Loading...
1997-08-27 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY BRIAN CUSTER PAUL HAYES ROBERT KARPELES LEWIS STONE ROBERT MC NALLY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -JOHN GORALSKI CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -CHRIS ROUND STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1997 TYPE II WR-1A CEA TERRY & KATHARINE THOMAS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 37 CANTERBURY DRIVE GLEN LAKE ROAD TO ASH DRIVE TO CANTERBURY DRIVE ON GLEN LAKE APPLICANTS PROPOSE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME ON THEIR PROPERTY. THE NEW HOME WILL NOT MEET THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, SHORELINE SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 40-1-5.2 LOT SIZE: 0.10 ACRES SECTION 179-16 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-I have a slight conflict with that, so I will ask Mr. Stone, the Vice Chairman, to conduct this hearing. It’s all yours, Lew. MRS. LAPHAM-July 28, 1997, Members of the Town of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, RE: Terry M. and Katharine L. Thomas, Area Variance application “Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: On behalf of Terry M. and Katharine L. Thomas, the applicant, I am hereby submitting an application for an Area Variance with respect to their property on Canterbury Drive, Glen Lake. The Thomas’ request an area variance to construct a new modest size home to replace the existing structure, which has no foundation and is not structurally sound enough to support an addition. The existing structure is 600 square feet and the proposed structure is 1300 square feet, which is only 400 square feet beyond what the zoning ordinance permits. Canterbury Drive is a private road maintained by the residents of the road. There are only six homes on the road, four year round homes and two seasonal camps. Four of the year round residents of Canterbury Drive are in their mid-eighties and one is in her late sixties, therefore, the Thomas’ have, because of the fact that they are so much younger than everyone else on the road, been responsible for maintaining the road and the bridge. As part of the project, the Thomas’ propose to relocate the road further away from the lake, back to its original spot, permitting easier access to the last two houses on the road and allowing room for the proposed house and landscaping. They will also be moving the septic system from its current location (appx 25’ from the Lake) to in excess of 100’ from the lake. Enclosed please find an original and nine copies of the Area Variance application, ten copies of the proposed site drawing, ten copies of the layout and elevation of the proposed house and a check in the amount of $50.00 for the application fee. th Please place this matter on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for the August 27 meeting. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-1997, Terry and Katharine Thomas, Meeting Date: PROJECT LOCATION: August 27, 1997 “ 37 Canterbury Drive, Glen Lake Road to Ash Proposed Project and Conformance with the Drive to Canterbury Drive on Glen Lake, 1 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) Ordinance: Applicants propose to construct a new home on their property. The new home will not meet the side yard setback, shoreline setback and floor area ratio requirements of the WR-1A zone. Relief is being requested from the above-mentioned requirements listed in Section 179-16, Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter Waterfront Residential zone. 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to construct a 2. Feasible alternatives: new home on foundation as replacement for an outdated structure. The dimension of this lot limits the size and placement of the structure. A possible alternative is 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? reduction in the size of the structure. The applicant is requesting 395 sq. ft. +/- (or 41 percent) above and beyond the permitted building floor 4. Effects on the space area. The requested side setback relief is approximately 3 ft. neighborhood or community? 5. Is this difficulty self Impacts are interpreted as negligible. created?Staff As indicated previously, the lot dimensions limit the proposed development. Comments and Concerns: No height of the structure was indicated on the plans included. It should be noted the applicant owns two adjoining lots, the lots should be merged if not already SEQR: done so. Type II, no further action required.” MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Stone, I just wanted to clear something up. When Mrs. Lapham was reading the application, the section that she references, 179-79, that’s not correct. MR. STONE-That was referenced by the applicant. MR. GORALSKI-As listed on the agenda, it’s 179-16. MR. STONE-How about 179-70, not a Town road? I was going to ask you before we started, how many sections of the Ordinance are we talking about, and how many variances are we looking for? MR. GORALSKI-This doesn’t have frontage on Canterbury Drive? MR. LAPPER-It does, but that’s not. MR. STONE-It’s not a Town road. It’s a private road. MR. LAPPER-I believe it’s a grandfather issue. Because the house and the road were pre-existing the Zoning Ordinance. MR. GORALSKI-That’s correct. There’s a house there now, correct? MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. GORALSKI-So that’s not an issue. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Lapper, do you wish to add to your application? MR. LAPPER-Yes. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper, and I’m here with Matt Steves from VanDusen and Steves. Terry and Kathy Thomas are here also to answer questions, as well as their proposed builder. Just very simply, the situation here, when you look at the 41%, it appears that we’re asking for substantial relief, but what we have is a really small house of 600 square feet here, and what they’re proposing is very modest and appropriate for this lot. Right now, as I mentioned in the cover letter, their septic system is about 25 feet from the lake, and what this is allowing them to do, they’re increasing the size of the house to 1340 square feet, which is certainly still a small and modest house, but it’s a modern house which would have a real foundation, rather than just a crawl space. It’s allowing them the flexibility to relocate the road, farther away from the lake, relocate their septic system farther away from the lake, and just generally reduce impacts to the lake. It’s not the case where somebody’s trying to build some phenomenal three story thing, as other people have done on other lakes. It’s really pretty modest. MATT STEVES MR. STEVES-And as far as the setbacks are concerned, I don’t really see any significant impact on the sidelines, and we are not proposing to, what is it, nine feet on the sides, and your existing is 10 and 9.8. So it’s really just an increase in the size of the house. MR. STONE-What about, is there a slight increase to the front? As I look at this drawing in front of me, it may be inches, but? 2 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. LAPPER-Only to square it off. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-If that was an issue, we move the whole thing back a foot, do you think that would make a difference? MR. STONE-I’m not saying it is. MR. LAPPER-It’s so tight the way it is. MR. STONE-No. I’m just going looking at the drawing. I want to make sure that we, if we get to approval, we want to make sure we have all the variance. MR. STEVES-I believe, looking at the drawing, the actual structure itself will be farther away from the lake, but there’s a slight deck on the front, and that’ll be extending maybe half a foot to a foot beyond the existing structure. MR. LAPPER-Actually, that’s true. It’s the deck. MR. STONE-It’s not the structure, it’s the deck. MR. LAPPER-Right, and the deck’s going to be pretty much right where the house is now, and the structure will be moved back six feet. MR. STONE-Okay. Do you wish to address the Staff Note about, well, about the height, for one thing. MR. LAPPER-We have a drawing, but we don’t, do you know what the height is? GARY ZIBRO MR. ZIBRO-Yes. I’m Gary Zibro. I’m the scheduled builder for this project. The height, a lot depends on what kind of a foundation we can get underneath this structure, and by that, we can actually regulate the pitch, also, to stay well under, within the Codes of the Town of Queensbury Building Codes, 28 feet, we’ll keep it under 28 feet. If it’s just changing the pitch a little bit on this house, we can do that, but we’re trying to get a full foundation. If you can’t get a full foundation, the height problem is not even going to exist. MR. LAPPER-In any case, it would be below 28 feet. MR. ZIBRO-Twenty-eight feet or less, yes. MR. STONE-What about the other note here that the adjoining lots, joining them as one? MR. LAPPER-Well, I want to explain that. The lot in back is not a lot that they own. It’s a lot that’s owned by a man name Jack Whelan, who’s a builder in Town, and what we have negotiated is to get an easement for the septic system on that parcel. We’re not purchasing that parcel. We’re going to have a perpetual septic system, easement. So that will allow the septic system to be located far, you know, 100 feet from the lake, but we’re not proposing to purchase that parcel, because it wasn’t available to be purchased. MR. STONE-That’s all right, John? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it is. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions by the Board? MR. KARPELES-What’s the permeability, has that been figured out? It looks like it’s taking up a lot of area on that lot. MR. ZIBRO-The sewage disposal area? MR. KARPELES-No, no. The permeability on that lot. 3 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. GORALSKI-To be honest with you, we haven’t figured it out. MR. KARPELES-I just wonder if that needs a variance, too. MR. LAPPER-Matt, do you want to take a look at that. MR. STONE-We’re talking 65% in the Ordinance. MR. LAPPER-It’s probably pretty close. Matt will give us the exact number, to what it is now, because we’re removing the shed. MR. STONE-But the road is going to be on who’s property, the new right-of-way? MR. LAPPER-It’s going to be where the shed is. It’s still going to be on the property. It’s just going to be in the very back of the property. MR. STONE-This is the back of the property here? MR. LAPPER-Right, and so right now the road is here. The road is going to be here. MR. STONE-Okay. Does that road, John, count as a permeable area? Does the new road count as permeable area? MR. GORALSKI-That would be impermeable area. MR. STONE-That’s what I thought. MR. LAPPER-But the new road will be smaller. If you just look at the design of the old road, the way it widens to the east. MR. STONE-Well, it says 12 and 12 on here. MR. LAPPER-That’s the new road? MR. STONE-No. The new is 12 and the old is 12. MR. LAPPER-But the old, if you see how it flares out. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. STEVES-And as far as permeable area, I can’t figure exactly, but it looks to me you’re adding around 150 square, 160 square feet, with the size of the, removing the one shed and increasing the structure. MR. CUSTER-And what do we need, 65? MR. STONE-We need 65%. MR. CUSTER-So we’ve got 4293, plus 1340, right? MR. STONE-Well, the house is 13, what’s the house? MR. CUSTER-He’s got enough there. MR. GORALSKI-I’m calculating that they’ve got about 60% permeable area. They need 65. MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s another thing we have to consider, if we want to grant the variance. Okay. So it’s about a five percent reduction in permeability. MR. LAPPER-John, did you count the deck as impermeable? Okay. MR. STONE-Do you dispute that figure? MR. LAPPER-No. I was just making sure. 4 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. STONE-No. I was just curious if you guys were doing your own calculations. MR. LAPPER-Do you know what it was before, though? Are we making it bigger? MR. STEVES-Green area? You’re decreasing it. MR. LAPPER-Okay. It sounds right, that it’s about 5% that we’re going to miss. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions by the Board? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this Area Variance? Anybody in favor? