Loading...
2007-06-27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 2007 INDEX Area Variance No. 40-2007 Kevin Maschewski 1. Tax Map No. 239.07-1-19 Area Variance No. 41-2007 Sherwood Acres 12. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-59.1 & 30 Area Variance No. 42-2007 Morgan Vittengl 21. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-48 Area Variance No. 43-2007 Rolf W. and Luise Ahlers 30. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-18 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 06/27/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT ROY URRICO RICHARD GARRAND CHARLES MC NULTY BRIAN CLEMENTS, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. ABBATE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated 27 June 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. This Zoning Board of Appeals can grant (or deny) two types of relief; interpretive and variance. In either case, this Board will affirm, reverse or modify the enforcement officer’s decision. In doing so, this Board will either permit or deny the requested relief. If the appeal is for an interpretation, this Board’s decision will be based on the Town of Queensbury zoning regulations. If the appeal is for a variance, this Board’s decision will be based upon the standards of proof contained in NYS Town Law 267-b. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeals may only authorize the minimum variance necessary to relieve the applicant. We will invite public comments on each appeal, however, in the interest of time please be crisp, organized and limit your comments to only the facts and information given this evening. On opening the public hearing the public will be allowed a maximum of 5 minutes to comment on a specific appeal. The purpose of this time limitation is to provide each member of the public an opportunity to be heard, and also to limit the length of the hearing to a reasonable time frame. 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. Mr. Secretary, I’m going to ask that you please monitor the time. Having said that, Mr. Secretary, do we have anything you wish to read into the record? MR. UNDERWOOD-Not at this time. MR. ABBATE-All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2007 SEQRA TYPE II KEVIN MASCHEWSKI AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) CAROLINE SOMERVILLE ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 106 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND FREESTANDING GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE WITH A COMBINED TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 2,921 SQ. FT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS/FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE 13, 2007 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.305 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.07-1-19 SECTION 179-4-090; 179-4-030 JOHN SVARE, REPRESENTING APP., PRESENT; KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-2007, Kevin Maschewski, Meeting Date: June 27, 2007 “Project Location: 106 Knox Road Description of Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes removal of existing single family residence and freestanding garage and construction of a 2921 sf single family dwelling including an attached garage. Relief Required: - 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) Applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement per §179-4-090. Additionally, the applicant seeks 3 feet of relief from the minimum 15 foot sideline setback requirement of the WR-1A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be able to construct a new home in the desired location. 2. Feasible alternatives: A smaller footprint appears to be feasible as this is new construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance: Three feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum setback requirement (20%) may be interpreted as minimal to moderate when viewed against the Town Zoning requirements. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal adverse impacts to the neighborhood are anticipated with this proposal. The proposed home on the property is nearly 20 feet further from the lake than the proposed home and some 4 feet further from the side property line than existing. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? As there appear to be feasible alternatives the difficulty in this proposal could be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None of record Staff comments: The proposed home is located nearly 20 feet further from the lake than the existing home. This proposal also calls for the removal of a 939 sf freestanding garage on the property and the installation of a new septic system for the home. Additionally, stormwater control devices are planned to be installed as part of the project. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 13, 2007 Project Name: Maschewski, Kevin Owner: Caroline Somerville ID Number: QBY-07-AV-40 County Project#: Apr07-33 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to remove existing residence and freestanding garage on the property and construct a single-family dwelling with an attached garage with a combined total square footage of 2,921 sq. ft. Relief is requested from setback requirements/frontage on a public street and side yard setback requirements. Site Location: 106 Knox Road Tax Map Number(s): 239.07-1-19 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to remove a 1,279 sq. ft. home with a 237 sq. ft. deck to construct a 1,762 home with an attached garage. The new home with the garage is to be located 12 ft. from the side yard where a 15 ft. setback is required. The information submitted shows the existing and proposed structure. The information also includes stormwater and erosion control measures. 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 6/14/07. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 40-2007 be kind enough to approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself, your place of residence, and your relationship to this appeal. Good evening, gentlemen. MR. SVARE-Good evening. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Good evening. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. SVARE-My name is John Svare. I’m an attorney with Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes. I’m here with Kevin Maschewski, of Adirondack Designers and Builders, the owner of 106 Knox Road. MR. ABBATE-Okay. If you’re prepared to proceed, you know our procedures. Go right ahead. MR. SVARE-I am, Mr. Chairman. As illustrated by the Staff Notes, this is a project for the removal of an existing single family residence and freestanding garage and the construction of a single family dwelling, including an attached garage and a septic system. It’s currently a residential seasonal camp, and the proposal is for a residential full season home. Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, first the requested relief, for 40 feet of relief from the 40 feet minimum road frontage, pursuant to 179-4-090. Knox Road is a private road. So this simply wouldn’t be applicable here, and we would ask for that relief. With respect to the side line setback, the applicant is seeking three feet of relief. If you’ll review the survey, and the papers that we’ve submitted, due to the narrow lot conditions created, and due to the nature of the lot, this minimal amount of setback relief was required in this situation, and we would respectfully submit that it’s not an intrusive type of action here, and it’s certainly reasonable. The proposed home, as illustrated in the Staff Notes, it bears repeating, is 20 feet further from the lake than the existing home, and I certainly think that’s a factor that the Board should consider here. Moreover, the current freestanding garage will be removed, and we’re going to be installing a new septic system. In addition, the percentage of impermeable area is decreasing from 31% to 28.7%. Lastly, the Floor Area Ratio is going from 29.6% to 21.96%. There’s simply no undesirable change here. No detriment to the neighborhood or nearby properties. The removal of the existing garage and the new home will certainly create a desirable change. I’m going to have Kevin speak further about the technical aspects here, but I think it’s important to note as well that a significant effort has been put in to deal with stormwater issues, to deal with the environmental issues here, and there’s a comprehensive program that’s been proposed with a wastewater system and a stormwater system design, but, Mr. Chairman, with your approval, I’d like Kevin to speak about this as well. MR. ABBATE-Please. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Good evening. Kevin Maschewski, President of Adirondack Designers and Builders, the property owner. I’m not really quite sure there’s much more that I can input that John didn’t, other than I guess I would just ask if there’s questions, more technical architectural drawings, a septic design, stormwater management. If there’s questions that the Board has I can answer them, but other than reiterating the fact that we did improve the property, pretty much all around, even the 12 foot side yard setback is increasing from I believe it’s somewhere in that eight to nine foot from the existing condition, but if anybody on the Board has any technical questions, I can certainly answer those. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Temporarily have you concluded? MR. SVARE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 40-2007? MR. GARRAND-How much land clearing is going to be done where the proposed house is, as far as cutting of trees? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Well, as for the land clearing, the existing structure is approximately 31 feet from the water. I cannot go any farther towards the water with any clearing based on the, I believe the Park Commission regulations for clearing, but once the old house gets removed, whatever is in the footprint, and approximately 10 feet to either side of the foundation, I need to clear that for mobility. So pretty much, to answer your question, the old camp, and then within 10 foot on either side of the new residence is what’s going to be cleared. I’m going to try to maintain as much as I can along both property lines. There’s still going to be a buffer between the northern and the southern property lines, but just clearing within the reasonable area of the house footprint. MR. GARRAND-Okay. My next question is, the drawing shows there’s going to be four bathrooms in this residence. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s correct. MR. GARRAND-Four necessary? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, to answer your question, no, it’s not necessary. The septic system, if you’re alluding towards the design of the septic, obviously we all know it’s pretty much based on the bedroom count. Having four bathrooms is obviously a luxury, but what I’ve tried to design it with was each bedroom having it’s own little private bathroom. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-I just had a question as to what the current water source is up there and what you’re going to propose for the new dwelling? MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s a good question. I’m not sure. Dennis MacElroy, who isn’t here this evening, I’m not sure if it was noted on there, but it will on the final submission, but the previous camp, the existing camp, is serviced through the lake water, and then the new one will also be serviced through lake water. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that allowed still, or do you have to have a well? I don’t know. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, no, it’s still allowed. What I’ve typically been doing in these homes is just putting an ultra violet system in and a sediment filter. MR. UNDERWOOD-The septic system, is that going to be located substantially on the rear toward the portions of the property? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. In addition to the page with the existing survey and proposed, there was a septic system design that was included. That’s basically going to be pushed about where the footprint of the old garage is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any concern with, it seems like the lot’s very low back there, or wet. I don’t know if that’s any concern. MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. We’ve done three test holes actually because we couldn’t do the test holes within the footprint of the garage. The garage makes, the existing garage makes perfect sense. It’s flat. There’s a slab we’ve got to pull up, but we did test holes. Water was showing down a good four feet down which is our clearance we needed, but even we dug down to seven feet and we finally started getting a little water. So we’ve done three test holes. They’ve been engineered, inspected, and all the data is going to be provided to Dave Hatin’s office. MR. URRICO-Can you speak to the feasibility of a smaller footprint and how that would eliminate the side yard setbacks? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Absolutely, and what I may do is I may walk up to the easel there, but what really drove the 12 feet, I really tried to design this home, which I personally did the design myself, I didn’t want to be in front of this Zoning Board. I tried to keep a design, in pre conversations and meetings with Craig Brown, it was told to me that I’d have to be in front for a variance for the 40 foot minimum road frontage. Once I started getting into the design of it, the septic system really prevailed to tell me where the house was going to go. The septic system is in the middle of the lot. Where the septic is, the lot is only about 53 feet wide, and it narrows down to under 50. I had to put the septic in the middle because of the side yard setbacks, which forced the driveway to the northern side of the lot, in doing so making a side access garage. As it is, one vehicle is going to have to do a two point turn to make that hook. The garage is only 20 feet deep. It’s a small style garage, even some of the bigger SUV’s are not going to fit in it. So I drove that as much as I could to still keep the turning radius to get in, septic system in the center of the lot, and I also, in evaluating setbacks, the average width of this lot is 51 foot 4. We’re just over the cusp of that 50 foot where you’re sliding setback rule. So in honesty I said, well, 12 foot is a number that the Board’s used to, so I made sure that I didn’t go beyond that. I actually could use some more room on that side, but the septic system really drove, it had nothing to do with the size of the footprint. It really drove the way I could get into that garage. MR. URRICO-Okay. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. CLEMENTS-Just to follow up on the, I noticed on the back part of the existing house, there are some mature trees back there. Were any of those trees going to be taken down? Because you’re going to be moving this back a little bit but it looks like there’s some space between the back of the current building and the trees. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. There will be approximately two to three of those taken down. What I had discussed with Mr. and Mrs. Ahlers, on the southern side of that, was putting a buffer, some pine tree buffer, between the properties and replacing some of those trees that we’re going to take down. Obviously I can’t replace the mature, mature trees, but there is attempt to continue a buffer between the two property lines. MR. CLEMENTS-But basically nothing in front of it, on the lakeside? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. MR. ABBATE-Anyone else have any questions? All right, hearing no other questions, then we’ll go on to opening the public hearing. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 40-2007, and those in the public 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 forward to the table. Do I have any hands, anyone in the public? Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROLF AHLERS MR. AHLERS-I would like to make a comment. My name is Rolf Ahlers. My name has just been mentioned by Kevin Maschewski. I am the southern neighbor of the Maschewski property. I have owned that property for 30 years. We bought our property 30 years ago this summer. We’ve known the Holmes’, who were the previous owner, for all that time. These two properties are extremely close together. They were practically the same size. Because of the proximity, the two parties have always made an effort to cooperate with each other. I do not oppose the Kevin Maschewski project. I support it. I think he’s going to put a good house there. However, I do have concerns. We are probably the quietest neck of the woods on Assembly Point. People have great difficulty finding us. We have great interest to keep it that way. We have no control over who buys that house from Kevin once it is finished, because that’s what he plans to do to sell it to someone else. That is a concern of mine. The hope is that in the construction of the property and the landscaping in particular, there can be some cooperation between the builder and us, my wife and I, particularly in planting trees. One of the reasons why it is practically impossible to find these two houses, because there are just very many, many trees. We tried to plant as many trees as possible. You cannot see these two houses from the lake, that is the Maschewski house or the former Holmes house, and also our house. You cannot see them. We have no control if Mr. Maschewski wants to build a dock. There will probably be more life on the lake. We do not own a boat. We never get out on the lake. This is a very quiet part of Assembly Point, and we are anxious to keep it that way. However, we have no control. Probably things are going to work out better with this new structure than the way things have been the last five years. This, the Holmes house has been rented. There was no control at all who came. The old septic system was just decrepit. It wouldn’t hold all the fluids that went in there from the many renters that were there. I assume that the new septic system will be very capable, and if there is one party that owns the house that this will be an improvement over what we’ve had, at least during the last five years. However, I’d like to summarize and come to an end. I hope that we can cooperate and I hope that we can have as many trees as possible and that things will remain as quiet as we have had it for 30 years. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Anyone else in the public like to comment on Area Variance No. 40-2007? Yes, sir. Would you be kind enough to come to the table, speak into the microphone, tell us who you are and where you reside, please. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I reside on Alexy Lane in North Queensbury. Firstly, I assume all of you Board members have visited this site. I notice that Area Variance No. 40-2007 is listed on your agenda as a SEQRA Type II. I’d like to know exactly when the Zoning Administrator made this determination that it is, in fact, a Type II action. That can come later. According to Section 179-16-050 I have 60 days to appeal such a determination. Area Variance No. 40-2007 has been improperly advertised as a SEQRA Type II. 