Loading...
2007-08-15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 15, 2007 INDEX Area Variance No. 34-2007 The Glen @ Hiland Meadows, Inc. 1. Tax Map No. 296.8-1-3 Area Variance No. 43-2007 Rolf W. and Luise Ahlers 2. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-18 Area Variance No. 48-2007 James & Holly Markwood 2. Tax Map No. 288.16-1-36 Area Variance No. 52-2007 Larry Clute 8. Tax Map No. 301.20-1-11, 28, 29 Area Variance No. 50-2007 Legacy Land Holding, Inc. 21. Tax Map No. 296.15-1-28 Area Variance No. 51-2007 John T. Whalen 26. Tax Map No. 279.-1-57 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 8/15/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 15, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT ROY URRICO RICHARD GARRAND CHARLES MC NULTY JOAN JENKIN, 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 15 August 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 on the standards of proof contained in NYS Town Law 267-b. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeals may only authorize the minimum variance necessary to relieve the applicant. Other than administrative items, public comments will be invited on each appeal, however, in the interest of time please be crisp, organized and limit your comments to only the facts and information given this evening. 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, and I’m going to request that the secretary monitor the time. Mr. Secretary, at this time, do we have any correspondence that should be read into the record, and if so, would you be kind enough to read it, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t have any. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then I have two administrative items I’d like to address before we start our appeals. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2007 THE GLEN @ HILAND MEADOWS MR. ABBATE-Based on the fact that Staff indicates, to date, they have not received comments from the Town Board nor has a Planning Board application been filed, I’m going to move a motion to table Area Variance No. 34-2007. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2007 THE GLEN @ HILAND MEADOWS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Tabled to the October 24, 2007 hearing date. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, zero no to table Area Variance No. 34-2007 to October 24, 2007. 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 MR. ABBATE-On another matter, this deals with Area Variance No. 43-2007, Rolf and Luise Ahlers, I’m going to read into the record the following letter that I have received from their attorneys, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, and it’s addressed to me as Chairman, and it says, “Dear Chairman Abbate: As you know, our firm represents the Ahlers in connection with the above referenced matter. On behalf of the Ahlers, we hereby withdraw our area variance application. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, P.C. John D. Svare” And, Mr. Secretary, there’s no further action on our part. Would you enter that into the record, please. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II JAMES & HOLLY MARKWOOD OWNER(S): JAMES & HOLLY MARKWOOD ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: 74 NORTHWOOD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF SWIMMING POOL IN THE FRONT YARD AS LOT IS SITUATED ON A CORNER LOT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REQUIREMENTS FOR PLACEMENT OF A POOL IN THE REAR YARD. CROSS REF.: BP 07-291, BP 03-435 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE: 0.35 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.16-1-36 SECTION: 179-5-020 JAMES & HOLLY MARKWOOD, PRESENT MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to request that I be allowed to recuse myself from the first case. MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Urrico. Thank you very much. Mr. Clements, would you be kind enough, please, to sit in for Mr. Urrico. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-2007, James & Holly Markwood, Meeting Date: August 15, 2007 “Project Location: 74 Northwood Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a swimming pool. Relief Required: Application requests 12 feet of setback relief in order to place the proposed pool partially in the front yard of the property. The existing house setback is 35.45 ft and the proposed pool location is 23.45 ft. The minimum front setback requirement for a pool on this property is 35.45 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicants would be permitted to construct the pool in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the pool southerly, closer to the deck thereby reducing the relief request as well as the visual exposure of the pool to the street. Consideration may be given to locating the pool in the area of the trampoline. While rear setback relief may be necessary visibility of the pool from the street is greatly 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) reduced. Further, a 100% compliant location appears to be available southeasterly of the home. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 12 feet of setback relief from the 35.45 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate (34%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: No letters of support were submitted with the application materials. What impacts might a pool in the front yard have on the traffic safety as this location is near an intersection? 5. Is this difficulty self-created? As there appears to be compliant location available, the difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Consideration may be given to reviewing alternative locations. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 48-2007 be kind enough to approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record, identify yourself and your place of residence. Good evening, folks. Would you tell us who you are and where you reside, please. MRS. MARKWOOD-Sure. I’m Holly Markwood, and I live at 74 Northwood Drive. MR. MARKWOOD-Jim Markwood, also 74 Northwood Drive. MR. ABBATE-Are either one of you attorneys? MRS. MARKWOOD-No. MR. MARKWOOD-No. MR. ABBATE-Are you familiar with our procedures? You are. Are you prepared to proceed? MR. MARKWOOD-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Please do. MR. MARKWOOD-Okay. Does everyone have the drawings that we submitted? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. MARKWOOD-Okay. The confusion, just from the letters and the neighbors that we talked to, and we’ve talked to all the surrounding neighbors. They also talked about the letter they received. We did get one phone call, because when they hear front yard, they’re thinking of their house and the way their front yard is, which is from the front of their house out. Based on the Town of Queensbury and that we are on a corner lot, our front yard extends, or is considered the front corners sideways, and then from our garage on the other side, the other corner side. MRS. MARKWOOD-We have two front yards. MR. MARKWOOD-Right. Basically we have two front yards. So one neighbor was concerned that we were actually looking to place our pool in what they considered the front yard, but what that also does is it makes the remaining portion of our yard, not 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) covered as front yard, considered back, which, the way we look at it, would be our side and rear. So, when we look at the areas where the pool could be placed, one of them would be literally between the two homes, you know, our home and the neighbor’s home. We have some letters that people have given to us, as well, in support of where we want to place the pool. MR. ABBATE-Have you submitted those to our secretary? MR. MARKWOOD-We just got them today. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then you can either read them into the record, submit it to our secretary or give it to the secretary and ask him if he would be kind enough to read it into the record. It’s up to you. You can continue and he’ll read it in at the appropriate time. MR. MARKWOOD-Okay. We also have one neighbor that showed up on our behalf. As far as the location of the pool and our child, we do have three boys, three children. The youngest is autistic and does need constant supervision. The other possible placements for the pool, like I said before, one, I just don’t think for our community would be acceptable to have it between the two houses, and the other would have it actually out of view, and almost right up against the back of the home to be within the guidelines of 20 feet from the rear property. As far as visibility, there’s already a fence there and existing landscaping and I really don’t think, you know, we’ll add additional landscaping to kind of cover it up. I guess that’s really all that we have to say. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and any time during the hearing, if you folks come up with something you feel that will support your appeal, just raise your hands and I’ll recognize you and feel free to enter it into the record. MS. MARKWOOD-Thank you. MRS. MARKWOOD-All right. Yes, we put a lot of thought into this, and we initially, when we applied for the permit, we actually had the pool out further towards the road, and doing this we’ve actually pulled it back more to try to hide it as much as possible, but as I said, we do have existing landscaping. We’ll put in more to hide the pool, and there is the fence, and I think it’s about 13 feet from the fence, and you really can’t see the area too well right now, and we’d make sure that we put evergreens so they’ll be year round issue. You wouldn’t be able to see it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. All right. I’m going to turn to the Board members and ask the Board members if they have any questions for the appellant? Ladies and gentlemen, do we have any questions for Mr. or Mrs. Markwood? MRS. JENKIN-One question. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Joan. MRS. JENKIN-Your access to the pool, where would that be? MRS. MARKWOOD-Well, right now there’s a gate at the corner of the garage, you see by the pool there’s a little triangle, well, not triangle, a little line. MR. MARKWOOD-Between where it says asphalt drive and the back corner. MRS. MARKWOOD-Are you looking at the survey? You know what, there’s a survey map that’s there. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Yes. MRS. MARKWOOD-But right by the garage there’s a little, I think, three and a half foot angled area. There’s a four foot gate right there. We are also, because of our son, going to, if approved, put another fence, a gate, from the porch right out to the backyard. So this area will be completely enclosed by fence. We won’t have the pool accessible from the yard, except for one place. So he won’t have as much freedom to get through, which we have to do for him. MRS. JENKIN-I was thinking from the house, though. Because you said your son. MRS. MARKWOOD-Okay. Actually, we wouldn’t have direct access from the regular part of the house, but by the garage, right in the corner, there is a door. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. MARKWOOD-All of our doors are monitored, security monitored, with alarms, so that if he opens the door and runs, if someone were to come across him, he can’t really speak. MRS. JENKIN-Right. Okay. MRS. MARKWOOD-So there actually would be three access points to the pool. MR. ABBATE-Any other members of the Board have any questions for Mr. or Mrs. Markwood? Yes, sir, Brian, please. MR. CLEMENTS-And maybe this’ll be read in later, but I was just wondering if you had any comments from the people that were directly across the street from you on McCormack Drive? MR. MARKWOOD-We do. MR. CLEMENTS-That’s okay. I’ll just listen to them. MRS. MARKWOOD-On McCormack Drive? No. MR. MARKWOOD-No. They received the letter. MRS. MARKWOOD-I did talk to them. I went over and talked to them before we started the process, and all the neighbors were fine. They didn’t write letters, but I’m sure if they had issues, they would have. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other questions? Yes, please, Rick. MR. GARRAND-What type of fence is going to go initially around the pool? MRS. MARKWOOD-Well, the fence, there’s existing fence there now. The fence along McCormack is a four foot high dog eared fence, and that’s also on our driveway. Behind the pool, between our house and McCormack, is actually a six foot high fence, and the fence that we’ll add in will be probably at least five feet tall. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MRS. HUNT-And the pool size is what? MRS. MARKWOOD-It’s small. MR. MARKWOOD-Yes. It’s 11 by 23. It’s a fiberglass. MRS. MARKWOOD-And it’s only four and a half feet deep. It’s just to level. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from Board members? If not, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 48-2007, and those wishing to be heard, if you would please kindly raise your hand, I’ll recognize you and ask you to come to the table, speak into the microphone and tell us who you are and where you reside. Yes, sir, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM DONNELLY MR. DONNELLY-Good evening. My name is Jim Donnelly. I reside at 63 Northwood Drive, adjacent, just across the street from the Markwoods’ property, and I am in full support of where they are choosing to put this pool. I think it’s the best possible location on the property, and I do think that the shape of their property, being on corner, as they mentioned, is really an interpretative, I guess, situation here of what the front yard actually is, and this is really tucked in to the back corner. It’s probably the best choice they have. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) MR. DONNELLY-You’re welcome. MR. ABBATE-Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to speak on behalf or against, if you will, Area Variance No. 48-2007? I see no other hands. Folks, would you be kind enough to return to the table for us please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll read those letters in. MR. ABBATE-Yes, would you please. MR. UNDERWOOD-The first one was from Mr. Geroski. So I won’t re-read that one in, but he basically said, “I strongly recommend that a variance be given to the Markwood’s for the pool construction. My home is located directly across the street (77 Northwood Drive) and there will be no impact or problem with the location of said swimming pool. Thank you. Joseph M. Geroski” The second one was from Phillip and Nancy DeLoria. They live at 68 Northwood Drive. This letter is to support the application of James and Holly Markwood to construct a swimming pool in the front yard of their lot at 74 Northwood Drive in courthouse estates, on the corner of Northwood Drive and McCormack Road. As the property owners of 68 Northwood Drive, immediately next to the Markwood’s property, we fully support their request for a variance to install a pool in their front yard on McCormack Road. Sincerely, Phillip DeLoria Nancy DeLoria” And the last one. This is from James and Joanna Powell. “To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in support of the Markwood’s pool installation. We live across the street and have seen the proposed site. We are confident that they have considered this project carefully and have selected an appropriate location. I know that Jim and Holly would never do anything in this neighborhood to ruin its appeal. Thank you for the time and consideration and please allow them to install this pool. Very Respectfully, Jim and Joanna Powell” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and before I ask members to offer their comments, I would like to inform the public that the comments that are offered by the members are directed to the Chairman, and comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman will not be open to debate. I’m going to respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to show our conclusions and all the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated. Now, having said that, I’m going to ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 48-2007. Do we have a volunteer? MRS. HUNT-I’ll volunteer. MR. ABBATE-Please. MRS. HUNT-The proposed pool is certainly modest in size, and, you know, I was at the property, and there is a lot of vegetation and like you said you’re going to put more in. I don’t think a better location would be closer to the neighbor’s house. So I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mrs. Hunt. Do we have anyone else who’d like to go next? Brian, would you, please? MR. CLEMENTS-I also would be in favor. I’ve heard no negative remarks from the neighbors, and we’ve looked at several cases like this before. So I also would be in favor of this variance. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Joan, would you mind? MRS. JENKIN-I think there’s a positive benefit to the owners, to you. I really don’t feel there’s any negative effect on the neighborhood. I think that your neighbors are definitely for the idea. I think you have made an effort to be compliant, and the pool is not a large one. So I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think they’ve already made an attempt. I think their original ideas were modified from being closer to the road initially to where they propose the pool now. I think moving it back closer to the house doesn’t make any sense. I think we always try to stay a minimum distance from the roofline, because if you’ve got three boys, that’s a recipe for fun and disaster in the making. So, seeing as how there’s no 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) neighborhood opposition to it, I don’t think it’s a problem. We deal with these corner lots occasionally, and I don’t think we’ve ever denied anybody one yet. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I can’t be quite as enthusiastic as several of the members have been with this, but I think probably I still come down on the balancing test in favor. There is a compliant location for the pool, and has Staff has pointed out, there’s at least one other location that might require a side setback or rear setback, but would make it more compliant. Another factor that weighs on the negative side for me is, again, we can see the benefit for the immediate owners of this property, but a variance is forever. It’s not just for these people. It’s for everybody else that comes afterwards, and, you know, there’s always the potential of someone coming later buying the house and saying, okay, I want to replace this pool with a deeper one, a bigger one, whatever. So there’s some negative impacts here, but at the same time, it is a modest sized pool. It’s not the entire pool that’s out in the technical front yard, and certainly there’s some direct benefits for the applicants, and I think they do make a point that while the more compliant or the fully compliant location might fit with the Ordinance, it’s not necessarily the best location considering the neighbors. So, given that, I think the balance falls in favor of the applicants. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given the fact that this is a corner lot, they are somewhat restricted as to positions where they can locate a pool. I think they can do some things, such as what they mentioned, with vegetation and possibly, you know, eliminating what can be seen from the road with that. You do want some privacy with a pool. I don’t think the request for relief here is substantial at all. I think it’s rather moderate. At this point I’d be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, Mr. Garrand. I have listened to all of the Board members and I’ve listened to what the appellant had to say, and I would agree with the majority of the Board, that on balance, it really is a moderate request and I have no problems with that at all, and I also would like to bring to the attention of the public that one of the purposes, one of the missions, if you will, objectives, if you will, of the Zoning Board of Appeals, is to act as a safety valve for the community. So, on balance, I also would support the appeal as well. The public hearing is now closed for Area Variance No. 48-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I 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 merely must take them into account in deciding whether to grant an Area Variance. Having said that, I’m going to request a volunteer to move a motion for Area Variance No. 48-2007. MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mrs. Hunt, would you like to do it? MRS. HUNT-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2007 JAMES & HOLLY MARKWOOD, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 74 Northwood Drive, corner of McCormack Road. The applicant proposes construction of a swimming pool in the front yard as the lot is situated on a corner lot. Relief requested from requirements for placement of a pool in the rear yard. Could the benefits be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant? And while there might be other locations where the pool could be put, the applicant has satisfied that these locations would not be feasible to them. There would be no undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. There were no negative comments from neighbors. The request could be considered moderate, 34%, 12 feet of setback for the 35.45 foot requirement. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) effects, and it could be said to be self-created only because the applicants wish to put in a pool. So I request that we approve Area Variance 48-2007. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 48-2007 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 48-2007 is approved. MR. MARKWOOD-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED LARRY CLUTE AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): LARRY CLUTE ZONING: SR-20 LOCATION: HOWARD ST., GENEVA DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 20 LOT SUBDIVISION; EXTENSION OF GENEVA ESTATES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM AREA/LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SB 7-92 GENEVA ESTATES WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BD. REQUIRED PER TOWN LAW 277.6 LOT SIZE: 6.3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1- 11, 28, 29 SECTION: 179-4-020 LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-2007, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: August 15, 2007 “Project Location: Howard St., Geneva Dr. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes development of a 20 lot residential subdivision. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the minimum lot size requirements of the SR-20 zoning district for all 20 lots. Specifically, all proposed lots are less than 20,000 sf and 9 of the lots are less than the required 100 foot minimum lot width. Maximum allowable density for this subdivision is 14 lots. Density relief if 107,320 sf is needed. 20 lots x 20,000sf + road area(55,000)=455,000 minus parcel size 347,680 = 107,320. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicants would be permitted to create 20 residential building lots for sale and development. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives include reduction of the number of lots by increasing the size to the allowable minimum lot size. 14 lots would be available at the 20,000 sf minimum lot size. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The cumulative requests for all twenty lots to be substandard in size by, on average, more than 25% undersized (lots range from 15,524 to 12,462) and for at least 9 of the 20 lots to be substandard in minimum width (lots range in width from 93.17 ft to 97.01 feet ) may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: The smallest developed lot on Geneva Drive is very close to the size of the largest lot proposed in this subdivision. Lots in the immediate community average roughly 0.43 acres or nearly 19,000 sf. The proposed development would create a second means of access to the Geneva Estates area. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) 5. Is this difficulty self-created? As there appears to be compliant configuration available, the difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Geneva Estates subdivision was approved in 1992 as a 10 lot cluster subdivision for mobile homes when the applicable zoning called for a 1 acre minimum lot size. The approval, in effect left the remaining lands (lands proposed for the current subdivision) as th the 10 lot as open space lands for the cluster subdivision. It was an 11.9 acre parcel (minus road acreage) which allowed for 10 lots and the cluster layout created smaller lots with the left over land as the common land. Subsequently, Area Variance 33-1993 (for a 15 lot subdivision of the land in this proposal) was denied. Per the denial resolution…. “ it would appear to be in direct conflict with the intent of the Planning Board’s resolution allowing Mr. Diehl to use the Town’s clustering provisions, and their understanding that this lot would remain open space.” Staff comments: The proposed subdivision offers conveyances of land currently occupied by a Town Road ( Howard Street ) yet no indication from the Town Highway Department and or Town Board has been submitted relative to the abandonment of the roadway as shown on the plan. Additionally, it appears as though lands of Swinton and Steady are also part of this subdivision proposal yet the parcels are not listed as part of the application. Does the applicant have authority to convey these lands? Further, tax parcel 301.20-1-19 appears to be part of the proposal yet it was not listed in the application materials but is described in deed 3234/299 as the first described parcel. Has this parcel already been consolidated with the other Clute lands? 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. The minimum centerline radius for a curve in a local road is 300 feet, the proposed subdivision offers a 175 ft centerline radius. Would a rezoning of the land be a more appropriate action rather than creating 20 non conforming lots via Area Variance? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I see that the appellant is at the table. Would you be kind enough, sir, to tell us who you are and where you reside, please. MR. CLUTE-I’m Larry Clute. I reside at 13 Dawn Road. MR. ABBATE-And, Mr. Clute, you’ve been here before. You understand our procedures. MR. CLUTE-I do, sir. MR. ABBATE-Are you prepared to proceed? MR. CLUTE-I am. MR. ABBATE-Please do. MR. CLUTE-All right. I’ve been living at this residence for 15 years, and over that 15 years I guess I’ve been re-developing that general neighborhood, and hopefully it would be viewed as an improvement, and over the years many different comments, many different options have been brought to my attention as to what to do with the sand pit. One of them would be the egress, the ins and outs to access that neighborhood. So that, obviously, would handle that, and then the neighborhood is fairly problematic as far as sales construction and so on and so forth, and so the re-sales are rather complicated, and so the numbers tend to be fairly restricted on the re-sale value, but I’ve been progressively, again, 10, 15 years, I don’t know how familiar you are with the neighborhood, but I have slowly and surely what I consider done some improvement or redevelopment in the neighborhood, and this honestly is just a continuation of that. I would like to continue over onto Howard Street. I also own numerous properties on Howard Street, but I honestly can’t improve those properties because there’s no way I 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) can get the re-sale for them, and when I did Geneva Estates, roughly, eight, nine years ago, that created a definite benefit. With the newer housing in there, it creates a certain attitude in the neighborhood, and it tends to bring it up, and so that was quite beneficial, and I’m almost sure that the additional new homes would accomplish the same thing, and hopefully, again, continue to improve the neighborhood. The benefit, obviously, is, I mean, this is what I do for a living, but I live right there. I’m right in the middle of that neighborhood. I live on Dawn Road. So I would love to continue to be able to improve the neighborhood personally, as well. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Have you concluded at this time? MR. CLUTE-I believe so. If you’d like to ask specific questions. MR. ABBATE-Okay. At any time during the hearing, if you feel you have additional information that would support your case, raise your hand and we’ll recognize you. MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do you have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 52-2007? MR. UNDERWOOD-I do. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Mr. Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-I was wondering, because, you know, since you did Geneva Estates there, you know, in reading back the past record from the old Zoning Board, the old Planning Board notes and things like that, the area that you’re proposing for construction here, I’m unclear as to why that was left as green space. Was that going to remain in perpetuity green space? MR. CLUTE-To be honest with you, I wish I was more versed in that as well. It was Charlie Diehl that did the initial subdivision, and I ended up taking it over. He tried to do mobile homes. I guess he wanted to do a mobile home park, and that didn’t go over real well. He wasn’t able to do anything. He approached me, because, again, that’s probably nine years ago, maybe even a full ten. I’m not really sure, but it was a ways back, and I said at that time, I said, all right. I’m going to attempt the stick built, but I’m not sure, again, I‘m unclear as well. If it was an open space, and again, I’m a novice at this. I’m a builder. I’m not sure. If it was open space, then it should have been, in my opinion, a Homeowners Association. They’re responsible for the land, or the Town takes it over as recreation land, but nothing ever happens. So I’m not, maybe Craig is more versed at it. I’m not really sure how I ended up, or Charlie ended up, still owning this lot. I don’t know what would make sense out of that. You’d leave it to the homeowners or you give it to the Town, and that way there you’re assured your open space, but it wasn’t me that went after that subdivision. So I’m not really too well versed with it, I guess. MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, do you want to comment on that? MR. BROWN-I have a short answer. The land was proposed to be dedicated to the Town. The Recreation Department decided that they didn’t want that small of a parcel, kind of a pocket park, if you will. They decided they didn’t want that. So it reverted and was maintained by the developer at the time. Apparently with the understanding that it was the open space for the subdivision. No Homeowners Association was created with that subdivision. So it was just the common land for the clustered lots. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are we being premature by discussing this if it hasn’t gone back to the Planning Board, then? Because, I mean, I would think they would want to offer their interpretation as to what to do with it. MR. BROWN-Yes, you can certainly wait, I mean, I would suggest that you do get a recommendation from them if, you know, you’re thinking about going forward with it. If it’s not something that you’re pleased with and you’d like some revisions from the applicant, you can certainly ask them to do that, too, before you go ahead, but. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-No, the only reason I say that is because you know if you go back and you read the old minutes, Jim Martin, who was the head of the Department at the time there, the original zoning up there was, I think, 30,000. When they went to 20,000, he had concerns about that, and so now if we’re talking about going down even smaller than that, you know, I think it’s kind of a real grab, and it’s understandable that you want to get more lots out of what’s there, but I don’t even know if we’re supposed to have lots there, you know, it would be nice to get in concrete somebody writing down whether or not this is available, just so you don’t waste your time, either, you know. MR. CLUTE-I honestly, when I took possession of it from Mr. Diehl, I talked with Jim, Chris, right on down the line, and never, I don’t know if Craig got involved in those. He may have during when Chris was on board, and we couldn’t really get a grip. Jim’s concerns at the time was the mobile home park, and then when the stick built came in, they were very much in favor. They were trying to come up with affordable homes, so to speak, and I’m not sure exactly what that means. That’s a relative term, depending on who you talk to. I developed a modest neighborhood, and it’s moderately priced, and that’s one of the reasons for as much space as you can get. That way I can keep my costs down and keep it in line with what the neighborhood is, and construct basically the same home. So that that neighborhood has an easy consistency to it, but affordability is definitely the ticket in that particular neighborhood. You honestly couldn’t do anything more than affordability, and when I say affordability, now days you’re talking $140 to $180,000 product. Very complicated to do in the Town of Queensbury, but that neighborhood, that’s what that neighborhood is. There’s no way around it, but I know Jim was on Board, once the houses were coming into play, and it rolled over to Chris as well, they wanted to try and get into an affordable program and at one point Chris was trying to communicate with Warren County Community Development. They tend to give out grant programs. As a matter of fact, I believe there’s one of the clients within Geneva Estates that got a Warren County grant, and what they do is they do a block subdivision, and then they assist buyers, whether it’s a straight up cash donation, handling closing costs, so on and so forth, again, following the affordability feel, but ultimately, the same housing that I have in there, but I wish I had more information. I honestly don’t. MR. ABBATE-Rick, please. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Clute, basically the Town’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan places a high value on open space, and my problem with this is as a condition for the subdivision approval, they stated, no further subdivision or construction. MR. CLUTE-Right. MR. GARRAND-At this point I feel kind of bound by that. MR. CLUTE-Sure. I understand. MR. ABBATE-Joan, did you have something? MRS. JENKIN-I agree. I have some real reservations about this because of the. MRS. HUNT-I feel that way, too. Since it was put aside as green area, I don’t feel that we should make any decisions now. MR. ABBATE-Chuck, please? MR. MC NULTY-I kind of agree. I have two road blocks, both of which say no to me. One is the provision in the previous Planning Board subdivision saying this would be open space, and the other is it initially strikes me as the zoning says 14 lots. I see no great justification for otherwise, but, you know, I would feel a lot more comfortable with trying to deal with this if, I guess one, we had an opinion perhaps from the Town Attorney as to whether the old Planning Board procedure has any legal binding restrictions on this piece of property. We know what the intent was, but my question is, what really happened with it, to start with, and I think the idea of referring this to the Planning Board, asking for their recommendation, not asking them to do our job for us, but asking them to take a look at it and should they agree that the old restrictions, for some reason, are not applicable, then how many lots would they like to see from their viewpoint, and just come back to us and say, yes, we think 20 lots would be appropriate, so we would recommend approval, or, no, we think 10 lots is more appropriate, so please don’t pass. They don’t have to do the total evaluation we’d be doing, but that’s where I’m at, that I’m certainly not in a position to vote in favor of this tonight. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anyone else have any comments this evening? Okay. Then what I would like to do now, Board members, is this. I would like to go to each of you and ask you to. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t you open the public hearing, first. MR. ABBATE-That’s right. Yes, you’re absolutely correct. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 52-2007, and if we have any members of the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 52-2007, would you be kind enough to raise you hand. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, could I just offer a couple of quick answers to a couple of questions that came up before? MR. ABBATE-By all means. MR. BROWN-One of the questions was, is the land that’s the common land, does that land, is it still available to be further subdivided? And I think the answer is yes, subject to the previous condition that was put on it by the Planning Board that said no further subdivision. So the Planning Board can go back and re-visit that. They’re not obligated to change it. They can certainly say we told you no before. We’re going to tell you no again, but it’s certainly the applicant’s right to go back and ask for permission to undo that. It doesn’t mean they’re going to get it, but it can get put back on the table, but the Planning Board gets to decide whether they want to alter their previous approval. So, I don’t know if that helps, but I figured I’d let everybody know before they start making comments. MR. ABBATE-No, thank you for your input. We appreciate it, thank you for your input. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. ABBATE-All right, folks. Would you be kind enough to tell us who you are and where you reside, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHELLE O’DONNELL MS. O’DONNELL-My name is Michelle O’Donnell, and l live on 2 Geneva Drive or Lot Four of Geneva Drive. I have been in that neighborhood for 12 years. So, Larry, I’m sorry, you’re wrong. Larry actually built my house in 1995, and I can say in his favor that he has improved the neighborhood drastically. However, I do have a few concerns and questions because I’ve been there as long as I have. One, the traffic flow that would be coming in, should this be approved, from the Howard Street into the Geneva Drive area. What kind of a road would be put in, and what kind of traffic would we be receiving in our cul de sac from that area. My second question to that is, I understand that Larry is going to be putting in houses similar to our houses. With the conditions of the way Howard Street is at this time, I’m a little concerned about the value of the homes that are in our neighborhood now and should that be decreasing the value of our homes. If you had taken a drive down Howard Street, I know Larry owns some land over there. Hopefully he could clean that neighborhood up as well as he did the neighborhood that I live in, but with the way that that looks, and the traffic from that area, I have a concern, because we do have a lot of children that live, you know, they’re used to the small little 10 house neighborhood of kids and they play in that, and it’s a very tight knit neighborhood. Should there be more homes in there, I would like to see another cul de sac be put on the other side of that, and not have that go through to that area, so I can be assured, and should that go through, I would want something from you guys in writing stating that the value of my home’s not going to depreciate. Because we’ve all put in a lot of time and effort in that neighborhood to make it look good, and so has Larry. MR. ABBATE-All right. Sir, would you tell us who you are, please, and where you reside. MR. O’DONNELL MR. O’DONNELL-I’m her husband. I live at 2 Geneva Drive, too. I’ve been there for five years. It’s changed a lot over in that area. MRS. O’DONNELL-And I have one more question. Would the homes that he would be putting in there, because I understand the conditions that were in Larry did say that there 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) was one home in the neighborhood that was kind of a government subsidized home, would he be doing any of that government subsidized dwelling, or would it be something that I could buy? MR. ABBATE-Well, to be honest with you, that doesn’t fall within our jurisdiction. MRS. O’DONNELL-Yes, well, these are all questions that I have. MR. ABBATE-Well, you certainly can go to the Town and ask them, but that doesn’t fall within our jurisdiction. MRS. O’DONNELL-All right. Okay. All right. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is there anything else you’d like to add? MRS. O’DONNELL-That would be it at this time. MR. ABBATE-Well, thank you very much for your input. Do we have anyone else? Yes, sir. Would you be kind enough to come to the table, and tell us who you are and where you reside. RONALD WILLIAMS MR. WILLIAMS-Yes. My name is Ronald Williams. I live at 15 Lancestire, which is directly behind Howard Street. I have some major concerns, when I got the letter in the mail. I don’t have a problem with Mr. Clute building houses. He built some nice houses across the street off Sherman Avenue. I do have a major problem with the lot sizes being as low as it is. I know that in Glens Falls and other places that some of the low income housing has been eliminated and they’re looking for places to go. I do not like the fact that a lot of houses are going to be crammed in a small space. I think that, you know, obviously Queensbury has a lot size requirement. I think it should stay that way. If there’s 14 houses, then so be it, that’s fine, but I do have a problem with the crime rate. I am a police officer and I know that has a direct relation. That’s my major concern. If he wants to build nice houses in there, that’s fine, and raise the value, that’s good, but I don’t want to see low income housing come in there. I do have a major concern that I’m butted right up to Howard Street. I don’t have a problem now, but I think it will be a problem, and obviously this may not be able to build on that because of the land might not even be able to be used by him, but if it does, I would like for us to be contacted again so we can come back up here, as a community, and speak our opinions on that. MR. ABBATE-Well, you will have every opportunity, because I will not close the public hearing. MR. WILLIAMS-Okay. Thank you so much. MR. ABBATE-You will certainly have more opportunities to speak. Thank you so much for your input. Who else? All right, sir. Would you mind coming to the table, please. Tell us who you are and where you reside, please. DICK GRAHAM MR. GRAHAM-My name is Dick Graham. I live at 12 Lancestire Drive, a neighbor to Mr. Williams. I compliment Mr. Clute and what he’s attempting to do. I’m aware of the housing that he has built, and I compliment him on that, but I would really wish that he, that we would stay with the 14 lot and not go to 20, for much the same reason that Mr. Williams brought up. We haven’t had any trouble with the Howard Street residents, but we don’t want to aggravate that situation at all, and we have found, since we have moved into the neighborhood, I moved in there in ’92 and built the house, and before our development was fully developed, there were a few lots that were difficult to sell because of the effect of Howard Street, and we don’t want any more of that. MR. ABBATE-All right, sir. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Would you mind coming to the table, please. Speak into the microphone and tell us who you are and where you reside. PAUL PITMAN MR. PITMAN-Good evening gentlemen and ladies. My name is Paul Pitman. I reside at 5 Geneva Drive. I’ve been there for approximately two years. My wife, my son and I 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) reside there. We are recently transferred. I work as a psychologist for the State of New York. Have done so for 27 years, and we’ve recently relocated from the Lake Placid, Saranac Lake area. We’re used to a tight knit neighborhood. This is certainly that, and we were delighted to see that, although we had some concerns about moving into the neighborhood because of the proximity to Howard Street, and some of the properties at the very entrance to our neighborhood, we decided we were going to take a chance on the neighborhood because we saw that in this cul de sac there were a great number of homes that were fairly respectable and affordable to us. What’s been said here earlier is quite true. Mr. Clute has, in the short time I’ve lived there, developed three or four homes there, which certainly rose the status of that neighborhood considerably. I had great hopes. When I heard that we might be connected with Howard Street, though, my heart really sunk. There have been a couple of recent events that have happened in my home that make me think back to what the police officer just told us. There are concerns about crime in the area. Only last weekend I had to report to the State Police that a top of the line steel chainsaw had been taken from my garage because my son had left the door open. My son has also been threatened by the children on the bus that get on from Howard Street. I’m very concerned about that. I’m not concerned that Mr. Clute wants to develop the neighborhood. Certainly I’m sure he has good intent, and I’m not wanting Howard Street to, I don’t want to see Howard Street lose value, and I’m not opposed to them increasing in value, but I would not want to see that at the expense of our recent investment. That’s pretty much what I have to say. I had a couple of questions I did want to address to the Board, if that’s appropriate. MR. ABBATE-Certainly. MR. PITMAN-First of which is, if this does go to the Zoning Board for discussion, I presume there will be public. MR. ABBATE-We are the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Planning Board. MR. PITMAN-The Planning Board. I’m sorry. I’m not that familiar with local government, here. MR. ABBATE-That’s all right. MR. PITMAN-I’m just wondering if our neighbors and myself and my wife will have input? MR. ABBATE-You will have every opportunity at both Boards to project your views, believe me, because they will go out with the public hearing. MR. PITMAN-Okay. Thank you very much, that’s all I have here. MR. ABBATE-You’re most welcome, and thank you for your input. Let’s see. I believe we had someone else who, yes, sir, please. Would you please tell us who you are and where you reside, please. BILL HAMLIN MR. HAMLIN-Chairman, my name is Bill Hamlin, and I live in Queen Victoria Grant, which buts up with common ground to the property he’s considering stuffing 20 lots onto. We’ve had a lot of problems there already. I don’t know Mr. Clute. I know his son, but I don’t know him. We have a lot of problems there already, with four wheelers and three wheelers, dust and noise. They play in the sand a lot, with is legal, what the sheriffs have told me over the last three years with me out there complaining, that we don’t have any say on them not flying around on their four wheelers and three wheelers, and there’s no noise ordinance in Queensbury either, and it’s gotten to the point where several people who live near me, including myself, are considering moving. Now, if he puts in these 20 lots, on this little six acre area wherever it is, which I don’t know where the boundaries are because I went out to look to see if it was boundaried off, but I guess he has to wait for approval. We’re very nervous about the young teenagers, if they’re that old, with the three wheelers and four wheelers, coming onto the common ground after the sand pits have been taken away. Because I don’t think they’re going to give up their three wheeler, four wheeler habits. We’re worried about that noise. We’re worried about some drainage. MR. ABBATE-Be more specific about drainage. Could you be a little more specific about that? MR. HAMLIN-I wish I could. I’m just worried about 20 water and sewer lines. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) MR. ABBATE-Are you talking about stormwater and things like that? MR. HAMLIN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-I see. Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Septic. MR. HAMLIN-Septic especially. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. HAMLIN-When you start cramming people in, and you’re in low incoming housing, there’s usually more bodies in the house. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. HAMLIN-That’s it, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much for your input. Do we have anyone else in the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 52-2007? Yes, sir, please. Kindly tell us who you are and where you reside. SHANE IRWIN MR. IRWIN-Good evening. MR. ABBATE-Good evening. MR. IRWIN-My name is Shane Irwin. I live at 7 Geneva Drive. Pretty much my house is the second one before you get to the dead end where Mr. Clute wants to build. Again, like everybody said, Larry Clute has cleaned up the area. I mean, I’ve been there for three years. I bought my house from Realty USA. Over the three years he’s taken out a couple of trailers before you get to my house and built two nice houses. So for that I do, you know, he has cleaned up the area. However, I agree with everybody else. With the congestion that it might bring, I do real estate myself, and once I found out about this meeting, I actually did a whole comparable analysis on everybody’s houses in my development, and compared to other places in Queensbury, the average comparable price for each house in my neighborhood is around $180 to $190,000. I just walked in halfway. I don’t know, I didn’t catch Larry’s whole conversation, but I thought he said the houses he wants to build is comparable to $140 to $150 like our neighborhood. When I did a whole comparable analysis, it came out to be, our houses are worth between $180, to $190,000. I printed out sheets where there’s houses on the market right now, on our street from $194,000. So I feel that if they build these smaller homes, I mean, I don’t know what the sizes are he was saying, because like I said, I came in late. My concern is like Michelle’s was, is how is our house value going to be effected? First of all, I know it’s going to be effected a lot by being connected to Howard Street. My son, too, has been, you know, had issues with kids off Howard Street. The four wheelers, they already are going through the common ground between Geneva and Queen Victoria’s Grant, because in fact one day I put a fence up. There was kids going down, right across from my house there’s like a little dirt trail. They were going down and all of a sudden you see them behind my house, between Queen Victoria’s Grant and my house. So I don’t know if that’s going to cause more problems if you build more houses there, but like I said again, I mean, nothing against Larry. I mean, I’ve shown a lot of his houses. I mean, he builds good quality stuff. I’m just concerned what type of house is going to be there and what kind of audience it’s going to be bringing in. pretty much that’s about it there. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. IRWIN-All right. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 52-2007? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got two letters. MR. ABBATE-Okay, Mr. Secretary. Would you read those into the record, please. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) th MR. UNDERWOOD-We have two letters. This one was received on August 13. “We are unable to attend – Working – Ordinance Zoning & Sign pursuant to Section 179-103. Pertaining to the Public Hearing Notice delivered on 8/9/2007 our views adhere to the following. 1. We request a water table to the leveling of the area proposed, Tax ID #301.20-1-11, 28, 29. Location: Howard Street and Geneva Drive, Owner: Larry Clute. 2. Noting that we also request a NO ATV sign to be put on the corner of Dawn St. and Eisenhower Ave. in conjunction of property completion. This has been our #1 complaint since purchasing our property in 1998. Taking away the only 4 x 4 trail will enhance our willingness to call the authorities about this matter. I find this nuisance to be a waste of the Warren County Sheriff’s time and allocations. Only if this matter is addressed will we be able to give our okay in this Ordinance. Thank you, Karen Cormie William Quinn” The second letter was received today. It’s addressed to us. “I am writing you regarding the public hearing notice tonight with cross reference Sub. No. 7-1992 Geneva Estates with my opposition. I moved into this neighborhood in 1997 with Larry Clute as my builder. He had promised this neighborhood would “clean up” within the next five years. I have now been here for 10 years and the neighborhood has improved immensely since I moved in. It is a nice quiet neighborhood where the children can play outside and ride their bikes and just be kids. What Larry Clute is proposing to do is going to ruin this neighborhood. I was informed that the proposal was to build 20 low income houses on 6.3 acres so we can supposedly place Henry Hudson Townhouse misplaced people. It is not our fault or the Town of Queensbury’s fault that Glens Falls is misplacing the Henry Hudson Townhouse and the people that live there. Everyone knows of the troubles that come with the Henry Hudson Townhouses. In Glens Falls they have the police station close and they are already aware of the problems. Is Queensbury equipped to handle the drugs and crime hat are associated with Henry Hudson? Regardless of who would move into these homes, 20 houses on 6.3 acres is too crowded, too much traffic and will lower the value of the houses all around. I am writing you this letter buy my husband will be at the meeting tonight. This proposal will meet with great opposition tonight from all the neighbors affected and I hope that you will listen to every voice. We love where we live, we feel safe raising our families here and we hope you will listen to all our oppositions and reject this proposal. Thank you, Pam Labrum 7 Ralph Road Queensbury, NY 12804” That’s it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I’m going to ask members, now, to offer their comments. I’d like to inform the public that the comments offered by the members are directed to the Chairman and comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman will not be open to debate. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to let Mr. Clute respond? MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Clute. If you will, please. MR. CLUTE-I very much appreciate everybody coming up, and I can understand that there seems to be a confusion, but as you can see, the neighborhood has increased, and Shane came up and explained, we’re looking at a $180 to $190,000 neighborhood. When that neighborhood started, there were homes in there, Michelle being one of them, 70 K. So her value has jumped dramatically, as well as the rest of Queensbury, which is a great thing, and I’m not bringing in low income. I’m not sure where that came from. Again, we get into the semantics of affordability vs. low income. I guess what I’m trying to overcome is the low income. If you drive down Howard Street, not that I have anything against that, but it does create a truly a negative effect on a well established neighborhood, and that’s not the intent. You’re going to go with a market home, and the market home, in my opinion at this point, is a $140 to $180 product. That’s not a low income home. That’s a modestly priced home. That’s a working man’s home, and it’s a family neighborhood. Exactly what I want to see. Again, I live right in the middle of it. I want to be there. I want to stay there, and so I want to encourage further families, further kids. The other negative comment is the ATV use. I have no control over that. The only way to control it, honestly, is to develop it. I know that sounds terrible, but there are no rules to stop ATV’s on this private property, and that’s the problem, I mean, and my sons ride, and I allow that, and there’s also a lot of other neighboring people. This is an old trail. Queensbury used to be all trails. This happens to be one of the few remaining trails, and so it continually gets ridden, and is it an annoyance? No question, but that’s what I guess I’m kind of questionable about the open space. What is the value of that open space? Go walk it. What benefit is the neighborhood actually getting? I think you’re getting, from the comments, that they’re not getting a positive quality from this so called open space. It’s more of an annoyance to them. With the development, that’s gone. There are no more trails. There is no need for an ATV sign. There’s none of that. The trail’s gone. You’re literally going right through the middle of the sand pit, and with homes you’ve got yards. You’ve got families, and it’s definitely a benefit. So I think what 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) they’re, it seems that the low income is more an extension of Howard. I prefer to look at it the other way. The addition of the property is an extension of Geneva pushing on Howard, rather than Howard pushing on Geneva, and honestly, that’s how the neighborhood has been redeveloped and improved on. You can’t very well go in there and just, you have to be able to pull off a certain value, and so by bringing in new homes, it tends to override a lot of the older homes, and as they’ve said, look what’s happened to these values. I mean, I started off my first home in there was, I think, a $59,900. The second one a $69,900. The values are now $180,000. This has spread throughout this whole neighborhood, and that’s the intent of the extension. Continue with that improvement. You’re not going to take a $180,000 neighborhood and drop it down to a $90,000 or an $80,000. You’re going to carry that value through, build basically the same homes, and then hopefully establish the same neighborhood, or keep the same neighborhood, young families, young kids, and with the connection I own four other vacant lots on Howard, but I can’t improve them. I can, but it’s not going to get me anywhere. I can’t, there’s no business sense to it because you can’t turn them over. With the addition of new homes, then I can carry new, I’ve already done three on Howard Street. There’s three new homes on Howard. If I can do the other four, really what you’re doing is carrying the new right on through Howard, and it just becomes a steam roll effect, if that makes sense, and ultimately I think everybody benefits. The people on Lancestire are experiencing the negative effects of Howard Street. There’s no way to get around that, other than re-development. You put in new homes in there. You overcome what is in place. You make a better neighborhood, which is essentially what I’ve done in Geneva Estates in my neighborhood. Eisenhower I’ve added new homes. Dawn Road I’ve added new homes, Geneva, Ralph Road, all new homes. Continue doing that, the same effect is going to take place. It’s taken me 10, 15 years, or as Michelle has said, she’s been there 12. It’s taken time, but with the cooperation of Queensbury and the neighbors, this is ultimately what I’ve been able to create. I don’t know how more simply to put it than that, I guess, and hopefully I’ve overcome some of the question marks. I haven’t been able to get out into the general public and walk house to house, but some of their concerns are quite valid, but I guess that would be the point of new development, it will overcome those negative concerns. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right, and I indicated earlier that I’m going to inform the public that the comments offered by the members are going to be directed to the Chairman and are not going to be open to debate. Having said that, I’m going to respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record. I’ve already indicated to you what our responsibilities are. Having said that now, I’m going to ask members now to please be kind enough to offer their comment on Area Variance No. 52-2007. MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, what are we exactly commenting on? Are we talking about bouncing this back to the Planning Board because? MR. ABBATE-Here’s what I would like to do, the Board to do, to help me out. There’s no question in my mind that there is an obligation on our part to comply with New York State Town Law 277 Paragraph 6, which indicates that we will go to the Planning Board for recommendation, and they must, upon receipt, provide us with written recommendations. What I would like to do now is to poll the Board and ask the Board, do they have any concerns with Area Variance No. 52-2007, and then I will take those concerns and in several words, if you will, list them and then do a motion to the Planning Board to address these issues and get back to us with written recommendations. In addition to that, I’m also going to make a strong comment that our Town Attorney address certain areas, which I will explain in just a few minutes. So I’m going to ask the Board members right now, having heard what you heard this evening, and having read Area Variance No. 52-2007, do you have concerns, and if you do, would you be kind enough to let me know, and then I will take those and put them into a motion. MR. URRICO-I’ll go first. MR. ABBATE-Would you mind? MR. URRICO-Well, my main concern, my first concern, is whether we can proceed at all with this, based on previous determinations by the Planning Board. Secondly, if we are to proceed, and this is still considered an SR-20, why we can’t have the applicant limit the number of homes in that area, and the third concern is that considering that the average home in that area is 19,000 square feet, why are we bringing forth proposed houses that are about 3500 square feet less than that, so those are my three main concerns. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Now those areas I think we could ask Mr. Clute right now, rather than the Planning Board to address. Mr. Clute, would you be kind enough to address those issues, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, if you’re going to ask comments for yourself, though, why don’t we poll through everybody until we get a consensus. MR. ABBATE-We could do that. As long as we don’t forget what Roy just said, basically. Joyce, go ahead. MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with Roy. I’m very concerned about this open space that th was left, the 10 lot, the 11.9 acre parcel, and whether it legally can be developed. I also am concerned about the size of the lots. If 19,000 square feet is the general area and we’re going to go less, in fact, in the 1993, when they asked for variance, the lots were 15,000 to 16,800, and it was only a, what was it a 17, 15 lot subdivision. Now we’re talking about a 20 lot subdivision. So I am very concerned about these things. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Jim, do you want to go next, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I think we need to keep it all in perspective as to what the original intent of the Subdivision Regulations were in 1992 or 1993 when they were reviewed at that time by the Planning Board, and my interpretation of cluster development is when you cluster develop, as has been done up in Queen Victoria’s on the other side there, you leave a substantial area as green space, you know, and that’s as a buffer zone. It’s to create the illusion that we still have Queensbury and we haven’t just subdivided it all up into streets and houses. I think that in general it would be improper for us to act. I mean, based upon what we now have as zoning there, it’s 20,000 square foot zoning. I think if it were indeed to come to fruition that there were 14 possible lots that could be developed there, I think that we would have to grant them the 14 lots based upon their allowance for that specific 6.2 acre area, but at the same time, we don’t know what the Planning Board’s going to say. If it’s a strict interpretation, look, this was supposed to be green space, you know, in perpetuity, then nothing’s going to get built there. So for us to prematurely act on that I think would be wrong. At the same time, I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Clute. I think we’ve worked with him numerous times before. We’ve all seen the benefit of what he does in the community. He’s not building palaces and McMansions all over Town, but he is upgrading neighborhoods and trying to improve the community, and I think his intent is also good in this respect, here. There’s some question in my mind, when we leave these green spaces, are they valuable or do they turn into four wheeler parks, and that’s a concern of the neighbors that’s been expressed here this evening also. So at this point in time, I think that we should get a clarification from the Planning Board before we proceed, and I think that we can, based upon their recommendations, then grant whatever is allowable. MR. ABBATE-All right. MRS. JENKIN-I think that we need to clear up the uncertainty and go to the Planning Board to start with. I also feel that the owners of the homes in the surrounding area have brought up some very, very important points that should be considered. I noticed that you have, in the middle of the subdivision, there is lands that you own, right in the middle of the subdivision. So, there is some land, and the next is the Wells Fargo Bank and then you have land there, and I wondered, because there is the concern about Howard Street, that if you do develop this, if it would be possible to not go into the subdivision that is on the other side of Howard Street, but have a dead end at that end, and then maybe make your access road in the middle, and that would prevent the through road going through Howard Street. It’s just a thought of mine. I also feel that reducing the density of the lots would be quite important, and I agree that they do feel that you have really improved the neighborhood, and want you to continue to do that, and I think that you should probably do that as well. I think that one of the ideas about the less density, with the new Comprehensive Plan that’s coming through, I think that we have to consider that, and they certainly are talking about having open areas, and I don’t think, in this case, that this open area is a good one because they’re using it, and nobody owns it and there’s no responsibility taken. So I think the development would be positive. So I think that some sort of development is a good idea, but I think that you need to listen to the people that live around you. MR. ABBATE-Rick, please. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. Much the same as a variance follows the property, I also believe that conditions placed upon property by these Boards should also follow the 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) property. Any decision we would make here tonight regarding this application would be in direct conflict with previous Planning Board resolutions. At this point, I wouldn’t feel comfortable making any decision at all on this, and I feel we should defer it, and the Planning Board should keep in mind that there is a standing resolution, conditions regarding this property, and we need clarification on it, and that’s it. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and Chuck, please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, Staff cleared up a little bit of the conditions I had earlier, as far as whether or not the restriction on this property is legitimate or not, but apparently it is at this point. I think the obvious thing for us to do is refer this to the Planning Board, ask them to do their Planning Board thing with it. One obvious question is whether there’s any value in this open space at this point, because we’ve heard from some in the audience that it’s a detriment. That it’s a noise producer, it attracts four wheelers, which gets into another whole thing, if you’re going to chase them out of here, where are they going to go. You need to do something for them, but that’s another subject for another Board, but I think Mr. Clute does have a point. It could be that developing this parcel now could produce some benefits in reducing the noise irritation and some of the other problems that some of the neighbors are having. So that’s worth a look, but that’s something for the Planning Board to do. They’re the ones that originally passed the resolution setting this aside as open space. It’s probably a valid question at least to them now, is this still valuable as open space or is it better used some other way because of the problems that it’s causing. So I’d like to see them address that. Should they decide that that answer’s yes, it could be better used some other way, then I’d be willing to consider what Mr. Clute is asking, although, as somebody else mentioned, I’m very inclined, at the moment, to say stick with the 14 lots that he could do without having to come to us. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Clute, would you like to respond to some of the comments by the Board, before I enter into a motion and what have you? MR. CLUTE-Sure. I thank you very much for this forum, because it actually helps, just by having the comments, and the feel that I get is we actually have open communication and it’s definitely quite beneficial when I move on to the Planning Board. As far as the lot square footage, yes, I know what the zoning is. It’s 20, but I also know what the neighborhood’s is. It’s 15. The whole neighborhood is 15. All the lots are at 15,000 square feet. Queen Victoria’s Grant is 10,000 square foot lots. Queensbury Forest, 15,000 square foot lots. Smoke Ridge, off of Sherman Avenue, which is a duplex subdivision, 15,000 square foot lots. So the 15,000 square foot lots are not unusual or really a big push. The whole neighborhood is 15,000 square foot, not that the 20,000 couldn’t be done. It could, but it just simply comes down to straight up economics again. Trying to do an affordable home, you need to try and maximize what you can, and essentially that’s what happened in Geneva Estates. I sold all those homes. I use a real estate agent now, but you can almost ask any client in there, when I sold them, I asked them to please bear with me, and one of the people up here told you that. I said just please bear with me. This neighborhood, it took me a lot to sell this neighborhood because essentially Leo Street, Eisenhower, was Howard, and they beared with me. I mean, these people were great. They came in. They bought into this new neighborhood and by doing that, it encouraged more. It was easier. Each sale became easier, and that’s why I’m under the firm belief that the new subdivision will accomplish the same thing. It just generates a fever. Once you start, once other people see that there’s other families in there, they’ve put themselves on the line a little bit. They see what the benefits are, and this neighborhood has definitely benefited. As far as housing, the housing’s not going to be any different. I’m not sure about the square footage, but the average square footage in there is anywhere from 900 square foot to 1300 square foot. That’s not going to change. Identical designs, identical homes are going to be in there, and I guess that’s, again, that’s the point. I’m trying to stay with affordable. Not necessarily low income, affordable, which would be $140,000 to $180,000 product. They’re not going to be any smaller than what is already there. They won’t go any smaller than 900. I don’t anticipate them going higher than 1300, but we may encroach on the 1500. I’ll flow with that market, but I’d honestly like to keep the market at $140,000 to $180,000. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to have garages on those houses? MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s what I thought. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) MR. CLUTE-The same thing that I did within Geneva Estates, carrying those designs forward. The only design I didn’t really do in Geneva Estates, there’s no cape in there, but a cape tends to be a little more costly, but tri-levels. Tri-levels work really well. So you end up with a nice mix of ranches, raised ranches, some tri-levels and modest colonials. That’s honestly what that would be. We’d just run a straight continuation of that, and it’s not going to devalue. If anything, it’ll continue to increase the value. This is Queensbury, and if you clean up Queensbury, Queensbury values do nothing but rise, and so by encouraging the development, which is essentially what the first home buyers did. When they bought into Geneva Estates, it wasn’t just me doing the subdivision. It was them buying into it that encouraged the neighborhood and the neighborhood growth. They had faith that this would happen. That’s honestly what will happen when the new street comes in and it’ll have an effect on Howard Street, no mistake about it. There’s just no doubt in my mind. That’s exactly what happened on Leo Street, on Eisenhower. The more we re-developed, the more we encouraged people in, the more the neighborhood just cleaned up. It really is a dramatic change. I don’t mean to toot my own horn, but over 15 years that neighborhood has changed dramatically, and the reason being is people are buying into it, young families, kids, and we’re simply re- developing, and we’re doing it together, and I honestly don’t see where this would be any different. So the lot sizes are 15,000 square foot, every one of them, not just the ones I’m proposing, everything that exists is already 15,000. House size, they’re all going to be the same. They won’t be any lesser. They’ll be exactly what’s in Geneva Estates. I don’t know what else more to say. The only thing I do differently now. Back then I think I said the first home I sold was like a $59,900, which is, that can’t happen anymore, but anyway, that’s a whole other story, we used to not do the landscaping or the paved driveways. As a matter of standard now, I seed the front yards, I pave the driveways, and that actually kind of takes away from the new construction. When you walk away from it, you’ve actually melded. You fit into the neighborhood. So that would become standard practice as well. I just do that on every home now, whereas initially in Geneva Estates I didn’t do it. Most of the homeowners, obviously, put in their own lawns, put in their own pavement, but I would be doing that as a standard. So really it would just be a continuation of Geneva Estates, Geneva Estates pushing more on Howard than Howard pushing on Geneva, and the rollover effect, it’s already been proven. We’ve done it, not only me as a developer, but the neighborhood themselves, by buying into these homes. They’ve had faith in me and it’s come about, and it’ll continue to come about. I think it’s hard to avoid Howard Street. I don’t mean to be so longwinded. The idea of coming to a dead end and saying, okay, I’m avoiding Howard Street. I’m one man’s opinion. I don’t know if that’s the wise way to go. I prefer to accept for what it is and I want it better. So if I fence it off or I dead end and avoid it, well, I’m accepting it for what it is, but if I connect to into it and say, no, I’m not accepting it, I’m rolling right over it, and that’s just one man’s opinion. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I had one more question for you, and that was a good point, but what about this minimum centerline radius for a curve in a local road? MR. CLUTE-I’m not absolutely sure on that, and I guess that would come down to Tom Nace or Van Dusen and Steves. I’m not exactly positive. I know, if we look at the map. MRS. JENKIN-But would that be something that you could change and make it more? MR. CLUTE-I’m sure. I’m sure it’s just a matter of engineering, but I think the original road, they tried to, the original road, it ended up coming to the back side of the property. So to try and line up it with Geneva Estates and actually split the property so you could go homes to either side of the new home, and to be honest with you, I just purchased what is labeled Lot 20. So that enabled me to pull that road and gain what radius they had. I don’t know what further they can do, but I’m sure, you know, Tom Nace and Van Dusen & Steves can address what might be necessary. MR. ABBATE-That’s one of the questions I’m going to have the Planning Board address as well, the impact on it. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions before I start? Okay. Well, two things. Number One, I certainly agree, and I’m going to do a motion that Area Variance No. 52- 2007 be forwarded to the Planning Board, and I have some specifics regarding that, but prior to that, I would like to, for the record, ask the Town Attorney to address the restrictions that are contained in Area Variance No. 33-1993. In particular, what I would like the Town Attorney to do is review the parcel history as contained in the Staff Notes, and I’m going to read it for the record, so that there’s no misinterpretation. I would like 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) an interpretation from the Town Attorney of the following. Quote, Geneva Estates subdivision was approved in 1992 as a 10 lot cluster subdivision for mobile homes when the applicable zoning called for a one acre minimum lot size. The approval, in effect, left th the remaining lands proposed for the current subdivision as the 10 lot as open space lands for the cluster subdivision. It was an 11.9 acre parcel minus road acreage, which allowed for 10 lots, and a cluster layout created smaller lots with the leftover land as a common land. Subsequently, Area Variance No. 33-1993, for a 15 lot subdivision of land in this parcel was denied. Per the denial resolution, quote, it would appear to be in direct conflict with the intent of the Planning Board’s resolution allowing Mr. Diehl to use the Town’s clustering provisions and their understanding that this lot would remain open space, unquote. I would like the attorney to read that article, address the article, and provide us with an interpretation as to enforceability. Number Two, I am prepared to move a motion as follows, and I hope I’ve covered everything. I move the following motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2007 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Howard St., Geneva Dr. In an effort to provide the appellant substantial due process and allow this Board to reach an intelligent decision, it’s recommended that Area Variance No. 52-2007 be tabled, pending the receipt of written recommendations from the Planning Board addressing the following issues, not in totality, but some of the issues that we discussed this evening, which also contains issues raised by the public. Number One, I would like the Planning Board to address any traffic impact. I would like the Planning Board to address the lot sizes requested by the appellant. I would like the Planning Board to address density vs. the Comprehensive Plan. I would like the Planning Board to address stormwater. I would like the Planning Board to take a look at the development of open space, whether it would be positive or negative. I would like the Planning Board also to take a look at the 175 feet centerline vs. 300 feet, and also I would like the Planning Board to review the minutes of this meeting to take a look and to evaluate concerns from the public. In accordance with the provisions of New York State Town Law 277 Paragraph 6, it is requested that the Planning Board address the issues th in this motion and submit in writing to this Board by the 15 of October 2007 recommendations including any adverse ramifications that may affect the health, safety th and welfare of the community. Upon receipt of the written recommendations by the 15 of October 2007, Area Variance No. 52-2007 is placed on the 21 November 2007 ZBA agenda. I request that Staff provide the 1992 and 1993 minutes of the Planning Board as well. th Duly adopted this 16 day of August 2007 by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The only thing I would add to that is I would expect that you would include those old minutes from ’92 and ’93, as well as ours, and, you know, also include an interpretation as to the green space and whether or not it’s developable at this time. MR. ABBATE-As well as the minutes of this meeting. Yes, I have that at the very last, I covered that portion. However, I will include, thank you, Jim, that I request that Staff provide the 1992 and 1993 minutes of the Planning Board as well. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, zero no to table Area Variance No. 52-2007 to 21 November 2007 hearing. The motion is carried. Staff, would you please be kind enough to provide the Planning Board with not only a copy of this motion and a record of this transcript, but also a copy of the 1992 and 1993 Planning Board hearings as well. Thank you, Mr. Clute. MR. CLUTE-Thank you very much. I appreciate that. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED LEGACY LAND HOLDING, INC. AGENT(S): JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S): LEGACY LAND HOLDING, INC. ZONING: PO LOCATION: BAY ROAD @ WALKER LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 17 LOT SUBDIVISION FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) LOTS 1 THROUGH 7 AND LOT 12 ARE NOT PROPOSED TO HAVE PHYSICAL ACCESS TO A TOWN ROAD; SHARED DRIVEWAYS/PARKING LOTS ARE PROPOSED OFF BAY BRIDGE DRIVE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SB 15-06 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 8/8/07 REFERRAL TO PLANNING BD. REQUIRED PER TOWN LAW 277.6 SEE PB RESOLUTION OF 7/24/07 LOT SIZE: 26.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-28 SECTION: 179-4-090 A MICHAEL BORGOS & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. HUNT-Mr. Chairman, I would like to recuse myself. I live in Baybridge which abuts this property. MR. ABBATE-Yes, by all means, Mrs. Hunt. Brian, would you please join us. Thank you. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-2007, Legacy Land Holding, Inc., Meeting Date: August 15, 2007 “Project Location: Bay Road @ Walker Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes development of a 17 lot professional office subdivision. Relief Required: Applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum frontage requirement for 8 of the lots in the subdivision. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicants would be permitted to create and develop lots for sale. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives related to access within this subdivision have been discussed at length with the Planning Board. Apparently, the current plan before this board is in response to the most recent discussions with the Planning Board. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 8 lots in the subdivision for 100% relief from the requirement may be interpreted as substantial relative to the code. The proposed plan does appear to offer adequate vehicular and pedestrian access to all lots. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: No letters of support were submitted with the application materials. The proposal offers an additional access road to the Baybridge Subdivision. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? While there appears to be adequate frontage available on Walker Lane as well as along the proposed subdivision road whereby no relief would be necessary, the proposal is, at least in part, in response to Planning Board concerns. See attached Planning Board resolutions. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 12-2007 Front yard setback relief withdrawn April 18, 2007 Subdivision 15-2006 17 lot subdivision Preliminary approval July 24, 2007 Subdivision 10-2002 withdrawn by applicant Staff comments: The proposed layout appears to be in response to Planning Board concerns. Planning Board issued a preliminary approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board on July 24, 2007. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see that the gentlemen have moved to the table. Would you folks be kind enough to tell us who you are and your position. MR. BORGOS-Yes. Michael Borgos, the attorney for the applicant. I’m here with Dan Valente from Legacy Land Holdings and Tom Jarrett from Jarrett-Martin. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Counselor, you know our procedures. Are you prepared to proceed? MR. BORGOS-We are. We’re ready. MR. ABBATE-Please do. MR. BORGOS-I think that Mr. Underwood’s reading of the application really says it all. We’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. You’re familiar with this application in a little different format from March, April whenever we were here looking for different variances. We ended up withdrawing that application. We took the opinions that you expressed and reformulated the plan in accordance with that. So we really, in overview, feel that this plan is one that you would prefer, versus the ones we had before, and the Zoning Administrator pointed out that we needed this variance because of the lack of access directly on Walker, which is a preferred thing we all believe, and I think there’s a consensus of opinion of the Planning Board members, Staff here at the Town, Warren County Planning, and Creighton Manning Engineers who did the traffic study, we all think that this is the best way to go, as far as traffic. So we’re here before you today to clear up this one little issue and hopefully you’ll feel the same way we do. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Counselor. I’m going to move now and ask if the Board members have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 50-2007. Rick, please. MR. GARRAND-Stormwater management. There’s water problems, Dorlon Drive, Gentry Lane, that area. What are you proposing to do about keeping stormwater runoff from this property out of that area? MR. JARRETT-The current drainage patterns are largely to the south and southwest toward an existing wetland and stream. We’re going to maintain that overall drainage pattern and toward that end, the stormwater management plan for this development includes swales around the perimeter, and then new ponds adjacent to the wetlands to the south. Those ponds will meet Town and State requirements. MR. GARRAND-Okay, and you’re going to be tying in to the sewer line on Bay Road? MR. JARRETT-Yes. Municipal sewer and municipal water. MR. GARRAND-All right. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay, folks. Do we have anybody else on the Board who has any questions for Area Variance No. 50-2007? None at this time. All right. In that case there, folks, what I’m going to do, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 50-2007, and those members of the public who wish to be heard, if you’d be kind enough to raise your hand, I’ll be more than happy to recognize you and ask you to come to the table and speak into the microphone and tell us who you are. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHAEL O’CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor. I’m an attorney. I represent Worlco Management Services, Inc., which is the owner of the property at the northwest corner, I guess, of Walker Lane and Bay Road. They would support the application. They would appreciate the fact that there would be less traffic on Walker Lane, and if they can establish their own entrance and exit, not using Walker Lane, it would be to everybody’s benefit in that neighborhood. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to comment on Area Variance No. 50-2007? I see none. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I’m going to ask for your comments, and I’d like to inform the public that the comments offered by members of the Board are directed to the Chairman and they will not be open to debate. Having said that, do I have a volunteer who would like to present their views concerning Area Variance No. 50-2007? Apparently we have none. However, I have to say this, that in fact we are obligated, under New York State Town Law 277, as I’m sure you’re aware, Paragraph Six, to send this to the Planning Board for their recommendations. MR. UNDERWOOD-They already have. MR. ABBATE-We have their recommendations? MR. UNDERWOOD-This is their preferred plan. MR. ABBATE-This is their preferred plan. MR. BROWN-The Planning Board issued a preliminary approval. MR. ABBATE-They did? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. ABBATE-All right, then we’re relieved of that obligation, then, which I’m delighted to hear. DAN VALENTE MR. VALENTE-Responding to Craig, he was asking if it was in the minutes, I said yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. All right. Having said that, then, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 52-2007. 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 I’ve gone through what State law requires us to do. Having said that, do I have some comments from Board members concerning, one more chance, 50-2007? This is going to be the last chance? MRS. JENKIN-I can make one. MR. ABBATE-All right. Joan, please. MRS. JENKIN-The existing buffer on Walker Lane, are you going to add to that at all, add more landscaping or more trees, more dense shrubbery? Because right now the shrubbery is not all that dense, so that you protect the people that live across the street from Walker Lane. MR. JARRETT-The plan right now is to leave the existing buffer, and we’ve designated a zone that’s a little wider than that as a no cut zone, so it’ll naturally grow up further, and as each lot comes in for site plan review to the Town, we’ll present a landscaping plan for that lot, and it may very well include some extra vegetation along that edge. MR. ABBATE-Jim, I think you were next. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I think it’s a vast improvement over the original submittals there, and I think it’s going to work out better for you guys and everybody included. I think as far as the request for us to not have the access onto Walker, it’s a great idea. Because I think you do need to separate the usage along the road there, and if you concentrate too much traffic going onto there, it interferes with the people on Baybridge. It’s going to make everybody have a bad day. So I think that what you’ve got here is a good idea. I think that the Planning Board’s happy with it. I don’t see any reason for us not to be happy with it also, and I think it does appear to be a substantial request, but I 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) think it’s more in line with what we were looking to do here, and I think everybody can live with it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other comments? I do have a question here. I notice that this is Unlisted. Is this correct? On the agenda it’s shown as Unlisted. If so, we’re going to have to go through. MR. BROWN-No, it’s an Area Variance. It’s Type II. It’s going to be Unlisted for the Planning Board, subdivision unlisted, but an Area Variance is Type II. MR. ABBATE-Okay, but it’s okay for us as a Type II? Okay. Well, that’s fine. That saves us some work here this evening. All right, any other comments or questions from the Board? Yes, please, Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-I’d just like to say that this has been up in front of us a couple of times. I agree with Mr. Underwood 100%, and I think you’ve done a nice job of it. I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Great. That’s fine. Anyone else have any comments? No other comments? Okay. Then I’m going to continue on. Now I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 50-2007, and I’m going to be seeking a motion. I’ve already indicated earlier what our duties and responsibilities are. Do I have a volunteer for a motion concerning Area Variance No. 50-2007? Please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I can do it if you want. MR. ABBATE-Would you, please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2007 LEGACY LAND HOLDING, INC., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: Bay Road @ Walker Lane. The applicant is proposing development of a 17 lot professional office subdivision, and they are requesting 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum frontage requirement for eight of those lots, and those are the ones, I guess, mostly along Walker Lane there. This project has been discussed at length, and the Planning Board has reviewed it thoroughly, and this is apparently the approved final sub plot, but in general everybody feels this is the best way to go. It separates traffic out. As far as the negatives, there’s no real negative by not having access on to Walker Lane, and they will have their own dedicated access on to Bay Road as a result of these changes that have been made here. As far as the difficulty being self-created, it is self- created, but it’s more in line with what we were trying to achieve along the Bay Road corridor there, and I don’t think there’s anybody who’s negative against this. There hasn’t been any public outcry about it whatsoever. So I would move for its approval. th Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: MR. ABBATE-Am I correct in assuming that your proposal is going to offer an additional access road into the Baybridge subdivision? MR. VALENTE-Yes, it’ll be the extension of Baybridge Drive. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I wanted that into the record. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 50-2007 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 50-2007 is approved. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. VALENTE-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN T. WHALEN AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S): JOHN T. WHALEN ZONING: RR-3A/RR-5A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE RT. 149, ½ MILE EAST OF BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TO SHARE A COMMON DRIVEWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SB 10-2006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/8/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES REFERRAL TO PLANNING BD. REQUIRED PER TOWN LAW 277.6 LOT SIZE: 38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.-1-57 SECTION: 179-4-090 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-2007, John T. Whalen, Meeting Date: August 15, 2007 “Project Location: South side Rt. 149, ½ mil east of Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes development of a 5 residential subdivision. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the access requirements of §179-4-090 as well as §179- 19-020. Specifically, Lot 1 does not share a drive and does not offer double the minimum lot width for the Rural Residential district. Also, while Lots 4 and 5 do share a driveway, their “physical access” to and from the highway is not within their road frontage as it is shared on lot 3. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicants would be permitted to create and develop lots for sale. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to topography, at least with regards to lot 1. The location of the wetlands, which essential divide the property also create difficulties. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The requests may be interpreted as moderate relative to the code. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: No letters of support were submitted with the application materials. The proposal appears to be offering lots in excess of the minimum size requirements for the zoning district. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? With a 4 lot subdivision, no relief would be necessary. As such the difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Subdivision 10-2006 Sketch plan phase reviewed by Planning Board 9/19/06 See attached minutes Staff comments: The proposed layout appears to be in response to existing site restraints, i.e. wetlands. Shared drive access is required for all lots fronting on Rte 149 that do not offer a double the minimum lot width. ( 400 ft in this case ) Shared access with lots 3,4,and 5 appears to be generally consistent with this intent. SEQR Status: Type II” 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) MR. ABBATE-I see that the petitioner and Counsel are at the table. Would you be kind enough, sir, to speak into the microphone and tell us who you are. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and I’m representing the applicant, and with me is the applicant tonight, Jack Whalen. Basically, we are here at the suggestion of the Planning Board. This has been an application that has been before the Planning Board for Sketch Plan approval and has been developed since then with more detail, we think, along the lines that the Planning Board were suggesting. First I think there’s a mistake in the Staff Notes. It says specifically Lot One does not share a drive and does not offer double the minimum lot width for Rural Residential district. In the prior map that was submitted, Lot One showed only 329 feet of frontage, but if you take a look at this map, and you’ve got to look close, there’s 329 feet plus 71.12 feet. So it’s 400 feet with change. So Lot One does have double the width. There is no required variance or request for a variance with regard to Lot One. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Duly noted, Counselor. MR. O'CONNOR-Basically what we’re looking at is Lots Four, Five and Three, and what we are proposing is a 40 foot curb cut that will serve all three of those lots with a shared driveway. It will minimize the number of curb cuts on the highway. We think it’s a safer means of access ingress. If you’re looking to the west, the sight line is some 755 feet, and if you’re looking to the east, the sight line is unlimited. We think that it makes good sense. I tried, mathematically, to kind of figure the thing out. We’ve got 1,080 feet between those two lots, the frontage on Lot Four, the frontage on Lot Five, and the 40 feet that’s in between. If we were going to say that we had two of these lots and a shared driveway, we would need only 400 feet, and the other lot we would need 400 feet. So you’d need a total of 800 feet and we’ve actually got 1,080, but I think that’s kind of mathematical mumbo jumbo, but it also points out that it’s really a minimal variance that we’re looking for. That’s basically it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. One question clear up for me. Maybe I didn’t hear it properly. Did you indicate that the curb cut will serve Three, Four, and Five? Is that what you said? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. ABBATE-You did say that. Okay, fine. All right. MR. O'CONNOR-And I should mention that Mr. Whalen’s existing house is on Lot Two. That will be a fully compliant lot. It will have its own driveway. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s not changing. So Lot One and Lot Two are fully compliant, not necessary for a variance, and the combination of putting all the accesses in one 40 foot strip for Four, Five, and Six is why we’re here. The other thing which I’d point out on this map, and wasn’t done at the time of the prior submittals. The actual wetlands have been flagged under the supervision of the APA. So there’s no issues on those. MR. ABBATE-Okay, folks, do we have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 51- 2007? MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any sense, is DOT going to realign that section of 149 like they did on the other sections? Do you get any indication from them? MR. O'CONNOR-I’d have to ask Mr. Whalen. Have you had any notice from them? JOHN WHALEN MR. WHALEN-No. I mean, they’ve been going to do it for a long time, and if it does happen, most of it will happen on my lot. All of it will happen on my lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, they’ll hack off that curb there, probably. MR. WHALEN-I mean, they’ve been talking about it for 35 years. If there’s money in the till, I don’t know, but if it’s straightened out, it will come out of my lot and not effect any of the other lots. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I didn’t think it was going to. That looked like a logical place to straighten the road. MR. ABBATE-Anyone else? Yes, Rick, please. MR. GARRAND-Does this map represent the final delineation of the wetlands from the DEC? MR. WHALEN-Yes. This is approved by. MR. O'CONNOR-This is from the APA. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. WHALEN-The APA flagged it. Van Dusen & Steves marked it, sent it to, I think her name is O’Dell. I think she approved it. MR. O'CONNOR-Sent it to the APA, and that woman works at the APA and she did approve it. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from members of the Board? If not, I’m going to continue and I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 51-2007. Do we have any members of the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 51- 2007? Yes, sir. Would you be kind enough, please, to come to the table, speak into the microphone, tell us who you are and where you reside, please. ED DAVIS MR. DAVIS-My name is Ed Davis, and I live right across the road from this proposed development from Mr. Whalen. He just spoke about, there was question about DOT, and I believe if my memory serves me right, he certainly talked to them yesterday as they were testing that land in front of his house, and today also. So my question, my concern th is, will this change, DOT tells me, and I believe Mr. Stec is meeting with them on the 24, is going to happen, and should this be decided before it happens? I don’t know what the Planning Board’s responsibility is in this, and the Zoning Board either. So my question is just, should this go on now? That’s all. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Would you like to address that concern? MR. O'CONNOR-DOT is doing testing, but they didn’t indicate what their goal is. Go ahead. MR. WHALEN-Yes. DOT drilled some test holes on the front of my property, over by my road, but they didn’t give any discussion of when anything was going to happen or if it would happen. They just said they were routine tests in case it does get done, but there was no discussion of when anything was going to happen, or if it was going to happen. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Yes, Roy. MR. URRICO-Just a historical perspective. When DOT was first planning the enlargement of that road, the widening of that road, we heard several cases about the same time, one involving Stewarts and one involving the Getty Station which never materialized, and we managed to work around that. So I just wanted to mention that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you very much for your input, Mr. Urrico. Okay. Do we have any other comments from members of the Board. MR. O'CONNOR-I would address that. We go from here back to the Planning Board for Preliminary approval, and then Final approval, which is probably at this point, is Preliminary application filed, Craig? MR. BROWN-I don’t know. MR. O'CONNOR-Are we on a Planning Board agenda yet? MR. WHALEN-Yes, for Tuesday. MR. BROWN-Yes. That could be. I can’t keep track of everything. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) MR. O'CONNOR-We will be on for Preliminary this month and probably Final two months from now. MR. ABBATE-If that’s the case, then do you see any reason for us to refer this to the Planning Board for their comments and recommendations? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the Planning Board already has made a recommendation that they want this to happen. MR. ABBATE-Yes. It would be kind of redundant to do that, in my opinion, unless somebody can tell me something different. Okay. Let’s continue on, then. We have no other members of the public. So I’m safe there. I’m going to ask members for their comments, and I’d like the public to know that the comments offered by Board members are directed to the Chairman and are not open to debate. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, may I have your comments, please, concerning Area Variance No. 51-2007? MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question of Staff real quick? MR. ABBATE-By all means. MR. GARRAND-Some of the test pit data indicates that the septics will be placed almost right in water. They found water at 26 inches, 32 inches. The test pit data, I’m just wondering if septics are allowable in water that shallow? MR. BROWN-So the question is can you put a septic system in the groundwater? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. BROWN-No. They’ll have to come up with some sort of engineered system to raise the bottom of the system a certain distance above the seasonal high groundwater point. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. BROWN-They’ll have to engineer that and keep them above that. Yes. MR. GARRAND-All right, thanks. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s a two foot separation, I think. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other questions from members of the Board? All right. If there are no other questions, then I’m going to move on, and what I’m going to do is, as far as we’re concerned, this is a category two, correct, even though it’s listed as Unlisted, right, Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-So we don’t have to worry about that. MR. BROWN-Yes, and if I could just make one quick point. MR. ABBATE-By all means, please. MR. BROWN-There was some mention about an error in the Staff Notes. The way the regulation reads, it says it says if you don’t share a driveway, you have to have twice the lot width. The lot width is the average width of the property, not the frontage. There may be 400 feet here. It comes to a point in the back, the average is something less than 400, so the relief is still necessary. MR. ABBATE-Your comments are duly noted. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Did you want to respond to that, Counselor, or just let it go? MR. O'CONNOR-Mathematically, I was told by Matt Steves that it complied. If you go to the back of the lot that’s narrower, so even though you have a longer line, not at the full 400 feet, when you do the averaging, it appears to. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) MR. BROWN-It just looks like it’s 400 pretty close to exactly 400 feet at the road, and then if you follow your way back to about 213 feet along the southerly or westerly property line, then it narrows down. So the average lot width can only go less than 400. MR. O'CONNOR-Let’s leave it on for a request for relief, then. I think, mathematically, it might be, by computer, the average width is. MR. BROWN-Yes, if the surveyor wants to provide that, absolutely. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Let’s not have to come back. I think it was set up, wasn’t it, to give relief for Lot One? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Originally, that’s correct, it was. MR. O'CONNOR-I would ask for relief for Lot One. MR. BROWN-Under protest. MR. ABBATE-All right, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, we heard that. He’s asking for relief now. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m always asking for relief. MR. ABBATE-Yes, he’s always, right. Okay. At this point here, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 51-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And do we have any comments, other comments from the Board? I’ll give you one more opportunity to say something, Board members. None? Okay. The public hearing, as I indicated, is closed for Area Variance No. 51-2007, and again, ladies and gentlemen, I’ve already brought to your attention our duties and responsibilities on balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, etc. I don’t feel I have to say it again. Having said that, I’m looking for a volunteer to address Area Variance No. 51-2007, and recall, please, ladies and gentlemen, that the appellant is requesting relief. Do I have a volunteer, please. Please? All right. Okay. Since I have no volunteer, Joan, do you want to tackle this? MRS. JENKIN-That’s fine. I can give it a try. MR. ABBATE-Give it a try. MRS. JENKIN-I will try. MR. ABBATE-Take your time. There’s no rush. MRS. JENKIN-First of all, the comment I have to say a positive comment, it is beautiful property, it really is nice property. There is a lot of wetlands, but the variances that we’re asked to consider tonight, I feel that with Lot One, because there is such a long distance from the access to the Lots Three, Four and Five, I think that this is not a, it’s probably acceptable. I would go with the, I think that I could agree that that variance could be approved, and with the access to one road for Lot Three, Four and Five, I think that that’s definitely an advantage because you want to have the least road access that you can. Route 149 is so busy that you don’t want to have a lot of access. So, I think at this point, I would be agreeable to granting the variances. There is a benefit to the applicant, obviously, because you would be able to create and develop your lots. Feasible alternatives, I think that you have worked through this, and the Planning Board has reviewed this. So this is probably a feasible alternative for your property. The relief is not substantial. I think it’s just moderate, as said, and the effects on the neighborhood are minimal. So, I think that it is self-created because you want to develop the property, but I think that you’ve done a careful job of this. I would agree with it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Did we also cover the fact that they are seeking relief from the access requirements of 179-4-090, so and so? We’re going to grant that? MRS. JENKIN-I think I did. I probably didn’t word it properly. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, we’re going to grant that relief. Okay. There is a motion for Area Variance No. 51-2007. MRS. JENKIN-Weren’t we making comments? MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re making comments. MR. ABBATE-We’re making comments, gentlemen? Or was it a motion? What were we doing? Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I think that’s fantastic we’re making comments. Okay. Anybody else? MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I’ll go ahead with some comments. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please. You have some comments, go right ahead. MR. GARRAND-Sure. I spent a lot of time on this road yesterday with all the happenings and goings ons and everything out there, pole breaks and that type of stuff yesterday, and I do think that this is a very dangerous area. It’s a Travel Corridor Overlay district, which puts the houses back like 75 feet which is good, but by the same token, I think using a shared driveway in this area is the idea way to go. There’s much too much traffic on this road to have multiple curb cuts for any type of subdivision in this area, not to mention the topography itself is pretty prohibitive. The relief I would deem is moderate. At this point, I would be in support of this application, though. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Your welcome. MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I think that this looks like a good plan, and more curb cuts on 149 cannot be a good idea. I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Let’s see, Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Well, my real preference would be no entrance on 149 in this stretch because I think 149 is dangerous. Unfortunately that would kind of make this property undevelopable, which isn’t really fair. So given that, I think the proposal that’s been presented probably is close to the most reasonable. I’m not sure that any other configuration would work out to be a practical thing. I would prefer to see all the lots accessed from one entrance point, but I think the proposal is probably the best compromise we can come up with and still allow development on these lots. So I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Let’s see, Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m basically in favor of it, too. I think this is the single most dangerous roadway in the Town of Queensbury. My nephew almost got killed there about five years ago, and it’s a horrible section of road. I hope they do straighten it out and take some of those wigwag curves out in that area there, but as far as the access ways, I would have to agree that it makes more sense to have a single drive. It would be nice if you had just one for all five places, if you could do it, but this is the feasible way to do it so let’s do it. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. It’s unfortunate that this section of the road is probably the most treacherous, but I think given the circumstances and the applicant’s desire to certainly develop this property, which he should be allowed to do, I think he’s come up with the best solution. It offers some good alternatives. I think the double the lot width section that’s included in our Code is there for that reason, to consider collector roads and arterial roads that may need a little bit more space between curb cuts, and certainly I think there’s plenty of space between the curb cuts here and the 40 foot access is also, and the reason for that is to reduce the curb cuts needed also. So I think it’s a good proposal. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great, and I, too, I think the Board members this evening have made excellent comments concerning Area Variance No. 51-2007, and I think what the appellant proposes is quite reasonable. Okay. Now what I’m going to do, if I haven’t 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/15/07) done it already, is close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 51-2007, and I’m going to respectfully remind the members, again, you know what the task that we have of balancing the benefit, etc., and so on. Now, do I have a volunteer for a motion for Area Variance No. 51-2007? A real motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2007 JOHN WHALEN, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: South side Rt. 149, ½ mile east of Bay Road. Applicant proposes development of a five lot residential subdivision. Applicant requests relief from the access requirements of Section 179-4-090 as well as 179-19-020. Specifically, Lot One does not share a drive and does not offer double the lot width minimum, which I think we covered still doesn’t offer. Also, while Lots Four and Five do share a driveway, their physical access to and from the highway is not within their road frontage as it is shared on Lot Three. Now, on the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Given the topography of this property, and the configuration, I don’t see any feasible way benefits can be realized by the applicant. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to the nearby properties? No. I do not believe it will. It’s a small five lot subdivision that isn’t going to make a whole lot of difference on Route 149. It’s a large stretch of road and a large piece of property, which is roughly 38 acres. Whether the request is substantial? I would deem this as moderate, relative to the Code. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental effects? Given the size of this property, it seems pretty inconceivable that it will have any adverse physical or environmental effects. Is the difficulty self-created? I believe it is self-created. The applicant has come before us with this request. So I’d make a motion that we approve Area Variance No. 51-2007. th Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 51-2007 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 51-2007 is approved. MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. WHALEN-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. Any other comments, ladies and gentlemen, before we go? Okay. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 32