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROBERT CANTERBURY MR. CANTERBURY-My name is Robert Canterbury, and I am his closest neighbor, I think, well, there’s another one as close as I am. MR. STONE-We won’t dispute that, sir. MR. CANTERBURY-I can verify the statements that have been made in connection with the present building, which is certainly greatly limited, and I can understand that in order to have any kind of comfortable dwelling, there would have to be some changes, and I don’t know of any reason, in fact, I have, I don’t know of any opposition to the situation. I think, from my own observation, that this will certainly be an improvement. I think it will be better for all of us if this materializes, and I think that it’s understandable that there have to be some changes in regards to, as compared to the present building. It has no foundation, and when it was built, I don’t know what they did underneath, except perhaps put a few cement blocks on the corner or something, and consequently, it is intended only as a temporary or summer affair when individuals can go out for just a little while. In so far as the septic system is concerned, I think from many, I think at least for myself, I was concerned because we are concerned about the quality of the water there, and they had no room, positively no room to have a decent septic system, or be able to carry, you know, to fix anything that would be satisfactory. With this particular plan, and having the opportunity of putting the cess pool in an area far behind the house, and underneath where the roadway will go. It is my opinion, I think it’s indisputable, that this will be, certainly enhance the situation and make it much better, and it will be out where it’ll be very difficult for anything to ever get into the lake, and we’re concerned with that, and so I just want to express ourselves, being, I think that I’m nearest in the sense that there’s no fence way between us, and they can clearly see us and we can clearly see them, and consequently, our situation being that close, I think that if anyone should find anything to object to, it would be ourselves, but I see no objection whatsoever, and everything seems fine, and I would not object, and I don’t know of any that would object, but I think it’s certainly a challenge. They have a challenge on their hands, and they will have to have some changes, I’m sure, with the situation. So far as their distance from the lake is concerned, I can understand that at his normally would be a problem. In fact, some time back, I needed to build a garage addition to my own property, and it was far, it was toward the back of the property, but I had to get a variance, and start the garage, even though my house is closer to the lake, I had to come back to the 50 foot mark, in order to put the garage on, and I appreciated having that privilege, but knowing that, and I want to say this, so far as the visibility is concerned, I see nothing that would obstruct our vision, as so far as the height of the house is concerned, I don’t know what the total height is, but I don’t think that that would be anything that would interfere with the possibility of them carrying out their plan. So, consequently, I speak in favor. MR. STONE-Thank you, sir. MR. CANTERBURY-That ought to make us good neighbors. MR. STONE-You are one of the Octogenarians referred to in Mr. Lapper’s letter, and I congratulate you for that, having attained that age, and I hope you go on for many more years. MR. CANTERBURY-Thank you. MR. STONE-Any questions by the Board? MR. CANTERBURY-All right. Thank you. 5 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed? Anybody opposed? Having said that, I shall close the public meeting. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Anymore questions on the part of the Board? MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Stone, I can clear the issue of the permeability, okay. MR. STONE-Good. MR. GORALSKI-Because they’re tearing down the existing camp, that variance is required because they’re only going to have 60% permeable area. However, the permeability of the proposal is almost exactly to the square foot what the permeability on the existing lot is right now. So they’re not changing. MR. STONE-So we’d have to reflect it if we grant it, but there’s no change. Good. Okay. Any other questions? MR. KARPELES-Yes. I’m wondering, where do you park in here? Where’s the parking? MR. LAPPER-Presently? MR. KARPELES-No, in the new proposal. MR. LAPPER-Terry, would you like to explain that? TERRY THOMAS MR. T. THOMAS-Terry M. Thomas. Right now as you come in, we park right behind, where the road is now, we park right behind the camp, parallel with the camp, but the new road, where it’s going to be, we’re going to pull in and come in, facing the new house. So as you come in, well, okay, right now is going to come in and pull in right with the house. With the new road, where it’s going to be now, set back farther, we’ll pull in and take a left, and then we’ll just face into the house. So we’ll be well off the road for the other two people to pass us. MR. STONE-You’re going to live there full time? MR. T. THOMAS-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Well, you’re moving the house. How much are you moving the house back, from its existing location? MR. LAPPER-That would be six feet. MR. T. THOMAS-Six feet. MR. KARPELES-Six feet, that’s more than six. MR. LAPPER-The front, on the lake side, we’re moving it back six feet. MR. KARPELES-No, I’m talking about the back. How much are you extending the back of the house, or the front of the house, whichever you call it? MR. STONE-The back, on the lake it’s the back. MR. GORALSKI-It’s about 15 feet. MR. KARPELES-Okay, and how much are you moving the road? MR. STEVES-Okay. The house is being extended toward the road about 15 feet, and I would say the road is moving, I would say around 15 to 18 feet. 6 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. KARPELES-So you’re really not changing the relationship between the road and the house, as far as parking is concerned, right? MR. LAPPER-Because the road will be parallel to the house, versus now where it comes in on an angle toward the house, there will be a few more feet. The whole lot is so small that that will make a difference. MR. STONE-Has anyone ever called the fire department on that right-of-way? MR. LAPPER-Reverend Canterbury would be the person to ask. MR. STONE-I was just curious, because can anything get across the bridge? MR. T. THOMAS-It’s the old railroad bridge. Twenty-four inch eye beams underneath that, two of them. MR. GORALSKI-When I was in the fire company, we had to respond down that road. We have gone down that road before. MR. STONE-Okay. Good. MR. STEVES-As far as the question of parking, the shed to be removed is removed. The road is relocated and then re-established parallel to the proposed structure. In my estimation they’d have around four to five feet additional parking room. MR. KARPELES-I have trouble understanding that. If you’re moving the house back 15 feet, and you’re moving the road back 15 feet, how can you have three more feet of property? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, that shed will be gone. MR. T. THOMAS-That’s right. At the largest point, I’m moving the road back that far, and it also angles in toward our house, existing. So I’ll be paralleling it with the property. I’m talking at the widest point now, 12 feet. At the narrowest point, it would be wider than that. I can show it on your plan, if you would like. MR. STONE-And what’s the length of a car? Approximately? MR. T. THOMAS-Sixteen feet. MR. STONE-Sixteen feet. So if it’s, I see 14 here. That means parked perpendicular to the house, it might stick out. MR. CANTERBURY-Can I make a statement? MR. STONE-Sure, you can come up to make it. MR. CANTERBURY-I’d just like to make a statement in regard to the road. The original plan in the original, our deeds call for the road being directly on the back of the property, in the rear of the property. Unfortunately, Mr. Thomas, of course, bought a property from someone else, and the sad part of it was that I could not be on my property. I wasn’t living there permanently at the time, and in my absence, and unknown to me, the party who lived there built a shed, back on the right- of-way, which made it very difficult, and for many years now it’s been, I’ve had to have, on the road on the back of my property, since there’s a bank there, I had to spend quite a lot of money in order to move the bank back, to get it back as far as possible. It’s still not back to my property line, but it’s suitable, so that I have space to provide for the individual that lives beyond me to come in, but I had to make a right hand turn and then a left hand turn, right directly behind that present building that’s there, and this, I think that with the road being where it belongs, it makes a straight-a-way right on through. Anybody that lives beyond will have easier access, and it’s a much better situation. So actually, the roadway, where it’s going, is in its proper place. That’s where it should have been in the beginning, and so what is now the present road will be an asset to them to do what they want. MR. STONE-I think that’s understood. I think Mr. Karpeles concern, if I stated it right, Bob, is that parked perpendicular they might stick out into the roadway, and that maybe we ought to insist 7 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) that the car be parked the way you park it now, as part of granting the variance. Is that anything we can do, John? MR. CANTERBURY-I would like to say that I would think that that would be sufficient, providing he doesn’t come back too far. You see, we’ve had to maintain a road besides the shed, and there was a little behind that, too. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. CANTERBURY-So that actually by taking the road from its present place and putting it back where it belongs, it will give them more space. MR. STONE-We understand that. It’s only a matter of, I think we appreciate that it’s going to be a much improved piece of property. The question is, is there any more room to park the car differently than he currently parks it, and we’re concerned about that. MR. CANTERBURY-Well, according to the deed that I possess, it stipulates that there should be, of course the road should be about 12 feet, and they allowed a total distance of 20 feet before another structure could be built. MR. STONE-All right. We don’t have that. Okay. I thank you very much. MR. CANTERBURY-So if there were a distance of 20 feet from where his property is built, back to the end of the road, that would certainly be adequate. Thank you. MR. STONE-Any other questions by Board members? All right. Having said that, Bob, how do you feel? MR. KARPELES-I wonder why we can’t meet the guidelines that we have here for the ratio of house to lot. MR. LAPPER-The answer is because with two young boys and Kathy and Terry, the house that they’re proposing, at 1340 square feet, is smaller than they would like, smaller than what you’d want for four people, and to make it any smaller would really be a tiny house. MR. KARPELES-I think that we, everybody went to a lot of trouble to draft these rules, as far as the ratio between the house and the lot, and I think that we shouldn’t vary from those rules, unless there’s a doggone good reason, and if somebody bought a lot that’s too small to build a house on, that they want to build, I think that’s a self created difficulty. So I’m against it. I think the lot is too small for that house. MR. STEVES-Our comment on the size of the lot, as far as the size of the lot, it pre-exists. There’s nothing we can do with the size. Our client has tried to obtain some property in the back to no avail, to increase that, their holdings, and if they were able to pick that up, but we still are able to, with even the smaller size of the lot, accommodate a septic on the back by terms of an easement for that. So really I see this as a nominal. MR. STONE-Question of Staff. John, when you figured out the permeability, you included the decks are impermeable, right? MR. GORALSKI-Correct. No, the decks are permeable. MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t understand what you said. So, in other words, we can’t reduce the size of the deck, to get up to 65. We have to reduce the size of the whole, of the structure itself, of the house itself. MR. GORALSKI-Decks aren’t included in the floor area ratio. MR. STEVES-But as proposed, the plan does not increase the non permeable area. MR. STONE-We heard that. Bob just has a concern. Bonnie, what about you? MRS. LAPHAM-I think it’s a good plan, actually. Mr. Canterbury outlined exactly what I was thinking. Terry Thomas showed me around the property, this afternoon when I went to look at it, and I think it’s going to be a huge improvement, particularly with the shed gone, and it will open it 8 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) up, and it will seem roomier, and it will look better, and the improved septic really caught my attention, moving it back, and I do think 1300 square feet, while it may be over the minimum variance for this type of project, I think that really is a very modest house for four people. MR. STONE-Brian? MR. CUSTER-Normally, I’d have the same reservation as Mr. Karpeles about the size, compared to the lot size, but since the applicant has made provisions to having sewage disposal easement provided, it almost defacto becomes part of the Lot Two, and waive those reservations, and having said that, I really don’t have any other problems with it. The other questions have all been answered. I think, though, the issue with parking the cars should be addressed, though, in any motion. