is a 1,000 gallon tank and two eight by eight drywells. That I know. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MR. GARRAND-Another question for you. You’re planning on consolidating the rear property with the other two lots. MR. MELUCCI-Yes. MR. GARRAND-When is that going to take place? MR. MELUCCI-It’s all done. MR. GARRAND-It’s already been consolidated? th MR. MELUCCI-This survey is done. This survey is done, finalized February 12. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. MELUCCI-So that’s why I guess I was a little confused on. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Well, looking at the lot sizes. MR. MELUCCI-Yes, it’s very small. MR. GARRAND-I should see two distinct lots. Instead they’ve got like three listed here. MR. MELUCCI-Well, there is three. We’re taking the three lots and making them two. MR. GARRAND-Okay. All right, and so it’s already been consolidated down into two lots? MR. MELUCCI-Right. The deeds have been written up. The mylars have been made. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. ABBATE-All right. Anybody else have any comments concerning 20-2007? All right. I see no other comments. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 20-2007. Do we have any folks in the audience who would like to make any comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I don’t see any hands raised. I’m going to move on. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I’m going to ask you to offer your comments on 20-2007, and again, just for those folks who are here, the comments that are going to be offered are directed to the Chairman and they are not open to debate. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, does anyone wish to start out? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ll go first. MR. ABBATE-Would you, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that Mr. Melucci has gone to considerable length to try to make the property more compatible with the Code as it exists for this residential area here, and I think that by adding that upper area onto their, I mean, certainly without that, he wouldn’t be looking to get a variance here very easily, almost impossible, next to zero. So I think that, in this instance here, I mean, it’s not going to be increasing the setback amounts that he’s requesting by adding on the second story onto this building, and I think it’s a reasonable request. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. BRYANT-I’ll go next. MR. ABBATE-Would you like to go, Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Mr. Underwood. The fact that you’re not increasing the footprint, there’s really not much you can do with the property. There really are no feasible alternatives. The property is such an odd shape. You’re really restricted as to what you can do. I don’t know that you could ever extend that 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) building again because of the configuration of the property. So I think it’s a reasonable request, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got a little, or I’ve had a little concern about whether or not adding a second story is going to make this structure a little overwhelming for that particular location, but I think, on balance, I’d have to agree with the other members so far that this is an instance where there’s not much else choice in the matter and the applicant has added the extra land on the back side at least to give the land area a little better situation. So I guess this is one of those situations where we can say this is why variances exist. So, even though I’ve got some misgivings, I’ll be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Yes. While we can’t do anything about the shape of these lots, I think that decreasing the nonconformity of the other lot and increasing the size of both lots is both an advantage for the neighborhood. So I’d be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I’d basically concur with my fellow Board members. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Well, I certainly do agree as well. MRS. HUNT-My turn. MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Hunt, would you be kind enough to comment, please. MRS. HUNT-I agree with my fellow Board members, and I would approve the variance. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, and I certainly do, Mr. Melucci. I think the Board members said it well. You did as best as you possibly could under the circumstances, and I certainly would support the application as well. At this particular point, I’m going to close the hearing for Area Variance No. 20-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again I’d respectfully remind the members of the task of balancing. We know what that is. I don’t feel I have to go through it again. Having said that, I’m going to request a volunteer to move a motion for Area Variance No. 20-2007. MR. UNDERWOOD-I can do it. MR. BRYANT-Jim, please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2007 CATHERINE A. MELUCCI, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 1061 West Mountain Road. The applicant is proposing a 900 square foot second story addition to an existing 900 square foot single family dwelling. Currently the family owns the two adjacent lots, Lot 26 and Lot 27, and after the lot line adjustments, I guess these have been made. I don’t know if there’s going to be any further review, but the septic system capacity of the project needs to be reviewed, not just a yes or no, but someone needs to go out there and verify that that’s okay. As far as the applicant’s request here, I think it’s a reasonable request. The difficulty is self-created, but it’s created in the sense that this is a very odd shaped lot that they don’t have any real control over. The lot line adjustments do make the lots more conforming by adding that structure on the upper ends up there, and I think that, as far as effects on the neighborhood, these houses have been here for quite some time. Adding a second story isn’t going to really be an imposing change on the neighborhood, on that busy corner down there, now that it’s a four way stop. Otherwise I would make a motion for its approval at this time. th Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know if there’s going to be any further review, but I would like to just add the following, that the project involves the review at the local level of a subdivision and lot consolidation, and I assume the Planning Board’s probably going to look at that to make sure everything’s fine with it, and the only other information that 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) needs to go along with this is the fact that the septic system capacity of the project needs to be reviewed, not just a yes or no, but someone needs to go out there and verify that that’s okay. MRS. BARDEN-May I make just a clarification on that? There is no Planning Board review required. It’s a consolidation of three lots into two, and so it would just be done administratively and then filed at the County. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I would think the building permit is going to deal with the septic issue. MRS. BARDEN-That’s true. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that’ll take care of that. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Staff. I appreciate that. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-Area Variance No. 20-2007 is approved, seven yes, zero no. Thank you very much for your patience. MR. MELUCCI-Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM CRAIG AGENT(S): JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): WILLIAM CRAIG ZONING: PO LOCATION: 12 HAVILAND ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF EXISTING RESIDENCE TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE), AND CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING LOT AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-165; BP 2005-878 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-10 SECTION: 179-4-040 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2007, William Craig, Meeting Date: March 28, 2007 “Project Location: 12 Haviland Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes conversion of an existing 1,007 sq. ft. residence to office space. Associated site work includes construction of 12 parking spaces. Relief Required: The applicants request relief (8 additional spaces) from the maximum parking requirement for an office (1 per 300 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area), where 4 spaces are required and 12 are proposed, per §179-4-040. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired number of parking spaces. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 8 additional parking spaces over the maximum 4 for the use is substantial, 200%. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minor effects on the neighborhood or community may be anticipated as a result of this action. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2006-165: Issued 4/26/06, for a 216 sq. ft. residential addition. BP 2005-920: Issued 12/21/05, 1768 sq. ft. residential addition. BP 2005-878: Issued 11/10/05, demolition of garage and breezeway. Staff comments: While the amount of relief requested appears extreme, the minimum/maximum parking requirement for a commercial site of this size is only 4 spaces, which, as is stated in the application, is not adequate for the proposed Chiropractic office. The Board could ask if the total request of 12 spaces is needed, or if a lesser amount of individual spaces will suffice for the proposed use, thus, identifying and granting the least amount of relief required to attain the benefit desired.” MR. ABBATE-Okay. The petitioner is up here. Would you be kind enough to identify yourself please, sir. MRS. BARDEN-Excuse me, Mr. Steves. Do you have an authorization from the applicant to represent this application? MR. STEVES-Yes. Matt Steves, Van Dusen and Steves, representing Miller Associates, working as an employee of Miller Associates. Miller Associates in North Carolina. So I’m filling in for Mr. Miller and I am being paid to do so by Mr. Miller. So I am acting as his employee. MR. ABBATE-You’re acting as the agent? MR. STEVES-Yes. I’m representing Miller Associates, and I did the survey, Van Dusen and Steves did the survey, for Mr. Craig. MR. ABBATE-It’s not a problem. Continue. You know the procedure. MR. STEVES-Yes. Okay. Good evening again. As stated, this is in a Professional Office zone, and it’s an existing home. Everybody knows where it is. We look across from the Town Hall, and in the chiropractic office I believe that the applicant, the owner dropped off a copy that was submitted in your plan, in your package. Inside the office it’s going to be set up for two exam rooms. So two doctors, the receptionist, and then somebody that floats around as the x-ray tech and does the photos and stuff like that. So it’s three to four employees on a regular basis, and in talking with Mr. Craig and going through the history of his current practice, is that every time that they have somebody in there, if anybody’s ever been to a chiropractic office, by the time they finish with one patient, usually the next one’s in the waiting room waiting, because they try to keep going, and that, about a five to ten minute overlay. So that when they’re finished with one patient they leave, the other one’s waiting in the waiting room, they come in. So with the four employees and then two patients per exam room, that’s a total of eight, and then allowing for possibly a third at some point in the future, as far as another exam room at some point in the future. So to accommodate for 12, giving us two additional parking spaces, basically, if that was ever to be accomplished. We’d be open to any suggestions this Board may have. We understand that in relation to the actual Code it’s substantial, but when you look at a doctor’s office, I just went to my eye doctor, for example, and I think there was five employees, and it was the middle of the afternoon and there was about nine cars in the parking lot. So I can understand why doctors, there’s a lot of volume going in and out. This will be submitted to the Planning Board as well, I believe. I don’t know if it has been by Jim and Tom Hutchins, but there is a full site plan, stormwater plan, that is ready to go to the Planning Board, and I’d open it up to any questions. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thanks a lot, Matt. Gentlemen, ladies, do we have any questions for 21? Mr. Bryant, please. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman. Actually it’s a comment. You may not have enough parking spaces, based on your layout. I was looking at that, and having been to the chiropractor’s office a number of times, a lot of times they do treatments on you and then the make you sit in the waiting room, and then you’ve got to come back in and do, and plus you have a therapy room, and you didn’t count that. So if you say four employees and two doctors, that’s six, eight, ten for the treatment rooms, eleven for the therapy room, that gives you one parking space, and that’s if the poor guy has got to go outside and come back for a couple of more treatments in ten minutes, then you’re full. MR. STEVES-We agree. MR. BRYANT-So in my view you probably don’t have enough parking spaces, but who am I. MR. ABBATE-That’s correct, Mr. Bryant. Do we have anybody else who has any statements, any comments concerning 21-2007? MRS. HUNT-I think this is similar to the Cardiac office that we had on Bay where they need more parking than is really allowed by the zoning. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Any other questions or comments concerning 21-2007? Okay. Hearing none, I’ll move on. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 21-2007. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address it? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised. I see nobody in the audience, so I’ll continue on. Again, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, we know what our duties and obligations are. I don’t feel I have to go through it again. I’m going to ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 21-2007. Mr. Bryant, I suspect, wants to go first. MR. BRYANT-Sure. Why not. If I go first it usually goes quicker. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely right. That’s why I did it. MR. BRYANT-I think you’ve demonstrated with your floor plan, okay, the need for X number of parking spaces, and you’ve done it well, and you’ve explained the need, and I would be totally in favor of the application. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. I think the extra parking is necessary, and I’d have no problem with it. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I agree, too. I think this is like a few of the other applications we’ve had recently where I believe we have to rely on the applicant’s judgment of what’s required for their business, and perfect example. So I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Mr. Bryant’s expert analysis of this swayed me to vote yes on this one also. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I would approve this application. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-I would have to agree with what Mr. Urrico said, and I’d be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-I’m going to support the application as well. MR. STEVES-We would have asked for more, but we realized that anybody from the Town Hall or my office would probably walk. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MR. ABBATE-Yes, absolutely. All right. I’m closing the public hearing on Area Variance No. 21-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, we know what the five factors are. Having said that, is there a volunteer to move a motion for 21-2007? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Would you please, Mrs. Hunt. It must be getting late, because every one of us sitting on this Board tonight missed something. This is Unlisted, Mr. Secretary, and as a result, we know what we have to do. While I do criticize Staff frequently, nonetheless, it was Staff who brought it to my attention. So I’ll give you credit for that. MR. STEVES-My mistake, too, I should have realized that. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Thank you, Matt. MR. UNDERWOOD-I do not have a form in there. MR. ABBATE-Staff, the form should have been included in there. MRS. BARDEN-That lasted for about two seconds. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Matt, would you give our Secretary the form, please, a blank one and he’ll fill it out. He’ll take care of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. In describing the project briefly on the Short Environmental Assessment Form, they’re going to convert an existing residence to Professional Office and they’re going to construct a parking lot and site work. The amount of land affected is .43 acres and will the proposed action comply with the existing zoning and other restrictions? The only thing that will be required is the variance that we’re going to grant this evening for the required additional parking, that’ll be 12 parking where 4 is permitted. What is the present land use in the vicinity? Adirondack Community College and the Town Hall is there. Does the action involve a permit or approval or funding now or ultimately from any other governmental agency? No. Does the aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval, no, it does not. As a result of the proposed action, will the existing permit or approval require modification? I would say no. On the Environmental Assessment Form, as far as Part II goes, “Does the action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR?” I would say no. MRS. HUNT-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions?” I would say no. “Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” I would say no. MRS. HUNT-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” No. MRS. HUNT-No. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” No. MRS. HUNT-No. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” No. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) MRS. HUNT-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” No. “Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified?” I would say no. “Other impacts including changes in quantity or type of energy?” I would say no. “Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a CEA?” No. MRS. HUNT-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” No. All right. I guess that’s it. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. MOTION THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM BE APPROVED, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-In a seven yes to zero no vote, the Environmental Assessment Form is approved. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2007 WILLIAM CRAIG, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 385 Haviland Road. The applicant proposes conversion of an existing 1,007 square foot residence to office space. Associated site work includes construction of 12 parking spaces. The applicant’s request relief of eight additional spaces from the maximum parking requirement for an office, one per 300 square feet of gross leasable floor area where four spaces are required and twelve are proposed per Section 179-4-040. Whether this benefit could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. I don’t think so. There will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties. While the request is substantial, the Ordinance does not take into account the number of spaces that would be needed for a business like this. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects, and it’s self-created only in the fact that they want to have an office, medical office and parking. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 21-2007. th Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 21-2007 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 21-2007 is approved. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MR. ABBATE-All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I have some things that we have to discuss here for a moment, please. If you would be kind enough to have some patience with me. The Town Attorney and I had a discussion recently, and based upon that discussion, dealing with litigation, based upon his concern and my concern, of this subject, I’m going to move a motion, ladies and gentlemen, to move into Executive Session. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/28/07) th Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The motion to move into an Executive Session is seven yes, zero no. Ladies and Gentlemen, we are into Executive Session. MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 43