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 identifies SEQRA Type II actions. The construction or expansion of a single family residence or residences are not subject 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) to SEQRA review, according to 6 NYCRR 617.5 C 9, providing that, “construction or expansion of a single family residence on an approved lot, including provision for necessary utility connections”, providing they’re municipal, otherwise they must be upgraded, there must be an upgrading of the drinking water well and septic system. This project is not being developed on an approved lot. This is a highly substandard lot, and no variance has been applied for to develop less than a one acre lot. Therefore it’s not approved. It does not have the necessary municipal utility connections, and in the alternative does not have provision for a drinking water well, and is this going to be a residence or is it just going to be a luxury vacation home? For this and other reasons, this should be a SEQRA Type I action. They have talked about the removal of the existing residence and the freestanding garage. This then constitutes new construction without a doubt. There’s been no mention about the removal of the existing septic system, and a demolition permit should be issued for that, and what’s going to happen to the spent materials that are going to be excavated and removed? They have to be taken to a hazardous waste site, disposed of in some way, not just dumped in the wetland. As new construction this residential dwelling must meet the 2003 Residential Building Code of the State of New York. Chapter 26 talks about the requirements for plumbing and Section P2602 speaks to where plumbing fixtures are installed shall be connected to an existing public water supply or public sewer system, respectively, if available. When either a public water supply or a public sewer system or both are not available, or connection thereto is not feasible, and individual water supply or individual sewage disposal system or both shall be provided. This Section speaks to the sources of water supply. Dependent on geological and soil conditions, and the amount of rainfall, individual water supplies are of the following types, drilled well, driven well or dug well, in accordance with applicable New York State Department of Health regulations. Since 2003, we’re no longer allowed, for new construction, to take water out of Lake George for drinking water purposes. There must be a well. In addition to those Sections 4-090 and 4-030, from which variance relief has been requested, the applicant and Staff, in what has become a traditional fashion, have both overlooked that land tax parcel 239.07-1-9 has an 80 foot boundary adjacent to Lake George. As such, this puts the total of this parcel in a Lake George Park Commission designated Critical Environmental Area and automatically subject to the environmental and performance standards of Article 6 of Town Code, and particularly the shoreline and wetland regulations, Section 6-060. MR. ABBATE-All right, Mr. Salvador, your time is up. MR. SALVADOR-May I finish this paragraph? MR. ABBATE-How much longer do you have to go? MR. SALVADOR-Three minutes. MR. ABBATE-No, you have one more minute. MR. SALVADOR-I’ll take the one minute. Section 6-060 D1 therefore requires that sewage facilities shall comply with Chapter 136, and in short, this plan does not. In terms of Town Code Chapter, excuse me, in addition, all development in a CEA requires a stormwater management plan in conformance with Chapter 147 of the Town Code, see Section 147-8B(b)1A, wherein minor projects in a CEA are to be treated as major projects requiring recording of a stormwater management plan. As far as the road goes, the road that’s mapped on the plan does not match the mapping of the road on the Warren County tax maps, nor does it match the mapping of Knox Road on a subdivision plat that was approved some 13 or 14 years ago, and I have a copy of that here. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 40-2007? Would you be kind enough to raise your hands, please. I see none. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have one letter to read into the record. MR. ABBATE-Okay. We will, and prior to reading of the letter, I’m going to give you an opportunity, would you like to address the recently issued issues that were just raised? MR. SVARE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Let the Secretary read into the record a letter, please. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) th MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. This letter was received today, June 27. It’s addressed to Charles Abbate, Chairman of the Zoning Board. “Dear Mr. Abbate: I have reviewed the application and plans for the above referenced variance application. It should be recognized the application is proposing a compliant location for the proposed new structure in regards to the setback from the shoreline, but I would like to offer the following comments for the record: 1. It is acknowledged that the application considers some stormwater management for the property and states that “….(stormwater management) calculations are not technically required”. The Zoning Board of Appeals, under Section 179-14-020, “may impost conditions similar to those provided for site plan review usage to protect the best interests of the surrounding property”. The project is a complete redevelopment of the site and should be considered a new site. Complete stormwater and wastewater systems to properly treat the complete redevelopment site and meeting separation requirements should be required. Therefore, if the relief requested is granted, I request the Board consider the condition to have the entire redevelopment site, including existing conditions, be required to manage stormwater in accordance with standards for new construction, as per Section 149-9 of the Stormwater Management Ordinance. 2. Will the project require site plan review and if not, would the Zoning Board consider this as a condition for granting a variance? Thank you for your consideration of these comments. I look forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals in the defending of the natural resources of Lake George and its basin. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Waterkeeper” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Counselor, do you have a copy of this letter? MR. SVARE-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then I’ll see that you receive a copy. MR. SVARE-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Maria or Craig, could we see that Counsel please have a copy of that letter, please. Would you like to respond to the comments? MR. SVARE-Kevin? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. I’d like to at least respond to a few of the comments that Mr. Salvador has come up to the podium and stated. Septic system. As the neighbor, Mr. Ahlers, did indicate, there is one of some kind of septic there. Not quite sure. Not quite sure where it is. The fact that the project is going to entail a brand new septic, the septic system design, all site development design was completed by Dennis MacElroy, Environmental Design Partnership, who owns the adjacent lot to Mr. Ahlers, which is two parcels south of my property. It’s all been designed, New York State Building Code, septic system, Department of Health. The architectural drawings will be completed and designed through New York State Building Code. It’s my understanding, just in past experience, that Queensbury does have Building Code enforcement on Staff, David Hatin and his inspectors. The drawings will be under complete review on that part. They’re completely engineered, engineer PE stamp. Anything associated with the construction of the residence obviously will be adhering to the New York State Building Code and local codes. Site development, again, the septic system completely designed, New York State PE certified. If, in fact, the Queensbury Building Department does require a well, there is room for a well. At this point, I was not told by the Building Department that a well was required. To me, it’s a six one half dozen of the other. There is a water supply coming from the lake to the existing structure and that’s what I propose to keep. I’d like to ask Craig Brown, on the stormwater management end of it, it’s my understanding that we are not required to perform a stormwater management plan because we do not increase over 1,000 square feet of impervious area. In fact, we are decreasing the impervious area of the site. That all being said, we are required to provide stormwater management because we are disturbing over 5,000 square feet. Is that correct? MR. ABBATE-Wait a second. Did you have a pre-conference hearing with Staff? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct, yes. MR. ABBATE-Did you raise this issue at the Staff hearing? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Well, then you already have your answer. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. ABBATE-There’s no reason for the Zoning Administrator to answer you a second time. Thank you. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. I was just trying to prove a point, but okay. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, do you have anything you want to add? MR. SVARE-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. I’m going to ask the. MR. URRICO-Chuck, can we have Craig address Mr. Salvador’s issues about the SEQRA? MR. ABBATE-We can certainly ask the Zoning Administrator to respond to that. MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Craig, would you be kind enough to respond to that question from Mr. Salvador, please. MR. BROWN-With regards to the legality of the lot, our Zoning Ordinance specifically has a section known as General Exceptions. It says if you have a lot of record, nonconforming lot of record, that was in existence prior to October 1, 1988, as of the writing of this Code, that lot now becomes a legal nonconforming lot with respect to lot size, area, width, lot requirement. So, even though this lot is three tenths of an acre, it’s considered a legal existing lot. So, the issue, this lot hasn’t received a variance or requested a variance to be developed on even though it’s less than an acre doesn’t apply. There’s no argument there. The SEQRA argument, I can do some research. I mean, we always, always, always, individual lot line variances, which is what this is, is a Type II SEQRA action, and if you know SEQRA law at all, if your action is a Type II action, and it’s on that list, it can’t be classified as anything else, even if you try and make it sound like something else. If it’s an individual lot line variance, it’s a Type II action. It can’t be anything else. MR. UNDERWOOD-How about regarding the water. Is that an issue with drawing water from the lake? MR. BROWN-That may be a Building Department requirement or a New York State Building Code or Health Department. I’m not aware of it. I know that, I can’t tell you how many times that building permits get issued that draw water from the lake as drinking water, and it’s not something I have any jurisdiction over. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m just thinking in the instance of, you know, in the future, if need be, if everybody had to put a well in at some point in the future, as long as they meet the separation distances from their septic, that’s going to be the key thing. So there is a place on the property, unless you’re going to bring in municipal water, which probably isn’t ever going to happen out there. MR. BROWN-So can they get a well? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I’m just saying if they had to put a well out front, down on the lakeshore, is it going to meet the separation distance from the septic in the back. I assume it would. It’s got to be well over 100 feet there. Right? MR. BROWN-You can ask the applicant that question. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. GARRAND-A question for Mr. Brown. Did they meet the 22% Floor Area Ratio? I notice on the letter you sent back to Kevin Maschewski that they hadn’t sent the floor plans to you. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think there’s probably the completed worksheet in the application, and I think by square feet they just squeak under the bar. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. GARRAND-I didn’t know if that was before or after you’d gone over the numbers. MR. BROWN-No, that’s current. Yes. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Anybody else have another question? Okay. I notice here, also, Counselor, that this proposal calls for the removal of a 939 square foot freestanding garage on the property and the installation of a new septic system. This, I’m sure, is still current? MR. SVARE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. All right. I’m going to ask members to offer their comments. I’d like to inform the public that the comments that will be offered by the members are directed to the Chairman, and comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate, and 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. Additionally, any position you may take must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective preferences or not liking a project, and Board members are obligated to make decisions on reliable evidence contained in the records of the Board’s deliberations. I’ll now ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 40-2007. Do I have a volunteer? MR. CLEMENTS-I’ll go. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Clements, please. Thank you. MR. CLEMENTS-Quite succinctly, I think that really there’s too many questions, and at this point, I would have to vote no on this variance. MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have someone else who’d like to volunteer? Just want me to go down the line? MRS. HUNT-I think we’re considering just two points, and that is the 40 feet relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage, and also the applicant is seeking three feet of relief from the minimum 15 feet side line setback. So I think some of these other questions are extraneous to that deliberation, and I would be in favor of this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mrs. Hunt. Jim, would you like to go next, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I think in general if we look and we compare this to what is presently on site, it’s going to increase the setbacks from the lake, when compared to the site that’s, the house that’s currently constructed there. It’s going to have a new septic system. There’s been some questions raised as to the viability of what’s there at the present time. So that’s going to be an improvement, too. As far as the water from the lake, I guess it’s fine if they draw from the lake at the present time, and it would be, based upon where they’re going to put their septic, they would have the ability to put a well in there, in the future, at some point in time. I think the neighbors next door are a little bit concerned about privacy and maintaining that, and I think that we could condition it also to include that the minimum amount of trees be taken down in order to incorporate that. I’m a little bit concerned with the full build out on this very narrow lot. It’s a very small lot. It’s not even a third of an acre in size, and I think that, you know, later this evening we’ve got two other similar ones, and we have to be careful about that, but at the same time it does fall within the parameters of the 22% Floor Area Ratio, so I think that we can’t disallow it based upon that argument there either. I think that as long as the foreshore areas are preserved, I think the neighbors were concerned about maintaining that. I know a lot of these new people that buy places like to come in and clear cut the lot and then come in and say I didn’t know afterwards, but I think we can condition that also as part of the project, that you maintain the trees out in front. So, in general, I don’t really have a problem with it. I think the 40 foot of relief is not really something we need to be concerned about. It’s always had the same road access at the very end of the road. I don’t think there’s a problem with the fire trucks or anything getting in there as far as that goes. I think that’s not a problem, and the side relief issue, it would be very difficult to build any kind of a house there without getting a little bit of relief and the amount of relief they’re requesting is pretty minimal at three feet. So I don’t have a problem with that either. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. As was stated earlier, there are basically two issues we’re dealing with, the 40 foot minimum road frontage and the three feet of relief from the minimum side setback. I am not bothered at all by the 40 foot minimum road frontage. So what we’re left with, at least what I’m left with, is the side setback relief, and as far as side setback, the one test that really applies here in my estimation is whether there’s a feasible alternative, whether the house could be built smaller to accommodate the full 15 feet, and I’m convinced, from the applicant’s explanation, that he cannot, and it’s a good plan. I think we’re gaining quite a bit in terms of improvement on this property. I think the benefit to the applicant has been demonstrated. I think the smaller footprint is not possible, at least feasible, and the relief is not really substantial in terms of the setback requirement, 20 feet, but this is a small lot as it was said earlier. I think, given the location of it, because of the circumstances, I think this will have minimal adverse effects to the neighborhood. I think we have to be careful about the stormwater runoff, and I wish that was addressed a little bit clearer, and this is self-created, but I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Well, I, too, am trying to focus on what we’re actually being asked here. There certainly has been a lot of concerns raised, and I think some of them hopefully will be taken care of by other agencies within the Town when the time comes, but looking at what we’re requested here, I’ll agree the 40 foot of relief from the 40 foot road frontage, in this case, I think is a reasonable thing. There’s no way that this property is going to get 40 feet of frontage on a Town road, short of the Town taking over Knox Road and completing it to Code, and the side setbacks, again, with the assurance from the applicant that he will cut the minimum number of trees necessary, and I think what he’s proposed is reasonable. Obviously, he has to take the trees out that are in the footprint of the building, and something like 10 feet to each side is reasonable because even if you worked around those trees, you damaged the roots so much that you’d kill them eventually anyway. So I think what’s proposed is reasonable and the amount of relief from the side setback is minimal. Yes, you could build something that would meet all the side setbacks. It would be a funny looking house though, and probably not appropriate for the kind of money that’s involved with this lot or similar lots up there. So I’ll be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Rick, please. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, given the fact that this is a very, very small lot, I think three feet of relief is pretty reasonable on this. I think the water requirements of having so many bathrooms, as well as washing facilities and everything, it’s going to put a little bit of strain on the system. As far as the 40 foot road frontage, you’re not going to get that in that neighborhood. I’m also okay with that. I think the applicant could cut down the size of the house, as far as maybe the height goes, but beyond there, there isn’t a whole lot they can do with such a narrow strip of land. At this point I’d be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Well, I listened to what everyone had to say this evening, and it would appear that the majority of the Board finds merit to your appeal, and I also believe that the appellant has made a reasonable request, based upon the unique circumstances, if you will, and also Mr. McNulty made a good point. There are other concerns, there’s no question about it, but unfortunately they are really not under our jurisdiction, should be addressed by another Department or agency, if you will, and so I, too, will support the appeal as well. Now this is a class two. I don’t have to worry about that. I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 40-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, 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. Rather, we must merely take each one into account in deciding whether to grant an Area Variance. I’m going to request that you please introduce your motion with clarity. I’m going to now ask a volunteer to move a motion for Area Variance No. 40-2007, and on moving a motion, I would request that you be kind enough to take into consider some of the terms of the condition that call for a removal of a 939 square foot freestanding garage, the 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) installation of a new septic system, and the concern for trees as well. Having said that, do I have a volunteer to move a motion for Area Variance No. 40-2007? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Well, thank you very much, Mrs. Hunt. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2007 KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 106 Knox Road. The applicant proposes removal of existing single family residence and freestanding garage and construction of a 2921 square foot single family dwelling including an attached garage. The applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement per Section 179-4-090. Additionally, the applicant seeks 3 feet of relief from the minimum 15 foot sideline setback requirement of the WR- 1A zone. Whether the benefit could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. I think the applicant has shown that because of the narrowness of the lot that the relief of 3 feet is needed. Will there be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties? I think there’ll be minimum adverse effects. In fact, the fact that the new property will be 20 feet further from the lake than the existing building is a plus. Whether the request is substantial. The 40 foot relief from the 40 foot road frontage is really sort of grandfathered in. The three feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum setback requirement is 20%, and that’s minimal. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects, I don’t believe so. As I say, the new building will be further from the lake. The conditions are: The proposed home is located 20 feet further from the lake than the existing home, and this proposal also calls for the removal of a 939 square foot freestanding garage on the property and the installation of a new septic system for the home. Additionally, stormwater control devices are planned to be installed as part of the project, and trees removed only within 10 feet of footprint of the new house and to replace those that are removed. th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: MR. URRICO-How do we define few trees? MR. ABBATE-Well, would you like to clear that up, Mrs. Hunt? MRS. HUNT-Define what? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that the request was that the trees not be removed on the foreshore area. MRS. HUNT-Remove as few trees. MR. UNDERWOOD-And only within 10 feet of the footprint of the house. MRS. HUNT-All right. Trees removed only within 10 feet of the footprint of the new house. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Clements MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 40-2007 is six yes, one no. Area Variance No. 40-2007 is approved. Thank you very much. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Excuse me. Is it possible I can just? I need to leave the meeting here. Rolf Ahlers and Luise Ahlers, Area Variance No. 43-2007, the last one on the agenda, can I just read into the meeting minutes real briefly that I do not have any issues or against their Area Variance? MR. ABBATE-Is that a question? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. MR. ABBATE-You’ve already made the statement. So it’s on the record. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, it’s on the record. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. Thanks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II SHERWOOD ACRES AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S): SHERWOOD ACRES CONSTRUCTION CORP. ZONING: RR-3A AND WR-3A LOCATION: HALL ROAD AND TEE HILL ROAD INTERSECTION APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF 12.74 ACRES INTO 4 LOTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE AND MAXIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 12.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-59.1 & 30 SECTION: 179-4-30; 179-4-090(A) MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s our understanding that they’re going to modify the request, and I think that they’re going to be removing that request for the minimum road frontage requirements, I believe on all four of the lots. MR. ABBATE-That’s correct. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2007, Sherwood Acres, Meeting Date: June 27, 2007 “Project Location: Hall Road and Tee Hill Road intersection Description of Proposed Project: The Applicant has proposes subdivision of 12.74 acres into 4 lots. Relief Required: - Applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the minimum 40 foot road frontage requirement of §179-4-090. Additionally, the applicant seeks 1.97 acres of relief from the 12 acre minimum needed to create 4 lots in a 3 acre minimum lot size district. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be to create lots for sale and development. 2. Feasible alternatives: Fewer, larger lots appear to be a feasible alternative. Lots A, B, and D all have the required frontage on a public street and offer access to the lots within such frontage. While lot C has frontage on a public street, access is not planned within that frontage. Consideration may be given to combining lots C and D thus requiring no variances at all. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance: 1.97 acres of relief against the 12 acre minimum requirement (16%) may be interpreted as minimal to moderate when viewed against the Town Zoning requirements. While the 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot requirement may seem substantial, the lot does have frontage, but no access within that frontage. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Has the applicant secured an access agreement to the property across the lands needed to get to the proposed house site as planned? 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty in this proposal could be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None of record 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) Staff comments: While a “frontage” variance was granted to the property owners to the north of this proposal, the applicant had secured an access easement/agreement from the affected property owners ( family member ). Has the applicant secured permission from the affected property owners in this case? ( Town of Queensbury Town Board, Highway Department ) As noted in NYS Town Law, Section 277, paragraph 6, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall seek a recommendation from the Planning Board for subdivisions requiring variances. Application for area variance. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, where a plat contains one or more lots which do not comply with the zoning regulations, application may be made to the zoning board of appeals for an area variance pursuant to section two hundred sixty-seven-b of this article, without the necessity of a decision or determination of an administrative official charged with the enforcement of the zoning regulations. In reviewing such application the zoning board of appeals shall request the planning board to provide a written recommendation concerning the proposed variance. The entire Chapter 277 is attached for your reference. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see Counsel and his client are before us. Would you be kind enough to tell us who you are, please, and your relationship to this appeal. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant, Sherwood Acres Construction Corporation. With me at the table is Tom Hutchins, who is the engineer for the project, and in the audience is Raymond Lordy who is one of the principal employees of the applicant. Daniel Barber is the owner of Sherwood Acres Construction Corporation. He is not with us because he had an operation scheduled for today for carpal tunnel and is just not available. I’d like to begin, if I can, with confirming the fact that Mr. Underwood indicated that there is no proposed access off of Reardon Road or the extension of Reardon Road for this project. Over the last couple of days, it has become apparent that that is a very controversial issue and maybe not a practical issue. When we first proposed these four lots, we did not propose that. The Planning Board suggested that we look at it because the driveway for Lot C would then be much shorter than the driveway that we will be required to construct, but what I have found out is that Reardon Road at that very end where we were hoping to connect, isn’t built where it was deeded. There are at least two, if not three, ownerships that would be between us and them, and there’s also some grade issues that I’m not sure whether we would resolve them successfully or not. There are some people here who are from Reardon Road who I know have concern with putting anymore traffic on Reardon Road because it’s a narrow road, and as I can understand it, the practical thing here is to go back and design it to come off of Hall Road. I asked Mr. Hutchins whether or not we would be able to comply with the grade requirements for the driveway for that lot if we did that, and he has assured me that we can. So we won’t be needing a variance in that nature. So, basically, I wrote a letter today, which I believe we faxed to the Town, and I’ll read for the record, that was addressed to Mr. Abbate, the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. It was sent through fax and regular mail. So you’ll get a hard copy. RE: Sherwood Acres Construction Corp. Area Variance No. 41-2007, “Dear Mr. Abbate: Due to the controversy that has arisen with regard to that portion of the application by the above applicant for access for Lot C up onto Reardon Road the applicant wishes to withdraw that portion of its pending Variance Application. We would ask that you consider the application as an application for a variance for density only and the applicant will make a compliant driveway from Hall Road to service all of the lots in question. Thanking you in advance. Yours Very Truly, LITTLE & O’CONNOR By: Michael J. O’Connor” MR. ABBATE-We don’t have a copy of that. Do we, Craig? We don’t have it in our file here. MR. BROWN-I do not know. I left at 3:30 today. If it came in, Sue would have. MR. ABBATE-Okay. It was forwarded, Mr. O’Connor, today? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. O'CONNOR-It was forwarded today, before I left. I left my office probably at 12:30. I had signed it and it was forwarded before then. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, it’s in the record that you’ve done it. It’s addressed to me as Chairman? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Yes, it is. MR. ABBATE-To Town Hall. MR. O’CONNOR-I’ll give you an original of it right now. MR. ABBATE-Would you, please. I appreciate it. That way there we can put it into the record. MR. O'CONNOR-The other question or thing I would like to clear up before we actually even start talking about the substance of the variance of density that we’re asking for, is that this property is located a half mile west of the intersection of Tee Hill Road and Hall Road. My application material says a half mile west of Hall Road and Tee Hill Road intersection. Somehow or other that beginning description got lost, the half mile west, and people that are familiar with the intersection of Tee Hill Road and Hall Road have said where is 12 acres of vacant land and how are they going to develop it with houses that are already there? So, if you’re looking at the map here, this is Tee Hill Road. You come in Hall Road. You come in about a half mile, and our site is right here. It’s on both sides of the road. Just for orientation purposes, this is Glen Lake over here. So I know Margery Stewart was here earlier, and she just bought a property in Sherwood Acres, which is an entrance off of here, and was trying to figure out what was going on, and when I showed her the map she said, fine, she had no question, and went. Basically, each of the lots that we propose will be three acres. In fact, they will all be, I think, in excess of three acres. One will be 3.11, Lot D. Lot C will be 3.04. Lot B will be 3.17, and Lot A will be 3.01. Why we’re here is because a portion of those lots has sloping greater than 25%. So for your density calculation we’re told that we need to exclude that. So even though we begin with 12.74 acres, and we’re trying to get four, three acre lots, because of the sloping on some of those lots, we have to discount it and we actually end up with 10.03. So that’s why we’re looking for the relief of 1.97, which Staff I think has said could be considered minimum or not substantial. Basically, we don’t think that we’re going to have any effect upon the neighborhood or the community if you approve the variance that we’ve requested. People driving by on Hall Road aren’t going to be able to tell the difference whether we have three acres of developable land or whether we have 2.39 acres. They’re still going to be looking at a three acre parcel. There’s going to be the same separation, the same open space. There will be no difference or no impact. I had Tom come specifically so that he can address the fact that there are very sufficient areas on each of these lots to develop those lots in the normal manner without utilizing the sloped areas or the grossly sloped areas for the house, the driveway and the septic. So, Tom, do you want to. MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. Good evening. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. I have, at various points in time over the past couple of years, walked all of these lots. I’ve done preliminary site evaluations for single family residences on each lot with driveway, with septic systems. I’m done test holes, perc tests on each lot. There are areas that will certainly support single family residential construction, and a conventional septic system on all the lots. There are no groundwater issues. There are no rock issues. There are no wetland issues that these are very developable, these are very buildable lots, and with that. The one driveway on Lot C is, it’s going to be tough. We’re going to be able to get there. It’ll be less than 10% driveway, but it’s going to be a long rather steep driveway, but it’ll be less than 10%, and as far as the other ones, they’re all, Lot B will have a slight slope through it at maybe five percent. The other two are level. MR. O'CONNOR-And just watching what Tom is looking at, and maybe, I’m not sure if we submitted one page or two pages with the application, the large map. We have been to the Planning Board for a Sketch Plan approval, and I believe this is the map that we went to the Planning Board with, and it actually has on there site soils data, the test pits and the percolation test, all which were done by Tom as the engineer in the sites where we’re, in the areas where we’re going to do the septics, and where we’re going to construct the houses. Looking at the other comments, I think Mr. Underwood indicated that we did not obtain an access agreement because we eliminated the issue of the 40 foot frontage on Reardon Road. I’m not sure about the comment about the Town law saying that we need to seek a recommendation from the Planning Board for subdivisions requiring variances. We did go to the Planning Board. The Town has a record of that 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) meeting. I notice that one of the Planning Board members is here, and their comments to us was to come to you and get the Area Variances and then go back to them for Preliminary approval. Nobody got greatly excited about the fact that we were looking for four lots. Their comment had more to do with the driveway and why don’t we come out Reardon Road with a shorter driveway than what we initially had thought of. They did tell us, and we are prepared to, when we do the Preliminary, they wanted to see the clearing limits on each of the lots. They wanted to see stormwater plans, and they wanted to see grading plans, and we are prepared to show those. That’s part of this typical subdivision approval process. So I think it would be duplicate to go back to the Planning Board at this point, if that’s what this recommendation is, as we’ve already been there. MR. ABBATE-Counsel, let me ask you a question. You indicate you’ve been to the Planning Board. You were on an official agenda with the Planning Board? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we were, for site plan approval, or not site plan approval. We were on there for concept submissions, Sketch Plan. MR. ABBATE-So you presented your argument to the Planning Board on an official agenda? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-April 17, 2007. th MR. ABBATE-April 17, and they raised no additional questions? MR. O'CONNOR-My recollection is they told us what we would need to do to bring this to the next step for Preliminary approval, and they were show clearing limits, do a stormwater report, and show how we were going to handle the stormwater, and also do a grading plan. MR. HUTCHINS-And they encouraged us to explore the Reardon Road approach, which we did, and we found it. MR. ABBATE-Excuse me. My question, I got a little confused here, because my question is this. If New York State Town law Section 277 Paragraph Six indicates that we should seek a recommendation from the Planning Board and you have already appeared before the Planning Board on an official agenda, they should have submitted a recommendation to us, instead of now coming before us and then having. MR. O'CONNOR-We can submit, we have a copy of the minutes, and we can submit those to you. MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll leave it up to the Board members. Okay. Go ahead, continue. MR. O'CONNOR-I mean, we can get another copy of the minutes and we can submit this copy to you for your file, and it will verify what I’ve just said to you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The other comment that I had, or would make, is that Caroline Mann Barber was here during your first application, but had another commitment and had to leave. I think maybe some of you know her, saw her in the back, and asked that I be sure that a letter from her and her husband be read into the record of support. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s in there. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. They own the property that is immediately to the east of Lot B, and we have indicated to them that we would give them .41 acres of land so that they have a better setback on their driveway. We could minimize a little bit the variance that we’re requiring for Lot B if we didn’t give that parcel to them, but if you take a look at the map, it’s our position that it represents good planning. When they built their house, they built the driveway right over next to the land or next to the line. In fact, it looks like they built the garage, I haven’t got a scale here, but it’s very close in the back. So I think Caroline is married to the nephew of Daniel Barber, and he wants to accommodate them and not include that in this. That’s basically what we think that we have. If you have questions, I’d be glad to try to answer them. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. If you’ve temporarily concluded. Yes, please, Mrs. Hunt. MRS. HUNT-Now, Lot C is not going to go to Reardon Road. Where will that, how will that driveway go? MR. HUTCHINS-This being Lot C, we have the house site in this area. The driveway will come across the slope from Hall Road. MR. URRICO-Any idea the size and type of residences you plan for these lots? MR. O'CONNOR-The design, or the septic system that’s being looked at, is four bedroom. I would say probably in line with the houses that were built in Sherwood Acres. Danny Barber developed Sherwood Acres which is across the street. He currently is building in Loxley Knolls, which is on the back side of Sherwood Acres and you come off of Bay Road, just past Tee Hill Road. Not real large, large houses, but I guess that’s all in your perspective as to what is a large, large house, but in my view of houses that I’ve seen, they’re not real large houses. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions, please, from Board members? All right. I see no other questions from Board members. I’m going to continue on here. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 41-2007 and ask that those in the public wishing to be heard, if you’d be kind enough to raise your hands, I’ll recognize you and ask you to come to the table. Do we have anyone in the public who’d like to address 41-2007? Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SILVESTRI MR. SILVESTRI-Mr. Chairman, my name is John Silvestri. I’m an attorney in Chestertown, New York. I represent John, Ed, and Britta Schadwell. I had previously th submitted to you, Mr. Chairman, for dissemination to the Board, my letter of June 15. I believe you have that. I just wanted to make it clear that in view of the withdrawal of access to Reardon Road as a part of this project, that my clients do not have any other opposition to this project. MR. ABBATE-That’s for the record. Okay. Thank you very much, Counselor. MR. SILVESTRI-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have anyone else? Yes, sir. Would you be kind enough to come to the table, speak into the microphone, and tell us who you are, please. PETE ROZELL MR. ROZELL-Yes. My name is Pete Rozell, 47 Reardon Road, Queensbury. I, myself, have no problem now with Mike doing his, or excuse me, with Danny doing his project. We were really concerned about the Reardon Road issue because I know right in front of my house, it’s 12 feet wide. That’s the blacktop. I just measured it. We just can’t get anymore traffic up and down that road. So that’s all I have to say. I just want it on the record that I’m opposed to the Reardon Road thing. I’m not opposed to Danny’s project. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, sir. MR. ROZELL-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Do we have anyone else in the public who’d like to address 41-2007? I see no other hands raised. MR. UNDERWOOD-We do have some letters. MR. ABBATE-Yes. We have some letters. Mr. Secretary, would you be kind enough to read them into the record, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-This letter was addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and th received on June 27. “This letter will confirm that we are in support of the proposed subdivision by Sherwood Acres Construction Company on Hall Road in the Town of Queensbury. Sherwood Acres Construction Corporation has 30 plus years of experience and the developer’s previous construction record has proven to be an asset 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) to this community. We feel that this subdivision would enhance the value of our home and neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Charles R. Barber Caroline H. Barber 51 Hall Road Queensbury, NY 12804” That was the one that they wanted read in. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-We do have a couple of other ones here, and I think that these ones, I think, were from some of those owners over on Reardon Road there that were concerned about that, and maybe these letters are not appropriate, but I’ll read them in anyway. One was received this evening. It was hand delivered. RE: The Area Variance “Because the inaccurately listed location does not depict where this subdivision has been planned, postponing discussion until after an accurate listing has been distributed to adjacent property owners seems most reasonable.” And that’s from Steven Johnson. He’s a property owner at Hall Road in Queensbury. And the other one, it says “I wish to express concerns over this subdivision if it has the potential, now or in the future, to allow a road or outlet of any kind to join with or enter into, Reardon Road. Thank you. Patricia Pietropaolo 60 Reardon Road”, and that’s it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. By the way, I was just handed a document by Counsel, Queensbury Planning Board, April 17, 2007, at which this particular case was, indeed, presented to them. I’m going to ask members, now, to offer their comments, and again, I’m going to inform the public that the comments offered by the members are directed to the Chairman, and comments expressed by the Board members to the Chairman will not be open to debate. I’ve already respectfully reminded the members of the Board about precedence mandating and concerning ourselves with the evidence and so on. I don’t believe I have to repeat it again. Having said that, do we have any members of the Board who would like to address 41-2007? Let’s go to Chuck first. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I guess two or three points that strike me. One, the question of written recommendation from the Planning Board. Assuming the information that we’ve been given by Staff is correct, and there’s no reason to assume that it’s not correct, it pretty explicitly says written recommendation. I’m not sure that minutes meet that measure. Presumably the Planning Board would react the same way their minutes indicate, but I think the Planning Board should be given the opportunity to know that they are giving a recommendation to us. That strikes me that it doesn’t necessarily mean we need to send the applicants back to appear before the Planning Board, or if they want to just appear quickly in case something funny comes up, but I would think this would be something that the Planning Board could react to at their next meeting without goofing up their agenda, and give us a quick letter back, so that we’ve met the letter of the law, which also then protects the applicant from some irate person that hasn’t been here tonight challenging the decision later. So that would be my recommendation there, that we not make a decision tonight, but refer it back. Going on to the rest of the issue, in another location, I think I would oppose this, because there’s a reason for the slopes being taken out of the calculation, and it’s because the general evaluation is when you’re building a house there’s a certain amount of disturbance to the property, and that’s factored in against the buildable land, if you will, and that’s why the slopes are taken out, but in this particular case, in this particular area, I don’t think this is going to be a problem. That the slopes are there. They’re going to be a part of the lot. There won’t be extra houses crammed in anywhere on this development. The one house that exists in the area, which is the one that belongs to Caroline Barber, seems to set in the same general kind of landscaping, whatever is being proposed. So I think it would fit. So when this comes back to us, unless something else comes up, I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I think you were next, Rick, please. MR. GARRAND-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Barring anything the Town Board might bring upon us with regard to this, I think the applicant’s come here, and they’ve asked for less relief than they originally applied for. They’ve paid particular attention to what the most affected parties in the area want, and at this point I’d be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Brian, please. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. Just as kind of a note here, I attended a Lake George watershed conference over the last couple of days, and they were talking about cluster building, and as I look at this plan right here, and as I went out there and I looked at the slopes and things like that, it doesn’t look like that would be something that could be done there. I think it’s a good plan. I think you’ve addressed the concerns of the neighbors, and I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m glad you removed the 40 foot frontage from the equation because I probably would have been against it with the Reardon Road access, but as it stands now, I would be more concerned if we started with 2.5 usable land and ended up somewhere lower, but the fact that you’ve started with three acres, and in effect it is three acres and we’re talking about open space and preserving open space, the net result is the same here. We have some space between the houses. The natural vegetation and slope of the lands are maintained, and I think I would be in favor of that, but I also want to reiterate what Chuck said about it seems pretty clear that we’ve been asked to ask the Planning Board for a written recommendation, so when it comes back to us, I would probably be in favor of it as well. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I think the 1.97 acres of relief against the 12 acre minimum requirement, 16% might be interpreted as minimal to moderate, and so I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think if we were further down the road there, and we were up like on Nolan Camp Road, when you get up on top of the ridge in the background there, I think that’s what the Code book is essentially addressing, that you don’t want to get up on those steep slopes where you’re dropping off down to Kingdom come from the top of a very narrow ridge up on top of the hill there, and I think in this instance here all these houses have been proposed in pretty reasonable areas. They’re not anywhere near those steep slopes. There’s not going to be any cutting of those steep slopes with road access driveways or anything like that either. My only other question would be for, you’ve got the sawmill and the old building back there where the tractors used to hide out, and I wonder what’s going to become of those? Are those buildings coming down? Those are on Lot A there. Those are going to be gone? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I’m told in my right ear, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. Well, in general then I don’t have a problem with it. I think it’s more of a technical nature here, and I’m glad to see the 40 foot request is long gone. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I think the request basically particularly since you’ve made your modifications, are reasonable, and I understand that because of the degree of slopes and what have you, you are restricted, even though each of those are, as Roy said, three acres are, in fact, three acres. I think your request is planned out quite well. Now, there is a concern. We certainly have, it would appear that the majority of the Board members favor your recommendation, but I have a concern, a legal concern, in terms of a written recommendation from the Chairman, from the Planning Board. Now, I do have what I believe may be a resolution. We could do one thing. I have two alternates. We could do one thing. We could vote this evening. There is a majority who are willing to favorably endorse this, and I can, first thing tomorrow morning, send a letter immediately from the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals to the Chairman of the Planning Board requesting a recommendation as soon as possible. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just interject. They’re going to have to go back for Site Plan Review anyway. So I mean at that point it’s going to be reviewed and if they thought it was something that was going to throw it out, they would, but they would have told them that prior to this, if that were the case. MR. O'CONNOR-We have to go before the Planning Board for Preliminary approval and Final approval. I’ve never, and I apologize. I’ve never run into this section before. We’ve done this for a number of subdivisions that we’ve come for Area Variances for lots or parcels where we were subdividing, and I’ve never, you know, some place or other you keep going around the same barn, you wonder how many times you’re going to go 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) around the barn. I have due respect for the technical part of it and the fact that it would protect us as much as protect the Board or the Town’s decision. I would ask, perhaps, that you make a conditional decision, and I think, but I’ll tell you this, it really gets into an academic exercise, because what they’re, say they recommend no, okay. This Board is in charge of making the variance. The only thing that does is change the majority required. Instead of a simple majority, you would then need a supermajority. I suppose if they came up with some real. MR. ABBATE-No, that’s not correct, Mike. They can’t overrule us. MR. O'CONNOR-No, no, no. They change your vote requirement. If this is a matter that you have to refer to the Planning Board, the Planning Board recommends against approval, that changes you from a simple majority to a supermajority. MR. ABBATE-No, I disagree. MR. BROWN-I think that’s just if it’s the County Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-No, that’s not correct. MR. O'CONNOR-We used to refer everything to the Town Planning Board, every variance. MR. ABBATE-Let me say this for the record, we do not need a supermajority. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. ABBATE-And the only thing is if this Board, I’ll do a motion tonight. I’ll have someone do a motion tonight. If this Board approves this, regardless of what the Planning Board says, they can say absolutely not, that doesn’t change our position, and it does not come back to us for another vote, absolutely not. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I also know that if you are required to refer something to the County Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-That’s a different story. Then we need a supermajority. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. You can’t make your decision before you make that referral. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-But when you’re going to the Town Planning Board, I think you can make a conditional approval. MR. ABBATE-Say that one more time. MR. O'CONNOR-If you were required to send something to the County Planning Board, you can’t make a conditional approval, and that’s black and white letter law. Okay. But if you’re required to go to the Town Planning Board, I believe you can make a conditioned approval. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. O'CONNOR-And that’s part of this distinction between, that’s part of the distinction of the County Planning Board and the Town Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-Yes, right. There’s two different, with the County Planning Board, you’re absolutely correct. A supermajority is definitely required to overturn, no question about that at all. So I can do this. I can request, we have a total of four votes, five votes yes and two wanting to wait. I can request a motion and request that the motion include a condition of Planning Board approval, and I can, if you wish, as part of the condition, send out a letter from the Chairman of the Zoning Board to the Chairman of the Planning Board tomorrow, requesting a recommendation in writing ASAP, if the Board members wish to do this. So let me just go on with the procedures here, and I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 41-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. ABBATE-And I’ve already reminded the members about the balancing test and I already reminded the members about we only have to have one or more of the five factors. I’m going to request a motion for Area Variance No. 41-2007, and with that I’m going to respectfully request that you take into consideration my recommendation of a conditional approval pending a written response from the Planning Board, and also based upon the fact that I will have the obligation to forward a letter, tomorrow morning, from the Chairman of the ZBA to the Chairman of the Planning Board. Is there a motion from any member of the Board? MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2007 SHERWOOD ACRES, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Hall Road and Tee Hill Road intersection. Based on a recommendation from the Planning Board in writing, I’d make a motion to approve Area Variance No. 41-2007. The applicant has proposed the subdivision of 12.74 acres into four lots. The applicant seeks 1.97 acres of relief from the 12 acre minimum needed to create four lots in a three acre minimum lot size district. With the balancing test, can the benefits be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? In this case, I don’t believe they can. I believe that by granting these variances this is in the best interest of the client and the Town. Will this provide an undesirable change in the neighborhood or to nearby properties? No, it will not. It will not produce any undesirable change. Is the request substantial? I believe the request could be interpreted as minimal. We’re only asking for 1.97 acres and in that those are just undevelopable areas. They actually do have the area. This is just undevelopable space. Will the request have adverse physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood? At this point I cannot detect any adverse environmental impacts that this will have on the neighborhood, and this application may be interpreted as self-created. So I make a motion we approve Area Variance No. 41-2007. th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to add on those removal of those structures on that one lot, too, on Lot A? MR. GARRAND-That they have to remove them? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I address that? Prior to the utilization of that lot, I mean, there’s no need to remove them simply to get the paper approval. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, just at some future date. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and I honestly don’t know whether or not they could be incorporated in some sense. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t know either, in the sense it’s a three acre lot. So you could have a bigger barn or something out there. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. So I would be reluctant to volunteer to that condition. I know the intention is to take them down, but if there’s another option, if somebody else comes along and says they don’t want it down, and they could use it as part of the house and structure, why make them. MR. ABBATE-Okay. He’s going to withdraw that condition. Okay. MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with the motion specifically mentioning approval by the Planning Board, because it makes it sound to me as if our motion hinges on what they say, and that’s not what the request is. MR. ABBATE-You are absolutely correct, Mr. Urrico. I’m wrong. They can’t approve it. What I should have re-stated is this. We are requesting a recommendation. MR. GARRAND-That’s what I said. I said based on a positive recommendation. MR. ABBATE-You didn’t mention approval, did you? Right. MR. URRICO-Well, a positive recommendation, isn’t that approval? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. ABBATE-Why don’t you just say recommendation. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Based upon a recommendation from the Planning Board in writing. MR. ABBATE-Right. Okay. Fair enough? Mr. Urrico, are you happy with that? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is there a second? MRS. HUNT-Second. AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. McNulty MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 41-2007 is six yes, one no, with conditions. Area Variance No. 41-2007 is approved. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I first would say thank you. The other thing I would request is can I get some type of notice as to when the Planning Board is going to be considering this? Because there’s not an application that goes to them. MR. ABBATE-Well, what I’m going to do tomorrow, I’m going to come down at eight o’clock rather than ten, okay, Craig, and I will immediately have a letter sent out to the Chairman of the Planning Board, and I’ll sign it, requesting a recommendation, ASAP, at the next hearing. MR. BROWN-Will the revised plan with the new driveway on Lot C be part of that referral? MR. ABBATE-With the revised plan. MR. BROWN-I mean, that’s a question. MR. ABBATE-Yes. That’s a good question, Craig. MR. BROWN-Because you guys haven’t even seen the revised driveway on Lot C and what if the recommendation comes back as a no. MR. ABBATE-That’s a good question. My letter will include with the revised plan. Good point. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-How many copies do you want in the morning? MR. HUTCHINS-That’s the one that’s been submitted to the Planning Board. It’s in their record. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s already in their record? They already have that one. MR. ABBATE-They have? Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s what we initially submitted. We amended it when we came to you, based upon the Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you very much. MR. O'CONNOR-So they have it. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2007 SEQRA TYPE II MORGAN VITTENGL OWNER(S): MORGAN VITTENGL ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 155 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 168 SQ. FT. CONNECTION (ADDITION) BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: BP 97-247 GARAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-48 SECTION: 179-4-030 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MORGAN & MARY VITTENGL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2007, Morgan Vittengl, Meeting Date: June 27, 2007 “Project Location: 155 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: The Applicant has constructed a 168 sf connector addition between the existing home and garage on the subject property. Relief Required: - Applicant requests 6.46 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone. Additionally, the applicant seeks 183 sf of Floor Area Ratio relief. The addition creates a 23.42% FAR condition on the property. Further, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a non conforming structure as the existing home violates the current minimum setback requirements. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be able to maintain the constructed addition and have an enclosed passage way between house and garage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Construction of an addition that meets the setbacks, appears possible. Such addition may be smaller or require relocation of the septic tank, but possible. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance: 6.46 feet of relief against the 15 foot minimum requirement (43%) may be interpreted as moderate to substantial when viewed against the Town Zoning requirements. A 23.42% FAR versus the 22% requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: No letters of support or opposition were submitted with the application. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty in this proposal could be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Previously, the applicant had constructed a smaller enclosed porch area at the garage door area between the garage and home. This work was performed without a building permit and without an area variance. We informed the applicant of the need for both approvals and ultimately the applicant removed the enclosure. AV 5-1996 Setback relief for Single Family Dwelling and garage approved 6/19/96 AV 9-1998 Additional setback relief after AV 5-1995 approved 4/22/98 Staff comments: The addition does not encroach any further into the property line setback area than the previously approved house and garage, which were granted an Area Variance and an additional Area Variance after construction. Has the area above the garage been finished as living space that might further affect the FAR calculation? Are there plans to do so? If so, what assurances can be provided that proper approvals will be sought prior to performing the work? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and I see the petitioner is there. Would you be kind enough to tell us what your names are and where you reside, please. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) DR. VITTENGL-Good evening. My name is Morgan Vittengl. MRS. VITTENGL-Mary Vittengl, 155 Birdsall Road. MR. ABBATE-Okay. You understand our procedures this evening. I believe you’ve been before the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1996, 1998 and a couple of other times. So, do you have any questions on our procedures? DR. VITTENGL-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then would you proceed, please. DR. VITTENGL-I’d like to give a brief overview, if I could, just giving you an outline of how we progressed with the property there. We purchased the property in 1995, and it was a sequence of building on that site. The initial construction was in 1996. We built the main house. The garage and main house were always approved as a detached garage. About four years ago, we built a garage, added that to the property. The original house had an overhang, a little porch that went towards the garage but never connected. As we spent more and more time up there, it originally was a summer camp and our youngest daughter just graduated high school. We’re thinking of living there full time. Over the past couple of years, we thought of a way to make it a better area there for us to live in, as far as moving to and from, and decided to make the connection. I’d like to just address maybe each of these statements that were made by the Town if possible. Regarding Number Two, feasible alternatives to this option, obviously this lot is very small, it’s very limited. Fifty foot wide from end to end. The septic tank sits on the side opposite to the west side with our neighbors, and coming out of the main house, there’s a direct line to the garage, which each door lines up with and that’s why this addition was placed where it was directly through. Regarding is this substantial relief in regard to the Ordinance. Again, the side line setback appears to be less than the original variance that was approved. With a 50 foot wide lot there’s always obviously side line issues when it’s that narrow. The impact on the neighbors is quite minimal. The house to our west is the nearest to us and I have letters actually from both neighbors both sides of us, and the house to the east sits way down by the lake, and the back side of the addition actually sits against a large hill, probably 20, 25 feet tall, on the back side of the house. Regarding the FAR numbers show an increase of one and a half percent. The original house and garage were built prior to the regulations. So in relation to the new structures amount, it’s about a half percent increase on those. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I have letters from both neighbors directly on either side. Mr. Frejborg is to our west, and to summarize his letter, his last statement, the new breezeway addition is another example of the Vittengl’s planning and a logical architectural solution that will further enhance the already positive image of the property. This attractive addition has also a positive impact on our view towards the east direction. Regarding our neighbors to the east, the Papuzza’s, “We are neighbors to Morgan and Mary Vittengl on Glen Lake. We have no concerns with the addition of a breezeway between their house and their garage. We feel it is a nice addition and will improve the looks and value of their property.” Regarding parcel history, the previous, the way this was stated is that, as I stated earlier, the house was built first with a little overhang. The garage was built probably about four years ago. When we did that, there was a footprint of stairs outside of the garage with a landing from where it goes up to the garage, coming across, when you enter to the, in the garage and go upstairs. Then you had to come downstairs to go between the house and the garage, and there was a landing there as well. There was a small overhang, when that was being constructed. When the building inspector came out to look at that, he mentioned that wasn’t on the plans. It had to come off. We took it off, and actually as he was leaving, he said it’s unfortunate because you can get, you can build a 120 square foot overhang without a permit, and unfortunately that was my loose interpretation of making the connector completion the way that I had done it since then. As far as over the garage goes, it’s unfinished space at present, and obviously we’re aware of what needs to be done if we decide to improve that space in regards to needing a zoning variance, etc. MR. ABBATE-I want to clear a couple of things up, for my benefit, if I may. Is it Dr. or Mr.? DR. VITTENGL-Doctor. MR. ABBATE-Is it doctor, and how do you pronounce your last name? DR. VITTENGL-Vittengl. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. ABBATE-Vittengl. Thank you very much. The Zoning Administrator has sent you a letter dated January 25, 2007, and he basically said “A review of our records to show that no building permit has been issued for this construction. As such, this letter will serve as a formal STOP WORK ORDER for the construction. No further work may be performed until you have obtained all necessary approvals and permits for the project. I also note th here that the letter was dated the 25 of January 2007, yet it was over 90 days when you set up a pre-conference hearing with the Zoning Administrator on April 26, 2007, and reading through 77 pages of history of that particular parcel, I have a number of concerns. I notice that on March 18, 1998 Mr. Round indicated, “The current application is the structure has been built and requires additional relief above and beyond what was previously granted.” In that, on Page 49, you acknowledge the fact that you were acting as general contractor and it was your mistake. So that was error number one. Now you started to build this addition without a permit. DR. VITTENGL-Yes. MR. ABBATE-You did. All right. Mr. Zoning Administrator, to make sure that everything’s clear on the record, and I’m not confused, can you give me about a thirty second dissertation as to the history of this property, if you can. MR. BROWN-Well, I think I summed up everything that I can tell in the Staff Notes, and with the addition of the minutes from the previous Zoning Board meetings. I wasn’t involved with the previous variances. I don’t know the details, other than what I can read, but it appears as though a variance was granted for the house and garage construction. A subsequent variance within, I think, a couple of years, to fine tune either an enlargement during construction or a location, some additional setback relief, and then the, I guess the request that you have now. That’s what I know about the property. I don’t know, if you have a specific question, I can try and answer it, but. MR. ABBATE-That was just, I wanted to make sure I didn’t miss anything. Okay. Having said that, do we have any members of the Board who’d like to ask any questions, please? MR. URRICO-The additional setback relief in 1998, what was that for? DR. VITTENGL-I was unaware there was additional setback in ’98. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what happened was, as I recall, because I live over on the lake there. I think that when they laid out the house it was supposed to be so far from the line, and when they put the foundation in, it somehow got shifted over, a couple of feet over closer to the side to the east side there, I believe. DR. VITTENGL-Correct, the foundation was shifted. MR. UNDERWOOD-So then they had to come back for more relief after the fact, I think when they did the as built, after it was all completed, that’s when you had to come back. DR. VITTENGL-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Right. To answer your question more specifically, Roy, in March 18, 1998, on Page 49, the appellant responded as follows. I miss you guys. I guess I’m at the end of the line. So the construction error, and I acted as general contractor, I think as you or a few of you recall the property was narrow to begin with and in order to appease a neighbor on the west side to the left, as you’re looking at the lake, we pushed everything to the opposite side to the east, and put some shrubs in there, and unfortunately during excavation, or when the foundation was set up it wasn’t exactly where it should have been, unquote. Anybody else have any questions? MR. CLEMENTS-Can I follow up with that? MR. ABBATE-By all means. MR. CLEMENTS-Is that the same footprint of the house, it was just moved over to one side, or was the house? DR. VITTENGL-Correct. Nothing was changed. It was shifted. MR. CLEMENTS-It wasn’t expanded at all. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) DR. VITTENGL-No, no. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions or comments from any of the Board members? None? Okay. MR. CLEMENTS-I just had a question for Staff. MR. ABBATE-Sure. MR. CLEMENTS-You had made a comment about being able to construct something under a certain square footage? DR. VITTENGL-Correct. MR. CLEMENTS-Could you say that again, and I’d like Craig to comment to that. DR. VITTENGL-Again, when the inspector was there, with the original overhang, when I was getting a CO for the garage, he had just mentioned that you don’t need a permit for an overhang under 120 square feet. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. I mean, there’s a certain threshold in the Building Department, what do you issue building permits for, regardless of size, everything still has to meet the setback requirements, though. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. I just wanted that cleared up for myself. That’s all. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and for the record, this is an expansion of a nonconforming structure, as I not correct? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Staff. Has anybody from Building and Codes been upstairs in the garage to see what’s up there lately? MR. BROWN-Not to my knowledge. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does that have access with stairs going through? DR. VITTENGL-It does. This would cover that, which would make it obviously a safer passage in it, and then previously they were halfway outside and then would go upstairs from the outside, between the buildings. MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other questions from Board members? None? All right, then I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 40-2007. Do we have anybody in the audience who would like to address this? Would you raise your hand, please? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised. Okay. That’s fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s two letters. MR. ABBATE-All right. Would you be kind enough to read them into the record, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-The two letters, he kind of alluded to them in his explanation there, but I will read them in . “We, Anita and Frey Frejborg, live since 1996 at 153 Birdsall Rd. and the Vittengl’s property faces our property line on the east side. If not mistaken, it appears to us that the Town of Queensbury has raised some concern regarding a recent breezeway addition, which connects Vittengl’s house with the garage. In spite of not knowing any details behind this pending concern on the Town’s behalf, we would like to take this opportunity to share with you our viewpoint in regard to this new addition. On a positive note for the Vittengl’s, let us first briefly revisit the Vittengl’s initial house construction and some concerns we had back then in 1996 about the narrow nature of 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) the lot, and the potential for an adverse impact on the neighboring properties. Well, Anita and I are today pleased and impressed with the planning, architectural and beautification undertakings done by the Vittengl’s to the former “rugged” lot. Our earlier concerns proved to be unfounded and we are delighted the way everything turned out. The new breezeway addition is an other example of the Vittengl’s tasteful planning and a logical architectural solution that will further enhance the already positive image of the property. This attractive addition has also a positive impact on our view toward the east direction. Thank you for taking the time to consider our views in this matter. Sincerely, Frey and Anita Frejborg 153 Birdsall Road Queensbury, NY 12804” And the other one, “To Whom It May Concern: We are the neighbors to Morgan and Mary Vittengl on Glen Lake. We have no concerns with the addition of a breezeway between their house and their garage. We feel it is a nice addition and will improve the looks and value of their property. Based on the workmanship of the garage recently constructed, we have no doubts that the breezeway will be built with the same quality. If you have any questions for us, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Joe and Patti Papuzza”, at 175 Mannis Road. That’s it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. No other questions from Board members? Okay. Then I’m going to continue on here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I just ask Craig a question? MR. ABBATE-By all means, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-If they wanted any kind of a shed on that property, how big could the shed be? MR. BROWN-An accessory structure? MR. UNDERWOOD-How many square feet, like a detached shed or something? MR. BROWN-Up to 500 square feet, for a storage shed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. BROWN-As long as there’s not an existing one on the property right now. DR. VITTENGL-There is in the back corner. MR. BROWN-So, having that information, the size they could build is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Zero. MR. BROWN-Without a variance. MR. ABBATE-All right. Then I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 42-2007. Again, I respectfully remind the members about the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. I don’t feel I have to go into the details again. I’m going to ask the members, right now, if they’d be kind enough to give me their opinions or positions concerning 42-2007. Does anybody want to go first? MR. CLEMENTS-In looking at the home, just yesterday, it’s very nice looking, and I think what you’ve done is tastefully done. The positive comments from the neighbors is good. I really, it looks like there was a mistake here about how many square foot you could build without a permit. So I guess I would reluctantly agree to be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-All right. No problem. Anyone else like to comment? All right. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this point, I’ve seen quite a bit of building here done without a permit. I don’t see that anybody has done a real accurate FAR calculation with respect to, you know, above the garage. I’d like to see Staff go out and actually do an in-depth Floor Area Ratio on this property. It’s a very, very small piece of property, and it seems to me when I looked at it that there’s a lot out there. It seems like it’s been overbuilt on that property right now. I’d be against this application at this point without having more information. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Joyce, would you mind? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MRS. HUNT-I’m kind of torn at this point, because it is, it has been construction and we’re giving permission after the fact, and I am concerned about the area over the garage because we’re going to a 23.42 FAR condition on the property. So I’m really not sure at this point. MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll get back to you. Not a problem. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Well, on the plus side, it strikes me that this is going to be an attractive addition, if it’s allowed to remain, and it certainly intrudes no more than either the house or the garage, less, in fact, so I can see that point, but on the other hand, there seems to have been a history of, let’s build it and then if they squawk we’ll defend it. It reminds me of my father-in-law. He used to do that kind of thing, and I liked him, but nevertheless, with that kind of a history, it also leaves me wondering what’s next. Now we’ve got a good connection between the house and the garage, and I can see a couple of three bedrooms coming up in the garage and no way to even discover when that happens. The whole process just bothers me. So I think I’ve got to join the group that says absent additional information, I’m going to be opposed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if we look at the lot, we have to remember that in three instances tonight here we have very substandard sized lots that we’re dealing with, and this one here is by far the smallest one of the three that we’re dealing here with tonight. I think that, you know, had you come in before us and you asked to put this thing up, I think we probably would have granted you relief to put up some kind of a connector between. Probably it would have been smaller than what you built there. Nonetheless, you know, the Board, I think, is usually very reluctant to do these after the fact variances because it encourages people to go ahead and do what you want to do and then, you know, it’s a crapshoot to see whether you get to keep it or not, but I think in this instance here we have to do the balancing test on the parcel itself. It’s set back substantially from the lake. You don’t see this connector from the lake. I think that, you know, most people would desire to have a connection between their house and garage if they’re located reasonably close to each other. I don’t know why, when the parcel was done initially, that you didn’t create a combination garage/house all in one piece. It would have made your life easier for you, I think, to do that, instead of doing it piecemeal and having it separate at the same time. As far as the space over the garage, I mean, I think we should be concerned with that. I mean, I think the natural inclination for many people is once you gain access to that other empty space up there you’re probably going to do something with it, and if you come back, if somebody comes out there two years from now and sees two extra bedrooms up there, I think the Town’s probably going to be in a position where they’re going to make you upgrade your septic system so it can handle the extra effluent and things like that. So I don’t think it’s something you should pursue on your own without getting a building permit, if you’re intending to do any kind of improvements on that property up there, but as it exists, it doesn’t intrude anymore into the setbacks that have been previously granted. It does kick up over the 22% Floor Area Ratio that I think we should be concerned with, but it’s not like way over the top on that 22. So I guess I would reluctantly grant you the relief for it, but I I’m not happy granting that relief to you because you didn’t come in and ask for permission to do it, and I would expect that in the future if you come in and do anything else in that property, that Number One you go over to the Building and Codes office and you submit your plans and you come in and get it. You’re going to have to get a variance to do any kind of construction upstairs over that garage, if you’re intending to do that in the future. So I guess I’ll reluctantly grant the relief. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-It’s never a good idea when the description of a project has the words has constructed in it. I mean, the purpose of this Board is to look at any changes that are happening to a property and place a balancing test against it and have the opportunity to determine whether it’s a good project or a bad project. Probably, had this come to us, before it was constructed, I’d probably be in favor of it, but given the circumstances, given the project, and not being given the opportunity to really give this a fair assessment, I think I’m going to have to come down on the negative side on this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mrs. Hunt? Or do you want me to go? MRS. HUNT-You can go. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. ABBATE-Sure. I’d be happy to do it. I agree with Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, and Mr. Garrand. I am very concerned with the history, and as I said, I read 77 pages and I was, it was rather interesting and disturbing as well. Had you come in ahead of time, I’m not so sure, based upon the size of the lot, what I would have done, to be perfectly honest with you. I’m not sure I know at that time, but under these current circumstances, I’m going to be against the appeal for Area Variance No. 42-2007, and I’d also like to state that there’s a little Staff comment here that I endorse 100%, and it reads like this. Has the area above the garage been finished as living space that might further affect the FAR calculation? Are there plans to do so? If so, what assurances can be provided that proper approvals will be sought prior to performing the work? Apparently, Staff is just as concerned as those of us who have said no. Mrs. Hunt? MRS. HUNT-No. MR. ABBATE-No. Okay. All right. The public hearing is going to be closed for Area Variance No. 42-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to seek a motion for Area Variance No. 42-2007. Do I hear one, please. MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, are you going to give the applicant an opportunity to table? MR. ABBATE-Yes, absolutely correct. I’d be more than happy, if you wish, if you request, to give you the opportunity to table this variance, or, give you the opportunity to say go ahead and vote. It’s entirely up to you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask Craig a question? MR. ABBATE-Of course. MR. UNDERWOOD-The porch that comes out the side of that connector thing that’s been done there, that’s included in the calculation to that square footage? MR. BROWN-It counts toward the Floor Area calculation. MR. UNDERWOOD-If we remove that, how much will we be taking off? MR. BROWN-I don’t know. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know either. I’m just guessing it’s going to be minimal, like 40 square feet or not even that probably, right? I don’t know. MR. BROWN-I don’t have the plans in front of me. I couldn’t tell you what the size of the building is. DR. VITTENGL-That’s about right. MR. UNDERWOOD-About forty square feet. DR. VITTENGL-Yes. MR. BROWN-And that 40 square feet was included in your 168 number when you submitted? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. DR. VITTENGL-Again, I don’t know if there’s an appeal process if this is rejected. Apparently there is or isn’t? MR. ABBATE-Well, I would suggest you contact an attorney. Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, do you want to give them any leeway as to what they might possibly remove to get the square footage down? I mean, I don’t know what you could take off of there. I suppose you could take part of the actual house off where it attaches on there, because that piece looks like it sticks out, too. Or has that already 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) been gone? That was the piece they made them take off before, right? In the old black and white photographs that we include, that were included in the packet. DR. VITTENGL-That was just extended on. That roofline is just a. MR. UNDERWOOD-That little piece that’s on? MR. BROWN-Well, in this area before, there was, inside this enclosure right here there was a deck that comes out of the garage. There’s a door right behind here. There was a deck that comes out, stairs down to the house. This is the area that was enclosed at one point. We said you need a building permit and variance to do that, and that enclosure went away. Just the deck that was there. MR. UNDERWOOD-What would be the result if it were semi open between the garage and there with the covering over the top? MR. BROWN-If it’s covered, it still counts towards Floor Area Ratio. MR. UNDERWOOD-It still counts. I didn’t know. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Does anybody else want to ask any questions of Craig before we begin? All right. I’m going to ask for a motion for Area Variance, well, what was your decision? I’m sorry. To table or to continue to vote? DR. VITTENGL-We’ll table. MR. ABBATE-You’ll table. All right. Then I’ll, we’ll do it this way. I don’t have any problems with that at all. MR. BROWN-If I could ask while you’re thinking there why we’re going to table. So everybody knows. If they’re requesting time to modify their plan, or you’re asking for more information. MR. ABBATE-Sure. Yes. We’re going to table this because we’re going to give you an opportunity to come up with some modification that you feel may sway some of the votes in your favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to guess, you know, if you want to give them some direction as to where you’ve got to go. Are you going to say that you could approve some kind of a connector that was smaller or do you want no connector? I mean, the Board’s got to give them some indication of what’s reasonable that they can come back to us with, rather than just say, you know, don’t give them any information whatsoever. I’m just saying if you made your connector narrower, if that’s going to affect the. MR. BROWN-Well, I mean, you may want to ask the applicant. I mean, they kind of requested a tabling. DR. VITTENGL-Absolutely. If there’s some type of direction we could get in regard to whatever we need to do to try and get any form of this. MR. URRICO-I’m looking for some mitigation. I’m looking for some mitigation, some compromise. I’m looking for some suggestions on how we can reduce the Floor Area Ratio. Maybe reduce the square footage of the connector in some way. I’d like answers to the garage, what’s being done there, if we can get a better assessment above the garage there and if that is indeed, the Floor Area Ratio figures are actually accurate as they’re presented, or are we considering more than what’s there? MR. GARRAND-Okay. I’m in agreement. I’d like to see, you know, what’s going on with that garage, is it living space or is it storage space. I mean, are there power outlets up there, drywall, things like that, beds, anything that would increase the Floor Area Ratio and throw it way out of whack. These are questions that I have. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I’d basically ditto that. I think just a little bit of decrease in Floor Area Ratio is not going to swing me. I would like to see some accurate figures on Floor Area Ratio for one thing, and some kind of assurance that the space overhead in the garage is not going to become living space, at least without us knowing about it. Now how that assurance is provided, I’m not quite sure, whether, you know, part of it might help just knowing exactly what the construction is in there now and the exact layout, or it may be if you decide to consult an attorney, and attorney can suggest some wording, a 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) route that would give us some assurance that we’re not just gaining a lot more living space, which is a concern especially on the lakes. Because the general tendency is, well, if we’ve got a few extra bedroom spaces, then the whole family and their neighbors can come visit us for half the summer, and that creates a problem with septic systems. So I guess that’s where I’m at. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anybody else wish to comment? All right. You’ve heard the comments from the members of the Board, in terms of negotiating your appeal and what have you and what we’re concerned with, and is it your desire to table this? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. MR. ABBATE-It is. Okay. The appellant has requested that we table Area Variance No. 42-2007. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2007 MORGAN VITTENGL, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 155 Birdsall Road. At the request of the appellant, be tabled for a hearing on August 15, 2007. With the stipulations that included in there, questions be answered concerning not only the Floor Area Ratio calculation, but also, that Staff conduct an inspection, and the answer to the question, the addition does not encroach any further into property line setback area than the previously approved house and garage, which were granted an Area Variance and an additional Area Variance after construction, and also the question, has the area above the garage been finished as living area that might further affect the Floor Area Ratio, and also are there plans to do so. If so, what assurances can be provided that proper approvals will be sought prior to performing the work? And of course the applicant must submit all this information to the Zoning Administrator no later th than the 16 of July 2007 in order to be tabled to August. th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 42-2007 is seven yes, zero no. The motion is carried. Area Variance No. 42-2007 is tabled for the August 15, 2007 meeting. MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, did you want to re-open the public hearing, if you’re going to table it. MR. ABBATE-Yes, the public hearing will remain open. Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II ROLF W. AND LUISE AHLERS AGENT(S) STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) ROLF W. AHLERS ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 105 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 493 SQ. FT. GLASS SOLARIUM OVER EXISTING DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: BP 2007-054 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE 13, 2007 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.36 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7- 1-18 SECTION: 179-4-030 JOHN SVARE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ROLF AHLERS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-2007, Rolf W. and Luise Ahlers, Meeting Date: June 27, 2007 “Project Location: 105 Knox Road “Description of Proposed Project: The Applicant proposes construction of a 493 sf solarium over an existing deck. Relief Required: - Applicant requests 19.18 feet of relief from the minimum 50 foot shoreline setback requirement and relief for a 31.9% Floor Area Ratio versus the 22% requirement of the WR-1A zone. As the existing structure does not meet the minimum setback requirements, the applicant is also seeking relief for the expansion of a non- 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) conforming structure. (Note: the original FAR worksheet and the revised submittal FAR worksheet are not consistent with either lot sizes or Floor Areas. Submittal of existing and proposed floor plans is recommended by staff ) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be able to construct the proposed addition in the desired location. 2. Feasible alternatives: While an alternative location may eliminate the shoreline setback relief request, it is likely that sideline setback would be required for any addition to the home. Further, no addition is possible without Floor Area Ratio relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance: Nearly twenty feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum setback requirement (38%) may be interpreted as moderate to substantial when viewed against the Town Zoning requirements, however, the proposed solarium is planned on an existing deck which was the former location of the home prior to the applicant’s reconstruction in 2003. A proposal for at least a 30% Floor Area Ratio may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. The exact proposed FAR is not clear as noted above. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal adverse impacts to the neighborhood are anticipated with this proposal. The proposed solarium is located on an existing deck and appears to be well screened from view to and from the lake with existing vegetation. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The relief request from the setback requirements may be attributed to the existing location of the deck on which the solarium is proposed. The relief request for the Floor Area Ratio may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 60-1996 Freestanding Garage approved 7/24/96 AV 81-1996 Addition to home approved 9/18/96 AV 64-2002 Demo and construction of 2490sf home approved 10/16/02 Resolutions and minutes attached. It appears as though the 2002 variance is the current “measuring stick” for the property. The previous 1996 variances were associated with structures that were demolished as part of the 2002 plan. A portion of the 2002 plan called for the keeping of the foundation of the previous camp in the area where the current solarium is planned. At that time the foundation was maintained and a deck was constructed above it, while the proposed home was approved at a 48.33 foot shoreline setback. Staff comments: Clarification regarding the Floor Area Ratio calculations is recommended as the two worksheets submitted do not match. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 13, 2007 Project Name: Ahlers, Rolf & Luise Owner(s): Rolf W. Ahlers ID Number: QBY-07-AV-43 County Project#: June07-30 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Applicant proposes construction of a 493 sq. ft. glass solarium over existing deck. Relief requested from shoreline setback requirements as well as relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirement. Additionally, relief requested for expansion of a non-conforming structure. Site Location: 105 Knox Road Tax Map Number(s): 239.7-1-18 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 464 sq. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) ft. sunroom over an existing patio. The sunroom is to be located 31 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The information submitted shows the location of the deck with a proposed sunroom and elevation drawings. The plans do not indicate stormwater or erosion control measures for the sun room construction. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition appropriate stormwater and erosion control measures are implemented. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation: The Warren County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the condition appropriate stormwater and erosion control measures are implemented.” Signed Richard C. Merrill Warren County Planning Board 6/14/07. MR. ABBATE-All right. Would the petitioner please approach the bench and speak into the microphone and tell us who you are and where you reside, please. MR. SVARE-John Svare, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes. MR. AHLERS-My name is Rolf Ahlers, the petitioner. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Go ahead. MR. SVARE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m here on behalf of Rolf and Luise Ahlers, 105 Knox Road, requesting to build a solarium over an existing deck. Mr. Chairman, the submitted drawings from patio enclosures were submitted as well, and the proposal is to construct an enclosure on an existing concrete foundation wall. On the issue of the shoreline setback, requesting a 19.18 feet relief from the minimum 50 foot shoreline setback requirement, there’s an existing deck there right now. The proposal is simply to enclose that with a solarium, so there’s no additional setback relief requested here, and as the Staff Notes point out, the proposed solarium is planned on an existing deck which was the former location of the home prior to the Ahlers’ reconstruction. With respect to the Floor Area Ratio, the notes suggest that there was some confusion as to the exact figure. Well, the exact proposal is 31.6%. When we submitted, there may have been confusion. We were using .34 acres as opposed to the exact square footage, which is 14,929. So again, the proposal would be 31.6, as opposed to the current 28.3. On the issue of Floor Area Ratio, this structure will not be covering any open space, any vegetation. It’s not intended as a living quarter overnight for guests, etc. This is intended as a place to be during a rainy day. It’s not going to be heated. They’re not going to be living there overnight, and there’s no possibility of it being heated right now. It’s my understanding that it’s going to be one inch of glass. This is not a, certainly not a livable year round type of an area. The construction will take approximately two weeks. No trees will be removed at all. Mr. Ahlers has brought some photographs here that I think would be appropriate to share with the Board, but the solarium would not be able to be viewed from the lake. There will be significant tree coverage all around the solarium. You’ve heard from Mr. Maschewski, a neighbor, who approves the project and supports the project. It does not change the blueprint at all, and we’re simply seeking to enclose the existing deck that was there when the original home was destroyed, or was removed back in 2002. So I guess just in summary, it’s not intended as additional living space. This is simply a place to be during a rainy day, not intended to be an overnight type of arrangement, not going to be heated. So even though the 31.6 Floor Area Ratio may seem significant, we would respectfully urge the Board to request to grant the requested relief. I think that Mr. Ahlers has some photos that we’d like to be able to show at this point. MR. ABBATE-By all means. MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, are we right at 22% right now, with what’s there? MR. BROWN-No, I think with what’s there we’re over. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re over already. MR. BROWN-And the request is to go a little bit more over. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the deck included in that calculation as it exists? MR. BROWN-No. The open deck doesn’t count. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because it’s not a covered deck. MR. BROWN-Correct. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions? Go ahead. MR. AHLERS-There are not many points that I can add to Mr. Svare’s comments. I’d like to ask Mr. Brown, please, to show some other photos. This is more from the southeast side. The previous photo was taken pretty exactly from the west side over the lake. These trees here in the front will continue to grow. There is another set of trees behind where the photographer took those pictures. This photo here is taken from the northwest side, and then there is another one from the north side. This is from the north side, and as Mr. Svare has said, neither from the lake nor from Mr. Maschewski’s side, nor from Mr. MacElroy’s side, would the solarium, this is from Mr. MacElroy’s side, would the solarium be able to be seen. I would like to add that the runoff situation of the water is going to be the following. The existing deck is slightly tapered toward the lake side. There is also a gutter there, and that gutter empties into the ample runoff system which the Zoning Board required me to install when the new house was installed. We built a new driveway on the south side, into which go pipes, drainage pipes, from that side of the house, and then there was an existing driveway on the north side, and into that driveway go the drainage pipes from that side of the house. Into these drainage pipes, also go the gutter from that solarium. The water now runs off the deck in the same direction. There’s no change. There will be a structural improvement if the solarium is installed. There is some concern on my part that sooner or later the rubber roof under the existing deck may, well, spring a leak. I guess, you know, that’s the natural way of things. With the glass structure over it, that concern would be mitigated. This is not living space. The advantage to us would be to be protected from the elements. The rain, during the summer, we are not wealthy people. I have said to Mr. Tim Lakashia from Patio Enclosures, the firm that would like to construct the structure, that I am not going to heat this structure. I understand that there are people here in the United States who do that kind of thing. We are not great socializers, perhaps I should add, but as Mr. Svare has said, this is not additional living space for us. MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the actual size of the deck there, as it exists, dimensionally? The actual dimensions of the deck as it exists presently? What are the dimensions? MR. AHLERS-The existing deck will be the precise location of the new project. MR. SVARE-It’s 493 square feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. URRICO-Mr. Ahlers, back in 2002 when you came to this Board, you were demolishing your older structure, it was a smaller structure. You had built the foundation at that time prior to building this newer structure. MR. AHLERS-Yes. MR. URRICO-Is this the same foundation we’re talking about right now? MR. AHLERS-Yes. MR. URRICO-Was the solarium planned for as part of that at that time? MR. AHLERS-No. My wife got this idea when she visited her brother in Germany last summer. He had a solarium, and she said I want a solarium like that, too. We had no idea. In fact, during the energy crises, if I may say that, 1972, there were tax laws that made building such a greenhouse financially very easy. There were tax incentives for that kind of thing. I said to my wife, let’s build such a structure, but nobody wanted that. Everybody wanted to sit on the outside of the deck. I had great interest at that time, of course at that time we had only the old building. Everybody wanted to stand on the outside, but when my wife saw her brother’s solarium in Germany, then she said I want a structure like that, too. I guess women change their minds, don’t they? Men do, too. MR. MC NULTY-I’d like to go back to the question on the size of the deck. Do you have figures that show what the depth of that deck is that’s there now? MR. AHLERS-It’s about 16 feet deep. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Now it’s 30.82 feet from the shoreline. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. SVARE-That’s correct. MR. AHLERS-It’s a 3.3 percent variance, it says here in the minutes from the approval, August 21, 2002, 3.3. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. AHLERS-A 1.67 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline amount to very little, 3.3%. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. However, it looks to me, then, if that deck is 16 feet deep, that your house is another foot and a half into the setback beyond what the variance allowed. MR. SVARE-No. It’s my understanding that the 2002 variance called for 48 feet, from the shoreline setback to the house. MR. MC NULTY-It specifically granted 1.67 feet of relief. MR. SVARE-Yes. MR. URRICO-Not only that, but it was a bone of contention, because you had to come back several times, if I recall, because of that issue alone. So it was something that was, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to step on. MR. MC NULTY-That’s okay. You’re going where I was going with that. My next question, then, is the deck that’s there now, when was that built? MR. AHLERS-It was built when the new house was being built. We needed to cover, there is a basement underneath. We needed to cover that over. It was, the basic members are running a different location, but I don’t think that that matters all that much. The deck is exactly the same size as the original deck. MR. BROWN-I think what was there, Mr. McNulty, I don’t want to support either side here, but the old camp was where the deck is now. Now underneath the deck is the foundation for the old camp. They took the old camp down, kept the foundation, moved the new house back 16 feet, and covered that old foundation with a deck which is where they want the solarium now. MR. MC NULTY-Okay, which we should have given him shoreline setback for, and didn’t, because at that point that was new construction. MR. BROWN-Okay. I don’t remember if that plan had the deck on it or if it was just a. MR. MC NULTY-I couldn’t find anything, at least in the variance that we granted, that indicated any relief for the deck. MR. BROWN-Okay. I mean, we can pull those plans. If the deck was on there and we didn’t grant relief, we’ve kind of approved that plan. MR. AHLERS-This deck is in the same location where the deck was built in 1972 it may have been built, by a man by the name of John Martinelli, over, or in front of the house, which exists, which has had the same footprint as the house, as the new house does. I then put a basement under the old camp and under the old deck. The deck was not modified. The new deck has a basement under it, but the dimensions of the new deck are exactly the same as the dimensions of the old deck, and the footprint of the new house is exactly the same as the footprint of the old house. Nothing was changed with setbacks and side relief or whatever. It’s all on the same footprint as the original house that was put there I think by Clyde Stewart in 1955. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I guess the two places I’m going with it is my memory, and from what I could see in there, we went back and forth, as Mr. Urrico indicated, several times, on granting the variances for the new house, and my impression was that the house was moved back and we weren’t granting relief for anything in front of where the house was, which leads me at least to the point that should we approve this, then I think we need to make sure we’re granting a variance not only for a shoreline setback for the solarium, but also for that deck. Because, as Mr. Brown says, unless we find that the deck is clearly specified in the plans that were submitted back in 2002, we may technically have a deck sitting there that does not have a variance for where it is. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. BROWN-Yes, I mean, if there’s a question in there for me, it’s if you grant the relief for the solarium, the deck underneath it I think is physically covered by that, and it’s covered in the approval as well. MR. MC NULTY-Right. Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anyone else have any questions? MR. GARRAND-I have a couple of questions. How many bedrooms in this house currently? MR. AHLERS-Three. MR. GARRAND-Three. Studies? MR. AHLERS-Yes, it has two studies. My study and my wife’s study, and there are bookcases in there now, too. Cannot be used, really, as bedrooms. We are both academic professionals. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. AHLERS-We have a lot of books, I can add that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the previous condition said, the original approval said that certainly I don’t think that we can see anything that would be negative. As a matter of fact, the effects would probably be positive, certainly to the neighborhood involved, and on the basis of this information, I move we approve. The condition is imposed that the studies will not be used as sleeping or bedroom quarters. MR. ABBATE-Brian, I think, had a question. MR. CLEMENTS-As I was out there looking at it, is there a full basement underneath that deck? Like you can walk around in there? MR. AHLERS-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Was that basement there, did that exist with the old camp, or was that excavated? MR. AHLERS-I put that basement under there. MR. CLEMENTS-You did. So it’s been changed. MR. AHLERS-It was changed, but not the footprint. MR. MC NULTY-But your basement was put under the old building, correct? MR. AHLERS-That’s right. MR. MC NULTY-It existed when we granted the 2002 variance. It’s the same foundation, and he agreed to move the main house back on the foundation so it didn’t intrude, except for the 1.67 feet. MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other questions, folks, from the Board? All right. Let’s continue. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 43-2007. Do we have anyone in the audience who’d like to address Area Variance No. 43-2007? Would you raise your hands, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised. Then I’m going to move on. I’m now going to move to asking Board members to offer their comments. I’d like to inform the public again that the comments offered by the members are directed to the Chairman and are not subject to debate. Members of the Board, may I please have your comments on Area Variance No. 43-2007. Anyone? Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I think there are some issues that need to be squared away. It seems to me that in 2002 we did not grant Floor Area Ratio relief, but it looks like it needs to be included at some point. The deck, from what I can read from the notes from those 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) meetings, the deck was there at the time. It was not considered because it was considered, it wasn’t part of the new construction. We only did the wood framed house as the new construction. I can’t say I’m bothered by this. I can’t say that I would be against the proposal, but I really need to have some answers as to what took place. I’d really like to see the notes from the previous meetings that lead up to that previous decision in 2002. We have notes from that meeting, but I really would like to see the notes from the meetings before that and what we had requested. Because I know Mr. Ahlers made some significant changes over a course of about four weeks or six weeks at that time, and I cannot recall exactly what those changes are, but I think they might be pertinent to what we’re doing tonight. So that’s where I stand right now. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Anyone else like to comment? Brian, would you like to go? MR. CLEMENTS-As it exists right now, as I’m looking at it and the footprint is there, as far as drainage, those kinds of things, it doesn’t look like it’s going to matter much if you put a solarium over the top of this because it’s draining off already. I guess I’m going to hold until I listen to some of the other comments. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’ll get back to you, then. No problem. Let’s go to Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m kind of on the edge, too. I guess I’m to the point where I really would like to see some really accurate Floor Area Ratio figures for what exists now and what will exist when the solarium is put on there. This is kind of unique because there is a deck there and there is a roof under the deck. So the deck, and it strikes me that the deck is a new structure. I still think there may be a real question of whether or not there’s a proper approval in place for that deck. I can understand why it’s there, because there was an existing foundation, and that was the only way the applicant could get the house built where he put it, to make us happy, and maintain the integrity of his foundation. At the same time, it does bother me increasing the Floor Area Ratio by this much. On the other hand, I don’t know, what’s the difference whether the roof is at the deck level or the roof is over the deck, and I think as he says, it probably, this kind of a structure will not be used as at least regular bedrooms, and given the location of the property and what not, I’m not quite as worried about this one accommodating a whole bunch of teenagers during the summer in the solarium overnight, which we would worry about in some other houses and camps on the lake. So I guess where I’m at is if we were to vote tonight, I would be opposed, but I would really like to see some fresh figures and complete dimensions, maybe. The one thing that struck me on this drawing that we have that shows the deck area and so on is the figures that are missing are the dimensions of the deck, and the distance of the front of the house to the lake. All the other figures are in there in great detail. It kind of leaves me with wondering, okay, why did they omit those figures. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. McNulty. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree. I would like more information before I vote. At this time I would be against it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-You already did him. MR. ABBATE-I already did him. Mr. Garrand. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, based on the relief asked for here, you know, looking at the Floor Area relief, plus the shoreline relief, I’d say combined they are substantial. At this point I’d be against this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have to focus on what’s there and what’s proposed to be there, and as it looks right now, to me, you already have impermeable there, because you’ve got a deck with probably some kind of a rubber kind of underlay underneath it so it doesn’t go down into the cellar when it rains. So you already have an impermeable surface there. If you allow them to do this solarium on there, it’s going to have the same net effect, and it appears to me that the structures are already there. The stormwater prevention structures are already there where it could be routed into those. I don’t know if they would accommodate the same flow. I mean, in essence it’s the same flow coming 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) off of that structure, if you build it as proposed here. The only thing I could think of that would be different would be if you had one of those fold out crank out type awning things, but, I mean, those things are worthless on the lake up there with the wind you get. They tend to get trashed pretty easily. So the solarium is probably the best way to go with it. I think if we’re accurately going to reflect the Floor Area Ratio, it’s already way over 22% if this thing is decked over. If we put the solarium on there, it’s not really going to exacerbate the problem that already exists. It’s just going to simply cover up that deck so it makes it more usable during the rest of the year, probably adds an extra season on there in the Fall and the Springtime when it’s those marginal days, the solarium will heat up. So that’s going to be a benefit for the applicant in doing that. We should be concerned with Floor Area Ratio, but in this instance I think that we’ve allowed other people to cover their decks, too. It’s kind of an excessive request. I think possibly you could ask them to put a smaller solarium on there, but to what end? I mean, it’s already decked over. It’s already impermeable. So I don’t think it’s going to be exacerbating the problem. As far as the effect on the neighborhood, it’s well screened from the lake. As he said, they like their privacy. They don’t plan on cutting the trees. In fact, it’s going to get greener as time goes on as those trees grow up. So, in essence, you know, it’s a grand request, but it’s not a grand request, and I don’t think it’s going to make any difference whether we allow this or not. So I’m going to vote yes for it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Brian, please? MR. CLEMENTS-I’m going to agree with Mr. Underwood. I think he has some good arguments, and I’ll also vote yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MRS. HUNT-I think Mr. Underwood was very persuasive, and I would vote yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. I think I agree with Mr. McNulty and Mr. Urrico, and Mr. Garrand, I believe, as well. In order for me to make a decision, I think I require more information. I’d like to have information not only with Mr. McNulty indicated the dimensions of the deck, etc., but I think I’d like to have some previous notes to clear up some of the questions that were raised this evening, and there appears to be some uneasiness among at least three of the members, including myself, about requiring more information before making a decision. However, having said that, at this point, I don’t think I can support the application without additional information. At this point, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 43-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to, again, remind the members of our duties and obligations. I don’t believe I have to go through it in detail again, and as such, I’m going to seek a motion for Area Variance No. 43-2007. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to table for more information? MR. ABBATE-We certainly may give the appellant an opportunity to table this for more information and to provide us, in the future, with the additional information that you’ve heard some of the Board members would require. Certainly you have that privilege to do it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I offer some possible help? MR. ABBATE-Absolutely right. You certainly may. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Brown, you would agree with me that the deck is impermeable as it exists for that membrane under there? MR. BROWN-Yes. I don’t think the issue is impermeability. I think the issue is Floor Area Ratio, and the open deck, as it stands right now, doesn’t count. The basement underneath it does. So the increase or the addition of the solarium on top of the deck is the increase in Floor Area Ratio. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Now, are we going to have a motion, please? Do I have a volunteer for Area Variance? You want to table this? I’m going to give you the opportunity to table. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-You guys have to give him some information as to what you’re looking for. MR. ABBATE-We’re going to do that right now. First of all, I want to know. MR. SVARE-We would like the opportunity to table it and to re-open public comment as well. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. The public hearing is re-opened. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to start right down the line with Mr. McNulty. Mr. McNulty, would you present your concerns, please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I guess, I’m trying to think. Two or three things. I would like some clear figures, whether they come from the applicant, or from Staff, or a combination of both, as to the Floor Area Ratio figures, and I’m concerned both in what we’d be granting if we allowed the solarium, versus what exists given the condition of the foundation and the impermeable deck that’s there. I’d also like specific dimensions on the deck, and specific dimension from where the house exists to the shoreline. MR. ABBATE-From the house to where? MR. MC NULTY-The house to the shoreline. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-The shoreline setback, and my concern here is whichever way we go on the solarium, if the house is closer the 1.67 feet that we granted in 2002, then this would be the opportunity to correct that problem with a variance. The one thing I would like to not do is to leave the applicant with some kind of a variance that, or a denial, that leaves him with two feet of his house that are not authorized or the deck that’s not authorized or whatever. I think this is the time to clean it up and make sure that when we grant relief we grant everything that he needs for what he’s got. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Basically I’d like to see the submittal of a proposed floor plan, as recommended by Staff, but by the same token I still see the request for relief as excessive. MR. ABBATE-Okay. You want to see, give me that one more time. Staff, what was that? MR. GARRAND-With the initial application, I would rather see, you know, the floor plan, submittal of a proposed floor plan with accurate floor area calculations, but I still think the relief requested is pretty substantial. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Brian, do you have any concerns? MR. CLEMENTS-I would have voted yes, but since we’re bringing it up, on the plans here, there’s a setback from the lake of it looks like it was 34 feet, and then was crossed out and then it was made 24 feet. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see it. MR. CLEMENTS-I think that they ought to clear that up. That would probably be a good idea. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that I can clear up some of that stuff here because it’s in our, it’s in the old minutes from the previous meetings with the Board here. There’s one section here that says essentially Mr. Miller says no problem at all. I was speaking to the setbacks. The front or the lakeside setback we have moved the face of the proposed building two feet farther away from the lake. So that was where the new construction took place. So we have lessened the request for that setback by two feet. The side yard setbacks are to the existing foundation and basically we’re not proposing to tear down anything that’s existing, in terms of the foundation work. We have met the criteria for the 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) height requirement, and that was one of the hang ups that Roy was alluding to. We have met the Floor Area Ratio requirement and the stormwater has been addressed on the drawings, and we had a professional engineer, Dennis MacElroy, come out and take a look at our septic situation. He’s made some recommendations as to what should be done. Basically to add on, I believe, it’s five or six feet, and that was where he added on extra laterals on those lines, I do recall it now, when you guys did that one, and then Mr. Stone says, okay, so the closeness to the lake of the entire structure is not changing. It’s still, the deck is still going to be where it is. So that deck pre-existed. It was allowed to remain when the new construction took place. So the deck has always been where it presently exists. That’s essentially what it amounts to. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that should clarify your questions as to how the deck came into being. It’s always been there. MR. ABBATE-Roy, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I still want to see the previous notes to that meeting, and to find out what we were discussing, because I’m not sure how that related. I know that’s where it was, but I’m not sure if the new, I seem to recall that the new construction was an issue, that we understood that the deck was pre-existing, but two feet was a big deal then. So now we’re talking about 30 feet, an additional, by covering the deck, we’re talking about some more space, closer to the lake, and I just want to see what we discussed prior to this. MR. ABBATE-So you want to see the previous notes, hearing notes for the ZBA? MR. URRICO-Right. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m going to address that to Craig. MR. URRICO-Also, the items that Chuck brought up. MR. ABBATE-Right. Craig, would you be kind enough to provide us with that information. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve already got it in your packets. It’s all here in the packets. MR. URRICO-But not the previous notes, not the notes from the meeting prior to that, when we were asking for changes, and essentially ended up with it being tabled. MR. UNDERWOOD-This one gets to all those. MR. URRICO-I don’t think so. I want more information. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So you want, Roy, to make sure that I’m correct here, so what we have this evening are the October 16, 2002 notes. You want the prior notes to that? MR. URRICO-Right. MR. ABBATE-Please, Craig. Thank you very much. Joyce, did you have any particular concerns you wanted put in the motion? MRS. HUNT-I think they’ve been addressed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So what I have so far, ladies and gentlemen, make sure I’m correct when I do the motion here. We want complete figures concerning the Floor Area Ratio. We want the specific diameter of the deck and the house and the distance to the shoreline, and we want to see floor plans and Floor Area Ratio. Have I covered it? Yes. Okay. Then I’m going to move. You have requested us, then, to table your motion for Area Variance No. 43-2007, and I’m going to honor that. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2007 ROLF W. AND LUISE AHLERS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 105 Knox Road. Tabled for a hearing on August 15, 2007, with the proviso that you submit that information no later than July 16, 2007 to the Zoning Administrator. Also included in the motion is that we would like to have complete figures of the Floor Area 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) Ratio. We’d like to have specific dimension of the deck and the house to shoreline distance, and we also would like to see a floor plan with Floor Area Ratio as well. th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Clements, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The motion to table Area Variance No. 43-2007 is seven yes, zero no. The motion is carried. Area Variance No. 43-2007 is tabled for the August 15, 2007 hearing with those stipulations. Thank you very much. All right, gentlemen, now we have some administrative things. However, I did promise a member of the public, he asked for five minutes, and I asked him what the subject of the five minutes was all about, and based upon what he indicated to me, I felt that it would be properly brought to the Zoning Board of Appeals for information. Mr. Salvador, five minutes. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you for the opportunity. You’ll recall, Mr. Chairman, at last week’s Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, at your request, I passed out a copy of a communication from the Lake George Park Commission to the Town Supervisor at that time, Mr. Borgos, announcing the fact that the Park Commission had established a Critical Environmental Area within certain parts of this Town. Since that time, we’ve been off and on with this appreciation of the fact that we have, the near shore of Lake George in North Queensbury is a Critical Environmental Area. It has a great deal of significance with regard to the review that these applications have to go through, and the application before you tonight involving Mr. Maschewski, the fact that that is in a Critical Environmental Area and deserves very stringent stormwater management regulations, enforcement of those, has been completely overlooked. That project has gone through and Chapter 147, it was mentioned in the letter, I think they used the number 149, but it’s really Chapter 147, the requirements have been completely overlooked because there’s no appreciation that the project is in a Critical Environmental Area. Now, the Town Board is going to have a public hearing Monday night on the proposed new Comprehensive Plan. Okay, and they have recommendations in this Plan that they’re bringing forth, and I’d just like to read a few of them to you. Recommendation B-2 is to amend all local storm management regulations to address the impacts of both post development runoff volumes and types. Okay. Recommendation B-8, create a Waterfront Overlay District to govern residential development along the shores of Queensbury’s lakes and ponds. Before granting permits along the water’s edge, the Planning Board, the Planning Board should have a set of rules in the Code to measure the quality of the development. It should take into account such things as the following, protection of water quality, reduce visual shoreline clutter, protect the environment. We have a shoreline, we have a district. It’s just not called Shoreland Overlay District. It’s called Shoreline and Wetlands Special Regulations. We don’t pay any attention to them. Recommendation B-13, the Board of Health should investigate the feasibility of requiring a septic system test when properties in Critical Environmental Areas change hands. I don’t know what they’re referring to with the Board of Health, whether it’s the local Board of Health or the State Board of Health. It’s not clear in here, but somebody’s got to start looking at this. Okay. Mr. Maschewski presented a plan with an Eljen In-drain system that is clearly not allowed to have things like chemicals, grease, these sort of things put into it. It malfunctions. It can’t last, and he’s got a proposal for a four bathroom house, with all the other dishwashers and you know what goes with that. Clearly not compatible. It’s not compatible. Recommendation B-14, add additional protection to Critical Environmental Areas by requiring Site Plan Review. We can’t get to Site Plan Review if you give out these variances. For all uses, that either involve the expansion or the relocation of a structure. What are we involved with with the Maschewski thing? Now these are, the public hearing is Monday night. I’m going to go to the public hearing. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Your time is up. I do appreciate the information you provided us this evening. MR. SALVADOR-This is available at the office of the Town Clerk, okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. Thank you very much. All right, Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, we’ve got a couple of administrative things to do, and I see that Mr. Bryant has arrived this evening and our Town Attorney. Minutes to approve, ladies and gentlemen. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 16, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2007, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote to approve is six yes, zero no. The minutes of the meeting of May 16, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals are approved. May 23, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2007, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The motion to approve the minutes of May 23, 2007 hearing are approved by six yes, zero no. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, before you go on, I’m sorry to do this, but could we go th back to the May 16, and on Page Seven, I had it in my computer and it took me a while to crank it up, if I can find it here. MR. ABBATE-You have a correction? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-I believe it’s on Page Seven of the minutes. My PDF file says it’s Page Eight, but I think it’s Page Seven, I’ve just got to find where it connects. There was a vote on Area Variance No. 31-2007. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-And it indicates in the vote that I voted for that, and Mr. Underwood voted against it. Our names are flip-flopped. I voted against it, and I believe Mr. Underwood voted for it. MR. ABBATE-I definitely recorded that. No problem. Ms. G., would you be kind enough to make that correction for us? MS. GAGLIARDI-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, ma’am. MR. MC NULTY-It doesn’t change the vote at all. It’s just that it gets the names in the right spot. MR. ABBATE-Right. That’s perfectly okay. Having done that, our next item, ladies and gentlemen, we’re going into an Executive Session. Would you like to join us, Craig? You don’t have to. MR. BROWN-Sure. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/07) MR. ABBATE-I’m going to ask everybody to move up here, please. MR. BROWN-You need to make a motion to do that. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote to go into Executive Session is seven yes, zero no. The motion is approved. We are now in Executive Session. (NOTE: THE FOLLOWING TWO MOTIONS WERE MADE WHILE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION) MOTION TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL REGARDING NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1- 2004 EAST SLOPE HOLDINGS, L.P. ROCK IT PAINT BALL, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MOTION TO LET MRS. HOFFMAN COME BACK TO DISCUSS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: th Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 42