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I think it’s a balancing test in this circumstance, the benefit to the applicant versus the changes in the neighborhood, whether they be good or bad, and as I see that property, it’s extremely tight and close knit down there, and I think that Mr. Canterbury’s comments have to be considered the most germane as to the quality and change in the neighborhood, and the plans look nice, and I have to say, for that reason, I would be in favor of the plans, largely because of the way, the positive comments by the neighbors, by the neighborhood. MR. STONE-Well, I agree, basically, with the majority of the Board. I think the, I don’t like changing the Waterfront zoning law. I think it’s, I will repeat what Mr. Karpeles said. It’s a new law, and I, for one, feel very strongly that we have to keep it as tight as we can. Having said that, the fact that the applicant is willing to lease a lot, if you will, for a septic system further away from the lake, as far away from the lake as he’d be required to put it if he owned the whole lot I think is to his benefit. The fact that the road is going to be improved, I think is also commendable. I, too, would ask, however, that we put in a condition that the car be parked parallel to the long side of the back of the house, so that we minimize any incursion on the right-of-way. Having said that, do I hear a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1997 TERRY & KATHARINE THOMAS , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: 37 Canterbury Drive, off the Glen Lake Road. The applicants propose to construct a new home on the property. The new home on the property. The new home will not meet the side yard setback, shoreline setback, and floor area ratio requirements of the WR-1A zone. Relief is being requested from the above mentioned requirements listed in 179-16, Waterfront Residential zone. The benefit to the applicants would allow them to construct a new home. The feasible alternatives are limited, based on the existing lot size. The relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, in that they are requesting 395 square feet for 41% above the floor area ratio requirements. The impacts on the neighborhood, based on public input, appear to be positive, and the difficulty is not self created, being that the lot dimensions were pre-existing the proposal. Specifically, they are seeking three feet of side yard setback, 41% of the floor ratio requirement, which equals 395.54 square feet of relief, and 35 feet of front yard setback. The permeability, it’s the same existing structure. It will actually be five percent less than required by law, and the condition that the applicants park their cars in a manner that has the least impact on the right-of-way, more specifically, some way in which the back end of their car is not on the right-of-way. th Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-1997 TYPE II WR-1A CEA CAROL GRAMOLINI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE HOLIDAY POINT ROAD, OFF OF SEELYE ROADAND CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A PORCH ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE PORCH WILL NOT MEET THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS 9 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 16-1-25 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION 179-16 CAROL GRAMOLINI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-1997, Carol Gramolini, Meeting Date: August 27, 1997 PROJECT LOCATION: “ Holiday Point Road, off of Seelye Road and Cleverdale Road Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant proposes to construct a porch attached to an existing home. The porch will not meet the front yard setback requirements of the WR-1A zone. Relief is being requested from the setbacks listed in Section 179-16, Waterfront Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Residential zone. Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to construct a porch, 2. allowing access to the basement, and expand an existing deck for enjoyment of the property. Feasible alternatives:3. Applicant indicated no feasible alternative to permit access to basement. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The existing front porch is 10 ft. from the 4. Effects on front line in a 30 ft. setback area. The proposed porch is 8 ft. from the front line. the neighborhood or community? The existing deck is approximately 41 ft. from the shoreline and the proposed expansion is approximately 35 ft. from the shoreline in a required 50 ft. setback 5. Is this difficulty self created? zone. A difficulty exists because the applicant is seeking relief Staff to add an attached porch and expansion of a deck to an already nonconforming structure. Comments & Concerns: The proposed porch will apparently alleviate access problems to the SEQR: basement. Type II, no further action required.” MR. THOMAS-All right. Before we get started, I have one question to ask Staff. Number Four in the Staff Notes there, the existing deck is approximately 41 feet from the shoreline, and the proposed expansion is approximately 35 feet from the shoreline. I don’t see that. MR. ROUND-The applicant came in and revised the application. MR. GORALSKI-Prior to its advertising. MR. ROUND-Prior to advertising. We were able to correct the advertising, but we did not correct the Staff Notes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So what’s right? MR. ROUND-So the proposed application is for construction of a porch and for an addition to a deck on the front of the house. The porch requires relief as reported in the Staff Notes. The deck requires relief from the side setback and from the shoreline setback. MR. THOMAS-They have a drawing up there. I thought it was just for a two foot expansion on an existing porch. That was the impression that I got, and then they came back later for a deck on the front, or on the shoreline setback. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, there is a deck there. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-There’s a deck there, and all they’re doing is taking the deck and squaring it off at the corner of the house. MR. STONE-You mean all the way across, from the south side? MR. GORALSKI-Right. So the deck is going to go all the way to the south side of the house. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-The porch is on the back side of the house. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, and that’s going to come out to the deck. MRS. GRAMOLINI-Shall I bring you the drawing so you can get an idea of what it looks like? 10 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. That would be good. MRS. GRAMOLINI-I also took pictures of what’s there now, so you can tell. MR. KARPELES-So the deck is going to be a replacement. MRS. GRAMOLINI-No, it’s an extension of two feet. MR. GORALSKI-She’s going to square off that corner on the south side. MR. STONE-It doesn’t look like it’s squared off. It looks like you still have a. MRS. GRAMOLINI-This is the pre-existing deck here, and so we’re just bringing it around to here. MR. STONE-So we’re talking from this point here, then? But the relief is to this point. MRS. GRAMOLINI-That’s correct. MR. STONE-That’s going to be closest to this curbing shoreline. MRS. GRAMOLINI-Right, and the back porch here, it’s an existing porch now, but what we want to do is move it up, and that would be putting two feet back here, so we can put a stairwell to go down into the cellar. MR. STONE-You said moving up. MRS. GRAMOLINI-Well, right now it’s just bringing this back. This is the existing. MR. STONE-Right. You’re talking about, you’re going to go back this way, that’s all you’ve asked for. Okay. Well, you said moving up. MRS. LAPHAM-I thought you were moving up front of the lake side, like this way. MRS. GRAMOLINI-No, no. It’s behind the house. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. How do you get to the basement now? MRS. GRAMOLINI-There isn’t any. We’re going to change the house around, but before we had the blueprints to put a building permit, if I can’t get a two foot variance, a three foot variance, then we’ll have to change (lost words). So we’re doing it backwards. MR. STONE-So you’re asking for the two feet on the west side, back over here. MRS. GRAMOLINI-That’s right. MR. STONE-That’s what we all, that’s all we thought you were asking for originally, and now you’re talking this also. Okay. MRS. GRAMOLINI-Now this would be the deck here that would go over, because we had to put some doors here, and right now there’s nothing where the door is going to be. MR. STONE-It’s a big first step, that’s all. MRS. GRAMOLINI-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. Now that we’ve gotten that straightened out, is there anything you’d like to add, say, comments? MRS. GRAMOLINI-Well, this is a preliminary variance. We want to renovate the house. It’s not winterized now. We want to put a cellar, but the person that we have, the contractor, told us that we have to apply first for this two or three foot extension, so that they would be able to put the stairwell down. If we don’t get the porch to go back, he can’t feasibly put a stairwell down to make a cellar underneath the porch, access to the cellar. 11 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. THOMAS-So what you’re going to do is you’re going to raise the house up. MRS. GRAMOLINI-We’re going to just put a cellar underneath that porch. MR. THOMAS-You’re just going to put a cellar under the porch. MRS. GRAMOLINI-That would be a heated utility area, because the house is not winterized right now, and we will eventually winterize it. MRS. LAPHAM-So there’s no basement there now. MRS. GRAMOLINI-No. MRS. LAPHAM-That’s what I misunderstood. I thought you were telling us there was a basement that you couldn’t access. MRS. GRAMOLINI-There’ll be a cellar there. If we get the variance, we’re going to put in the filing and the blueprints for putting a cellar underneath the porch. MR. STONE-Just under the porch, the cellar? MRS. GRAMOLINI-Right, because we have to put, it’s not winterized, and we have to make it year round. So we have to put a heating plant underneath. MRS. LAPHAM-So the rest of the house will be on a slab? MRS. GRAMOLINI-It will be on, what is it, a crawl space now? It’ll be crawl space with the frost walls around the bottom. We’re not going to be digging underneath. Just in that one particular area. RON GRAMOLINI MR. GRAMOLINI-My name is Ron Gramolini. I’m Carol’s husband. The house is what I guess is referred to as a camp, and it was built in 1956, and it’s built on piers, I guess cement block piers, and in order to winterize what we’ve been told is that we have to put some type of frost walls around the perimeter, and what we would do is, as my wife stated, put a utility, type of utility room, I guess, if you will, under the porch, and in order to get access to that, it would be from the outside. We would use that area to access that utility room, and so what we need is, according to the builder, is two feet. MRS. GRAMOLINI-Two to three feet. MR. GRAMOLINI-In order to get the proper angle, because otherwise the stairwell would be too much of an angle to get down. It would be too dangerous. So that’s what we’re proposing. Before we go any further, we’d like to know if we could get that okay. Otherwise we’d have to change. MRS. GRAMOLINI-If we know if we’re going to go with the variance or not, if we have approval, then we submit the building plan, but without this, this plan we have would be useless. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-Do you have an alternate plan? MR. GRAMOLINI-Not at this time. MRS. GRAMOLINI-Not at the moment. We tried different areas of where to put this cellar, but we have a little extra room on the side where the porch is now, we have a parking area and a lot, on the other side, is we’re only maybe eight feet from the next lot. So there’s no place to put that access on the other side of the lot. We’re just too close to the property line. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? 12 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. STONE-The question I have is, you seem to have two different projects here. Is your interest level in both the same, or does one have priority over the other? MR. GRAMOLINI-As far as what, the deck and the stairwell? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. GRAMOLINI-Well, what would happen here, we would alter the front of the, when I say the front, the lake side view, would add a bigger sliding door. The existing sliding door is, I think, a five or six foot sliding door. We would like to make that larger, and so in order to do that, we figured we could just extend the deck in order to make it look more uniform. At this time, it’s kind of odd looking, when you look at it from the lake side. So we’d like to extend it, and have a little more area to sit and view the lake. MRS. GRAMOLINI-See, if we put the double doors up now, you’d walk out to nothing, or right to the ground. MR. STONE-John and Chris, is this one application right now? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. It’s one application. It was amended before it was advertised. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-It’s one application. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? th MRS. LAPHAM-Not from the public. There’s other information, August 7 letter to applicant. Okay. That was sent from here. There’s no public correspondence, no. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. CUSTER-I have a question for John. It appears to me, don’t we have a setback issue here, too? I mean, we need 50 feet total, right? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, on the lake side, you mean? MR. CUSTER-I’m sorry, the side setback. MR. GORALSKI-Right. There’s a side setback and a lake front setback. MR. CUSTER-Okay, because I didn’t see the side setback in here. Was that in here? It’s not the eight, that’s the front setback. MR. GORALSKI-You’re correct. There’s a side setback issue, a shoreline setback issue on the deck portion of it. MR. CUSTER-So what’s the total for the sides? I’ve got 7.16, and I can’t figure out the other side. 20? MR. GORALSKI-The other side? MR. ROUND-There’s no side setback requested for the porch. The side setback applies to the deck. MR. CUSTER-So you’ve got seven there and 20 here. He needs 50 altogether. 13 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. GORALSKI-No. That’s the old Waterfront Residential zoning. MR. CUSTER-I must have an old book, then. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CUSTER-When did they get a new one? MR. STONE-That’s what we’ve been talking about for eight months. MR. CUSTER-You don’t have one either? MR. STONE-Yes. I went down to see Sue. MR. GORALSKI-I think the changes were made in February. MR. CUSTER-So if I stop by and pick one up. MR. GORALSKI-Or I’ll get one to your house. MR. CUSTER-Okay. Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Would you drop one in the mail for me, too. Because I never got that. MR. CUSTER-I just wanted to show that I was doing my homework. MR. THOMAS-All right. If there’s no more questions for the applicant, what do you think, Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I don’t know. As far as the deck is concerned, I don’t think that that’s really going to do any harm, but I’d like to hear the rest of the Board, because I’ve gone on record before as I hate having more and more building done on the lake side of lake front properties, and less and less adherence to the Waterfront Residential, but I have to say that I don’t think this is one that is going to cause any harm. They’re not enlarging the structure. They’re not doing anything with their septic. They’re not adding more bedrooms or anything like that. So I probably would not be against it, and the porch extending back so they can get into the basement. I wouldn’t be against that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-I have no objection with either part of it. I wish we were a little clearer on exactly what relief we have to grant. Do we have to grant any relief on this porch, two foot extension? How much relief do we have to grant on that? MR. THOMAS-Twenty-two feet. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. They say they’re going to be 8 feet from the property line. The requirement is 30. So they’d need 22 feet of relief. MR. THOMAS-And also we need to know how far the front of the deck is from the lake. MR. GORALSKI-It’s 35. MR. THOMAS-Thirty-five from the lake, at the closest point? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-So you’re going to need 15 feet there. What about the side line for that porch? What’s the, so the closest would be 7.16, and the farthest will be, what, see, it angles back there. It comes out and then it angles back. MR. STONE-Here you mean. MR. THOMAS-Yes. 14 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. CUSTER-Since I don’t have the book in front of me, what is the new side setbacks for WR- 1A? MR. GORALSKI-It changes based on the width of the lot. This lot is, I believe. MR. THOMAS-113 feet on the lake front. MR. GORALSKI-So you have 20 feet on each side required. MRS. GRAMOLINI-May I say something? MR. THOMAS-Shoot. MRS. GRAMOLINI-The lot is a strange lot, because it’s a parallelogram. So it comes up and one point, goes down at the other, and it’s very difficult. The road that’s behind the porch is a private road to enter into that community, and so back where the porch is, there’s really nothing behind us but that private road. MR. KARPELES-How many houses does that road serve, do you know? MR. GRAMOLINI-Five houses. MRS. GRAMOLINI-Six, I think, the one in the middle. MR. GRAMOLINI-No, I’m counting that. MRS. GRAMOLINI-Okay, five. MR. STONE-And that road is a circular road, on and off Seelye Road all the way. We’ve all been there. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else you want to say, Bob? MR. KARPELES-No. That was the only reservation I had was how close that was to the road. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I am 50/50 on this one. I certainly have no problem with the two feet. That doesn’t impact the lake at all. I think it certainly provides you an advantage. However, I do have a problem with further incursion on the lake setback. We have a 50 foot setback. We are working very hard, at least we have been working very hard to minimize relief from that, and in this particular case, I think 15 feet is much too much relief, and unfortunately, since they’re tied together, I will probably have to vote no. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I think it’s minimal relief, and I think that these people are just trying to develop their property, and I think that’s an important right involved with our culture, and it’s been certainly vigorously defended in the courts, and I would be in favor of the application. MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I really have no problems as long as the, as I say, you know, get a handle on what the true variance is here before we make a motion. As far as the deck, I tend to agree with Lew a little bit, that we don’t want to really creep up further on that lake, but right now it’s currently 41. We’re dropping it to 35. I don’t really see it as a great deal of difference. So I can live with it. MR. THOMAS-I have no problem with the extension on the porch being, in granting 22 feet of relief. As far as that deck is concerned, I don’t really have a big problem with that, because if you move it back even five feet, instead of being 10 feet 10 and three quarter inches, it’ll be five feet ten and three quarter inches. It would look a little unbalanced, and it’s only an extension of about 10, 11, 12 feet. It looks like it’s about a 10 by 12 deck. MRS. GRAMOLINI-Probably smaller than that. 15 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. THOMAS-Yes. It probably is, because that front room is 13’ 3”. MR. STONE-It’s not that wide. MR. THOMAS-But I have no problem with the deck or the extension on the porch for a set of stairs. So, having said that, would anyone like to make a motion? MR. CUSTER-I’ll make a motion if somebody will give me the variances. I can’t figure it out. I’ve got the 22 on the front, and we’re going to need, what, 15? MR. THOMAS-You need 15 feet on the lake front, or the shoreline. MR. STONE-And 12.84. MR. THOMAS-Fifteen feet on the shoreline, 22 feet on the front line. MR. STONE-12.84 on the south? MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s 7.16, what’s that? MR. STONE-12.84. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 12.84 on the south side. MR. CUSTER-12.84? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CUSTER-All right. Here it goes. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-1997 CAROL GRAMOLINI , Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Holiday Point Road, Cleverdale. The proposed project is to construct a porch attached to an existing home. The porch will not meet the current front yard setbacks, and requires 22 feet of relief. In addition, they’re asking to extend an existing deck, which will need side setback relief of 12.84 feet, and shoreline setback relief of 15 feet. The benefit to the applicant, relief would allow the applicant to construct a porch, allowing access to a basement, and also expand an existing deck for the enjoyment of the property. The feasible alternatives, there really are no other alternatives, if they are to continue with their plans as they desire. Relief, to my estimation, is not substantial, in the fact that we’re only adding a few feet on an already existing structures. The effect on the neighborhood is negligible, and is the difficulty self created? It exists because they are seeking to make their own project there. th Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: MR. STONE-I have a question on the relief. John, when we talk about the shoreline, what is the closest point? It’s the closest point on the shoreline? MR. GORALSKI-Right, the closest. MR. STONE-It would almost be in that corner for even where it is now, wouldn’t it, where the lot meets the dock? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Where they extend it out and then turn back toward the house, that’s the problem with the closest point. The shoreline comes up, the closest point on the shoreline is where it meets that wood dock on the adjacent property. MR. STONE-Right, and that’s the 35 feet? MR. GORALSKI-That’s the 35 feet. MR. STONE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas 16 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-So you don’t have to change your plans. MRS. GRAMOLINI-Thank you all very much. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1997 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JOSEPH AND JANET TORNABENE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, LEFT HAND SIDE , 4 HOUSES PAST THE MCCALL HOUSE APPLICANTS PROPOSE TO CONSTRUCT A DECK ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WOULD NOT MEET THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.2 LOT SIZE: 0.83 ACRES SECTION 179-16 JOSEPH TORNABENE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-1997, Joseph and Janet Tornabene, Meeting Date: PROJECT LOCATION:Proposed Project and August 27, 1997 “ 141 Assembly Point Rd. Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to construct a deck which will be attached to the side of an existing home. The new deck will not meet the side yard setback Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to requirements of the WR-1A zone. Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build 2. Feasible alternatives: and use a deck which would be attached to their home. Alternatives appear to be limited that would address the applicant’s desire to build a deck in the proposed 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? location. The applicant is seeking 9 feet 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? of front yard setback relief. The new deck would be built next to an existing deck which has a present setback of 12 feet. Comments on 5. Is this possible impacts may be provided by surrounding residents at the public hearing. difficulty self created? A difficulty exists due to the applicant’s desire to build a deck which will Staff Comments and enable them to enjoy the natural amenities of the surrounding neighborhood. Concerns: The ZBA should consider any comments from the adjacent property owner to the north. Although relief would benefit the applicant, comment from the adjacent property owner should be considered in order to judge what impact granting relief may have on the surrounding SEQR: neighborhood. Type II, no further action required.” MR. THOMAS-Before we start, John, I have a question on the Staff Notes and Note to File, Number Three, it says the applicant is seeking nine feet of front yard setback relief. Is that supposed to be side? MR. TORNABENE-Yes, side. MR. GORALSKI-Side. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Just to make sure. All right. Is there anything you’d like to say, add, tell us about? MR. TORNABENE-I’m just looking for a permit and a required variance in order to extend our present porch or deck. Joseph J. Tornabene. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions for the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-No. I got the tour this afternoon. MR. THOMAS-You got the tour. MR. CUSTER-I just want to be clear. When I was up there, no one was home. Off the present, you’re proposing, then, a portion, then, as I’m facing it, to my right, so there’s two? 17 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. TORNABENE-The one on the existing, do you know where the existing porch we’ve got now? Just that one right there. Just extend that one to go to the front of the house. MR. CUSTER-Okay, but then where, in our drawing where it says new deck, that’s already there? MR. TORNABENE-Can I come up there and show you? MR. CUSTER-Yes. Because I had this, I was trying to figure it out when I was up there. The present deck includes this deck? MR. TORNABENE-No. This would be a new porch. MR. CUSTER-That’s what I’m at. This is going to be added also. MR. TORNABENE-Right. This will remain the same. Eleven feet, and eleven feet for the property line. MR. CUSTER-This is the only one we need relief on. MR. TORNABENE-Right. MR. CUSTER-This one. Yes. No problem. MR. THOMAS-Does everybody understand what the applicant’s asking for? MR. STONE-Yes. You’re going out beyond the front of the house by three feet? MR. TORNABENE-Three feet, right. MR. CUSTER-John, I’m not sure. The setback relief you’re looking from the closest point there on the larger proposed section, Jaime and I were just saying, but is it the same from that? MR. TORNABENE-The property line jogs back. MR. CUSTER-It goes back at an angle. MR. GORALSKI-I think because of the way the property line angles back and because of the way that deck jogs out, that’s how you end up maintaining the 11 feet. MR. STONE-Yes. This is 12. MR. TORNABENE-That’s the worst place, that 11 feet. After that, it gets better. MR. GORALSKI-If you drew a line between the corner of the deck and then the corner of the new deck, it would be parallel to the property line. MR. STONE-And the back new deck is about 11 and a half feet, I guess. So it’s slightly further away. MR. THOMAS-All right. Anymore questions for the applicant? Okay. Do you have any questions on what they want to do? MR. MC NALLY-I spoke with them for some time. MR. THOMAS-All right. Well, if there’s no more questions for the applicant, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Okay. Town of Queensbury Record of Telephone Conversation on 8/20/97 at 4 p.m. Mary Trello and Pam Whiting of Planning spoke about Area Variance 36-1997 18 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) Joseph and Janet Tornabene “No objection as long as the deck is on the opposite side of the Trello property.” Okay. Which way is the Trello property from you? MR. TORNABENE-The other way. MRS. LAPHAM-The other side. Okay. This was written August 25, 1997 “Dear Sirs: In reference to the proposed construction of a deck to be attached to the existing home of Joseph and Janet Tornabene, on Assembly Point Road, Tax Map No. 7-1-16.2, I am writing to express my support in their request for a relief of the setbacks. The Tornabene home is a beautiful house with a great deal of attention paid to the landscaping. I am certain that they would do nothing to detract from the appearance of this property. Once again, let me state that I support the relief of the st setback requirement. Sincerely, John A. McCall” And this one was written July 31, Re: Joseph Tornabene, 141 Assembly Point Road, Parcel 7-1-16.2 “Dear Zoning Board: This is to advise you that my wife and I, the owners of the property adjoining the Tornabene property on the north are most willing to consent to their application to a variance to construct an additional deck along the side of their house next to our property. It is our understanding that the additional deck will, at no point, be closer than 11 feet to our mutual property line, which is the distance the existing deck is from the property line. Sincerely Yours, Robert S. McMillan” MR. THOMAS-And that does it? MR. LAPHAM-Yes, and see, that’s the property owner to the north that Staff told us to watch for. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant. MR. STONE-I do have a question. The deck will be just a plain deck? MR. TORNABENE-Just a plain deck. MR. STONE-Just the way it is now? MR. TORNABENE-Right. MR. STONE-As stated, your home is very lovely to look at. You take very good care of it. I assume the deck will be. MR. TORNABENE-Comparable to the home. Right. MR. STONE-Comparable to the home. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? If not, I’ll entertain a motion. MR. STONE-I’ll try this one. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1997 JOSEPH & JANET TORNABENE , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: 141 Assembly Point Road. The applicant proposes to construct a deck which will be attached to the side of an existing home. The new deck will not meet the side yard setback requirements of the WR-1A zone. The applicant would benefit by being able to build and use a deck which would be attached to the home, and grant them an improved outside view of Harris Bay on Lake George. The alternatives appear to be limited that would address the applicant’s desire to build a deck in the proposed location, and the applicant is seeking nine feet of side yard setback relief. The new deck will be built next to an existing deck, which has a present setback of eleven feet. The difficulty is self created, in that the applicant wishes to build this deck, which will enable them to enjoy the natural amenities of the surrounding neighborhood, but in light of the fact that no neighbors have come forward against, and in fact three neighbors have come forward in favor, this variance will provide a positive benefit to the applicant, with almost no negative impact to the community or the surrounding property owners. 19 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) th Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. TORNABENE-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-1997 TYPE II MR-5 JOHN CENTER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 32 OHIO AVENUE, EAST SIDE OF STREET BETWEEN CENTRAL AVENUE AND SOUTH AVENUE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A PORCH WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MR-5 ZONE LISTED IN SECTION 179-18, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL 5. TAX MAP NO. 127- 10-10 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION 179-18 JOHN CENTER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-1997, John Center, Meeting Date: August 27, 1997 PROJECT LOCATION:Proposed Project and Conformance with the “ 32 Ohio Ave. Ordinance: The applicant has constructed a porch which does not meet the current zoning requirements of the MR-5 zone. The applicant is seeking relief from the setbacks listed in Section Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according 179-18, Multifamily Residential 5 zone. to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to 2. Feasible alternatives: have a new deck as a replacement for an old decaying deck. The 3. Is this location of the house on this lot limits where a deck could be built requiring less relief. relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant has submitted a plan which indicates 4, Effects on the neighborhood or that he is seeking 8 feet of front yard setback relief. community?5. Is this Staff anticipates no negative impacts if the requested relief were granted. difficulty self created? A difficulty exists because the applicant is seeking relief to add an Staff Comments & Concerns: attached porch to an already nonconforming house. It appears that the porch, which has already been built, is not out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff also believes the porch will not have a negative effect on the surrounding SEQR: neighborhood and will benefit the applicant. Type II, no further action required.” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Center, is there anything you’d like to add, say, comment on? MR. CENTER-No. Everything’s there. MR. THOMAS-Everything was said right in the application? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions for the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-How did you happen to build it before you? MR. CENTER-Well, there was an existing there, and I didn’t do my homework before I built the new one. Had I done my homework, I might have like eight by twenty or something, and stayed with the same square footage. MR. CUSTER-That was my only question. The original one that you replaced was eight feet and now it’s ten? MR. CENTER-The original was seven by twenty two. MR. CUSTER-Okay. 20 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. CENTER-That was torn off before I built the house, but I knew the house, and I was just under the impression that it was eight by twenty two, so I went with a ten by twenty. I thought I would be close. MR. STONE-Okay. Question I have is the 22 feet is from where? Where was the road measured? MR. CENTER-The seven foot was from the road frontage. The 22 was across the front of the house. MR. STONE-Okay, but the road front, what point of the road did you measure to? Did that come up in the compliance, or the enforcement? Is that a dedicated road? MR. CENTER-I measured from my property line. MR. THOMAS-That 22 is from the property line, not the edge of the road. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-I knew that’s what it was, but we need to get it on the record, just in case. Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? If not, what do you think, Bob? MR. KARPELES-I have no objection with this. I would much rather see these things before the fact, rather than after the fact, but I agree with the Staff Comments. I think that this is a minimum relief. I would vote in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I agree. I have the same reservations that Bob has. You say you didn’t do your homework. I wish that we could get everybody to do their homework, but we keep trying, but I see no other problems with it. If you had come looking for it, I would have granted it anyway. MR. THOMAS-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I drive through that neighborhood every day on the way to work, and it’s my impression that there are people that aren’t trying at all, and there are some people that are trying a lot, and I think you fall in the latter group and deserve all the slack you need, and I would be in favor of the application. MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I echo Lew. If Mr. Center had come to us previous to the construction, I would have granted the relief then. So no problems. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob, Jr.? MR. MC NALLY-The porch you put up is attractive, and I think it’s in conformity with the neighborhood, if not better. I’ll voice the same opinion everyone else has. It should have been done first. In lieu of the fact that it’s up, have we ever ordered anyone to take something down? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we have. MR. STONE-Yes, we have. MR. MC NALLY-Well, even if we may have, I would vote in favor of giving the variance. 21 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t have any problem with it. I feel the same as the other Board members. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I have no problem with it. I look at it as if it were, the applicant was coming in before he had built it, rather than afterwards, because I have a very strong feeling, like Bob Karpeles does, about people coming in for variances after the fact, after it’s been done, but in this case, I believe I would have granted the variance because it does add to the neighborhood. It adds to the property, and as Jaime said, that he drives through there every day and he sees people trying to improve it and other people that are still idling at it. So I would have no problem voting yes on this variance. Having said that, I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-1997 JOHN CENTER , Introduced by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 32 Ohio Avenue, has constructed a porch which does not meet the current zoning requirements of the MR-5 zone. The applicant is seeking relief from the setbacks listed in Section 179-18, Multifamily Residential-5 zone. The applicant is asking for eight feet of relief from the front setback. The criteria for considering an Area Variance, the benefit to the applicant would allow him to have a new porch, as a replacement for an old and decaying one. He would not have to remove it, as it’s already there. The location of the house on this lot limits where a porch could be built, requiring less relief. The relief is minimal, I feel, relative to the Ordinance. He’s seeking eight feet of front yard setback relief, and it does not appear that there would be any negative impacts to the community. The difficulty is somewhat self created, in that the applicant did not seek advice before the fact, but he already has a nonconforming home, and to add a porch to it, there are not many feasible alternatives, and it is also not out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. It looks nice, and the property owner is trying to improve his home, and the neighborhood, and I think we should support that. th Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-So that means you can issue him a building permit now. MR. GORALSKI-He’ll have to apply for a building permit. MR. THOMAS-He needs one now. MR. GORALSKI-He needs one now. AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-1997 TYPE II CR-15 JOSEPH E. RAMSEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MAIN STREET AT INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE 87 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A CANOPY TO COVER PUMP ISLANDS AT A CITGO GAS STATION. THE NEW CANOPY WILL NOT MEET THE FRONT, SIDE YARD SETBACKS OF THE CR-15 ZONE, AS WELL AS THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY SETBACK LISTED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-24, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL 15, AND THE REQUIRED SETBACK IN SECTION 179-28, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 8/13/97 TAX MAP NO. 129-1-25 LOT SIZE: 0.80 ACRES SECTION 179-28 JOSEPH RAMSEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-1997, Joseph Ramsey, Meeting Date: August 27, 1997 PROJECT LOCATION:Proposed Project “ 107 Main Street at intersection of Interstate 87 and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant proposes to construct a canopy to cover pump islands at a CITGO station. The new canopy will not meet the front, side yard setbacks of the CR- 15 zone, as well as the Travel Corridor Overlay setback listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Relief is 22 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) being requested from the setbacks listed in Section 179-24, Commercial Residential 15, and the Criteria for considering an required setback in Section 179-28, Travel Corridor Overlay zone. Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief 2. Feasible would allow the applicant to provide limited weather protection for customers. alternatives: 3. The location of the pump islands and associated canopy is limited by the site. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking approximately 46 4. ft. of relief from the front setback and approximately 14 ft. of relief from the side yard setback. Effects on the neighborhood or community? The proposed action is interpreted as having 5. Is this difficulty self created? minimal impact on the neighborhood. A difficulty exists because the applicant is seeking relief to refurbish an existing pump island at an existing Staff Comments and Concerns: nonconforming location. The proposed location of the pump island and canopy represent an improvement of the existing nonconforming condition. No details or architectural rendering of the canopy was presented. The canopy may be illuminated from SEQR: behind and contain advertising. Type II, no further action required.” MR. THOMAS-Before we get going on this one. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, what about the Planning Board? Should I read that? MR. THOMAS-That was my next question. Because there wasn’t any attached to ours. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. August 13, 1997, “At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board th held on the 13 day of August, 1997, the above application for an Area Variance to remove existing pump islands and place in another area of the site was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact.” Signed by Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. I still have a question. Has the State said anything, or the County Highway Department said anything about doing anything with that Corinth Road? You know how they’re always talking about widening it out. MR. GORALSKI-At this point, there are no plans to widen Main Street. There is a study being done by the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council of the Exit 18 interchange, but there’s no plans to widen the roads. MR. STONE-Or widen the bridge. MR. THOMAS-They just rebuilt the bridge, though. They had their chance. No more. Mr. Ramsey, is there anything else you’d like to say, comment, add? MR. RAMSEY-I just need it really badly for business. Everybody else has them. Today nobody wants to get out in the rain and pump gas, and you can’t blame them. They don’t want to get out in the sun either if they don’t, or the snow, and it’s just going to be something that I have to have, and I have to dig up the tanks within the next year anyway. It’s a federal mandated thing. So if you’re going to do it, there’s no sense doing just one without doing it all. MR. THOMAS-Are the new pump islands themselves going to be moved back from the existing? It looks as if it is on his, and how far back is it going to be moved? MR. RAMSEY-Not a long ways. The existing ones, the canopy is going to be 28 feet from the property line, not the road, from the property line, and the pumps actually, right now, the islands are probably just about 28 feet. MR. THOMAS-The face of the islands or, you know, the curbing around the islands is about 28 feet now? MR. RAMSEY-Now. So it’s going to be, the edge of the canopy, and then the islands will be in from that. MR. THOMAS-All right. So actually the islands are coming in, probably 10 feet or so. MR. RAMSEY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. 23 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. RAMSEY-See, with the new pumps, they’re multi dispenser pumps. You get everything out of either side, put your credit card in and go. You don’t even have to come inside the place to pay. MR. STONE-Okay. Which way are the cars going into the canopy? MR. RAMSEY-The same way as they are at this time. They have to pull in, if they were going east and west on Corinth Road, they’d have to pull in to the north, and to come back out, they’d have to go back to the south to get back. MR. STONE-Okay. So the cars are pointing at the building or away from the building? I saw it, but I don’t remember. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-On the map, looking underneath the canopy, if you look at the map you’ve given us, under the canopy it says “Conc Pad”. That’s the concrete pad? MR. RAMSEY-That’s right. Around the pumps you have to have concrete islands, because if anybody spills gas, the blacktop would be gone immediately. It’ll have to be because all the plumbing from the older single wall that has to come up and be gone, all the environment has to, it has to be a clean site. If there’s any pollution, it has to be moved. MR. STONE-So you’re going to take down all of the pumps and take out all of the tanks prior to putting the canopy in? MR. RAMSEY-That’s right. MR. STONE-How long is that going to take, that you’re going to be out of business? MR. RAMSEY-A month. I’d like to say three weeks, but they said four to five, so I’m being realistic about. Probably what will be a big concern is how much pollution there is. We’ve been in business since 1963. So you can bet that there’s going to be pollution there. Even though you keep track, because of the price of gas today, how could anybody afford to lose 100 gallons a day, or even 100 gallons a week? So the pollution’s going to be from where people have filled the tanks, and it slopped and run on the ground or where they have filled the tanks and around that edge, but there’s still going to be pollution that’s got to be cleaned, and you’ve got to do that. By all State and Federal regulations it has to be cleaned. It’ll have to be a clean site before they allow you to put new tanks back in, and then all of the new tanks will all be double walled along with the piping will all be doubled walled. So if there is a leak, it will be self contained. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-I was just curious, if you were going to put the canopy in, would you still have to do all this with your tanks? MR. RAMSEY-If I’m going to stay in the gas business. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. I just wondered if there was a time limit, or if you were doing this because of the change you want to make? MR. RAMSEY-There is a time limit. It has to be done by December of 1998, but to just put new tanks in, it would be fruitless. Everybody else has a canopy. Everybody else, on a rainy day like today, the weather’s nice, you sell gas. It starts raining and all of a sudden you watch everybody, and they’ll pay more to go across the road and be underneath the canopy. MR. MC NALLY-The diesel dispenser, that’s going to basically stay where it is? Or are you changing that? MR. RAMSEY-We’re going to move it a little bit, but it’ll be really right about exact where it is now. MR. MC NALLY-And the variance has nothing to do with that side of the building. MR. RAMSEY-No. We’re not going to put a canopy over that at all. That will be on the other side of the building completely. 24 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. THOMAS-The only thing he needs a variance for is the canopy, and the gas tank island. MR. GORALSKI-No, just the canopy. MR. THOMAS-Just the canopy itself. MR. STONE-That’s the furthest out. MR. THOMAS-That’s the furthest out. Okay. MR. STONE-So we’re only talking this left edge of this proposed. MR. THOMAS-And the east property line. MR. RAMSEY-That’s right, the east property line, which is Niagara Mohawk, which I lease, and the Corinth Road side are the two that are nonconforming. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Ramsey showed me the elevation, and it shows a sign on the canopy. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-I need to check on what signage you have and everything. MR. RAMSEY-That’s not part of what we’re even discussing, because that comes through with the drawings. All I want is what’s legally allowed. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. All right. It’s not an issue (lost word). MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone wish to speak in favor of? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TIM BREWER MR. BREWER-Tim Brewer, Candleberry Drive. I would just say that I’m in favor of this. As a person that does business there, and does business with the company I work for, I believe it’s a benefit for the community, not only visual impact, but the investment that Joe’s making, I think makes a statement that he’s going to be there for a while, and he wants to do business, and he wants to have a nice looking place, and the only other thing I can say is the canopy I don’t think would be a detriment of any kind because it’s up in the air and I don’t think anybody’s going to ever hit it;, hopefully. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? Anyone like to speak against? Against? Correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-No correspondence? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any further questions for the applicant? If not, lets start down there at the far end with Mr. McNally. What do you think? MR. MC NALLY-If I look at the purpose of the Zoning Code in this area, it seems to be to improve the arterial roads, so that in some time in the future Corinth Road and Main Street can get a little bit wider, given, I think, the commercialization that’s happening along that strip, and I like the fact that he said that the existing pumps were going to be moved back. Because that’s in conformity with the purpose of the Code, in order to make it a little bit wider to the best that you can, whenever you can. It would certainly be a benefit to Mr. Ramsey. He could provide limited weather protection to his clients, and it would not leave him at a disadvantage, should he not be 25 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) able to have a canopy. I don’t see the relief he seeks as being substantial, given the fact it’s an existing gas station and has that same use currently. MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I think Mr. McNally articulated that rather well, and I have to second that. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. I think it’s entirely consistent with the neighborhood, and the fact that there are other canopies of that nature all around there, and Mr. Ramsey’s been in business in this community for a long time. I find it very hard to believe that he would invest what is obviously going to be a lot of money in a project that wasn’t of quality and benefit. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-I agree. Everything has been said. It’s obviously a good project. MR. KARPELES-If he’s going to stay in business, like he says, he’s got to do something like this, and he’s doing it in a good manner, so, I approve of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I agree with Bob. It’s not fair to penalize him, being the only one not having a canopy. Plus, I think it’s commendable that he’s doing all this work now and the deadline is a year a way. MR. THOMAS-I’ll have to agree with everyone else that this is a good project. It’s nice to see that he’s going to push everything back, that there’s new gas pumps going in there, and it’s just too bad he has to go and replace those tanks by Federal law, but the only thing I really worry about is the County or State coming through and doing something with that road and maybe making that road a little closer to those pumps than he really wants it to be, but the County and the State were all notified, and they haven’t come up with anything, and Mr. Goralski said that they have never mentioned anything to him, except for the traffic study that the greater Glens Falls Traffic, Transportation board is doing. So I have no problem with it. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-1997 JOSEPH F. RAMSEY , Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: The applicant proposes to construct a canopy over a covered pump island at a CITGO gas station. The new canopy will require that we grant 47 feet of relief from the front setback, and 14 feet of relief from the side yard setback. The benefit to the applicant is that this canopy will allow the applicant to provide weather protection for customers. There appear to be no feasible alternatives. The location of the pump island and associated canopy is limited by the site, and is moving back farther from the road than the existing pumps. So it would appear to be a move in the right direction. There would appear to be no negative effects on the neighborhood or community. In fact, it should help to beautify the area. It’ll give fire protection to the pumps, and in every way appears to be a benefit, an improvement. Is the difficulty self created? The difficulty exists because the applicant is seeking relief to refurbish an existing pump island, at an existing nonconforming location. th Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: MR. STONE-Should we mention the various zones, the Travel Corridor Overlay, so that? MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s in the Travel Corridor Overlay District which requires a 75 foot setback, and he’s proposing 28. So that’s 47 feet of relief required. What did you say, 46? MR. KARPELES-I said 46. So change that to 47. MR. THOMAS-It’s 47 feet. MR. STONE-Should we, I assume, when we talk about the fire protection that’s because there’ll be extinguishers up in the canopy. Maybe we should mention, well, I just did. 26 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. GORALSKI-That’s required. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s required. Okay. MR. RAMSEY-I’ve already talked to Mr. Grant in regards to that. AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-Go ahead and get your building permit, and hope to see you pumping gas in five weeks. MR. RAMSEY-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1997 TYPE II SR-1A LARRY CLUTE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF RALPH ROAD AND EISENHOWER APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A LOT WHICH WILL RESULT IN TWO LOTS. THE PROPOSED LOTS WILL NOT MEET THE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE AREA REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTION 179-19, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 120-1-60.55 LOT SIZE: 0.90 ACRE SECTION 179-19 AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1997 TYPE II SR-1A LARRY CLUTE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A LOT WHICH WILL RESULT IN TWO LOTS. THE PROPOSED LOTS WILL NOT MEET THE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE AREA REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTION 179-19, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 120-1-60.1 LOT SIZE: 1.39 ACRES SECTION 179-19 MR. THOMAS-On this, well, I want to open the public hearing on it. So I’ll read it in there. MR. GORALSKI-What I would do is read in the application, open the public hearing, any comments. MR. THOMAS-Yes, and just table it from that. My next question is, should we combine both applications into one? MR. GORALSKI-You can if you’d like. MR. THOMAS-I would, because I think they both basically read the same. It’s just the size. MR. STONE-Yes. It’s different reliefs that we’re granting. MR. GORALSKI-For the purposes of opening them up and holding the public hearing tonight, I don’t see any reason why you can’t act on the both of them at the same time. I would think when you do your actual deliberations and discuss a resolution, you need to do that separately. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay, because they both basically read. MR. GORALSKI-When you do your deliberations and pass a resolution, you’re going to have to specify the lot sizes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, we can do that all under one motion, I think. MR. GORALSKI-You shouldn’t because it’s two separate tax map numbers. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. MRS. LAPHAM-So then if it’s two separate tax map numbers, what relief are we giving? 27 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. THOMAS-We only have one application, and it has no number on it. Okay. For the purposes of opening the public hearing and getting comment from the public, we’re going to combine Area Variance No. 42-1997 and 43-1997. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-1997, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: August 27, 1997 PROJECT LOCATION:Proposed Project and Conformance Ralph Road and Eisenhower with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to subdivide a lot which will result in two lots. The proposed lots will not meet the area requirements for the SR-1A zone. Relief is being requested Criteria for from the area requirements listed in Section 179-19, Suburban Residential One Acre. considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant:2. Feasible Relief would allow the applicant to create two lots from an existing lot. alternatives:3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? No action. The area is zoned Single Family Residential 1 Acre (SR-1A) requiring 1 acre of land. The proposed lot is 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? 22,750 sq. ft. in area. The proposed lot areas 5. Is this difficulty self are nearly consistent with adjacent lots and one neighborhood in general. created?Staff Comments and Concerns: Yes. The proposed lot sizes are not inconsistent with the local area. Town water is available, and the applicant will be required to comply with the existing zoning setbacks.” MR. THOMAS-All right. We’ll just say Area Variance No. 43-1997 reads the same, word for word. MR. STONE-Except for the relief, the lot sizes are slightly. MRS. LAPHAM-Because the lot sizes are slightly different. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, just mention that. MRS. LAPHAM-18,000 square feet for the other variance, each lot would be 18,000 square feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but we’ll do separate resolutions on each one. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. There’s nobody here to represent Mr. Clute, and Mr. Clute himself is not here. All right. Since there’s no one here, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD HERMANCE MR. HERMANCE-My name’s Richard Hermance. I live on 4 Dawn Road, Queensbury, right opposite the property in question. I was under the impression here a while ago that this area was zoned for mobile homes. MR. GORALSKI-It is. MR. HERMANCE-This same Larry Clute has built houses on Nathan Street which he put three houses on a lot that wasn’t actually big enough to put one. Now, he’s put this lot up now. Supposing a year or two down the line I feel I want to replace my mobile home. What’s going to happen? Maybe the people that buy these houses aren’t going to want them. MR. GORALSKI-You’re zoned for mobile homes. MR. HERMANCE-Right. MR. GORALSKI-You can come in and get a building permit put up a new mobile home. MR. HERMANCE-I mean, supposing the people over here really don’t want it, that’s not going to make any difference? If I want to replace it, I can go ahead and do it? 28 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. GORALSKI-The way your property is currently zoned, all you need to do is get a building permit. No board meetings. No public hearings. You just come in and get a building permit. MR. HERMANCE-Okay. That’s the only. MR. THOMAS-Let me throw this one at him. What if the new home is larger than the existing one? MR. GORALSKI-As long as it meets the setbacks, he doesn’t have to come back. MR. THOMAS-As long as he meets all the setbacks, he doesn’t have to come in. MR. GORALSKI-Mobile homes are an allowable use. MR. THOMAS-In that zone as long as they meet the setbacks. MR. GORALSKI-As long as he meets the setbacks, he can put in a double wide. MR. STONE-Is yours the long one? MR. HERMANCE-That’s 70 feet long, yes. That’s 12 by 70. Right now I have plenty of setback. No problem. MR. STONE-Yes. It’s a big piece of property. MR. HERMANCE-I have 150 by 200, but the deed says more or less. Now my lot hasn’t actually been surveyed yet. The land behind me has. Now there’s a spot between my marker and his, there’s 15 feet in there that he says he doesn’t own. So he says that belongs to me. I hope it is mine, but he’s got his surveyed. He’s got his markers up, and there’s roughly 15 feet between my stake, which was marked by Geneva Elmore, when I bought it off him, and his line. So there’s about 15 feet in there. He says I own it. MR. THOMAS-Hey, I’d say you’re right. MR. HERMANCE-And my deed calls for 200 feet more or less. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it says more or less. MR. HERMANCE-So mine must be I’ve got the more. MR. THOMAS-For once you win. MR. HERMANCE-That’s all I have to say. As long as. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you don’t have any comment on whether we should consider whacking these lots in half and making four lots out of two? MR. HERMANCE-Four lots out of two? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-He’s got two lots now. MR. STONE-On either side of the street. MR. THOMAS-On either side of the street, and he’s going to whack each one in half. MRS. LAPHAM-We have a little sketch here. MR. HERMANCE-I have the map at home, too. MR. GORALSKI-He owns, currently he owns this property. What he wants to do is cut this one into two lots and put a house here and a house here and then cut this one into two lots and build a house on the corner. 29 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. HERMANCE-This one here he said is supposed to be facing my house, and this one’s going to face Ralph Road? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. HERMANCE-I have no problem with that. Because I live in this lot right here. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. HERMANCE-And I have no effect on that, as long as it’s not going to effect my, if I decide I want to replace. MR. GORALSKI-All I can tell you is currently you’re allowed to have a mobile home. All you need to do is come in and get a building permit. You don’t have to ask anybody or anything. As long as you get a building permit and meet the setbacks. MR. HERMANCE-Okay, then, thank you. MR. THOMAS-All right. Is anyone wishing to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. August 25, 1997, from Queen Victoria’s Grant Homeowners Association Margaret Drive, Box A, Queensbury, NY 12804, concerning Area Variance No. 42-1997 and 43- 1997, To: Bonnie M. Lapham, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, NY “Board Members: I, Eugene Hughto, Jr., as Treasurer of Queen Victoria’s Grant Homeowners Association am responding to your recent correspondence with us in regard to changes in the zoning property adjacent to some of our Association property. I will be unable to attend the meeting scheduled for August 27, 1997 at 7 pm, and therefore request that this letter from us be read into the minutes and considered in your decision. This letter is in reference to zoning changes on the following property owned by Larry Clute on the corner of Ralph Road and Eisenhower, Tax Map No. 120-1-60.55, 120-1-30.1. We have no objections to this re-zoning except if part of a future plan for the Town to use this property for drainage or other water to be collected from another lot or property, the following need to be addressed. One or two test wells have been drilled on Association property in the area near the septic system closest to the re- zoning. If the water table in those areas rise because of the new drain water source from this proposed project, the Town of Queensbury will be responsible for correcting this problem immediately because of the damage to our current septic systems, as has happened before in Town attempts to solve this problem. This may include stopping all flow to the new drainage site until a more permanent solution can be found. If there is a need to cross Association property for this project, permission must be granted by the Queen Victoria’s Grant Homeowners Association Board of Directors. Any attempt otherwise will be treated as trespassing. We want to make these requests known at this time to help stop any potential problems from occurring due to a lack of communication or other reasons in the course of this project. Please feel free to contact me at my home phone number at 792-4109 for any other questions or comments. Sincerely, Eugene Hughto Jr., Treasurer, Queen Victoria’s Grant Homeowners Association” MR. THOMAS-And that’ll do it for the correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-That’ll do it for the correspondence. MR. GORALSKI-I’d just like to clear something up here. The Queen Victoria’s Grant Homeowners Association is kind of mixing apples and oranges here. The two lots that you’re considering now have nothing to do with the drainage project that is being considered to alleviate problems with Queensbury Forest. Another lot in the same neighborhood that Larry Clute owns has been investigated as a potential solution to that problem. They have nothing to do with these two lots that you’re considering. MR. THOMAS-Leaving the public hearing open, I will make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1997 AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 43- 1997 LARRY CLUTE , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: For a period of up to 62 days. So that the owner/applicant of the property can come in and present his case, for a decision by the Board. 30 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) th Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-Does anybody else have anything they want to say for the good of the Board? MR. GORALSKI-We recently received a letter from Stephen Evanusa, Architect, re: the Polonski residence, Assembly Point, Area Variance No. 55-1995. “Dear Sir: The applicants respectfully request that the above referenced Area Variance be extended for another year.” We received this about a week ago. If you want to look at the plan and consider it? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I think we talked about it last meeting. MR. GORALSKI-You may have. MR. THOMAS-But nobody could remember what the hell it was. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Let me show you. This was the lot almost out on the tip of Assembly Point. The tip is kind of to the northwest, where that big, Bob Stewart’s house is and Morris’ house. MR. STONE-No, Morris is to the other side of this. Stewart’s is one side and Morris is the other. MR. GORALSKI-That’s right. You’re right. I’m sorry. MR. STONE-I know, I live there. MR. GORALSKI-At any rate, what they were considering doing is tearing down the existing house, and building this new house. There’s also, I think there’s an elevation in there, right? MRS. LAPHAM-Didn’t we already grant a variance for that some time ago? MR. THOMAS-I don’t remember it. MRS. LAPHAM-It was before my time. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. GORALSKI-It was ’95. MRS. LAPHAM-I came late in ’95, like December. MR. KARPELES-Yes, I remember it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I remember that one now. MR. GORALSKI-Remember the house, the original house was six feet taller. They were, the new house was actually going to be six feet shorter than. MR. THOMAS-Weren’t they going to have some kind of a dome on top with a light? MR. GORALSKI-A sky light over the top. That’s the one. Now, there is one issue that’s changed since we granted this variance, and that is that the floor area ratio regulations have now come in. Now if you continue this variance, then that is they’re grandfathered. That’s not an issue. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-If you decide that you don’t want to give them the extension, and they have to come back for another variance, they’re going to have to get a floor area ratio variance, also. MR. KARPELES-Why is it taking so long to build? 31 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. GORALSKI-I don’t know. MR. THOMAS-Well, we had to give them a year’s extension before. So they’re looking for another one? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. It’s not after the fact yet. It will be if you don’t grant it tonight. MR. STONE-Now this is 40 feet to the lake? MR. GORALSKI-Right. That’s correct. MR. STONE-When we granted them relief, it was 75 feet. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Now it’s 50 feet. MR. THOMAS-What’s the floor area ratio? MR. ROUND-It was like less than five percent. MR. GORALSKI-Right. I think 22 is what’s required and I think it was like 26. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but also the setback went from 75 down to 50. MR. GORALSKI-So you’re actually granting less setback relief now. MR. STONE-My big caution, when we talk percentages and we say five percent, that’s not five percent of twenty-two percent? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. STONE-That’s 25%, approximately. We ought to keep this in mind when we talk about that. MR. GORALSKI-What I’m saying is their floor area ratio is approximately 26%, 22 is what’s required. MR. STONE-Now I understand. That’s not four percent more. MR. GORALSKI-That’s correct. MR. STONE-It’s four over twenty-two, in terms of the increase. That’s all. MR. GORALSKI-The variance is 25% of the requirement. MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-What’s the pleasure of the Board? MR. CUSTER-I’ll grant it one more time, but I think there’s got to be a time limit for this thing. MR. THOMAS-They didn’t say why, did they? MR. GORALSKI-The letter didn’t say why, no. MR. STONE-The problem is, the longer we get into the new law, and we’re doing, I think, a reasonable job. We obviously had some disagreement tonight, and that’s okay, and I capitulated on the one, and that’s fine, so if they go to build another year down the road, or two years, it could be very different than some of the other properties that are going to be approved. MR. GORALSKI-Well, that’s the reason why variances expire in one year because conditions may change within that year. Oftentimes, conditions don’t change. In this case, the regulation actually changed. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Considerably. 32 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. THOMAS-But it really changed in their favor, as far as the setbacks. MR. GORALSKI-It changed in their favor. MR. KARPELES-They already had the setback anyway. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. KARPELES-I don’t know. I kind of feel that he got a one year extension. I think another year extension is kind of excessive. MR. THOMAS-I think it is, too. MRS. LAPHAM-Because that would give him two years altogether. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Right. MR. STONE-Three years to build then, in other words. MR. GORALSKI-Right. He would then have three years to build it. MR. MC NALLY-Is he just going to come back in here and ask for a variance? MR. THOMAS-He’ll have to come back in here for another variance, you know. It will be less relief from the shoreline setback, but he’s going to have to get a floor area ratio. MR. STONE-See, in this case, I mean, I didn’t explain why I changed my vote on that, because the way that shoreline is, but this one is a straight shoreline, and it’s 40 feet, it means 40 feet across the whole house. MR. THOMAS-The 40 feet across the whole house. You know, it’s 10 feet versus 35 feet. MR. STONE-That’s true, except we’re being very strict on 50 in many cases. MR. KARPELES-I think we really ought to be paying more attention to this floor area ratio. I think that the Town came up with something, and they came up with a good plan, and we’re just not paying any attention to it, and I think we’re making a mistake. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes, well, that’s what we argued last week, Bob, you and I, and I agree with you. Obviously, I agree. MR. KARPELES-We’re just ignoring it. There’s no sense in having it. It was put in to help us, as a guideline for us. MR. MC NALLY-Are you talking about the deck last week? MR. STONE-No, we’re talking about the floor area ratio, the two story on Rockhurst. That’s the point Bob and I made. You guys in your wisdom, that’s fine. MR. THOMAS-A no action constitutes an expiration, right? MR. STONE-Do we have to take formal action? MR. THOMAS-A no motion, the thing expires, today. MR. GORALSKI-I would request that you take an action, only because they did submit a written request. So, I’m not sure the legalities of whether you have to act on that request. It would be a lot easier, if you have a feeling one way or another, that you pass a motion on that. 33 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST TO EXTEND THE VARIANCE ON THE POLONSKI PROPERTY VARIANCE NO. 55-1995 NO. 9-1-19 , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: th Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-So you’re going to have to talk to Mr. Evanusa. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, that’s the architect. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, he’s the one that asked for the extension, I think. MRS. LAPHAM-The Polonski residence. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So, you’re going to rip a letter off here to the architect and tell him that it was a seven zero vote against it, for reasons of, we granted one extension, another one is. MR. GORALSKI-Right. You’ve got it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lets get these notes done. CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 18, 1997: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS TYPED OF THE JUNE 18, 1997 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: th Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. STONE-We keep calling these minutes. Aren’t they really transcripts? MR. THOMAS-I don’t know. It says, these are not officially adopted “minutes”, right on the face sheet. MR. STONE-Obviously, somebody came up with that wording. Okay. MR. GORALSKI-For years and years. MR. THOMAS-If you’d like to call Mr. Schachner and ask him, be my guest. MR. STONE-We’ve got to go back to Paul or before that, I’m sure. MR. GORALSKI-Before that. MR. THOMAS-The next one is the June 25, 1997 meeting, it’s a regular meeting. Any changes? If not, I’ll make a motion. June 25, 1997: NONE MR. STONE-John’s in there. Are we sure that we’re very happy with everything we said about Salvador? That’s the only thing, the litigious one. 34 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) MR. THOMAS-I haven’t gotten any summons or any, you know, I mean, on behalf of John Salvador on this one. MR. GORALSKI-Salvador’s suing us. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but I didn’t get anything. MR. GORALSKI-Well, the Zoning Board in general. MR. STONE-We’re being sued? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. STONE-Well, don’t we get noticed when we’re sued? MR. CUSTER-I think I was the only one that was off of that. MR. THOMAS-No. Brian Custer was here for that one. MR. CUSTER-I wasn’t on the summons of complaint. MR. STONE-He was a good guy. MR. GORALSKI-I thought that the Town Council’s Office had notified everyone. MR. THOMAS-I don’t remember. MR. GORALSKI-He’s filed a petition against the Zoning Board, the Zoning Administrator and the Town in general. MRS. LAPHAM-Who, John? MR. GORALSKI-John Salvador. MRS. LAPHAM-That figures. MR. STONE-I didn’t get a copy. MR. KARPELES-I don’t remember getting a copy. MR. THOMAS-I don’t, either. All right. There’s a motion for the acceptance of the June 25, 1997. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE JUNE 25, 1997 MINUTES AS TYPED , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: th Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE July 16, 1997: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 16, 1997 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AS TYPED , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: th Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE 35 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 8/27/97) July 23, 1997: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JULY 23, 1997 REGULAR MEETING , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: th Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE July 30, 1997: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 30, 1997 , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: th Duly adopted this 27 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas, Mr. McNally th MR. THOMAS-The next meeting is the 17 of September. Are things stacking up? MR. GORALSKI-No, I haven’t seen too much. MR. THOMAS-No? Good. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 36