Loading...
1998-07-23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 23, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN LEWIS STONE PAUL HAYES ROBERT MC NALLY MEMBERS ABSENT BONNIE LAPHAM JOSEPH PORTER BRIAN CUSTER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -CHRIS ROUND CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -CRAIG BROWN TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-JEFF FRIEDLAND STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED CHRIS CARTE OWNER: SAME RD ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: ASSEMBLY PT. RD. TO 3 HOUSE ON LEFT PAST SUNSET LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ADDITION TO A 780 SQ. FT. DOCK TO CREATE A 1,052 SQ. FT. DOCK AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SHORELINE REGULATIONS AND RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE. LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 8-5-19 LOT SIZE: 29,192 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-60, 179-79 CHRIS CARTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-1998, Chris Carte, Meeting Date: July 23, 1998 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ Assembly Point Road Applicant Relief Required: proposes expansion to a 780 sf dock to create a 1052 sf dock. Applicant requests 352 sf of relief from the Shoreline regulations which limit dock size to a 700 sf maximum, Criteria for Section 179-60, and relief for expansion of a non conformity, Section 179-79. considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:2. Feasible Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize the desired dock. alternatives: According to the Shoreline regulations, the applicant would be allowed 2 700 sf docks based on the 164 feet of shoreline available. Feasible alternatives may include construction 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: of a separate dock and no construction. 352 sf of relief from the 700 sf requirement may be interpreted as moderate, while the applicant is 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: entitled to 1400 sf; in the form of 2 docks. 5. Is this difficulty Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. self-created?Parcel History (construction/site The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: None applicable Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant is entitled to 2 docks both of which could be 700 sf. The proposal of 1052 sf is less than the total allowable square footage however, it does propose an oversized dock. Surrendering the possibility for a second dock in the future may be considered. SEQR Status: Unlisted” th MR. BROWN-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8 day of July 1998, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a new dock, slightly larger than existing was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact” Terri Ross, Vice Chairperson. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Carte, is there anything you’d like to tell us about, add? MR. CARTE-No, I don’t have a lot to add to it, but it was my understanding, I don’t know if you have this paperwork or not, but the Lake George Park Commission has already reviewed the proposed dock, and it’s my understanding that they have approved it, pending your approval. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We have that letter? MR. BROWN-We don’t have a letter, but I spoke with Molly Gallagher from the Park Commission. MR. THOMAS-All right. We’ll just put that into the record later. MR. BROWN-That’s fine. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-Did the applicant give any consideration to forgoing a second dock, if we approve it tonight? Would that be acceptable? MR. CARTE-I’ve thought about that, but I really would prefer not to do that. I guess I wouldn’t consider that to be acceptable. MR. MC NALLY-May I ask why? Subject, of course, to your coming back and asking for a new variance for a change of conditions? MR. CARTE-I don’t, we have no immediate plans to do additional dockage on the property. I don’t foresee any need to, but I don’t want to get blocked into a corner. I suppose while a variance would be a possibility at some point in the future, it’s a bit of a risk. I view that as a bit of a risk, and frankly, I don’t really think that I should be making concessions. I think that this is an issue that is not currently addressed in the Code, and it needs to be addressed, but I find it strange that because the issue is not addressed, that we are not necessarily not being allowed to do it, but that we have to make these special arrangements to do something that is not prohibited in the Code. I don’t know why it’s not in there. Maybe the issue has never come up before. I find that hard to believe, but it’s possible. MR. STONE-Mr. Carte, exactly, in that last point, to what are you referring? MR. CARTE-I’m referring to the fact that the Code does not specify whether or not the two docks that we are allowed have to be physically separated, and if so, by what distance? What would prevent me from building two 700 square foot docks, inverted, how can I say, two “L” Shaped docks that were mirror images of each other, of 700 square feet each, with a six inch space between them. They would be two separate docks, but in reality, they’d be used as one dock. So there’s no mention of whether or not there needs to be physical separation, and no mention of by how much. MR. STONE-Okay, but the only thing, if you did that, you would have 1400 square foot of dock. MR. CARTE-That’s right. MR. STONE-Which is allowed, of seven and seven. MR. CARTE-That’s right, exactly. MR. STONE-If you were to put this one in, with the variance that you request, which would make it 1,052, then you would argue using that that you could build another 700 square foot dock, without a variance. MR. CARTE-No, no, no. MR. STONE-Well, you could argue that. MR. MC NALLY-And you might be right about it also. MR. CARTE-No, because I’d be exceeding the total square footage of 1400 square feet. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. MC NALLY-You’re allowed two docks of 700 square feet each. If we give you a variance, then we waive that with respect to one dock. You’re still entitled to your second. MR. STONE-Right. MR. CARTE-Well, I certainly would be willing to state for the record that I have no intentions of exceeding the 1400 square foot limit. In other words, I want to be allowed to possibly, it’s unlikely, but possibly at some time in the future pick up my additional 350 square feet of dockage that I’m entitled to. I don’t want to waive that. MR. STONE-That’s very different than we originally started talking about. MR. CARTE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-See, you may have the best of intentions, but we’re bound by whatever we do tonight. MR. STONE-And it goes with the land. MR. MC NALLY-So if in the future you sell to someone else, if you decide, what the hell, I can get a 700 square foot dock on top of this other one the Town gave us, our hands would be tied. MR. CARTE-You mean if the new owners? MR. STONE-New owner, yes. MR. MC NALLY-Or even you. You have the best of intentions, but it doesn’t obligate you. By the same token, I don’t generally have a problem with 1400 square feet, whether it’s one or two docks. If it was beyond that, I would be upset, and I don’t think I would grant the relief if I knew that would happen. MR. CARTE-I would be in agreement with you there. MR. THOMAS-So what you’re saying is you would agree to a condition to limit a second dock, if you were to put it in, to 348 square feet? MR. CARTE-Certainly. MR. THOMAS-For a total of 1400 square feet of dock on that 164 square feet of lake front. MR. CARTE-That’s right. MR. STONE-I can live with that. MR. MC NALLY-That’s an acceptable solution. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARTE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-As far as what you’re saying about any separation of docks, you’re right. It doesn’t say anything in here. There’s no reason you couldn’t take two docks and slam them together. MR. CARTE-If it’s just an oversight, or that it’s never come up before, I think that it needs to be addressed. MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, as long as it meets the setbacks, there’s nothing you can do about it. If you had, for some reason, could only get, if you had 101 feet of lake front, you would still be allowed two docks, but for some strange reason, you just couldn’t get one dock 20 foot from one lot line and 20 from the other. MR. CARTE-Yes. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. THOMAS-You’d have to bring them in. It’s something I think that when they wrote the Ordinance, that they probably thought about, but it wouldn’t make any difference, because you could do it anyway. There’s no separation of docks here. MR. STONE-A question to Staff, Chris and Craig, do we keep a record of anomalies, if you will, in the Code, that we present, that you guys present to the Town Board on a regular basis? Because we seem to come along with a number of these things. Obviously, the more people we talk to, we find holes, if you will. I think last week there were a couple of definitions that were in the Code, but not in the Definitions. I mean, it would seem to me you might want to keep a record and every six months, a year, bring it to the Town Board for a revision law or something. MR. CARTE-Yes, I agree. The Code should be a work in progress. I mean, there are things that are going to come up that need to be, you know, that we need to learn from and add to. MR. THOMAS-Another thing I was looking at, for the information of the Board, in Section 179- 60, under the docks, under B(3), it says “No dock shall exceed eight (8) feet in width. It doesn’t specify any shape. MR. CARTE-Yes, that’s a little bit tricky, too. MR. THOMAS-So, you know, and along the shoreline you’ve got 18, 6, 24, 25. MR. CARTE-That larger section is existing. That’s existing dockage that’s going to remain. MR. THOMAS-That’s going to remain there. So what you’re putting on is basically? MR. CARTE-Basically the “U” Shape. MR. THOMAS-Just the “U” Shape. MR. CARTE-Yes, and I talked to Molly Gallagher at the Park Commission about that eight foot maximum, because there is one section in the new dock that will be over, that will be 10 or 12 feet, a section that runs parallel to the shore, between that existing area, and the new “U” Shape, and she said that that was a little bit sticky, but that she thought that it would be okay. MR. MC NALLY-Your actual base is wider than the existing one. You’re planning to increase it to 12 feet, or is it 8 feet, 6 inches, on your drawing? MR. STONE-I’ve got 12 feet in one spot. MR. MC NALLY-Yes. He’s increasing I see. He’s got an eight foot, six inch section he’s adding, and then the distance between the two sections extending to the lake is wider, too. Plus, the two piers are also two feet longer each. You’re right. That’s about 14 feet longer. Is that important though, Chris? What is our position on that? The portion of the dock that’s closest to the shore, is that of concern to the Building Department at all, being wider than eight feet or anything? MR. ROUND-That’s why we concluded it an expansion of a non-conforming structure, as part of the relief that we’re granting tonight. MR. STONE-By the interpretation of 179-63, does that mean all aspects, whether they extend into the water or out to the shore, should be no greater than eight feet, or does this mean the finger should be no wider than eight feet? MR. CARTE-I think it may refer to, there’s a maximum crib size of eight by twelve, and I suspect that they’re talking about areas over the crib, I mean, because the cribs have to be no more than eight feet wide. MR. MC NALLY-You see the Section, Chris? MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-You couldn’t put a three sided pier out there that was more than eight feet. That’s the only place you can tie the boats up. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. ROUND-Yes. Traditionally, the eight feet applies to the pier section, actual section that extends into the water, and then the decking, I don’t know if that’s been addressed or if there’s a formal method to make that interpretation. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak about this application, in favor of? In favor of? Anyone wish to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I just have the one question. Is the applicant and the Board aware of this joint application kit for Wetland and Waterfront Development Permits? MR. THOMAS-I’ve never seen it. MR. CARTE-I’m not aware of it. MR. MC NALLY-Where is it from, Mr. Salvador? MR. SALVADOR-The State of New York, George E. Pataki, Governor. MR. MC NALLY-I understand. What Department, what agency? MR. SALVADOR-“Use this kit if you plan to build or place a structure in or over or near water or wetlands, including docks, piers or bulkheads, moorings or anchorage areas, marinas, residences, projects requiring dredging, filling, or stream disturbances, or for projects located within or along a coastal area, the Adirondack Park, St. Lawrence River, New York State Canals and Canal reservoirs”. We are in the Adirondack State Park, I believe, this project? MR. MC NALLY-I think it is. MR. STONE-I believe it is. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. This is a procedure that’s been put together by the Office of General Services. They administer the public lands, of which the bed of Lake George is. Where does OGS managed State land begin? The boundary between State owned underwater lands and the upland of a private owner is determined by the last known location prior to the placement of any fill of the mean low waterline for navigable lakes, and this permit procedure includes, what do I do? Read this first. These are the agencies that would be involved. Department of Environmental Conservation, the Office of General Services, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of State, the Adirondack Park Agency, maybe the power authority, New York State, maybe the canal corporation, Office of Parks and Recreation, the Lake George Park Commission. So it seems to me that when we encroach on the public land, and that is below 317.74 above mean sea level, this procedure kicks in, and everybody gets involved, towns, Park Agency, Park Commission. Now what this does, what’s required here is, the OGS may not be jurisdictional, but you have to go through the paces and determine that they are not jurisdictional. The APA may not be jurisdictional, but you have to establish that they are not. Likewise the Park Commission. I’ve handed this out to the Town Board members. I’ve handed this out to the Warren County Board of Supervisors. It’s available, free, at the Office of General Services. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence? Have you got a record of phone conversation or something with the Lake George Park Commission? MR. BROWN-No. My phone conversation? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. BROWN-No. I didn’t take a record. MR. THOMAS-Okay. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. BROWN-I spoke with Molly Gallagher regarding this project and she stated to me that they had approved it, and she was curious if she wanted us to wait to have her release it after this hearing, and I told her it didn’t matter, but they didn’t have a problem approving it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Carte? No more questions for him? All right. Lets talk about it. Bob, what do you think? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem with it, as I said before. My only concern was what happens if we grant it, then someone wants to build a 700 square foot dock. In view of the applicant’s agreement to limit any second dock to the remainder of the permissible square footage, it seems that’s an easy solution. It would be a benefit to the applicant. I really don’t see a difference between one or two docks. There are other alternatives, but I can see how a person with the frontage that Mr. Carte does have, wanting to have his docks in one location so they can enjoy the frontage that much better. I think the relief is substantial, if you consider that other people are limited to 700 square feet, but given his frontage, on balance, I don’t have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, I agree with Bob. I think if you apply the balancing test to this variance, the applicant’s willingness to limit his overall dock square footage to what he is permitted already, just didn’t conform, you know, removes any objections that I would have, and I think moves the balance of the test in favor of the applicant. So I would for it, along with the provision that the total square footage did not exceed it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I basically concur. I’d note Mr. Salvador’s comments. Those comments apply to the applicant, not to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury. We are asked to grant relief from our Ordinance. If we are, that’s what our job is. Our Ordinance specifies the things that we have already talked about, and I am prepared to grant such relief, again, with the provision that the applicant will limit his total docks to 1400 feet. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the other Board members. As long as Mr. Carte agrees to limit his docks to 1400 square feet, there’s nothing in the Ordinance that says he couldn’t put two 700 square foot docks together, to form what he’s making right now, because the only configurations that the Ordinance states are “F”, “L”, “T” and “U” shaped docks, and Mr. Carte could use his 164 feet of lake front to construct 1400 foot of dock, in any shape that’s allowed by the Ordinance, namely the “F”, “L”, “T”, or “U”, and Mr. Carte is stating that he will limit the second dock, if it ever goes in, to 348 square feet, would satisfy me, as far as this application is concerned. MR. STONE-May I add one comment, though? The applicant would have no objection to us placing in our motion a limit to a total of 1400 square feet? MR. CARTE-No, no problem. MR. STONE-Okay. I think it has to be in the motion, when we make it. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Seeing that this is an Unlisted Action, we need to go through the Part II of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. “Part II A. Does the action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF.” This does not exceed, am I right? MR. FRIEDLAND-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We’ll make that one No. “Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Action in 6NYCRR Part 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency”. I would say this is also a no. Part C-1 “Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following (answers may be handwritten, if legible): C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Does everybody agree on a no? MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character?” MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-Does everyone agree with a no? MR. MC NALLY-Yes, I agree. MR. THOMAS-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats or threatened or endangered species?” Does everyone agree to no? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-Does everyone agree? MR. MC NALLY-I agree. MR. THOMAS-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” No. MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)?” No. MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-“Part D. Will the Project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a CEA?” No. MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-“Part E. Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-I would say no. MR. BROWN-You skipped 6., Chris. MR. THOMAS-Did I? “C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in C1-C5?” Does everyone agree on no? MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NALLY-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That takes care of that. So I will check the second box. “Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) determination.” And I will sign that later. All right. We’ve talked about it. Gone through the Short EAF. Are there any other questions the Board members want to ask of Staff or the applicant? If not, I’ll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-1998 CHRIS CARTE , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: On Assembly Point Road. The applicant proposes expansion to a 780 square foot dock to create a 10,052 square foot dock. In doing so, the applicant requests 352 square feet of relief from the shoreline regulation, which limits dock size to a 700 square foot maximum, Section 179-60, and relief for expansion of a nonconformity, Section 179-79. In making this request, the applicant, recognizing that he is entitled, because of his lake frontage, to two 700 square foot docks, agrees that any dock addition will total no more than the allowed 1400 square foot. In granting this variance, the applicant will benefit by being permitted to construct and utilize the desired oversized single dock. What are the feasible alternatives to not granting this variance? According to the shoreline regulations, the applicant would be allowed two 700 square foot docks, based on the 164 feet of shoreline available. Feasible alternatives might have included construction of a separate dock, and no construction. In our judgment, we believe that one dock of 1,052 feet is fine. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 352 square feet of relief from the 700 square foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate, since the applicant is entitled to 1400 square foot in the form of two docks. However, since the applicant has stated a willingness to construct, now and in the future, no more than 1400 square foot of docks, the relief essentially is nil. The effects on the neighborhood or community may be looked at as minimal, as a result of this action, and while the difficulty is self-created, it is nevertheless within the Code to have docks totaling 1400 square feet. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. CARTE-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED SCOTT CARTIER OWNER: SCOTT & DEBRA CARTIER ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: 26 REARDON ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO RESIDENCEAND IS REQUESTING RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-16G REQUIRING SANITARY SERVICES BE UPGRADED TO CONFORM WITH CURRENT TOWN ORDINANCE - CHAPTER 136. TAX MAP NO. 45-3-2 LOT SIZE: 0.271 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 SCOTT & DEBRA CARTIER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-1998, Scott & Debra Cartier, Meeting Date: July 23, Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: 1998 “ 26 Reardon Road Applicant has received an Area Variance; 19-1998, for construction of an addition to a residence and now Relief Required: requests relief from the Town Septic Ordinance. Applicant requests relief from the WR-1A, Section 179-16 requirements which state that “Any increase in floor area of an existing structure serviced by sanitary facilities which requires a building permit shall conform Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to with the requirements of Chapter 136.” Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to 2. Feasible alternatives: utilize a non conforming septic system. Feasible alternatives are 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: limited. Since the proposed addition does not all for any additional bedrooms, which is the criteria used for sizing a septic system, the 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: relief may be interpreted as moderate. Moderate 5. Is this difficulty impacts on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) self-created?Parcel History (construction/site The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. plan/variance, etc.): AV 19-1998 res. 5/27/98 to construct an addition (approved) SP 30-98 res. Staff comments: 6/18/98 for expansion, septic and stormwater (approved) Given the close proximity of both Glen Lake and the 100 year flood plain as well as being in the Critical Environmental Area, it may be noted that while the proposal calls for no additional bedrooms, additional space allows for additional people which may result in additional use of the system. SEQR Status: Unlisted” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Scott and Debbie Cartier, give us the story. MR. CARTIER-Well, this all started with the addition application, which we were kind of doing things backward before. We should have addressed the septic issue. I was just wondering, did you have a copy of our pump outs? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. CARTIER-You do have it, everybody has a copy of them? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-There are four of them, I think. MR. CARTIER-Right, and do you have a copy of IBS Septic’s letter stating what the septic system is? MR. STONE-Yes. You have a 1,000 gallon and a 2500 concrete tank in the front. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. STONE-And another 1,000 gallon. MR. CARTIER-Correct. What I have is what the. MRS. CARTIER-If you add the two together, it amounts to the same amount that the Town requires that you have for a three bedroom home. MR. CARTIER-For a three bedroom home, for a holding tank. MRS. CARTIER-The way our property sits, it’s not feasible for us to put a regular septic in and a leach field. So we’re required to put a holding tank in 3500 gallons. In order to do that, we’d have to put that in our driveway. So we’re kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place at this point. What we do have to show you is that we have, what we do have as existing, we have pumped out twice a year. We have the receipts to show it, and we have a well that is between two of the septics, and I just had a water test done on it, and it came back fine, if you’d like to see a copy of that, and we’re just not, you know, I guess we’re frustrated because we feel that we already have what you’re requiring, and why are we going to spend seven or eight thousand dollars on a system that we already know is working? MR. THOMAS-Well, I’m going to take your question and go right over there. How is this system not conforming, because it’s a holding tank in a C.E.A.? MR. ROUND-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-I mean, that’s the only thing that, is that the only thing that makes it nonconforming? MR. CARTIER-Can I just add something? The holding tank they want us to put in is 3500 gallons. MRS. CARTIER-Which holds. It doesn’t leach. MR. CARTIER-Right, which we already have, if you add the tanks together, and plus we have it pumped out, just like you would do with the other holding tank. So I don’t see why we would have to abandon one system to put the same exact system in. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MRS. CARTIER-And lose our driveway. MR. THOMAS-Is that the way you see it, Chris? MR. ROUND-I guess, we’re not evaluating the design here. What the Ordinance requires is that you have to comply with Chapter 136. We’re not reviewing 136 here tonight, whether the system, the determination has been made that it’s not in compliance. So what they’re requesting relief for is that they don’t have to comply with that. That argument that the system, in total capacity, that would be an argument for a variance from the Septic Ordinance itself in front of the Town Board, if that was to. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Back in Site Plan No. 30-98, 6/18/98 by the Planning Board, for expansion, septic and stormwater, that was all approved. What was said at that meeting, do you know, about the septic? MR. ROUND-You’re talking the approval, that they would have to upgrade their system to conform. They thought that, I don’t think they knew this was in place at the time of that meeting. MR. CARTIER-No, that’s not correct. MRS. CARTIER-We were told to follow up with stormwater runoff and septic issues. MR. ROUND-Right, and that referred to the Planning Board, and then through that evaluation process, that it wasn’t. MR. CARTIER-No. Then the Planning Board approved our application, and at that point, they said, there’s no reason why you cannot get your permit, and that’s on the record. MRS. CARTIER-Yes, we were told that right here at this meeting. MR. CARTIER-And then we were told to come back for another variance. MRS. CARTIER-It seems like, here we are in July. MR. CARTIER-That’s on the record. MR. ROUND-You got site plan approval, contingent upon. MR. CARTIER-No, we did not. There was no contingencies. MR. ROUND-We’ll bring it back to the table. There’s a variance application on the table. If you want to talk to me about this outside of a variance application, I’ll go through the record with you. I mean, we’ve been around this, and I’m kind of surprised that this is the approach that you’re taking here tonight. MRS. CARTIER-What do you mean “approach”? We do what everybody tells us to do, giving the Town money every time we have to come here, and it just seems like every time we come here you say, no, you need to go to another Department. I’m sorry, this is very frustrating. MR. ROUND-I understand your frustration. The zoning variance was granted, for an Area Variance to expand your structure. MR. CARTIER-That’s correct. MR. ROUND-It was referred to the Planning Board for review, and there were issued identified that there were concerns with stormwater and septic system. MR. CARTIER-That’s correct. MR. ROUND-And an expansion of a house requires compliance with the Septic Ordinance. The current system doesn’t comply with the septic Ordinance to date. It’s not a standard leachfield system. An expansion, in our Chapter 179-16G, requires that you comply with Chapter 136. If you read 136, it says that you have to bring your system up to standard or install a new system, and that’s what they’re requesting relief from for tonight. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. CARTIER-Okay. Can I add on to that? MR. ROUND-Sure. MR. CARTIER-What we would have to put in, due to the size of our lot, is a holding tank, and the holding tank, for a three bedroom house, is 3500 gallons. MR. ROUND-But a holding tank is not permitted under the Ordinance, and we have a couple of experts. MR. CARTIER-You have to go for a variance for a holding tank. MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I already have holding tanks. I’ve already had the 3500 gallons. I’ve already shown I pump them out. Why do we have to keep going in circles here? MR. STONE-I thought the Board of Health grants variances for holding tanks? MR. ROUND-Right. If you want to install a holding tank on your property, there’s a variance procedure, and it’s to go to the Town Board of Health, and then they’re only permitted under several very limited circumstances. MR. STONE-I have a couple of questions before we get into that detail. When you say, you have to refresh my mind on the expansion. You’ve got two different houses? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. STONE-And how many bedrooms are there total in all these houses? MR. CARTIER-There’s two separate septic systems. The apartment has its own. MR. STONE-And that’s the 1,000? MR. CARTIER-Right. MRS. CARTIER-No, there’s three. MR. CARTIER-Okay, the apartment, which is the roadside. MR. STONE-The apartment, right, has it’s own septic tank. It’s a concrete tank. It’s 1,000 gallons. The main house, which is the lake side, has two tanks, one on the side and one in the front, lake side. MR. STONE-And they’re fed separately, from different parts of the house? One gray water and one waste water, black water? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. STONE-So which one is the black water? MR. CARTIER-That’s on the side of the house, which is the road side, which is 1,000 gallons. MR. STONE-So the black water’s 1,000. The gray water’s 2500? MR. CARTIER-Yes, and our well sits in between the apartment and the main house, which is right in between the two septic tanks, and which I’d like to add this in. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We’ll throw that into the record, or into the folder. MR. CARTIER-Then we had our water tested, of course, when we bought the house, and we just had it tested again. MR. THOMAS-Well, are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Okay. We’re going to add the water quality test right into the, just leave that in the folder there, so we have it. All right, no correspondence, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the Cartiers? MR. STONE-No. I have a question for Staff. I don’t know what relief we’re even talking about. I mean, you’re just telling me we have to either say yes or no to 136. MR. MC NALLY-We don’t have 136. MR. ROUND-No. You’re not looking at 136. You’re not looking at the Septic Ordinance whatsoever. 179-16G, our Waterfront Residential district requires, when you come in for a building permit for any new construction, if you’re expanding, it doesn’t address, if you’re coming in for new construction in the Waterfront Residential district, it requires that you upgrade your septic system or conform with the Septic Reg’s, all right. So that’s the Section that says, it’s unusual to the Ordinance, but the purpose of the Ordinance was to identify failed systems, to identify antiquated systems that could be brought into current standards, current septic standards, for the protection of water quality. 136 identifies what conventional systems are, and our 179-16 says that you have to conform. So what’s in front of you tonight is relief from 179-16G, that says you have to comply, that the construction activity has to comply with the new Septic Reg’s. MR. STONE-I understand that, but lets say the Reg’s, that we’re not talking about, require a 7,000 gallon tank, lets say that, and the applicant comes to us with a 1,000 gallon tank, and we’re asked only to say. MR. ROUND-Again, that’s going to be a judgment of compliance with the Septic Regulations. We’re not judging compliance with the Septic Regulations. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. MC NALLY-But in order to judge whether a variance is appropriate in this case, don’t we have to have some idea of what the Code calls for, and then compare that with these applicants, what they have and see if it’s fair that we grant the variance, whether it’s a big difference, a little difference? What are we talking about? I know we’re not judging the Septic Reg’s. MR. ROUND-I know it’s difficult information to give you. I don’t know, specifically in front of me, I don’t have the total square footage of the house. I haven’t designed the system and compared what’s existing versus what would be required. They’ve indicated that they have holding tanks on the site, that IBS has indicated that they haven’t failed. They’ve got a well on the site that says they don’t have a problem with water quality. That could lead you to believe that the system is adequate for their current needs. MR. STONE-I’ve got two questions. First, is IBS an approved septic tank inspector? MR. ROUND-I don’t know if there’s such a thing as an “approved”, but they’ve done business in the Town. MR. STONE-Because I know we have approved engineers and. MR. ROUND-Right. They’ve done business in the Town. Their work’s been accepted. MR. STONE-If we grant this variance, is there anything else in the approval process, after we’re done? MR. ROUND-They would get their building permit and construct the house that they’re proposing. MR. CARTIER-An addition to the house. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. ROUND-Right. MR. CARTIER-Not a whole house. MR. MC NALLY-Is it true that all they need is 3500 gallons, do you know, as you sit here? MR. ROUND-I don’t know that. I don’t have that in front of me, like two bedrooms, 1,000 gallons. I don’t know what that is, off hand, and I apologize for not being able to offer you an opinion on the adequacy of their system. MR. MC NALLY-Are you aware of any significant inadequacies, as you sit here today? MR. ROUND-I’m relying on IBS’s verification to the Cartiers and to you that the system that they have in place is adequate for their needs, and that’s what they have. MR. STONE-That’s not what it says. MR. ROUND-Well, it says that they’ve inspected the system. It’s not failed. MR. STONE-They say it’s in working order. MR. ROUND-Right. That would lead you to say it’s not failing. So that’s, it’s a working system. MR. STONE-I know, but it doesn’t tell me what the current Code is. My problem is, I’m kind of voting, and this has nothing to do with you. Don’t take it personally. I’m voting for a pig in a poke. I mean, as far as I’m concerned, I could imagine the Ordinance calls for 7,000, and they’ve got 3500. MR. THOMAS-136(11)(b)(2), for a three bedroom house states, “Holding tank capacity required, 3500 gallons”, and that’s what you have said you have. MR. CARTIER-That’s correct. MR. STONE-That’s fine, if that’s what it says. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s what it says. MR. MC NALLY-Can I see that? Okay. Anything else in there? MR. THOMAS-It talks about horizontal distances, tanks under driveways have to withstand so much, accessible for pumping, removed or filled, when public sewers come on, they have to be filled with an inert material. It talks about an alarm system. MR. STONE-Yes. I was going to say, the alarm system, is there an alarm system in place? MR. CARTIER-No, there’s not. There’s no alarm system on it. MR. ROUND-It would warn you if there’s an overflow condition in your tank. MR. THOMAS-Yes, when the level is 50%, and 100%. A yellow light comes on at 50%, and a red light with a buzzer comes on at 100%. MR. STONE-And the water shuts down. MR. THOMAS-And the water shuts down. MR. HAYES-Is that a requirement? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So, well, if there’s no other questions for the applicant, lets talk about it. I’ll start with Jamie. MR. HAYES-Well, again, it’s a balancing test here. I’d have to say that overall I’m satisfied. I think that considering what they have completely complies with, outside of its confirmation, 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) completely complies in capacity with the requirement, and it’s an existing condition that’s maintaining and working in the house. Their well is tested. It’s not contaminating their well. I think in this circumstance, you know, asking the applicant to spend seven or ten thousand dollars to basically come back to the same capacity level, just in a different form, would be more than I would think would be reasonable in this circumstance, and it’s very clear to me that the alternatives are limited, based on the size and conformation of the lot, and I really don’t think it’s substantial relief, in that there is 3500 gallon capacity there, and I don’t see any negative impact on the neighborhood, per se. So I don’t have a problem with the variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-The lot is narrow and small, given that there are two buildings on it, and I agree that there’s no way they can put a septic system in. So they’re going to need a holding tank, any way you look at it. I don’t have a problem with volume of the tanks, whether it’s two tanks totaling 3500, or one tank totaling 3500. I think, Chris, you found out that’s the minimum requirement, and they seem to meet it, but I’m not a lake expert. What does Mr. Stone think? What about this alarm stuff and what not? Is that an upgrade that’s required? Is it essential? Does it hurt the lake if it overflows? What happens? I don’t know anything about that? Do you know anything? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. CARTIER-The tank, I can maybe answer your question about the tanks itself, just lift the cover up and you look at it. I mean, it’s right there. The chance of it overflowing, I would not let that happen to begin with. MR. STONE-The problem, to answer the last question first, yes, an overflowing holding tank in your critical local would be adverse to Glen Lake and everybody around Glen Lake. There’s no question about that. Moreover, the question of holding tanks, use of permanent holding tanks in the Town of Queensbury, is a subject, a current subject of discussion, and to allow a holding tank is one thing, but to allow a holding tank without the prescribed warning devices in place, I could not, in good conscience, allow. The holding tank you’ve had, it has worked adequately, but I couldn’t say, go and sin no more. I would at least, at a minimum, have to have a warning device in place. That’s where we are today. We have very sophisticated warning devices, where the water is automatically shut down when it gets a certain level. I understand you can look in the tank and you can see it very quickly, but accidents happen, and if we don’t have a fail safe situation, I think we’ve got a potential problem, and I, for one, would like to see, I couldn’t give blanket relief, even though we’re up at 3500, and that’s what the Ordinance calls for, but the Ordinance also calls for a warning system, and I think we need the warning system in place, as far as I’m concerned. MR. THOMAS-As far as I can tell, with a 3500 gallon capacity in place, the narrowness of the lot, and the fact that the house sits back 90 feet from the lake front, okay, you know, if the house sat at 50 feet, where it would be required, the Cartiers would have an additional 40 feet, plus the width of the lot to install a new system, but that’s not the case. The case is they’re 90 feet back from the lake. They have an existing system that is not failing. So I have no problem granting this variance, but I will go along with Lew, on the condition that the prescribed alarm system is installed. We know the Cartiers pump it out once every six months, but, you know, the Ordinance does call for an upgrade of the system, that a new system would have an alarm system in it. So I would go along with the fact, you know, as is, with the installation of an alarm system. So, before a motion, this is also an Unlisted action. So we have to go through the SEQRA. MR. MC NALLY-Do we have to go through every single one of them? MR. THOMAS-If it’s an Unlisted action. MR. STONE-That’s what our lawyer said. MR. MC NALLY-Seriously. I don’t know of any requirement. We have to have a lot of thought, and give thought, but as far as looking at these listed considerations, as a group, I should think we can respond to them, but I’ll do whatever our lawyer says, I suppose. MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, until we can change his mind. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. THOMAS-Part IIA. “Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6NYCRR Part 617.4?” I would say a no to that answer. Does everyone agree? MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay Part B “Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted actions in 6NYCRR Part 617.6? If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency.” I would say no on that one, also. MR. MC NALLY-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Part “C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. STONE-Yes, moderate. Can we say moderate on this one? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-But is that an answer we can give? MR. THOMAS-I will say yes, moderate. Will require applicant to install alarm system to mitigate potential hazards. MRS. CARTIER-How much do alarm systems cost? MR. HAYES-You better call Ivan back. MR. MC NALLY-They’ve got to be a lot less than a whole system, that’s for sure. MRS. CARTIER-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-In an existing system? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-It’s a little more difficult than if it were new. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-I’m sure they’ve got ways to adapt them, still. MR. THOMAS-Okay. “C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character?” MR. MC NALLY-No adverse effect. MR. THOMAS-No “C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, wildlife species, significant habitats or threatened or endangered species?” No. “C4. A communities existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in use or intensity of use land or other natural resources?” Yes, no, or maybe? MR. STONE-No. We’ve already granted the intensity of the land, in a sense. MR. THOMAS-Okay. “C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” No. “C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in C1 through C5?” MR. MC NALLY-No. MR. THOMAS-I can’t think of any. “C7. Other impacts including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy?” No. Well, the alarm system’s going to use some, but. “D. Will the Project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that cause the establishment of a 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) CEA?” No. “E. Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” No, and I will check the second box that “Proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts”. Okay. That takes care of that. Now, are there any other questions for the applicant, or of Staff? If not, I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-1998 SCOTT CARTIER , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 26 Reardon Road. The applicant requests relief from the WR-1A, Section 179-16, requiring that any increase in the floor area of an existing structure serviced by sanitary facilities, which requires a building permit, shall conform with the requirements of Chapter 176. The property, as it stands now, does not meet the requirements of Chapter 176, and the applicants are seeking relief therefore. The benefit to the applicant would be it would permit them to construct the addition they’ve already been approved for without changing their septic system, except for the alarm system which is going to be a contingency in this motion. The feasible alternatives are limited, based on the size and nature of the lot, and the current placement of driveway and well of the property as it stands now. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? I don’t believe that it is, based on the fact that they’re not increasing the number of bedrooms in the house. So there is some evidence that whatever additional use on the septic system will be very moderate. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t believe there will be any negative impact on the neighborhood or community as a result of this action. Is the difficulty self created? I believe that it is, but they’re trying to increase the size of the camp, for reasons so stated in a prior variance, and they’ve been accepted, and the current system is in place now. They do not want to go through the expense. It is self-created, but it’s understandable. I’d make it explicit that the motion includes compliance with Section 136-11 of the Sewer and Sewage Disposal Code, pertaining to the automatic alarm system, the approval is contingent on that factor. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 1998, by the following vote: MR. STONE-I was just wondering if we should add that the parcel in question has always had, I assume, always had a holding tank system, rather than a regular septic and leachfield. To the best of your knowledge? MR. CARTIER-I believe so. MR. STONE-How long have you been there? MRS. CARTIER-Two and a half years. MR. CARTIER-The previous owner was the original owner. She was there the whole time. Her husband built the house. MR. STONE-How far back does that go? MR. CARTIER-Forty years. MR. STONE-Forty years. Chris, do you know if the holding tank has always been in place? MR. ROUND-I don’t know that. I would assume it would have been. AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter MR. THOMAS-I think now they can get their building permit? MR. ROUND-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-When they install the alarm system. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. CARTIER-The question being, is there a form or something, or some kind of pamphlet of what type of alarm system we’re supposed to get, so we don’t put something in? MR. THOMAS-It’s in 136-11, and there’s also pictures back in there. It’s in the Ordinance. I’ve got it in this book here. MR. ROUND-Dave Hatin at the Building Department will give you details on what’s required. MRS. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-So that would encompass inspections when we’re building, correct? MR. ROUND-Yes. They’ll inspect it after it’s installed. MR. CARTIER-But we can get a permit, right? MR. ROUND-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1998 TYPE II LEONARDO & CALLIOPI LOMBARDO OWNERS: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1583 STATE ROUTE 9 (LEO’S LOBSTER) APPLICANT PROPOSES GO-CART TRACK AND IS REQUESTING RELIEF FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE REQUIREMENT AND THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE HC-1A ZONE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 33-1-10 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE SECTION: 179-23 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-1998, Leonardo & Calliopi Lombardo, Meeting Date: Project Location: July 23, 1998 “ Applicant proposes utilization of an existing go cart shelter Relief Required: structure. Applicant requests 35 feet and 19 feet of relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay zone 75 foot setback requirement, Section 179-28 and simultaneously requests 10 feet of relief from the 50 foot setback requirement of the HC-1A zone, Section 179-23. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain and operate a go cart track at 2. Feasible alternatives: the desired location with the preferred structure. Feasible alternatives 3. Is this relief substantial may include relocation of the existing building and no construction. relative to the Ordinance?: 35 feet of TCO relief may be interpreted as substantial, while the 4. Effects on the underlying zone HC-1A relief of 10 feet may be interpreted as moderate. neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of 5. Is this difficulty self-created? this action. The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Special Permit No. 92 9/17/80 for a miniature golf course (approved) SP 43-90 res. 10/16/90 expansion of the dining room (approved) SP 28-94 res. 10/18/94 expansion of a commercial building (approved) AV 36-95 res. 8/16/95 expansion of a commercial building (approved) BP 97-702 to construct a carport for a go cart Staff comments: track (not issued) Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this action as the NYS DOT right of way is wide in this area which allows for additional separation from the driving lanes. The proposed go cart track is within the area currently occupied by the miniature SEQR golf course. Previous determinations state that relief would be necessary for this proposal. Status: Type II” th MR. BROWN-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8 day of July 1998, the above application for an Area Variance for a go cart track 40’ off Route 9 was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: The Warren County Planning Board denies this application without prejudice until an updated map detailing offsets for variance request is provided.” Teri Ross, Vice Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is Mr. or Mrs. Lombardo here? MR. ROUND-No. I talked to the Lombardos. They are aware of the situation that the approval of this project would require a super majority, or a majority plus one, and that is not present tonight. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. What I’ll do is I’ll open the public hearing and leave it open. MR. ROUND-Right, and they will re-submit to Warren County, next month, with complete application and that may change the County’s determination, and then you’d be able to hear it next th month. If you would, in your tabling motion, table it for the 19, and then we will not have to re- advertise, and notify any individuals that are here for that particular meeting that it will be held on th the 19. MR. THOMAS-Okay, but I’ll still open the public hearing. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. THOMAS-I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Since we need a super majority, and we can’t get that, I’ll make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1998 LEONARDO & CALLIOPI LOMBARDO , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Until the August 19, 1998 meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, until the applicant can submit more accurate plans to the Warren County Planning Board for their approval, and so that we may have more Board members present to vote on this action. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter th MR. THOMAS-So, the public hearing is still open, and it’s been moved to the 19 of August. That takes care of that one. AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-1998 TYPE II VON LINDALL AND JOAN DENTON OWNERS: JOAN DENTON ZONE: LC-42A LOCATION: 3.8 MILES NORTH OF RT. 149 ON RIDGE, LEFT SIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES RECONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION OF A DUPLEX WHICH WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE. APPLICANT SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE LC-42A ZONE AND RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 21-1-8.1 LOT SIZE: 31.39 ACRES SECTION: 179-13, 179-79 VON LINDALL AND JOAN DENTON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-1998, Von Lindall & Joan Denton, Meeting Date: July Project Location:Description of 23, 1998 “ Ridge Road - 3.8 miles North of Rte. 149, Proposed Project: Applicant proposes expanded reconstruction of a residence that was destroyed Relief Required: by fire. Applicant requests 92.31 feet of relief from the 100 foot setback requirement of the LC-42A zone, Section 179-13 and relief for expansion of a non conforming structure, Section 179-79. This proposal calls for a 2600 sf duplex with accessory decks, while Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to the previous structure was 1921 sf. Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to 2. Feasible alternatives: reconstruct and occupy an enlarged home. Feasible alternatives may include construction of a home that is identical to the previous home and relocation of the building 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: site. 92.31 feet of relief from the 100 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial, however, the Ridge Road right of way is wider than usual in this location. If the right of way was consistent with a typical 50 foot right of way 4. Effects on the neighborhood or this proposal would require much less relief, if any. community:5. Is Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) this difficulty self-created?Parcel History The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 96-639 Certificate of Occupancy only 10/29/96 BP Staff comments: 98-126 Demolition Permit - to demolish and remove fire debris 4/14/98. Minimal impacts on the community are anticipated as a result of this action. The Ridge Road right of way is very wide in this area which allows for an acceptable setback distance from the driving SEQR Status: lanes. Type II” th MR. BROWN-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8 day of July 1998, an Area Variance to reconstruct an expand a duplex which was destroyed by fire was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve” Terri Ross, Vice Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Ms. Denton, Mr. Lindall, is there anything else you want to add? This looks pretty cut and dried. MR. LINDALL-I hope it is. MR. THOMAS-How long have you owned this property? MR. LINDALL-Three years. MR. THOMAS-Three years. Okay. So you wouldn’t have any idea why the right-of-way is that wide at that point? MR. LINDALL-Actually, after being well educated from the survey and situation is because there was a County road that was there and instead of giving it back to the former owner of the property, they gave it to the State. Why, I don’t have a clue. MS. DENTON-And that was done back in 1932, or something like that. MR. THOMAS-Have you approached the County to have them abandon that chunk of land, that piece? MR. LINDALL-I already did that. They basically said, we don’t own it anymore. It’s the State’s. MR. THOMAS-The State owns it. Have you approached the State? MR. LINDALL-We are working on that at the moment, but if we do that, it’s going to take us at least six months. MR. THOMAS-That’s if you’re lucky. We know how the State of New York runs. Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-I have a couple. It seems to me that there’s a number of buildings on the property, if I counted maybe three, plus the home. MR. LINDALL-Right. MR. STONE-Would they stay, if you built the house? MR. LINDALL-Absolutely. MS. DENTON-Yes. MR. STONE-Including the one that is open to the weather, right by the gravel driveway? MR. LINDALL-We plan on rebuilding that. MS. DENTON-Well, not rebuilding, just fixing the roof and. MR. LINDALL-That’s a historic building. Actually, both those buildings, one behind the other, are historic buildings. MS. DENTON-Right. The one by the driveway was the original post office for the Town of Brayton, and the red building further back, that sits back, was the original schoolhouse. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. STONE-Are they registered as historic buildings? MR. LINDALL-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Don’t touch them. MR. STONE-Are there plaque on them? I didn’t notice. MR. LINDALL-No, there’s no plaques on them. MR. STONE-What did that sign say on the? MR. LINDALL-“Workshop”, an old crippled man who used to own the property. MR. STONE-I couldn’t make it out, what letters were left. Okay. How about the trucks all over the place? MR. LINDALL-The trucks, the only vehicles that I have there, I’m a disabled Vet, and my hobby is to rebuild antique vehicles. The only truck that’s there now is, that is not registered, is a truck that I just bought, and I will be registering it, but the other ones are antiques that I’m slowly putting back together. We’ve already gotten rid of one. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions? MR. STONE-Well, the hole that is currently there, that’s where the house goes? MS. DENTON-Yes. MR. STONE-I assumed that. MR. LINDALL-It’s been there for almost 200 years. MS. DENTON-The house was. MR. STONE-The house, not the hole. MR. LINDALL-Right. MS. DENTON-That’s been there since March. MR. HAYES-That had a dirt floor in the basement, the old? MR. LINDALL-Actually, half of it was dirt. The other half was cobblestone, because it used to be, the front part of our house, at one time, was the Town store, the Town office for the Town of Brighton. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-Yes. A letter from Eric N. Heym, 2280 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY, dated today, 7/23/98 “To the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals: I would like to comment on Variance No. 46-1998. I strongly object to this for the following reasons. Number One, I do not believe that the former structure was a duplex. What is was is a large farmhouse that was divided to include an apartment for a relative. Number Two, to allow someone to build a duplex in an area where there is not any sets a precedent for others to build apartments, condos, duplexes, and other rental properties. This is something that should not be allowed in that area. Number Three, they have not proven that they can be a good neighbor, by posting very large, crude “No Trespassing” signs, not controlling their dogs that bark continuously, and also very loudly, and after talking to Craig Brown of zoning, asking him if they had removed such items as refuse, old cars, junk, etc., which they had been required to do so, his answer was, no, they had not. I could go further, but I believe this gives an idea of why I strongly object to this action. Sincerely, Eric N. Heym” 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. THOMAS-And that’s the only letter we’ve got? MR. BROWN-That’s the only letter, yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? MR. HAYES-I have a question for Staff, about the question of duplexes. Was that established? I mean, where do we stand with that? MR. BROWN-Yes. I guess the Building Department has determined that it was previously a duplex. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-That is what we have on record? MR. BROWN-Yes, and it was assessed as a duplex. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anybody else want to make any comments? Any questions? You guys over there, any comments, questions? MR. ROUND-No. I think this is a relatively unusual circumstance of rebuilding a house that was damaged, and we weren’t allowed the discretion to say, go ahead and build a larger home, and if this was in the Waterfront Residential district, we’d be, it would be a more difficult task for you to undertake. I would just note that I think there may be some, that you’re granting relief for a relatively larger structure, non conforming structure, and that it is a duplex, and that you’re allowing continuation of that non conforming use. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the reason for all the setbacks is it’s in Land Conservation, which has large setbacks. MR. STONE-And a very wide right-of-way. MR. THOMAS-And a very wide right-of-way. As Mr. Lindall says, that they have approached the State to try and get them to abandon that access right-of-way back to them, so that would decrease the non conformity, but in the mean time, actually, there was a house there. Well, we’ll talk about it real quick here. Lew? MR. HAYES-I do have one question. The front of the house, which, since we’re dealing with the encroachment into the overlay, the Travel Corridor, is the front of the house going to be no closer? I mean, is the expansion, the 800 feet expansion, is that going back or around? It’s not coming closer to the road than the original. MR. LINDALL-I don’t believe it’s coming any closer. If it is, it’s a minimal amount. I’m not the contractor that’s doing the job. So all I can say is it’s basically the same exact spot. MR. THOMAS-All right. Any other questions for the applicant before we start talking about it? Lew, what do you think? MR. STONE-Well, on the face of it, this is, I think as you made the comment, Mr. Chairman, this is a perfectly standard request. The house was there. The house was a duplex. The house burned down. He should be able to rebuild. The only fly in the ointment is obviously this setback requirement from an overly wide right-of-way, considerably more than the three rods that we talk about, because the old road was there, and when they put the new road in, they kept property, the land, which they have a right to do. So therefore, if we want you to rebuild, we have to grant a variance. It seems relatively straightforward. Certainly there is a great deal of land between the house and the actual paved road way. As I say, on a simple basis, it doesn’t seem to be a problem. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. HAYES-I agree. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree, and the additional square footage is insignificant, in my mind, particularly when you give consideration to the size of the lot, and with that right-of-way, the setback is effectively at 100 feet or more from the highway anyway. All things considered, it seems like an appropriate variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members that because of the width of the right-of-way there, that the setback could be, could it be met if the right-of-way was down to where it was, or it would be a minimal variance, and the applicant has stated that he is trying to get an abandonment of the additional right-of-way from the State. So, you know, eventually, the setback will become minimum, from what we give right now. Another thing, too, is there’s a lot of construction debris on the property. It must be the old building. MS. DENTON-That’s been taken care of. MR. THOMAS-That’s been taken care of? MR. LINDALL-As far as construction debris for our house, that’s all gone. MR. THOMAS-That’s all gone? MS. DENTON-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Because I went by there, I went by today and I went by, I’m going to say probably a month ago. MS. DENTON-Are you talking about the dirt that’s around the? I don’t know what construction debris you’re talking about. MR. THOMAS-The old house, I would guess. All the debris is gone? MS. DENTON-That’s all been taken away, yes. That was done back in April when we got the permit for the demolition. That was all done and taken care of by our contractor. MR. LINDALL-Is the question the fire debris, the debris from the previous fires, is that what you’re asking about? Yes. MS. DENTON-That’s all gone. MR. LINDALL-It’s all gone. MS. DENTON-That was gone way back in April. MR. BROWN-I visited the site on Tuesday with the Building Inspector, and there’s still debris on the property. MR. THOMAS-From the fire? MS. DENTON-From the fire? What debris? MR. BROWN-Debris on the property that the Building Department’s concerned about. MR. LINDALL-Not fire debris. MR. BROWN-It’s not fire debris. It’s still debris that the Building Department’s concerned about. MR. THOMAS-What’s their concern? MR. BROWN-It needs to be cleaned up. MS. DENTON-Right, and once we get the insurance money. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. LINDALL-We’re already doing that. MR. THOMAS-You’re already doing that? MS. DENTON-Yes. We’ve cleaned up all except for one pile, compared to what was built up over twenty some odd years, and again it’s a matter of finances to be able to ship it all away, 20 years worth of garbage. MR. THOMAS-And you say you’ve only owned the property for three years? MS. DENTON-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So you inherited all kinds of stuff. MR. LINDALL-Right. We inherited. MS. DENTON-And we bought the property with the agreement to get rid of it, but again, we’re doing it as we can afford to. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Having said that, I have no problem in. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I might suggest that as part of the approval, you condition that they comply with that enforcement action to clean up the property as part of your approval. MR. THOMAS-Well, they said they were doing it anyway. MS. DENTON-We’ve been working on it, and like I said, the only part that’s left is one pile down over the hill that really has nothing to do with us building a house anyway, but we are working on it, as much as we can. Again, it’s a matter of finances, and you have 20 some odd or 40 some odd years of build up that, you can’t expect us to do it overnight, and if you take into consider what was there when we bought it versus the way it looks now. I think we’ve done a hell of a job. MR. BROWN-Well, from my understanding from the Building Department and their efforts to gain compliance. It’s been an ongoing thing for a couple of years, and I would think that, I agree with that, and I agree that it was also started with harassment from the Town, not I, or her. We have been cleaning up the property. We have been harassed by Mr. Hatin directly. MS. DENTON-Right. We were told to have it done in 30 days. I’m sorry, there’s no way to get it done in 30 days. We have been chipping away at it as best we can, as much as finances allow, and right now, except for one little pile that’s left, you know, over the past three years, I think we’ve done 98% of what was there to begin with. So I don’t see where the problem is, except maybe on a personal level. MR. MC NALLY-I was there yesterday, and I didn’t go back behind the hill, but I looked around the house, and I didn’t see too much debris on the upper portion of the property. Is there a pile behind the hill? MR. LINDALL-Yes. MR. BROWN-I’ve got some photographs I’d like to submit, if it’s okay with you. MR. LINDALL-No, those were taken illegally. As far as I’m concerned, as far as she’s concerned, every picture that has been taken by the Town has been taken illegally and without permission. MR. BROWN-You were there with us when we took the pictures and you didn’t object to it at the time. MR. LINDALL-It doesn’t matter if I object or not. He has to ask me, by law, to do so, and he did not, an he never has been. MR. ROUND-I don’t think there’s a point of law here. You can share that information. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I’m not getting into a legal battle here. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MS. DENTON-But even so. MR. LINDALL-You’re looking at pictures. MS. DENTON-Taken a long time ago, versus the way the property looks now. MR. BROWN-Those were taken Tuesday. MR. LINDALL-But the pictures, you can’t see before pictures. You’re seeing after pictures. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but this isn’t debris. This is just dirt, from the existing hole. MR. BROWN-Right. That’s the existing hole. The other pictures of the property over the, and in fact behind the garage and down over the hill. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. This is behind the hill. MR. BROWN-Right, by the tires. MR. STONE-I did not go back, and those were taken Tuesday? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Well, all I can just put in a resolution is the owners will continue to clean up the property, as they can. I don’t see where we have the right to go in there and tell them, you know, and say, hey, in order to get this variance, you’ve got to clean up the property. MR. BROWN-Well, I think you can put a condition on the approval, that they comply. MR. THOMAS-Is that a reasonable condition? MR. BROWN-I think so, yes. It’s an ongoing enforcement action that the Building Department’s had with. MR. LINDALL-I’d invite the Town to come down and get rid of the garbage, if they wish so, at their expense, but I’m doing it at mine, which is very minimal, coming in to me, and you can ask, and I’m sorry that I didn’t drag some friends with me how much work I’ve done on that property with my own backbone, and I, being disabled. I’ve had two heart attacks. I’ve spent nine months in a coma, have done more than what they’ve required, and we signed a paper when we bought the property that we would clean it up, and I think that I’ve done quite job. MR. MC NALLY-How long do you think it would take you to clean that garbage up? MR. LINDALL-Well, as soon as we get our check, I have already talked to the contractor to get rid of it. I don’t want it there any more than anybody else. MR. MC NALLY-Well, I don’t think there’s anyone that wants to impose too much of a burden on you, but it is a mess, given those photographs. MR. LINDALL-It certainly is, but if you had seen photographs of three years ago, you’d be able to judge something. At the moment, the only thing you can judge is what’s there. You can’t judge what I actually have been doing over three years. MR. MC NALLY-What time frame can you live with? I’m trying to work with you. MS. DENTON-Right. Well, once we get the insurance money, okay. MR. ROUND-We’re looking to make a suggestion, I don’t know, is prior to occupancy of the house, prior to completion of the house. Is that the same or similar schedule? Typically, we condition something upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. So the end of all construction, prior to occupancy. MR. LINDALL-I cannot guarantee that, and I won’t even think that it’s close to being fair. MS. DENTON-I don’t think that’s fair. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. THOMAS-Since they inherited this, they didn’t make the mess, per se. MR. ROUND-Well, some of that’s open to debate. MR. LINDALL-No, it’s not. MR. THOMAS-Well, just from these pictures you can tell that they would have had to have been working there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for three years to make a mess like that, and, to me, that’s the way I see it. That picture, they couldn’t have made that much of a mess. That was done over time. MR. ROUND-I guess, our office is asking you to, we’ve identified an issue that we’re trying to get compliance with. That’s open for debate how quickly they’re coming into compliance, and as a part of this variance, that is, it’s a reasonable condition to impose. We’ve asked our attorneys, if there’s a reasonable relationship between what’s in front of you and what the condition on the site is, and you can choose what you want to put in your resolution, and we’ve made the situation known, and we’re asking you for, and I think Mr. McNally’s indicating, we’re looking for a reasonable resolution to this issue. MR. HAYES-How about six months after the CO? MR. LINDALL-That I can deal with. MS. DENTON-That would be fine. MR. MC NALLY-Well, it seems to me that if they get their insurance money, and even if they don’t, they’re going to be building a house. They’re going to have a contractor on site. It’s going to be months and months and months until that house is completed, only then will they apply for a Certificate of Occupancy. During that entire period of time, they’ll have more than ample opportunity to get rid of all that garbage. I should think two or three trucks and a contractor in there should be able to get rid of it pretty easily. A CO’s going to be months down the road. Why don’t we make it contingent upon their, in other words, they must clear up the site by the time the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. That’s a condition, and be done with it. MR. THOMAS-Why not give them six months afterwards? MR. LINDALL-Right. MR. MC NALLY-To be honest, what’s going to happen then is a CO will be issued, and then what’s the enforcement level? MR. STONE-There’s no leverage left. MR. THOMAS-That’s true, too. MR. MC NALLY-But this is a good resolution because, again, I don’t know what your building plans are, but it’s going to be months. That should give you plenty of time. MR. LINDALL-Living in a 25 foot camper, it better go up a lot quicker. MR. MC NALLY-Well, that would be my suggestion. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lets see, we’ve talked about it. It’s a Type II action, so we don’t have to go through that. I guess we’re down to making a motion. Would someone like to make a motion? MR. LINDALL-I have one more comment. My problem with this issue is, all right, one thing, our property is ours. We have been cleaning it, all right. I’m not going to put up with people telling me what’s garbage and what’s not garbage, okay. I’ve been getting rid of garbage. I have brought already, I’d say, about 15 tons of steel, of old vehicles that were out back, gone. I have a trailer out back that I plan on using for storage, they considered junk, garbage or whatever. That’s not my opinion. I plan on keeping my trailer. They’ll use that against me, say, well, you haven’t gotten rid of your junk, so you don’t get a CO. That’s where I have a problem. If you bring somebody else on my property, to tell me what they consider junk and not junk is wrong, and that’s why I have a problem with that issue. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. THOMAS-See, that’s basically what I’m thinking, too. MR. LINDALL-Very frankly, as far as the Code book goes, I can build a fence of those tires that you saw a pile of, which I’d much rather get rid of, but that’s expensive, too. I can build a fence out of tires on my property. If people have a problem with me building a fence with tires, there’s nothing they can say, because it’s still construction material. I want to be decent. I have been extremely decent. I have been attacked by the Town, and I’ve been slowly working on whatever is out back, and I believe that me having a home for my two children is more important that somebody worrying about debris you can’t see from the road, and that I’ve been slowly working on to get out of there, but I am not causing myself to have heart failure ever again, and the Town asking me to do such a thing is doing that. MS. DENTON-And I feel that the amount of stuff that we have taken off the property to clean the property should only go to show that our intentions are there to clean it up. It’s not like once we get the C of O we’re going to just say, well, okay, we’re free and clear. I don’t want that stuff there either, but again, the financial issue, and the insurance check, yes, my house comes first. My kids have to have a place to live. MR. STONE-Is this in a C.E.A.? MR. BROWN-I think so. I think part of the property is. MR. STONE-Not the house, but where the junk is. MR. ROUND-I don’t have an accurate location. It may well be, because where the slope drops off is probably where the C.E.A. starts. MR. STONE-That’s what I’m thinking. MR. THOMAS-Yes. This schedule of clean up there, I don’t see how we can incorporate it into a motion because it really has nothing to do with the motion. I understand the Building Department’s concern of trying to get this moved along, but the applicants here, they’re telling us they’re doing the best they can to get rid of the stuff. So, I would have a problem putting something like that into a motion, clean up of the property into the motion anywhere, even though it would be reasonable. I don’t know, what does the rest of the Board think? MR. STONE-Well, I hear a frustration on the part of the Community Development Department. They entered into a, I guess an agreement with the applicant to clean up this piece of property. In their judgment, and I think the collective judgment of three people in the Building Department saying it has not been going fast enough, they are presented with an opportunity to have some leverage, because the applicant wants to rebuild this property. I see no reason in not trying to help them clean up this unsightly situation. We have an Ordinance about junkyards. We have an Ordinance about stuff. This apparently, in their judgment, and I have to rely on their judgment at this point in time. One, I didn’t go any further on the property, partially because of your sign, even though I’m allowed on your property, of course we don’t have a note that says who we are. It would be nice to have it. MR. LINDALL-According to my lawyer, there’s only one person who has permission to go on my property, but without me being there. MR. STONE-And when you apply for a variance, we have the right to go on your property, with or without you. If you’re there, that’s fine, and we engage in conversation. If you’re not there, we still have the right to go on your property, but I certainly didn’t go beyond the building site, because that’s what I was looking at, but I’m hearing from people that I know have to face this every single day, that are saying, help us, because we need a little leverage in getting you to be a little more speedy, and I have no reason not to help them. MS. DENTON-If you want to give me the money, I’ll have it done in a week. MR. LINDALL-It’s health, which I don’t have a great deal of, and it’s being able to afford it. I have already invited, and I have already told the Code Enforcement Officer, if you can get a couple of trucks down here, I’ll get my boys, and I’ll load them, and you take care of it. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t want the junk there either. It’s only common sense. It’s junk. I have a 12 year old son who’s hyperactive. I don’t want him crawling around in stuff either. It’s just 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) common sense, but what I’m telling you is happening with the Code Enforcement Officer involved here, and I don’t care if anybody likes it or not, it’s Mr. Hatin who’s been harassing me. That map that you people have was illegally obtained by Mr. Hatin, and I will put that right down in writing. MR. THOMAS-Which map? MR. LINDALL-The survey map. I did not authorize anybody to get that map. That was obtained by Mr. Hatin, and I have it in writing from Van Dusen and Steves, that he called up and told them that he was trying to help us to get our permit through as quick as possible. He’s been told by me, Joan, Mr. Chris Round here, that he’s to have, and Fred Champagne, that he’s to have nothing to do with our piece of property because of conflict of interest. MR. STONE-But if we did not have this thing, you would not get a variance tonight. MR. LINDALL-But I would, see, I would have gone through the proper channels, not lied about. I would have given it. I would have brought it down. I wouldn’t have had a problem with that. MR. STONE-I don’t know anything about that. All I know is what’s in my packet. Okay. MR. LINDALL-What I’m showing you is things that have happened to me, caused me distress, and showing you where they’re coming across, okay. I understand what you’re saying, well, we want to give them a little bit more leverage. I think you’ve already given them surpassed amount of leverage. They have already surpassed their leverage. MR. STONE-We haven’t given them any. MR. LINDALL-Right. Well, that’s what you’re saying that’s what they want, and you just made a comment that you didn’t have a problem with giving them a little bit more leverage, and I disagree. I think they’ve already surpassed their amount of leverage. MS. DENTON-I understand their concerns, and I agree with their concerns. However, they really need to look at it on a more realistic level. Again, the finances. Again, the fact he’s disabled, and if you saw the property when we first bought it, compared to now, you would see that we have been doing as much as we can, as fast as we can, and it’s not like, give us 30 days or 60 days and we’ll have it done, because it’s been four months, I still haven’t got my insurance money yet. Do you know what I’m saying? I can’t guarantee the time frame. All I can say is that we have been doing the best we can with the resources that we have, and we will continue to do so, as quickly as possible. MR. STONE-It’s possible that we could condition this in such a way that, and I’m speaking for myself only, that at the end of this particular period, the CO, that some independent judgments be made as to whether significant progress has been made. I mean, there’s a concern on the part of our compliance people that this property does not live up to our standards in this community. I mean, that’s what I’m told. I don’t know the fact. I haven’t looked at a, I’ve seen the pictures here. It seems to me that maybe we could do that, and at that particular point in time, as Mr. McNally says, at the end of, when you go for the CO, that some kind of determination is made. I don’t want to get in the middle of what appears to be an ongoing feud between Mr. Hatin and you two. I know nothing about it. I pride myself in not knowing who’s doing what to whom. It’s none of my business. You appear before me with an application for a variance. I have no problem with that. I, however, also ask, if I can help, as a member of this Board, in cleaning up something which is distasteful to the Town of Queensbury. How can I help? I’m trying to help. MR. HAYES-I have a question for Staff. If we do make it a six month, what is the enforcement at that point? They’d have their CO. They’d be living there, and then at six months it’s still not cleaned up, which they said they could do it in six months. MR. ROUND-You could issue a temporary CO, conditioned upon compliance within six months, and in fairness to the applicants, they have made progress on the site. They have removed considerable amount of material over the last several months since the house burned down. MR. LINDALL-I still disagree with any of their involvement on my home building. It has nothing to do with the garbage on the property, and it is garbage. You just saw pictures. I disagree with you being able to say anything about anything using those pictures, because they are pictures of now, not of three years ago when we bought the property. You don’t have any judgment capability there. None. There was 20 years of junk brought on that property, but in three years I have done a 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) wonderful job, and if I had the people around me that know what kind of a job I’ve done, it’s quite obvious. It is more than just quite obvious, and for somebody in my circumstances, I think I’ve done more than enough. I think I’ve been doing a great job, and I disagree with you being able to put anything in, because we’ve already signed papers saying that we will clean it up, and we have been cleaning it up. That has already been issued. We’ve taken care of that. MR. MC NALLY-Is there an enforcement issue or agreement outstanding, and what are its terms? MR. ROUND-I don’t know what Ms. Denton’s talking about. MS. DENTON-The only agreement was when we bought the property, that we would buy it contingent upon cleaning it up. There was no time frame listed there whatsoever. MR. LINDALL-Right. It was open. MR. HAYES-By agreement with whom, though? MR. LINDALL-The Town of Queensbury. MR. HAYES-So is that around? MR. ROUND-I’ve heard that, but I don’t what the relationship was. MS. DENTON-It was in the purchase agreement. I didn’t bring it with me, but there’s no time frame listed anywhere as to when we have to have this property cleaned up. We have been working our tails off to clean it up as best we could, with the resources that we have, because I don’t like garbage either, but, again, through years of accumulation that’s been there, and the prior owner’s misuse of the property shouldn’t. MR. LINDALL-We shouldn’t be taxed on it. MS. DENTON-Right. We shouldn’t be punished for somebody else’s actions, when we are trying our best to rectify it. MR. THOMAS-So what you’re telling us is, you have a signed agreement with the Town of Queensbury, to clean up the property? MR. LINDALL-Yes, absolutely. Part of our purchase agreement was, it was open. So we’ve already gone through this. We’ve signed papers on it. MR. THOMAS-Do you know who signed it for the Town? MS. DENTON-It wasn’t with the Town. It was the purchase agreement when we bought the property. It was an estate. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you don’t have an agreement with the Town of Queensbury itself, where some representative from the Town signed it? MS. DENTON-No. MR. LINDALL-You will find that it is, I believe it’s by the lawyer, because the lawyers were the one we were talking to. MS. DENTON-When we bought the property. MR. STONE-Craig, in your letter, you have a very specific date, October 11, 1996. MR. BROWN-That’s right. MR. STONE-What is the significance of that date, and is there a paper trail that indicates what that was? MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s a date I got out of a letter from Dave Hatin to Mr. Lindall, October 15, th 1996. In it it basically states that on a meeting October 11, they discussed the history of the property and Mr. Denton’s prior ownership, and that a condition of the purchase was that they 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) clean up the property that they’ve inherited. The applicant is correct. There’s no time frame outlined in the letter. MR. THOMAS-So they have a letter, between the applicants and the Town, saying that they will clean up the property, but there’s no time limit stated in the letter. You have some agreement with the Town of Queensbury, period, end. MR. BROWN-A verbal agreement. There’s no signed agreement. It’s a letter to Mr. Lindall from Dave Hatin. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but it’s from Dave Hatin, right? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So there is a representative of the Town that has made a verbal agreement with the Dentons that it will be cleaned up, with no time limit. Because Dave Hatin didn’t put a time limit in there, you’re asking us to put a time limit on this, in there. That’s what I’ve got a problem with, is putting a time limit on this thing. MR. BROWN-But, Chris, I guess what we don’t want to see is a 10 year time limit. We don’t want to have it, it’s been two years already. That’s the only thing I think the Building Department’s concerned with. MR. THOMAS-Dave should have taken care of that in that verbal agreement. MR. BROWN-I’m sure he didn’t expect it to go on this long. MR. THOMAS-I’m sure he didn’t, but you’re asking us to kind of sort of do his job. MR. MC NALLY-I tend to agree. I’m sympathetic. Given the fact I’ve heard these people tell me they’ve made a good faith effort, and they have improved the property. I think I would make an argument that it’s related to this action, but to tell you the truth, given the circumstances, I’d just as soon grant the variance and forget the condition. MR. THOMAS-That’s the way I’m thinking, too, because you’re wanting us to involve us in something we shouldn’t be involved in, and that’s the Building Department, because we are a separate entity in ourselves. We are not part of Town government. Even though we are appointed by the Town Board, we are separate from any Town government function. MR. MC NALLY-If there’s a Town Junkyard Ordinance that you can bring an enforcement action in, or a citation you can issue, that’s a separate issue, I think, from the zoning, given the fact that they’ve testified as to how much they’ve worked to improve it in their condition that they can’t rectify it 100%, it’s not in any circumstance, they can do that. MR. STONE-I’m coming around to where Bob is. I think I would like to be helpful to the compliance department, but if there was no written, if there was no time frame agreed to, if, and I have to take, well, I guess both sides are saying considerable work has been done. Would you agree with that, Staff, that work has been done? I mean, would Dave agree that work has been done on the property? MR. BROWN-I’m not aware of the previous condition of the property. MR. THOMAS-Yes. See, nobody sitting in this room, except for Mr. Lindall and Ms. Denton know, because they’re the owners of the property. MR. BROWN-Right, that’s correct. MR. THOMAS-They’re the only ones sitting here that know what it was like before, and what it’s like now. We know what it looks like now, because we have pictures. MR. ROUND-It’s your prerogative to include that or not. Progress has been made on this site. We’re asking for you to ensure full compliance with our garbage and junkyard laws, and that’s a reasonable request, from my viewpoint, and you can choose to either incorporate that or not incorporate it. I think you’re at a point where you’re ready to make a decision. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. THOMAS-Yes, and Mr. McNally’s going to make a motion right now. MR. STONE-Well, the only thing I would suggest, before he does, is that we at least put in that we would like this cleaned up as quick as possible, recognizing the controversy that’s going on. Would you entertain that, Mr. Chairman? Without a time frame, just a condition. MR. THOMAS-Yes, without a time frame, but just recognition. I have no problem with the recognition. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-1998 VON LINDALL AND JOAN DENTON , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Ridge Road, approximately 3.8 miles north of Route 149. The applicant proposes the reconstruction of a residence that was destroyed by fire, and the expansion of that residence beyond that which was originally on the premises. They request 92.31 feet of relief from the 100 foot setback requirement of an LC-42A zone which is Section 179-13 of our Zoning Ordinance, and the applicants also requests relief for expansion of a non-conforming structure. The proposal calls for a 2600 square foot duplex, with accessory decks, while the previous structure was 1921 square feet. The Staff have indicated that the prior structure was, in accordance with Town records, a duplex. The mere fact that they’re asking to construct a duplex is no change. The benefit would be that the applicant would be permitted to reconstruct and occupy a home and enlarged home. The feasible alternatives would include construction of a home identical to the previous home, and relocation of the building site. From my examination of the property, the area is quite rocky, and I would think it would be infeasible, or at least a lot more expensive, to build in a different location than the existing footing where the prior home was located. The home does not have to be identical, in my mind, to the previous home. The approximately six or seven hundred square foot additional space, that they requested is not an inordinate amount, given today’s living standards. The 92.31 feet of relief from the 100 foot setback requirement is substantial, but if you actually look at the document submitted, including the map of the property, it’s apparent that the prior right of way for Ridge Road comes between the front line of this property and the current existing pavement of Ridge Road, such that, effectively, the house would be set back approximately 100 feet from the road in any event. Also, it has to be kept in mind that this is a reconstruction, due to a fire. So they’d probably be entitled to build on the existing location in any event. The effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal. It’s a large parcel of property, and the fact that it’s a duplex, where an addition 700 square feet is not going to make any change in the neighborhood. I don’t see the difficulty as self-created. It simply is a result of the unique characteristics of this property, the existence of the easement in front of the property, and the fact that they had an unfortunate fire. I do, at Mr. Stone’s request, recommend the project applicants clean up the debris and garbage on their property, with all reasonable speed, and that they try to reconcile with the Town Building Department the ongoing enforcement dispute in that regard at their earliest convenience. Otherwise, I move that the application be approved. The motion should also reflect that the project applicants have indicated that they’ve tried to secure title to the right-of-way which lies between the front of their property and Ridge Road, and that they’re in the process of securing that, hopefully, from the State, and this is another factor in consideration of granting this variance. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. LINDALL-Thank you very much. MS. DENTON-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1998 TYPE II FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT, INC. OWNER: ANTHONY & MARY SUE FERRARO ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1036 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS TO GO-CART TRACK AND 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) EXPANSION. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE, RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE HC-1A ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 34-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-8.3 LOT SIZE: 3.224 ACRES SECTION: 179-23, 179-79 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-1998, Ferraro Entertainment, Inc., Meeting Date: July Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: 23, 1998 “ 1035 Route 9 Applicant Relief Required: proposes renovation and expansion of existing go-cart track Applicant requests 10 feet of side relief from the 20 foot minimum sideline setback requirement of the HC-1A zone, Section 179-23, 25 feet of setback relief from the 75 foot setback of the Travel Corridor Overlay zone Section 179-28, and relief for expansion of a non-conforming structure, Section 179- Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. 79. Benefit to the applicant:2. Applicant would be permitted to expand existing go cart track. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include construction in compliance with the 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: setback requirements. Currently the 4. “kiddie track” is adjacent to the area in question, so the relief may be interpreted as moderate. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood or community 5. Is this difficulty self-created? are anticipated as a result of this action. The difficulty may be Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): interpreted as self-created. SP 14-93 resolution dated 4/22/93 2800 sf addition AV 1230 resolution dated 3/18/87 water slide SP 6-87 resolution dated 3/17/87 water slide SV 1124 disapproved 8/27/86 AV 26-98 was tabled 6/17/98 pending appeals hearing. Notices of Appeal 3-98, 4-98, combined, 3-98 denied, 4-98 withdrawn Staff comments: SP 34-98 Expansion of go cart track facilities, pending variance Currently the “kiddie track” exists in an area of the proposed expansion, however, no track exists in the area for which the relief is sought. Relief in the form of further encroachment on the TCO may have SEQR Status: significant impacts in the form of additional requests for relief. Type II” th MR. BROWN-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10 day of June 1998, the above application for an Area Variance for proposed renovations to go-cart track and expansion was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to Approve Comments: With the condition that the Applicant provide adequate landscaping.” Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. O’Connor. MR. O’CONNOR-Gentlemen, I’m Michael O’Connor, from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I’m representing the applicants. The applicants are here with me this evening, as well as Jim Miller, who is the Design Architect involved with the proposed project that we have before you. I don’t mean to beg the question, but I will try and simplify my presentation, because I think we were here and made the Board familiar with the application, a month ago, when we talked about the interpretation, that this Board granted affirming the decision of the Zoning Administrator. I would ask that the minutes of that meeting be considered part of this meeting, and maybe in that event, I might not have to be as detailed. Briefly, what we’re asking for is not something that will change the use of the property. The property is presently used as go cart track. It has a track on there that has a length of about 1,050 feet, and this proposed track that we are asking to construct will be 632 feet in length. It will be a wider track, but it will be much shorter. We’re here to ask for an Area Variance, because of the Travel Corridor, and because of the side line setback, and because of how the property has been developed to date. We are tying to, if you will, use a plan that accommodates the existing uses of the property. The area that we’re talking about, where the variance, is the area that’s in blue that was shown, or aqua, that was shown on the map that was attached to the Area Variance application. It approximately is 10 feet in depth from Route 9, and maybe 40 feet at most in width. You’re talking about 360 square feet of encroachment, if you will, on the Travel Corridor. On this particular map that I’m holding up right here, you will see that I’ve also colored in the existing kiddie go cart track, which actually projects further beyond what we’re proposing our final product will be here. That will be removed, and that area will be landscaped. I also have on this particular map that I have in my hand, a stamped Beautification Committee granting approval of the plantings that we propose and the landscaping that we propose to have in front of the track. I’d like to get this back before the evening’s over, but I’d show it to you. So, basically it’s the area in blue where we’re asking for the variance, and we are going to remove the area that’s in orange. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. STONE-You’re going to remove it? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s new, isn’t it? MR. O’CONNOR-No, no. This is a continuation right across. This track will be continued right across, and that piece will come out of there. MR. STONE-This is the new track here? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, this is the new track. The new track will be fenced on the outside of the track, and there will be extensive planting on the outside of the fence. If you take a look at the overall map, and the lower map, it shows better the actual plantings and what not that will be in front, landscaping that will be in front of the track, as it’s completed. The actual track curbing that I understand that you consider to be a structure, and subject to the setback, is 51 feet back from the property line. So we will be requesting, well, it’s actually 53 feet back to the curb of the pavement, and inside the curb of the pavement is a set of tires that are placed in a row along the inside of the curbing, and the inside of that, there is a rail. So the actual travel portion of the track that we’re constructing will be some 54 feet away from the boundary of Route 9. When we put the application in, we put an application in for relief from 51 feet. Technically, I’m not sure what’s correct. I’d rather be safe and ask for the relief. I’m not sure when you think the structure is different from a parking lot curbing, which is not a structure, as opposed to a structure, because it’s part of the go-cart operation, but it’s 51 feet where the curbing begins. We should have it 75 feet. So we’re talking about 24 foot relief from the front Travel Corridor setback, and for a portion of that, not all of it, we’re asking for relief from the side line setback of 20 feet. That tapers, as it comes around the corner there. That goes from zero to probably the full width of the 10 feet that would encroach upon the 20 foot. So the portion in blue, we’re asking for relief from the side line setback to the extent that it encroaches upon it of 20 feet, and we’re asking for relief from the front setback of 24 feet. If you look at the standards that we talk about, generally, with the Area Variance, the benefit that will be achieved will be that we will be able to re-do our track and bring it up to modern standards. That has some benefit to the community, as well as to ourselves. This track that we propose will have a cement surface, as opposed to the asphalt surface. The cement surface is a better surface, in that there’s less likely to be accidents because the vehicles, if they get together, separate better on the cement than the do on the asphalt. The barrier system is a much better, improved barrier system than what we presently have. It’s more resilient. It also gives better absorption to any impact, that is the modern type of barrier system that we have for the track. The new carts that will be on the track actually will be a little larger than the existing track carts that we use now, and they’ll be accommodated by having a wider track, as opposed to the single lane track that’s on there. They are supposedly, and we believe safer tracks. They also have a bumper system around the entire car. So it would be an improvement of the car that we’re using. The pit area, and this isn’t necessarily in the area of the variance, but the pit area by itself, by allowing us, with the configuration that we’re talking about, can be closed off, as opposed to what presently takes place when you have the cars running. So you don’t have people that go into the pit area by accident, and the workers are protected, as well as the people in the cars. This system that we’re going to put in allows us to shut down all the cars, at any time, electronically, and that’s because we’re able to put on improved cars. If there’s somebody that’s out of kilter on the track, we don’t have to send somebody out into the lanes without shutting everybody down. Under the new system, we can shut them down. The same thing when they come into the pit area, they will be shut down. There are a number of improvements that are made based upon allowing us to go forward with a renovation, if you will, of the systems that we have there. The bumper system on the track itself will be less noisy, or will have less noise created by it than the existing. It will be a high, dense, plastic system, as opposed to right now it’s metal on metal, and with the new cars, and with the new bumper system, it will be this plastic upon plastic, which has a much better sound result if you have cars that are going into it. We did look to see if there were some alternatives. In fact, the applicant spent a great deal of time and some money trying to come up with some alternatives, and there really isn’t an alternative to what’s there because of the present location of the parking lot, because of the present location of the building. You have to realize that this is a seasonal part of the business. It’s not necessarily the primary part of this business. We did a couple of configurations, and I’ll share them with you. This is in compliance with the 75 foot line, and this was even another compliance within the, but still requiring variances, the 50 foot line. What happens then is, you take a look at those things, and line it up with the front of the building here, the track then comes out into the parking area, and we lose this whole lane of parking, and perhaps part of that parking, and what would happen then is 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) that we would then be back 75 feet. We could then, under site plan approval, put parking in along the front. The parking lots, apparently, are not considered structures, and are not prohibitive of either the 50 foot setback or the 75 foot setback. If you go up the street and take a look at some of the other new developments, they actually have the parking (lost words). What we propose to have is a green area out there, based our obtaining a variance, and keep the parking away from the highway. Besides just the aesthetic issues that would then arise, we would also have a problem, if the track came over into this area, and we’d shut it down in October or November, and we’d still have the same seasonal, year round business with the roller-skating operation and the laser tag, which is a principal part of the operation of this business. The people would then have to park out here, come out around, and come to the facility, which really doesn’t make a lot of sense. This track layout also allows us to take our customers into the building and bring them out one door, and go to the designated facility loading area. It’s a better operation right now than what we presently have, because the people pay at the building, and then sometimes run down through the parking lot to get to the facility, particularly kiddie cart track. We’re going to put the kiddie cart track back in here, and they’d be coming out this door and either go this way or go that way. This is the area we’re talking about, where the track is right in this area right here. That’s the only thing we’re asking a variance for. As I began, I said I think that this will have very little impact on the character or to nearby properties. Keith Crist is here. Keith Crist is a representative or owner of the property to the immediate south of this, which is A2000. He has a letter, which was part of the record, that we had at the time of the interpretation. “This letter is to state that A2000 and the Crist family support Skateland and their expansion project of rebuilding the go-cart track and can see no problem with this project. Skateland has our permission to grade our land, as needed, to accommodate this expansion”. I think Rist-Frost, in part of their comments under the site plan review, said if you’re going to have a zero side line setback, do you have permission to grade on the additional property, and that was one of the reasons that we got this particular letter, but here’s the fellow who owns the property immediately adjacent to the line that’s effected by the side line setback, and he is here tonight, as well as having written a letter saying that he has no objection. Directly across the street from the property is the Leonard Agency. It’s an insurance agency, and they have written a letter that says, “Since my business has been located across the street from yours, I have had the pleasure of watching Skateland develop and grow over the years. I would like to congratulate you and your entire family for running such a fine operation and for being such good neighbors. I fully support your plans to renovate the go-cart track. Best of Luck.” Signed William P. Leonard. To the rear of the Crist property, but still on the southerly line, there’s a piece of property that adjoins us that’s owned by Jeckel, Ron Jeckel, and he wrote “To Whom It May Concern: The undersigned owns property immediately south of the property of Ferraro Skateland, along the southwesterly boundary. The undersigned has no objections to the granting of a variance from the front setback for a portion of the track. The undersigned has no objection to recognizing the grandfathered zero side line setback, as my property adjoins the property of Skateland”. Immediately behind our property is the Lake George Campsite and RV Sales property, owned by Edward Gardner, and he has been at some meetings in the past when we’ve done other things, apparently is satisfied with the way that we operate, or the applicant operates his property, and he writes “To Whom It May Concern: I’ve reviewed the site plan for proposed additions and alterations to Skateland as prepared by Northfield Design and dated 5/26/98. I have no objection to the plan as proposed and encourage approval by the Town of Queensbury.” Edward T. Gardner. The plan that’s before you is, in substance, the same as that plan. It’s been modified to show additional details as requested by Rist-Frost, but it’s the same, identical plan. So the neighbors that are most effected by this proposed project have no problem with it. Because you have your present use there, I think it would be hard to argue that we are going to have any impact. If anything, we are probably, we hope, going to modernize it and improve our property and maybe improve the values of adjoining properties by updating our property, and we think that that will happen if we’re given the permission that we’re asking for. Is the request substantial? I don’t think it is. If you take a look at Route 9, along that piece of property, and you take a look at the purposes of the Travel Corridor map, it says, one, to keep the rural character of the neighborhood in place. I don’t think you have a rural character of the neighborhood here. It says, also, to facilitate, perhaps, widening of highways. There is a strip of land, in excess of 30 feet, from our property line to the existing curb line. Beyond that, we’re still going to talk 50 feet. So there’s going to be 80 feet of property that basically is not going to be improved or taken up with structures. We’re going to have some landscaping on it. Our existing signs are out further, if you go up further north, even buildings are out further, to some degree, but I don’t see anything, in our lifetime or in many lifetimes to come, where you’re going to see an expansion of Route 9 in that area that would be impeded by you granting 24 foot of relief, on this particular property for this particular use, and the other issues are, will the request have adverse physical or environmental effects. I really don’t think so. The kiddie cart is already out there. If you’re coming south, in fact, you’re going to be moving back from what’s there right now, when you remove the kiddie cart path. I didn’t necessarily get into it, but the cars that we’re going to have actually are going to 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) have better sound ratings than the existing cars, based upon being able to put them on this track. I don’t know, you know, what negative impacts it really potentially has. Is the difficulty self created? I think you can argue that either way. This Ordinance that we’re talking about, this overlay thing, came about after this was built, after the parking lot was put in place, after the buildings were put in place. There really is not another place to modernize this track on that site. So it’s a combination of things. Yes, we want to modernize the track, which makes it a voluntarily action on our part, which may fall into the self created definitions, but I think you have to consider all the circumstances. It’s not something that was totally by our doing. If the traffic overlay district had not been created, which I think it was probably created in 1988, in that version, we wouldn’t be here, because with this proposal, we’re 51 feet back, with the curbing of the existing track. We’d be here for the side line, but I don’t know if that’s substantial. I think you’ve got a portion of the side line that may be 10 feet, and we are going to be in compliance with the 20 foot setback. We’re already not in compliance for probably 300 feet. In fact, if you actually looked at it, with the track that we’re removing and the green space that we’re creating along the back of the property, and even a portion of the side of the property in the front, we’re probably becoming more in compliance, if you measured the area within the 20 foot that we’re adding, as opposed to the track that we’re removing from the 20 feet. We’re becoming more nonconforming. So that’s our pitch. Do you have any questions of us? MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions of the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, I have two. One, you’re releasing, if you will, or putting yourself in more compliance with the kiddie area by, how many feet, actually, the orange portion that you’ve got here? Going back what? MR. O’CONNOR-About 20 feet. MR. STONE-Twenty feet, okay. I just want to reflect that. The other thing is, the line that you show at the track. You talked about the bumpers and all of that. Is that all in on the track? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, it is. MR. STONE-I mean, that’s an actual fence, chain link fence or something? MR. O’CONNOR-The chain link fence would be just outside the white area. The chain link fence is about 50 feet. It’s shown on the map, but there’s a foot from the 50 foot line to the beginning of the pavement of the track area, and you have a bumper there. It’s like a six inch bumper, curb, six inch curb, and then you have three feet until you get to the actual surface of the track. MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s all beyond the 51 feet? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay, the bumpers and the restraints and whatever you want to call them? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Do you know what the actual side setback variance you’re asking for is? MR. BROWN-It’s actually, it could be 20 feet, because they’re going to go for a zero setback. So they needed a full 20 feet of relief, for a portion of it. MR. STONE-He’s never going for zero, though. MR. O’CONNOR-There’s zero for a portion. MR. ROUND-It’s going to arch away from the. MR. O’CONNOR-Jim Miller’s here. Jim, can you scale that with the ruler we’ve got? JIM MILLER MR. MILLER-Basically, at this corner here, you’re just about at zero. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. THOMAS-Just about at zero. MR. STONE-Fine. That’s new construction. Okay. Because we don’t have the old one superimposed in there, or at least I don’t. MR. THOMAS-No. I don’t have the old one superimposed. So you would be asking for a zero side setback, at that point. MR. O’CONNOR-I think the old one is superimposed on the one I handed out, the fence of it is. MR. THOMAS-Yes, the fence. It’s right on the fence for almost the entire length, plus. MR. STONE-Yes, this is the new part here. MR. O’CONNOR-This is the new track. MR. STONE-Yes. So it is a few feet. MR. O’CONNOR-It’s probably a couple of feet. It looks like four feet, probably. So you’re probably asking for 16 feet. MR. STONE-But this is here already. There’s track right at that point, you’re saying, though, right? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. This is already track. Inside the fence there’s already track. MR. THOMAS-So what I’m looking at is you take this 20 foot line here and extend it, or this 20 foot line here. See the 20 foot runs from here to here, and we extend that line out and keep on going. See, it’s this distance in here, that little piece in there that I’m, the setback distance that I’m looking for. Because you do need relief for that, right? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. THOMAS-We need to know how much relief to give you. (Discussion ensued) MR. MILLER-From that point to there is about 10 feet. So we have 10 feet here, and out here at this line there’s no variance required. MR. THOMAS-See, what we’re going to have to do is give a variance for this piece right here, where it’s 10 feet away from the property line, for this little piece of pie shape right here, requires a side line setback. MR. MILLER-It’s going to be variable. MR. THOMAS-From ten to zero. MR. STONE-Ten to zero, yes. MR. MILLER-I think we can say it’s small. MR. THOMAS-Yes. No doubt about it it’s small, but we still have to give relief, and we have to give him numbers. MR. O’CONNOR-Say that, as shown on the applicant’s plans. MR. THOMAS-Well, I’d like to put a number on it, too. MR. STONE-It’s from zero to ten, on a curve. MR. MILLER-It would be a 30 foot radius. MR. THOMAS-A 30 foot radius? Okay. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. STONE-Starting at 10 foot of relief to 0 on a 30 foot radius. MR. BROWN-I think, at one point, it’s going to be 20 feet of relief, right? Because there’s a zero setback. MR. THOMAS-Not on that one small corner. MR. BROWN-It doesn’t go right to the property line? MR. THOMAS-No, not for the new track. There’s existing track there. MR. O’CONNOR-I was wrong in that, because this part out here is on a curve, and it doesn’t go all the way over to the property line. The piece that goes all the way over to the property line is within the fence that we already have there. MR. STONE-Yes. Sure. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant or his agent? MR. MC NALLY-So what are you going to say, the relief for the side setback is? MR. STONE-Ranging from 10 to 0 on a 30 foot radius arch. MR. THOMAS-If there’s no further questions for the applicant, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard in favor of this variance, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there any further questions for the applicant? Okay. We’ll talk about it. We’ll start with Jamie. MR. HAYES-Well, I guess we’ve dealt with this Travel Corridor issue before. I am satisfied with Mr. O’Connor’s argument that based on how far away the proposed track is going to be and the fact that it’s actually further away than the kiddie track now stands, I’m satisfied that that would not at all impede any possible load expansion, under that format. The benefits to the applicant are fairly obvious. You have a family run business that is attempting to upgrade their track to compete economically, and that certainly is admirable. The alternatives do appear to be limited, based on the fact that there is a very large existing building, and necessary parking, and even some safety issues, I believe. I think that they limit the alternatives that are possible. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? I don’t believe that it is. I believe that the track is already further out to the road, as the kiddie track sits, and that there is a zero side yard setback with the existing track. So I don’t think, it may be substantial, but a lot of it is grandfathered, I believe, and the effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that people improving their businesses, or in this case the Skateland, it’s probably a positive on the neighborhood. It’s certainly something that I would be in favor of. Is the difficulty self created? I think that it is, but I think it’s a business decision, and therefore I don’t think that, in balancing all interests at hand, I wouldn’t hold that against the applicant. So in balance, I would definitely be in favor of the application. MR. THOMAS-All right. You almost made the motion. MR. STONE-That’s what I was thinking. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I would agree with Jamie. I think it’s all told in that aqua drawing that Mr. O’Connor presented. The orange portion is being, in my mind, replaced by that blue portion. So the net effect on the neighborhood, the net effect on the track, the net effect on the setbacks, are minimal. I don’t have a problem with it at all. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I agree. I mean, the applicant is giving up an encroachment, if you will, into the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, in return for a small encroachment that will, when you get the whole thing on balance, it’s going to be much better. You’re going to have landscape where you have asphalt, and certainly coming from the north, it’s going to be a definite visual improvement, because right now you’re seeing the kiddie track. Going north, it’s going to be, I think it’s going to be very attractive with the landscaping that is going to be put in there, and I think it’s no problem whatsoever. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. I think that this will be an improvement to it. Like Bob said, you’re really trading one piece of land for another piece of land. They’re almost the same exact square footage, plus it’s being moved back farther from the existing edge of pavement, and as far as the balancing test goes, I think Jamie did a very good job of that, explaining each and every step of it. So, there’s really nothing more I can say about this that hasn’t already been said. So, having said that, and this being a Type II, we don’t have to do the Short Environmental, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1998 FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT, INC. , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 1035 Route 9. The applicant proposes renovation and expansion of an existing go-cart track. Specifically, the applicant requests zero to ten feet of relief from the side line setback requirement of HC-1A, along a 30 foot arc, in what would be the southern corner of the property, the arc also as described in the applicant’s survey and plans. They also are requesting relief from Section 179- 23 for 24 feet of setback relief from the 75 foot setback of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, and finally they’re requesting relief from expansion of a nonconforming structure, Section 179-79. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to expand the existing go cart track operation. Feasible alternatives, the feasible alternatives appear to be limited, based on the present building’s parking and otherwise configuration of the facilities on the property. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I don’t believe that it is, based on the fact that almost all the relief is currently in place. In fact, some of the relief is actually less than the existing kiddie cart track location. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe there would be minimal effects on the neighborhood, if not positive, based on the improvement of the property, the improved landscaping and screening of the property, and an overall re-investment in the property. Is the difficulty self-created? The applicants are updating the track, and that’s a choice, but it’s a business choice, and I don’t think that it should be held against an entrepreneur or an other business owner for re-investing in their business. So, in balancing test, I would say that that’s not a factor. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you very much. USE VARIANCE NO. 47-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED DAVID & CORNELIA KELLEY OWNER: ALLEN GILL ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MOVE DOUBLE WIDE MOBILE HOME AND SHED FROM 11 VERMONT AVE. TO A LOT ON BIG BAY ROAD. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF TO ALLOW A MOBILE HOME IN THE LI-1A ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BD. REVIEW TAX MAP NO. 136-1-19.1 LOT SIZE: 15,000 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-26 DAVID & CORNELIA KELLEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 47-1998, David & Cornelia Kelley, Meeting Date: July 23, Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: 1998 “ Big Bay Road Applicant proposes construction of a double wide mobile home, garage, shed and deck on a lot in the LI-1A zone on Relief Required: Big Bay Road. Applicant requests relief from the LI-1A zone requirements to Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of allow a residential use. Town Law: 1. Can the applicant realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence? The size of the lot would make it 2. Is the alleged hardship difficult for an Industrial Use of any significant size to operate. relating to the property in question unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? The alleged hardship is unique to this property as it is 3. Will the requested use currently one of the only undeveloped parcels in the immediate area. variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? As there are homes of similar size and construction in the immediate area, minimal impacts on the neighborhood are 4. Is the alleged hardship self-created: anticipated. The alleged hardship could be interpreted as Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): self-created. AV 49-98 setback relief for Staff comments: residence pending Use Variance. Given that there are residential uses on both SEQR Status: sides, minimal impacts are anticipated. Type: Unlisted” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Kelley, do you have anything else you want to add, tell us about, talk about? MR. KELLEY-No, not really. Basically, that’s what we propose. MR. THOMAS-Okay. According to the drawing that you submitted, you said that all measurements and dimensions are approximate. Do you have a drawing or are these measurements on here going to be the ones that you’re going to use? Because we have to give specific relief, in feet. MR. KELLEY-Those are the measurements. What it was is I did it with a little six inch scale, and if you were to go to scale, it may be off slightly. MR. BROWN-I think this variance is for the use. The next, the Area Variance, is going to be for the setbacks. This is just for the use, yes or no. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I get confused here. Are there any other questions for the applicant concerning the use of this property? MR. MC NALLY-Can you tell me, do you own the land now? MRS. KELLEY-No. MR. KELLEY-No, I do not. MRS. KELLEY-We rent from Today’s Modern. MR. KELLEY-He’s talking about the Big Bay. MR. THOMAS-You don’t own it? MR. KELLEY-No. We have been approved to get the money for the lot, but I wanted to wait to make sure I was going to be able. MR. STONE-You have a binding contract to buy the lot? MR. KELLEY-Right. MRS. KELLEY-Yes. MR. KELLEY-And I didn’t want to buy it, then not be able to put anything there. MR. MC NALLY-Very sensible. Who owns it now? MR. KELLEY-It’s a man, his name’s Allen Gill. I believe he lives in Florida. He got it through inheritance, and he just wanted to get rid of it, seeing as how he’s so far away. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. STONE-Do we have the proper person before us for a Use Variance? Do we have the proper applicant before us for a Use Variance? MR. BROWN-Yes. There’s an authorization to act. Is that what you’re getting at? MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. BROWN-Yes. It was submitted additionally. It wasn’t included with their original submission, but they have included it. It’s signed by Mr. Gill, authorizing him to act, to get this variance for the property. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Do you know of any effort Mr. Gill made to sell the property or to get a return on his investment from his property? MR. KELLEY-No. I just, there was a sign there, Century 21. I knew there was a mobile home next to the property, and I just thought that it would be something I could get. MR. MC NALLY-You don’t have any financial information that he’s given you? MR. KELLEY-No. I haven’t met Mr. Gill at all. I went through the Century 21 agent, Ted Wilson, and he’s the only one that I’ve had any contact with. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? I’d like the Board members to look at Question Number One, is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? I don’t believe you have any financial evidence because, you know, you don’t own the land, but seeing that this is a 15,000 square foot piece of property, 100 by 150, if you go down in a Light Industrial One Acre zone, under Type II, these are the allowed uses, and does anyone see, in any of those allowed uses, anything that could be put on that piece of property? MR. STONE-Yes, television or radio station, could possibly be put there, a small laboratory. I mean there are a couple of things that might be there, a small restaurant. MR. THOMAS-I don’t think they can get the parking, or they could get the septic in there, for a restaurant. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-The Dunkin Donuts was approximately the same size. MR. THOMAS-To me, I don’t see anything in the Type II, under the LI-1 Acre that could really fit on that piece of property that’s 100 feet wide and 150 feet deep. So that’s why I’m asking the Board members if they could see anything that would go in there, under the Type II. MR. STONE-Well, again, I guess I’d have to look under what, I should look it up, what’s a construction company? Does that mean they have to, can it be an office for a construction company, or businesses related to the construction trade, where machinery is stored? Okay. I found that out. We probably can’t put one there. That’s good. MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. STONE-That’s why we have definitions. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. MR. STONE-Heavy equipment storage, well, we could look that one up. The exterior or interior storage and maintenance of large operational equipment, such as trucks, bulldozers, backhoes, engines, compressors and other similar machinery, for use on another lot”. So somebody could store construction equipment. MR. THOMAS-Definitely, yes, they could do that. MR. STONE-Okay. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. MC NALLY-We also don’t know if any of the adjoining property owners would be interested in it, if any efforts have been made to sell it to those people. It isn’t the amount that you earn, a reasonable return, dependent upon what you have into it and what you can get out of it? We don’t have any of that information. MR. THOMAS-Yes. How did you say Mr. Gill acquired this property? MR. KELLEY-I believe it was through an inheritance. MR. THOMAS-An inheritance. So he got it for free. MR. KELLEY-Basically. MR. STONE-So anything he gets on it is a reasonable return. MR. THOMAS-Is reasonable return. MR. BROWN-Do you have any idea how long it’s been listed, how long it’s been on the market? MR. KELLEY-I have no idea. MR. MC NALLY-We can speculate. We can sit back and say, well, maybe they wouldn’t have a four person manufacturing facility, putting together widgets or something. I mean, a water testing place, you’d need a bench and a 10 by 10 room. Is that a laboratory? MR. THOMAS-Well, lets look, well, look at the Town of Queensbury’s water testing facility. I think that’s a little bigger than 15,000 square feet. MR. STONE-That’s the whole building, though. MR. THOMAS-No, I mean just the laboratory itself. You’ve got everything that goes with it, too. So, not just the building would be 15,000. MR. STONE-We’re not being negative. We have to go through this use thing. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is the alleged hardship relating to this property unique? Yes. I would say so, because it’s just a 15,000 square foot piece of property, and it happens to be in an LI-1 Acre zone. MR. STONE-How far does this LI-1 Acre zone go up and down the road? Does it go from Corinth Road down? MR. ROUND-It’s on both sides, and it goes down a considerable ways past, I think Mr. Hayes can. MR. STONE-That’s right, you’re down there. MR. HAYES-Yes. It goes down quite a ways. MR. STONE-But there are a number of homes, right close to Corinth. MR. MC NALLY-Didn’t we have an application from the other side of the street, closer toward Corinth Road, several months ago, for the same relief? A mobile home on a lot? MR. STONE-Just north of Corinth, just north of Curtis. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, we did. MR. THOMAS-Yes, we had, it was for a 12 by 60. MR. HAYES-It was a grandfathered thing. They had a trailer there and they took it off, and then they, this was over, like, two years, and they wanted to put one back. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. THOMAS-But, to me, what they intended to put on here is a double wide, and if you drove over on 11 Vermont Avenue, and look at it, you will see that it’s a double wide, looks just like a regular house. MR. MC NALLY-What are your plans, with respect to foundation? What are you going to put it on? MR. KELLEY-I was planning on putting it, just like it is now, on a slab. MR. THOMAS-And then it says, will the requested Use Variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Everything in that neighborhood, with the exception of Curtis, is residential. MR. STONE-Not when you head down to Jamie, it’s not, you go a little further south. It depends on what the neighborhood, define “neighborhood”. MR. THOMAS-“Neighborhood” is within the area. To me, that’s the neighborhood right there, those houses right around there, with Curtis across the street. If there’s no more questions for the applicant, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-Just one. To Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, Regarding Variance No. 49-1998, David and Cornelia Kelley “Dear Board Members: Regarding David Kelley’s request for a variance to place a double wide mobile home on Big Bay Road, I would like to point out to the Board the status of two mobile homes on this road. The first, on the east side of Big Bay Road, was abandoned after a number of months, removed from the property. The property was never cleaned up after the trailer removed. A garage remains on the premises, and the door is partially up. I have observed skunks entering the building. Secondly, I would like to call the Board’s attention to the remaining trailer across the street from Curtis Lumber. The premises have been unoccupied for nearly six years. The lawn is never mowed, and the windows are broken in the garage on the premises. I strongly object to any other mobile homes on this street, in the near proximity to my home, as I feel that they devaluate my property. Respectfully, Lorraine and James Troy” MR. THOMAS-Okay. They’re talking about trailers there. This is a double wide modular, as I look at it, 11 Vermont Avenue, where you say you are now. So, it’s not a trailer. It’s a modular home. MR. KELLEY-No, it’s considered a double wide mobile home. MR. THOMAS-A double wide mobile home? MR. KELLEY-Yes. The Town of Queensbury has distinctly told me there is a difference. If you can tell me what it is, I have no clue. MR. STONE-How would you get it from one place to the other? MR. KELLEY-Well, we’ve been working with Kingsbrook Homes, and they are going to be moving and doing all the construction themselves. I guess that’s basically what they do. MR. STONE-Okay, but it’s not on wheels now at all? MR. KELLEY-Yes, it is. Well, it’s not on. They’re under there. MR. STONE-They’re under there. MR. KELLEY-The axles are there. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So that’s the difference between a mobile home and a modular home. A modular home comes on a wooden, with no axles, and this comes on a steel frame with axles. MR. KELLEY-But the axles are all unbolted from the home. They need to be reattached. You could take them out. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. THOMAS-Like I said, if you go over and you look at it, it’s got a pitched roof to it. I was over there today. MR. KELLEY-It looks exactly like a modular home, except it’s not. MR. THOMAS-Except it’s not modular. I learned from the last time we went through this. MR. STONE-It’s not very clear, when you look at it. A modular home, any building consisting of two or more sections, with or without their own chaise, capable of being transported to the building site, and then a mobile home may or may not have a foundation, wheels, jacks and so on. So, I’m sure the person who wrote these knew exactly what they were saying. I’m not sure I do. MR. THOMAS-But other than that, I didn’t close the public hearing. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant concerning the Use Variance? MR. STONE-Again, this is one of those cases, I have to say, with a Use Variance, I have trouble when the person who owns the property isn’t asking for the Use Variance, since that’s the person who has to tell me that he cannot realize a reasonable return. Selling the lot for the owner sounds like a reasonable return to me, and that seems to be the first test that we have to ask. Now, if Mr. Kelley buys the lot, which he hasn’t done, then Mr. Kelley has to show us that he’s bought a pig in a poke, and that he can’t make a return on something he just paid good money for. I’ve got a problem with that. I’m not sure where I’m coming out, but I’ve got a problem. I don’t know where we’re going with this, and we’ve had this a couple of times with Use Variances, and it’s a difficult concept for me to totally understand, since I have to find all four of these are favorable, and I just indicate a dilemma. MR. KELLEY-I would just like to ask you one question. Would you purchase something that you wouldn’t be able to use? MR. STONE-No. I understand why MR. STONE-No. I understand why you’re asking, why you’re coming before us saying basically, for the Area Variance, I understand that. That’s a perfectly valid request to make. I want a piece of property that I can do something with, and that’s fine for the Area Variance, and probably if we could approve the Use Variance on the criteria that we have to go on, I don’t really see a tremendous problem in the Area Variance. We’ve got to go through the thing, but it’s the Use Variance that talks to me about a reasonable return, and you don’t own it. Therefore, you can’t show me yes or no, on a reasonable return, and I’ve had this dilemma before, and I don’t know what the answer is. MR. THOMAS-That’s why I said, lets look at these Type II actions. Could any one of those be used? I’ll open the public hearing so John can speak. Maybe he can help us out, maybe he can’t. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Helping Mr. Stone out. MR. STONE-I appreciate that. MR. SALVADOR-There’s no question that there’s a lot of industrially zoned land in this Town, industrial parks, if you will, going begging. The only way anyone will come to this area and venture into any kind of Light Industrial use, is get enormous tax abatements, okay. It’s not likely anyone is going to invest in this size lot and claim tax abatements. You have to hire a certain number of people to qualify for these. The zoning stinks. That’s what stinks here, the zoning. MR. STONE-Thank you, John. MR. THOMAS-I’ll close the public hearing, again. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. STONE-John, it’s a valid point. I understand, and I’m being very technical when I say I’m in a dilemma. I understand that the lot is an extremely small lot for Light Industrial. I understand that there’s probably, any of these uses that we talked about, we’d be pushing. Having said that, lets go on. MR. THOMAS-Okay. If there’s anymore questions for the applicant? If not, we’ll talk about it, then we’ll go through the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Bob, we’ll start with you this time. MR. MC NALLY-I think that the criteria for a Use Variance are sometimes hard to meet. This is an application where, in order for me to conclude that there is no reasonable return, I’ve got to make a lot of assumptions. Based on looking at the Zoning Code, with respect to Light Industrial One Acre parcels, I see, Chris, you’re point. I see how you’re not going to put a major manufacturing facility on that parcel, but I don’t know that other applications are entirely ruled out, and I also think it’s not my job to guess whether or not there’s been a reasonable return. It’s the applicant’s responsibility to come forward with that information. There really isn’t, and I think that’s Mr. Gill’s responsibility. We’ve had people here present us with proof of lack of reasonable return. If you remember that modular that we had down the road off Corinth, by presenting real estate evidence, by presenting lots of different factors. We’ve got none of that here. I am sympathetic to the applicant’s, though. I can probably make a good argument as to why there wouldn’t be a reasonable return, but the Town, in its wisdom, chose to make this Light Industrial, and I think we did, as a precedent across the street, decide that this is not an appropriate use, in quite similar circumstances. The hardship isn’t, in my mind, unique. It’s a problem that goes up and down that street, when you look at Light Industrial properties, and the size of the lots. I mean, the abandoned mobile home right next to this parcel, at one time or another, is going to have the same problem. The place across the street is going to have the same problem. They’re all small parcels. What do you do with them in a Light Industrial zone? The essential character of the neighborhood is really not industrial, but it is residential and commercial. This isn’t going to change the character that much, and is the alleged hardship self-created? I’m not sure. MR. THOMAS-Well, to me, the size of the lot is the hardship here, in a Light Industrial zone. MR. MC NALLY-In other words, (lost word) created it, so the people didn’t actually choose it. Mr. Gill, by inheriting it, didn’t create that. MR. THOMAS-No. Mr. Gill did not create that lot. That lot existed. The Town of Queensbury went through and, like you said, in their infinite wisdom, zoned that area Light Industrial One Acre, knowing that there was a lot of 100 by 150 foot lots in there. MR. MC NALLY-What does this place on Vermont Avenue look like? You say it’s a modular? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it’s a modular home, light blue in color. It has a pitched roof. MR. MC NALLY-With siding, has it got skirt around it? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it’s got the siding on it. MR. KELLEY-Vinyl siding. MR. MC NALLY-Shingled roof? MR. KELLEY-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Slanted? MR. THOMAS-Yes, a regular pitched roof that runs parallel to the road. It’s got a front door. It’s got a deck on the front of it, for a front entrance. Like I say, it just looks like a small house. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem, well, persuade me. I’d like to hear what you have to say, Chris. MR. THOMAS-Well, when we get to that. Okay. Jamie? 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. HAYES-Well, I agree with the Chairman that the Type II uses, as described in the Code, appear, or probably most likely would be a stretch, in my opinion, to accomplish, and there’s no question that the fact that the lot is small, and that that’s really creating a lot of the difficulty here, but in the Use Variance, we have to meet all the criteria, and I have a definite problem with the third criteria, being that the land is zoned Light Industrial, and if we grant a Use Variance on this property, we are forever changing what can, the fact that you can have mobile homes or trailers on that property, and the very trailer that’s right across the street, to me, indicates the problem with doing that. There’s been substantial investment on that street, via the Curtis’ and other people, there’s a recycling going on, and we’re opening the possibility of that being the other uses in that neighborhood, and can I say that that won’t possibly alter the essential character of the neighborhood or change it negatively? I could not say that, in all good conscience. I think I, personally, have been consistent in saying that I don’t think, in particular with mobile homes, that granting, when there’s Overlay Zones and there’s places that are approved for it, to grant Use Variances into neighborhoods or properties where people are investing or building, as described by the Code, is a good idea. I think, over the long term, we have no control over what kind of trailer might be in there, the kind of maintenance of that trailer, and the fact that there’s a trailer across the street, is proof, to me, so I agree with the Chairman, I think that the Type II uses, I would have a hard time with that, but the essential character of the neighborhood, I think we’re forever making that a very definite possibility, if we grant a Use Variance, which is permanent. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I’ve now here two points that go against granting the Use Variance. One is, the fact that there is no competent financial information, either from the owner of the lot or the perspective buyer of the lot. I recognize all of the inherent problems in this particular lot, in the particular area, but I’ve got, I feel, in my own case, that I need this kind of financial information. I’m also responsive to what Mr. Hayes said, in that the character of the area is changing. I mean, we’ve got a very big commercial property across the street from this thing. Obviously, it’s not a concern to the applicants. They don’t find it a problem, but it has certainly made a change in the character of the neighborhood, in the direction of the way it is currently zoned, and I guess, I think it might, by putting another residence in this area, it might continue a very mixed neighborhood, contrary to the current zoning. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, to me, going through the four points here, the alleged hardship has not been self-created. No, it hasn’t been self-created, since it was a pre-existing lot. Requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The essential character of the neighborhood right now is residential. Curtis Lumber across the street needed a variance to go in there, because that was the only piece of land that was not zoned Light Industrial. If it had been, they wouldn’t have come to us for a variance, because Number Four under Type II is building supply, lumber yard, and similar storage yard. So, to me, the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Is the alleged hardship unique? I believe that the hardship is unique, in that fact that it’s mostly residential, and here it is zoned Light Industrial, and also due to the fact that it’s a 15,000 square foot lot, and Number One, cannot realize a reasonable return, substantial, as shown by competent financial evidence. Granted, we don’t have the competent financial evidence in front of us, but common sense would tell you that, in looking at the Type II, there really isn’t any one of these listed actions that could occupy this 100 by 150 foot piece of property. Maybe if the property was turned the other way, with the 150 feet were across, was the road frontage, and it was 100 foot deep, well then that might be different, because they might be able to put a restaurant on there, or maybe some kind of small laboratory, like a dental lab, or something like that, but to me, because of the shape of the lot 100 feet across on the road and 150 feet deep, I mean, that right there is really a below average building lot in the Town of Queensbury. It’s only just a little touch under a third of an acre, and if we look at the Inspiration Point that we talked about last week, last month up there where we granted a variance for a swimming pool, that lot was 100 by 100, and that was an approved subdivision by the Planning Board. So the Town of Queensbury has approved lots smaller than this, for residential use. So, to me, even though they don’t have the competent financial evidence, common sense would tell you that really none of these 17 things that are listed could go on there. So, I wouldn’t have any problem granting this Use Variance. So, having said that, would someone like to make a motion one way or the other? MR. STONE-Well, do you, I mean, I hear two and two. Would we want to ask them, we might want to wait for the rest of the Board? MR. THOMAS-It doesn’t look like you’re going to get a four vote here, okay. The only thing I can do is table it until the other three members can read this over, look it over, look at the notes and the minutes of the meeting, and make a decision on it themselves, for themselves. If we table it 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) right now, you’re still hanging in there, but I think if you, I think you’re going to get maybe a two and two, which is a no vote, which would have to carry over to next month anyway. So, it’s up to you, but, do you want us to table it until next month, or do you want to withdraw it? Because like I say, right now you’re probably going to get a three and one, or a two and two vote, which is a no action. So it’ll have to wait until next month anyway. MR. KELLEY-I guess we’ll withdraw. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you want to withdraw your application for a Use Variance, which in turn will withdraw your application for an Area Variance. MRS. KELLEY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does Staff want to say anything about this? MR. ROUND-No. I just, to make it clear to the applicant that you could come back next month and I think the one thing that was significantly deficient is competent financial evidence, and that’s also the most difficult test to identify and to achieve satisfaction in front of the Board, and I think you may still have the opportunity to present that, if you came back next month, but by withdrawing it, you’re not going to be able to come back. MR. KELLEY-That’s okay. We don’t want to deal with the Town of Queensbury. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. I’m sorry. The applicant has withdrawn Use Variance No. 47-1998, and Area Variance No. 49-1998. USE VARIANCE NO. 48-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED JANET LEDFORD OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: 94 ASH DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT A 2 FAMILY APARTMENT BUILDING INTO A 3 FAMILY APARTMENT BUILDING. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF TO EXPAND A NON- CONFORMING MULTIFAMILY DEWLLING IN THE WR-1A ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 42-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/8/98 TAX MAP NO. 39-1-45.1 LOT SIZE: 0.90 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 ALLEN READ & JANET LEDFORD, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 48-1998, Janet Ledford, Meeting Date: July 23, 1998 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ 94 Ash Drive Applicant proposes Relief Required: construction to convert a two family building into a three family building. Applicant requests relief from the WR-1A zone requirements, Section 179-16, to have a multifamily building. Additionally, the applicant requests relief for expansion of a non conforming Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of building, Section 179-79. Town Law: 1. Can the applicant realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence? It is evident that the applicant 2. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in may be operating this property at a loss. question unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? The hardship may be interpreted as unique, as the building in question may be too large for a single family dwelling. However, there are currently two apartments in this building 3. Will the requested use variance, if granted, alter the and two others on the property. essential character of the neighborhood? Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of 4. Is the alleged hardship self-created: this action. The alleged hardship could be interpreted as Parcel History (construction, site plan, variance, etc.): self created. UV 807 res. 1-19-83 conversion of Glen Lake Casino into two apartments. SP 42-98 conversion of a two family Staff comments: building to three family pending variance While there may be financial evidence declaring a loss on the current development, the construction of a fifth rental unit on a 39,200 sf Waterfront Residential lot in the Critical Environmental Area may have moderate to substantial SEQR Status: impacts on the neighborhood. Type: Unlisted” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Read? MR. READ-Good evening. Gentlemen, we are here this evening seeking a Use Variance, as previously stated. The owner is here. We’ve supplied the Board with some figures indicating the current income from the rentals on the buildings is insufficient to maintain the property, and in fact 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) pay the obligations which are currently against the property. As we indicated, there are five, actually, there are four rental apartments on the building. We are not seeking to expand the building in any way. The subject apartment actually removes one bedroom from an existing apartment, so that we don’t add any bedrooms to the structure at all. The structure, if you’re familiar with it, is about 4800 to 5,000 square feet on the first floor. There is a second floor area which is not being used for anything but storage, but it was used in the past as a housing unit for the Ledford family while they ran the Glen Lake Casino. The building in question was converted, as was stated, back in 1983, from a night club, which had three bars and a restaurant facility, and also a day time facility for swimming and boating on the lake. As the lake evolved, and change it’s character in that area, this business was no longer profitable, and Mr. ad Mrs. Ledford, the present applicant’s mother and father, applied for a Use Variance, and converted it into two apartments, but over the period of years, the expenses in maintaining the property, the taxes have escalated, and the current owner finds that she’s not able to meet the obligations with the income that she derived from these four apartments. Now, you might ask, well, could we raise the rent in each of the apartments and therefore make a positive cash flow. Well, I think if you look at the rents, they’re about maximum that you can get in that area. There’s a six family apartment building immediately adjacent to this property, and the rents there run from about $375 to $500 a month. So those are lower than the rents that are being collected on this property, and we think that comparable rentals in that area make it unlikely that you could just raise the rents to make up the deficiency in the cash flow. The other thing that is unique about this property is that basically it was a night club, and it was designed initially as a night club and a resort type building. So what her parents and what she has had to do is to convert what essentially is a commercial structure to try to make it a residential structure. It’s too large to be a one family residence, and it doesn’t lend itself to that. So, she’s put a great deal of money into it. There’s a $90,000 mortgage against this. The mortgage payments are substantial, on a monthly basis, and the taxes are never ending. They’re continually increasing, as everybody is experiencing. We’ve given you a list of the break down of property expenses, and recently we’ve had to put in, retrofitted the sewer system by putting in a new pumping line up to and including a new 1500 gallon tank, septic tank, on the property, which will run the owner probably $3,000 to $4,000. Well, $3,000 to $4,000, if you look at the budget, it isn’t in there. She already has a commercial mortgage, as I said, $90,000, and quite frankly, maintenance like that can occur, if you own rental properties, fairly frequently. So our request, I think, is for a minimum, or a minimal variance here. I realize that we’re in a residential, WR-1A area, but in the immediate areas, there are other multifamily units larger than this. The sewage system, the water and the building, are adequate to house the third apartment. The third apartment, quite frankly, was almost in place for a couple of years, although it wasn’t mentioned in the Use Variance that was sought in 1983. The two apartments were put in in 1983, but the Ledfords still lived in the upper portion of the building utilizing the space that this apartment is seeking, that we’re seeking an application for. I think the most compelling argument that we can make is that essentially, if you look at the cash flow it isn’t sufficient to maintain the property. As late as last year, Ms. Ledford found herself in arrears on her taxes, to the extent of $25,000. That’s about three or four years back taxes here in the Town of Queensbury, and she had to go out and take a personal loan out to pay those taxes. So you can see that her need is compelling, she has a compelling need to try to improve the, unless the Town of Queensbury is willing to forget the taxes, drop the taxes down four or five thousand dollars a year, we have a compelling need to try to raise our income. MR. STONE-Have you ever grieved the property, from an assessment standpoint? MS. LEDFORD-Yes, I did, once. MR. STONE-Not in my tenure, obviously. MS. LEDFORD-It went up $150,000. Obviously, I didn’t do very well. MR. READ-Essentially, that is our argument. Now the renovation that we are asking to do is totally an interior renovation. As I said, what we’ve done is taken one bedroom out of a two bedroom apartment and just added a kitchen and a living room, living area, and the kitchen, living and bath were already there in a pre-existing unit many years ago. MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for the applicant and/or her agent? MR. STONE-When you say $650 per month, plus utilities, that means the renter pays the utilities. MS. LEDFORD-Yes. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. READ-On that apartment, yes. MR. STONE-On that apartment. You’re saying the rent, as far as the person is concerned, is $650 plus utilities? MR. READ-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-The payment of $1710, is that just the interest portion of the payment, or is that the whole payment? MS. LEDFORD-That’s the payment a month MR. HAYES-Exactly, because actually could be a little bit misleading as far as the profitability of the building itself, but even if that made for a break even, I don’t think that a reasonable return is breaking even. MR. READ-Lets hope not, that’s right. I agree. MR. HAYES-I would accept it. MR. STONE-Well, there’s a couple of numbers that strike me. I don’t know Glen Lake. I do know Lake George, which is a very different lake. The dock rental of $250 a year, from what I know of Lake George, that’s very, very low. MR. READ-Yes. MS. LEDFORD-Yes, right. MR. READ-But maybe you can explain. MS. LEDFORD-Glen Lake doesn’t have a big dock rental. Probably the most I’ve ever seen it on Glen Lake is like $300 a month, a season, and this is for the season $250. MR. STONE-I recognize that. The other thing is this dumpster. Why do you need to pay for a dumpster if these people pay their utilities? MS. LEDFORD-Well, I probably didn’t, but it was existing there when my parents had it, and consequently I’ve tried to keep it up. MR. HAYES-I can tell you, as a land lord, to assume they’ll take care of their garbage. MS. LEDFORD-And they don’t. MR. READ-Right. I’ll tell you, as a landlord, that they won’t. They’ll dump it on your back lot. MS. LEDFORD-Right. MR. STONE-This is all on a septic system? It’s one septic system for the five or? MS. LEDFORD-No, there are three septic systems for the five. There’s one septic system for the main one on the lake. It goes from a transfer station to a 1500 gallon holding tank, to a 3,000 gallon, I believe they call it a dry well, out into the leach fields. MR. READ-Let me ask you this. Maybe you didn’t get the architect’s site plans. Okay. I think that shows that there are septic systems, a separate septic system for Cottage Number One. MR. STONE-Okay, here it is. MR. READ-Septic system for Cottage Number Two, and then there’s a system for the house, the building that we’re proposing the variance on. MR. STONE-And that’s inside the property, actually. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. READ-Yes. MR. STONE-Inside the building, okay. MR. READ-Well, the transfer station is inside the building. What it is is it’s a sump with a pump that pumps it up the hill to the. MR. MC NALLY-Did I understand you to say you had a $90,000 mortgage on the property? MS. LEDFORD-Right now I do, yes. MR. MC NALLY-And that’s what the $1710 a month refers to? MS. LEDFORD-Yes. What happened, in 1991, my father passed away in ’90, and my mother was trying to maintain this property, and I bought it from her, and I could only get like 10 years on it at that point, a 10 year mortgage. MR. MC NALLY-So the $1710 is the monthly amount based on a $90,000, which you had in 1991 taken out? MS. LEDFORD-That’s right. MR. MC NALLY-That does not include taxes? MS. LEDFORD-That does not include taxes. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have any idea as to the value of the property itself? MS. LEDFORD-Well, in 1991, I should have brought it with me, a gentleman, appraiser, appraised it for $157,000. So I went and grieved it, and it went up from $250,000 to $400,000, within the year. MR. STONE-Well, that was the re-val in ’93, though. MS. LEDFORD-Right, it probably was, that’s right. MR. STONE-When the whole Town was re-assessed. MR. MC NALLY-But you don’t have any independent appraisal, as you sit here, other than what the Town has appraised it at? MS. LEDFORD-Not current, no. MR. HAYES-You must have had an independent appraisal to get the loan? MS. LEDFORD-Right, I did, in ’91. MR. MC NALLY-What is the current balance on your $90,000 loan from 1991? MS. LEDFORD-Well, my current balance right now is, well, my current balance right now? MR. MC NALLY-Yes, what do you owe, remaining on the loan, approximately? MS. LEDFORD-It’s fifty some odd thousand dollars. MR. HAYES-But by your logic, you’d have to include the personal loan that you just borrowed, too, to pay the taxes. MS. LEDFORD-That’s right. MR. HAYES-As far as your overall indebtedness, associated with the property. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t see that personal loan anywhere listed. MR. READ-That wasn’t part of the mortgage. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MS. LEDFORD-No, that wasn’t part of the mortgage, now. That was, I borrowed that $25,000 from a friend, to pay off the taxes. MR. MC NALLY-And is that paid off now? MS. LEDFORD-No. MR. READ-The taxes are paid, the loan isn’t. MS. LEDFORD-The taxes are paid, yes. MR. MC NALLY-Is your obligation reflected in this profit and loss statement in any way? MR. READ-Actually, that one isn’t. MS. LEDFORD-That one isn’t, no. MR. HAYES-So that would make it worse, then. MR. READ-Yes. MS. LEDFORD-Yes. MR. STONE-How about the garage, do they go with the apartments, are they rented? MS. LEDFORD-No, they are not rented. It’s storage, mainly. MR. STONE-There seems to be an awful lot of “storage” on this property. What are we storing? MR. READ-Again, we have a building that is not really adapted for a living structure, and there is a lot of extra room there, but not a lot of it is usable. Some of it isn’t usable. It’s dry, and it’s not heated, and it’s not easily accessible in some areas, because a lot of it is overhead, upstairs. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? You mentioned the second story, the upstairs, you say that’s storage now? MS. LEDFORD-I have nothing up there, really. I guess Allen said it was storage. There’s nothing up there. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you said that’s where your parents used to live? MS. LEDFORD-My parents they had, when we first bought the Casino in 1961, had three bedrooms upstairs, a small room for storage, a living room, and a porch overlooking the lake, a screened in porch. MR. THOMAS-What’s it like up there now, it’s just empty? MS. LEDFORD-Just totally empty, and it really, it needs to be really, if you wanted to do something with it, you’d have to renovate it, totally. MR. THOMAS-Could that be used as rental space, if you renovated it? MS. LEDFORD-If I, yes, spent a lot of money, yes. MR. THOMAS-That you don’t have. MS. LEDFORD-That I don’t have. You’re right. MR. THOMAS-I don’t have anymore questions. Does anyone else have anymore 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 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) LINDA WHITTY MRS. WHITTY-My name is Linda Whitty. I live at 3 Benmost Bur Lane, which is a hop skip and jump away from the old Casino. I’m also here tonight on behalf of my parents, Robert and Ann Clark, who are at the end of Benmost Bur Lane, and were also notified of this change. We have been in the neighborhood for 30 plus years, and our biggest concern of this property at this time is the overuse of a very small piece of property, with a number of people on it. As mentioned, there are four apartments, which means there are four families, possibly eight cars, possibly anywhere between four to eight or more boats, because from what we understand, in the Town of Queensbury each resident can have at least three boats a piece. So that’s a lot of possibilities. For an extra apartment, we have to figure on two more cars and at least one more boat. Also, there is a garage on the property, a three car garage, used by, and in the past, a variety of people. Oftentimes these people are not connected to the apartments at all. The garage has been used as a car repair shop, illegally, and has been reported to the Town a number of times, a paint, auto repair shop, and it has been used as a storage facility. There is no yard on this property, other than the lake front, where the beach is. The beach is good for the summer, but the children who do live on that property play in the road in the winter time, and it’s a blind spot, as you come up out of that driveway, and believe me, there have been a few close calls. Many times, the children play across the street in Hilliard’s vacant lot, which was at one time the parking lot for the Casino, has been passed now to two different people, in terms of ownership. The gentleman who owns that lot now is intending, from what I understand, to have a small farm. He already has chickens and what not on the property, and has grown a number of things, and is in the process of putting all kinds of stuff down to get it so that it’ll grow things, because it’s been parked on for so many years, and he just keeps working away at it. Parking in the winter, for this particular apartment building, is difficult, to say the least. There is a hill that goes down to the building, and with this hill, it makes it very, very difficult to get cars in and out, when the roads are slippery. Grant it, they do plow, but during the time which the plow is not there or they can’t get those cars in no matter what, the people in the apartment building park their cars on the Hilliard property. Now this is fine for now, I guess, according to Mr. Hilliard, but I know he intends to do other things with this property, other than provide public parking, free. So they cannot rely on the parking facility that’s there. There is also an apartment building as has been mentioned right next door. This building is also on an extremely small piece of property, with no yard, and has a similar problem with children playing in the road, similar problem with the parking. So we’re expanding and creating more of the same, rather than going in the other direction, of lessening what’s there. The property on the lake front also offers to several of the neighbors lake front usage. Mr. Tyrer’s property has lake front usage, on the old Casino property. Mr. Hilliard’s property also has legal lake front usage, all in the deeds of their property. So we still have lots of people going in and out of there and using boats on that property, and having children travel up through that area. There have been septic tank problems, throughout the years. The septic tank problems have been known throughout the neighborhood. It has been observed by several, the sewage that has come out. It even was observed, from what story has told, that there was a time when sewage was actually drained into the lake. Now this septic tank in which this problem had occurred has been recently modified, changed, built, whatever. I have no idea whether the Town even is aware of the work that was done on this septic tank, and whether they even inspected whether the septic tank was repaired properly. I couldn’t find any building permit located around the property. Do they need one for something like that? It seems to me on lake front property, we need to make sure that the septic tanks are operating. Has there ever been any consideration to testing septic tanks, to see whether there is any leakage into the lake? Glen Lake, especially on that end of the lake, has had a great deal of trouble with milfoil. Should we consider testing to see if there is spillage? Believe me, I built my house and the septic tank that I have under my house is big enough to house a motel, because I had to make sure I complied. If there’s going to be extended use, even if there isn’t, there should be a check to make sure, since there has been, obviously, a problem. The upkeep of the property I would deem as poor. What grass there is oftentimes comes up to knee level. Painting is negligent. Basic upkeep, it’s somewhat of an eyesore. As I said, I’ve been on this property, or in this neighborhood, for 30 some odd years. The Ledford family legacy stands on its own. I can show you dumps where garbage was dumped for years. Now, I’m sure Ms. Ledford here would probably say that she was not involved in that dump, that maybe it would have been other family members, but the case may be that, yes, there has been some activity. It was her brother who ran the car painting business, and every time the Town came over, they’d slam down the doors to the garage, and not allow anyone to see. It was quite clear. We as neighbors observed it, daily, but every time, we were frustrated by the fact that those doors were closed, and you can ask lots of people on Glen Lake where they got their cars painted, and I can tell you, they will tell you, Al Ledford painted my car, gave me a great deal for it. In regard to this income, first of all, I want to make clarification. These are not cottages on this lake. These are year round homes. A cottage implies that it’s only being used in the summer time. The income, I listened, and I heard two different things here. I 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) heard a hardship based on the income from larger buildings, but is the income from the other two buildings included, because it’s the same property, plus the income from now what I understand dock fees and so on and so forth, is it okay for people to rent out the garages, store boats? Where does it stop, in terms of the usage of this tiny piece of property? Hardship? It sounds like she’s got a great deal if she sells the building. As you can see, we are not in favor of changing and adding more to this property. It has been our concern for years, in regard to the usage of this property, and we would like this Board to consider that you not grant anymore usage. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak opposed? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I just have a question. The relief being sought, is it strictly the nonconforming aspect of a multifamily dwelling in a residential zone, or does it also deal with commercial activity in a residential zone? It sounds to me, according to the way this lady just mentioned, that this is more of a commercial undertaking than it is the rental of residential property. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. READ-May we reply to the accusations that have been made here? MR. THOMAS-You can reply to the comments that have been made. MR. READ-Comments. First of all, the garage which Ms. Whitty indicates was used for a body shop, now Allen Ledford is Ms. Ledford’s brother. I believe you bought out his interest in the property? In 1991, and removed him, and any of his dealings, from the property. The garage is not being used as a repair shop. Since she’s owned it, it hasn’t been used as a repair shop. Now, we can’t necessarily answer to the transgressions of her brother, and I, quite frankly, can’t comment on whether or not her brother used the garage as a repair shop or body shop. I don’t know, but since Ms. Ledford has owned it, in 1991, it has not been used for that purpose, and will not be used. She’s not running a commercial establishment, though at one time the property was a commercial establishment. The problem she has, which is unique, is that we have a building that was designed and used as a commercial establishment for years, that sits in a residential zone, and our problem is, we have to maintain enough income on that property to pay the obligations, to pay the taxes, and that’s why we’re here seeking a Use Variance. Now, with respect to sewage problems, if the Town has documentation of sewage leaking into the lake, it should have been presented. We have, from David Hatin, a clearance on the septic system, which was issued probably a couple of weeks ago, when a new pump was put on the septic system. I don’t have it here, but I believe the gentleman would have it over there, as part of the Town documents, but that system has been checked out thoroughly. It has been updated, and to my knowledge, there’s never been any history of sewage leaking out of this facility into Glen Lake. Ms. Ledford may be able to document that or not. I’m not sure. MS. LEDFORD-No, there hasn’t been that since I’ve taken it over in 1991. MR. READ-Now, as far as dock space Ms. Whitty alluded to the fact that the tenants can all have boats. There aren’t docking facilities for a number of boats. MS. LEDFORD-There are probably docking facilities for eight, but there’s only three boats there. MR. READ-There are only three. There are parking facilities for 11 cars. We have five separate units, and two parking spots for each one exceeds the requirement for parking facilities. It is on a hill. I mean, there’s a grade to the property. There’s no question about that. As far as parking on Mr. Hilliard’s property across the road, I don’t know whether that occurs or not. If Mr. Hilliard had a complaint about it, he got a notice of the meeting, and I would have assumed that if he was objecting to it, if it exists, and I doubt that it does, but he had an opportunity to be here this evening, or at least express his opinion, either in writing or being here presently. We’re concerned, as Mrs. Whitty is, about the quality of the water in the lake, and the atmosphere, the living atmosphere around there. I don’t think that the addition of one apartment is going to alter, in any substantial way, the quality of life in that community, and unless somebody shows me evidence that there’s either, by virtue of tests or reports, that there is sewage, there’s a sewage problem or anything else, unless the Town documents it or somebody comes in here and documents it with some evidence, at this point, I would disregard that. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. THOMAS-Could you tell me, right now, how many people occupy that complex, are in there? I know there’s four units, but, you know, has one unit got three people? MS. LEDFORD-There are six adults, one child. MR. THOMAS-So there’s seven people total. MS. LEDFORD-Total. MR. THOMAS-In the four existing units. MS. LEDFORD-Yes. There’s one child, and there’s six adults. MR. STONE-In the four apartments? MS. LEDFORD-In the four apartments. MR. READ-One house is occupied by one fellow. One apartment is occupied by one fellow. There are two adults in one apartment, and in the house, there’s a mother, father and a child there. MS. LEDFORD-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? I forgot to ask if there was any correspondence. MR. BROWN-There is. First of all, for the record, the property does have a current building st permit for septic alteration, 98-364, dated July 1. MR. ROUND-That came as the result of an action by the Town. One of the current tenants that was in the apartment identified septic odors. There was an investigation that was performed by the Town, by Dave Hatin. The septic system was in a failed condition. It was found to be a health hazard, and only after it was found to be a health hazard, was the situation corrected, and that the modifications were made as a result. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So the entire complex now has a working septic system? MR. BROWN-This permit is only for the building in question. That’s the only one that’s been modified. MR. THOMAS-That’s the only one, but the other ones, we’re not involved in the other buildings. We’re just involved in the big one down on the lake. MR. STONE-Well, we’re involved with the total property. Are we not? For the property, 39-1- 45.1. That’s the property we’re talking about. MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s the property we’re talking about, but they’re proposing a third apartment in one of the existing buildings. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. THOMAS-And my question was, are the septic systems on the property on the operating adequately? MR. BROWN-There is an approved building permit for that building, for the septic alterations. MR. THOMAS-For the septic. MR. READ-There’s also a certification that the system in that building is satisfactory, isn’t it? MR. BROWN-Yes. That’s, I’m sure, included in the building permit. MR. READ-Okay. MR. STONE-For three apartments or for two? 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. BROWN-For four bedrooms. MR. STONE-Four bedrooms in that apartment, in that building. MR. READ-Which, if you grant the variance, will be what there are in the building. That’s the fourth bedroom. In other words, there are two one bedroom apartments and one two bedroom apartment. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. What else do you have for correspondence? MR. BROWN-July 20, 1998, to the Town of Queensbury, regarding Variance No. 48-1998 “To rd Whom It May Concern: I am unable to make the Thursday, July 23 7 p.m. meeting. I, therefore, would like to submit the following comments. Re: the proposed conversion of the 2 family apartment building into 3 family apartment building: In my opinion the largest concern in expanding occupancy near Glen Lake are SEPTIC SYSTEMS. Since Queensbury does not have municipal sewers in the Glen Lake area the Town holds the responsibility of ensuring that the existing septic systems can handle the increased occupancy this variance would bring. The water quality of Glen Lake and our drinking water depends on it. I bring up this issue because when walking in the 80’s - 90’s block of Ash Drive during the spring the air has smelled of sewage. It is my guess that it is due to overburdened septic systems which can be exacerbated by increased dwelling occupancies. I would ask that the Town of Queensbury ensure that the septic systems are adequate to support the increased occupancy this variance would bring. The second item I wish the Town to consider is the existing deeded access to the Ledford lake parcels. As landowners we have deeded access to the Ledford lake parcels for beach privileges and docking rights. I would ask that Queensbury consider all deeded access and existing dweller access to the lake parcel before expanding occupancy at 94 Ash Drive. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Marianne McGowan (48 Birch Rd.)” July 23, 1998, to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding Janet Ledford “To the Zoning Board of Appeals: Due to family obligations, my wife and I are unable to attend tonight’s meeting. However, we wish to express our objections to the rezoning of the Ledford property. We are strongly against the rezoning for several reasons. Number One: The Ledford property is already overcrowded. Right now there are two occupied apartments and two houses on it. This condition alone would not be allowed under current zoning regulations within a Critical Environmental Area. We do not want this to set a precedent for expanded multiple dwellings on the lake. In addition, access to the lake at the Ledford property has been deeded to two resident homes (potentially three) across the street. We feel the population density on the lot is excessive and over stresses the land use and the lake environment. Number Two: Studies show this part of Glen Lake is already in environmental trouble. According to the Greater Glen Lake Watershed Management Plan, a comprehensive report presented earlier this year to the Town of Queensbury by the Glen Lake Watershed Technical Advisory Committee, this area of the lake is classified a pollution “Hot-Spot”. Water quality tests show high levels of the dangerous E-Coli bacteria and high levels of phosphates. Both conditions result from septic leachage and over development of the land. We know, at least in part, Ledford’s property contributes to this undesirable condition. But as well there is a huge apartment building with the seven occupied apartments right next door. Additional occupants in this stressed area will magnify the environmental difficulties we as a lake community are trying desperately to combat. Please adhere to the recommendations put forth in the Watershed Management Plan which limits increased land use in the CEA. Number Three: Our most strenuous objections are levied at the lack of care Jan puts into her property. It should be noted in the record that there was a failing septic system at that property for at least two years. Raw sewage was actually bubbling up from the ground and running down the driveway. Jan’s own tenants and her neighbors complained to her about the condition and asked her to fix the problem. However, nothing was done until official complaints were finally made to the Town. Only then under Town mandate did she comply. We do not feel Jan should now be rewarded for an act she should have willingly done two years ago. In addition, earlier this year Jan illegally rented the apartment she now seeks to legally rent through rezoning. Why didn’t she come to the Town before? This act further shows her lack of respect for Town regulations and for her neighbors and tenants. And to this day on her property there remains an unsafe dock. It has been in this condition since ice-out in the spring. In past years her tenants have fixed the dock for her, but this year even when her illegal tenant had a boat there, this tenant did not have the gumption to correct the hazard. Now daily children play and fish from the dock. This is just another example of lack of concern for the health and safety of the community. It pains us to object to a neighbor’s desires, but the Ledford property is overcrowded now and inadequately maintained. We ask the Board to please deny this variance. Respectfully, Paul Derby and Lorraine Stein 86 Ash Drive” And that’s it. 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. THOMAS-That’s it. Would you like to respond to any of those comments. I’ll close the public hearing, and if you’d like to respond to those comments from the letters. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. READ-Ms. Ledford, I think, has indicated to me that the access through her property is apparently a right in the deed that requires that the people having access pay a yearly fee. They haven’t paid the fee and haven’t used the right of access. So though the properties may have some deed restrictions, or deed easements to them, they haven’t been used. I don’t know they’ve been used for 10 years. If they haven’t been used for 10 years, there’s a possibility they’ve been extinguished by time. I, quite frankly, would have to check into that, because I am not personally aware of whether or not there is an easement allowing other property owners access through that property. Ms. Ledford indicates to me that, since she’s owned the property, no fees have been paid, which are apparently required under the easement has drawn, and no one has used that property as access to the lake. Now with respect to an illegal letting of the apartment, there was an occupant in the apartment. The apartment exists in part as the area that the Ledfords lived in prior to their zoning variance back in 1983. They continued to live in that unit, after the zoning variance was obtained. Ms Ledford apparently talked to Mr. Champagne, and asked him whether she could go ahead and renovate it, and he said, it looks all right to me. If you don’t hear back from me, you don’t have any problems with it. Mr. Champagne apparently never told her that there was a problem with her renovating the apartment. She renovated it. So it exists. What she took was a bedroom out of the two bedroom apartment, and combined that with the existing area that she and her family lived in, and that forms the third apartment. As to the use of the dock, I think she’s going to have to talk about that, because I’m not even familiar with whether or not anybody does use the dock. MR. STONE-Did you say, did I hear you say, that this third apartment has, in fact, been in existence, and rented? MR. READ-It was in existence. It’s not rented now. It is in existence because she renovated it after talking to Mr. Champagne, indicating to him that it was part of an area that she had already lived in, that they had used as the family residence. The downstairs kitchen area, that bath and the upstairs three bedrooms and living room that she already described was the apartment that the Ledfords lived in. MR. STONE-I’ll make no further comment about my erstwhile opponent. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Are there any other questions for the applicant? No other questions? All right. Lets talk about it. MR. STONE-Well, did we want to hear about the boat dock? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Did you want to talk about the boat dock? It’s up to you. MS. LEDFORD-The boat dock this year. The boat dock this year is not in great shape, the one on the right hand side, and the gentleman that was going to use it, which is Ray McCauley, that lives on the lake, was supposed to fix it, and he did not. It isn’t as bad as this lady says it is. It does need some renovation, but not much. MR. READ-I think the point that we have tried to make in our presentation is that, essentially, the expenses of the property exceed the income, and it’s very difficult to maintain a property properly when you don’t have enough money coming in to do it. Now, it’s a unique property. It’s not as though we built a casino with the intention of converting it to a residence. The casino was there. She bought the property. It was in the family. She paid off her brother’s interest in it and got rid of her brother, and she now is faced with a piece of property which she rents, but doesn’t have enough income to perhaps properly maintain. I think that bolsters our argument that we need additional income in order to rectify problems which may or may not exist. MR. STONE-One of the things that I would ask. You go ahead, Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry. MR. THOMAS-No, go ahead. MR. STONE-Well, one of the things that would be helpful to me, in terms of the return is an idea of somebody attesting to the fact that this $650 per month, $500 per month, is in fact a reasonable 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) number for the Glen Lake area. Is it too low? I mean, what is to happen if the taxes go up next year, unfortunately they keep going up, and the applicant says, well, I can’t get anymore rent because that’s all it’s worth? Does that mean we get a fourth apartment in this building? Do we get another apartment upstairs? Obviously, that is a way to get more income. The question is, when might it stop, if ever? MR. READ-When might the taxes in Queensbury stop going up, if ever? I mean, your question is very logical and reasonable. The problem is, there are, it’s difficult to foresee, sometimes, the expenditures. The taxes will probably continue to go up. I don’t know whether the Town will ever put in a sewer system around the lake like they’ve done in Saratoga, around Saratoga Lake. That might be an answer to quite a lot of problems, but then again, that’s a tremendous expense, but it might be worth it in the long run. I mean, I live on Saratoga Lake, and I’m familiar with the sewage system that takes care of and has allowed the lake to come back from a polluted state. It benefits everybody, and everybody’s value of their property have gone upward, because the lake is a lot cleaner and it’s a lot more attractive place to live. MR. STONE-So the values go up and you pay more taxes. MR. READ-Well, you do. That’s true, and that’s unfortunate. I mean, taxes are going up, and expenses are going up, and this lady has just paid about $4,000 to renovate a sewer system, and who’s to say that, 10 years from now, she’s not going to have to do that again? That’s a problem with, I don’t know whether there’s an answer to your question. Expenses continue to go, if the expenses begin to exceed, if we get a variance and we are allowed to put the third apartment in, if the expenses go up, her only recourse is to come back and ask if she can put a fourth apartment, or, just to raise her rents, but there’s a market value to these rents. Pretty soon, people will leave. MR. STONE-I agree there’s a market value to the rent, and I see what she’s charging, but I am not a landlord. Some of my colleagues are, one of my colleagues is. He may have a better answer, but right now, I don’t know that $500 for that small house is a good number or a bad number. It’s a number. I don’t know if it’s a good number or a bad number. I have no technical expert evidence to tell me one way or the other. Now maybe Jamie knows more because he happens to be a landlord. I have one house and I can hardly maintain that. MR. HAYES-The only thing I would comment on that is it would seem like the free hand of the market would dictate what. MR. READ-It dictates exactly what you can, that’s right. MR. HAYES-I don’t believe that she’d be getting less than she thought she could get. I mean, in fact, to be quite honest with you, when you construct a pro forma that has four apartments, and you’re assuming collecting 12 rents, or 48 out of 48 rents, you could never sell me then on that, but, I mean, I think the rents look pretty normal. MR. READ-Again, I think many of the comments that were expressed here, both personally and in the letter, indicate that their concerned with maintenance. Maintenance is directly connected with income. I’m going to tell you, I’m a landlord, too, and I’ll tell you, if the rent isn’t coming in, and you can’t maintain the building. You can’t repair it, and tenants do have a tendency to use it differently than they would a private home. As he said, if you don’t provide trucking to get rid of the garbage, the tenants will find the place on your property to stick the garbage, and they’ll pile it there, and it’ll be an eyesore, and it’ll be a problem to everybody. There has to be sufficient income on this property to maintain it properly, and that’s all we’re asking. We’re not asking for an outrageous, we’re asking for a minimal variance here, to obtain that income. MR. MC NALLY-Could I ask what the current interest rate is on the mortgage? MS. LEDFORD-Nine percent. MR. MC NALLY-Is it a fixed rate? MS. LEDFORD-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Have you ever considered refinancing your mortgage payment? MS. LEDFORD-I have considered it, but I don’t know. I mean, that’s. 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. ROUND-Could I make one point here? I think something’s getting lost is that, is a positive cash flow on the collection of rents equal to a reasonable return? I don’t think those two things are the same, and I think that’s where you’re going, Mr. McNally, and I just wanted to bring that, I don’t think all people that rent property have positive cash flow situations, and those rents are paying, indeed, paying in building equity in that investment, and that the concern with the density of the development is, well, you’ve raised that point, well, when do you need more dwelling units to satisfy a positive cash flow, and I don’t think that’s what you’re looking at. The reasonable return, it’s reasonable return as zoned. It’s a single family residential zone. There are some uniqueness to this particular property, but what is the reasonable return. I just wanted to add that information. I hesitate to. MR. MC NALLY-As I understand, it’s reasonable return as zoned, or as the conforming use is, and that one element would be in common. The other elements would be value, which I think you’re talking about equity. MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-My question was just directed to one side, but, I know the other end. I understand. That’s a good point. MR. STONE-I think the applicant did indicate that she’s reduced the mortgage from $90,000 to $58,000, was that the number? So that’s $32,000 of equity that she has obtained from the rental, that she wouldn’t ordinarily have. MR. READ-Well, let me just pose this question. If the applicant finds that she cannot maintain the property, how is she going to, is she going to be able to sell that property to someone who looks at it and says, well, wait a minute, there are four or five units on that, and she can’t maintain the units, and she can’t pay her taxes, what am I going to offer? They’re going to offer thousands less than she perhaps has invested in the property. I mean, the market dictates what you can sell it for, and if you look at a property that’s severely run down and doesn’t provide enough income to pay the mortgages, the sale price of the property goes down. MR. MC NALLY-We don’t have any of those financials in front of us, do we? We don’t know what the property is worth. We don’t know what the equity of the property owner is in the property. We can hazard guesses, but actually we don’t have those financials in front of us. MR. READ-Well, you don’t have them because, quite frankly, I’m not too sure they exist. You’re saying what the equity in the property is. MR. MC NALLY-Chris was just saying before that there’s several ways of looking at a reasonable return, and one is on sale. MR. READ-Well, that’s right, and he points that out, but we don’t know what the market value of that property is. We know what it’s assessed for. We don’t know what the market value of that property is. How do you determine a market value? You put it on the market, and see who’s going to pay, who will pay what for it. Now, if you’ve got property with a couple of rental units in it that can’t make enough money to sustain the current finances, you’re probably going to get a lot less for it. At this point, you’re speculating on what that property would bring. MR. MC NALLY-That’s probably true, but again, it’s your burden to come forward with information regarding the return as to all aspects, as I understand it. MR. READ-But you’re asking me to come forward with some information that would be purely speculation. The only way I can tell you exactly what that property could be worth is if we put the property on the market and see what’s offered for it. MR. MC NALLY-Or a competent appraisal. This is lake front property with 183 feet of frontage on Glen Lake, close to a relatively urban zone, Glens Falls/Queensbury. I don’t know if you could use it as a single family structure, what it would take if you sold it, what it would sell for as a four unit property. That’s something that I think is important to know. MR. READ-Yes, but don’t overlook the uniqueness of the property. What you have is an old commercial establishment, sitting on a piece of property. Actually, one of the buildings was an existing motel. 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MS. LEDFORD-Right. The log home. MR. READ-The log home was an existing motel. So you’ve got two prior commercial pieces of, or buildings on a piece of property. It’s unique in that regard, and quite frankly I’m not too sure there’s much of a market for that, but you’re asking me to supply you with something that I think at this point might be pure speculation. Now we can go out and get an appraiser, and he can come in, and I could probably, and if you want, if you have some questions about it, we’ll have an appraiser appraise the property and see what he thinks it’ll sell for on the open market. Other than that, putting it on the open market is the only way we could make a determination for you. MR. MC NALLY-I see a difference in cash flow of $2,368.37, according to the profit and loss statement that you’ve given us. MR. READ-If that’s the one we gave you, that’s what it is, right. MS. LEDFORD-And that doesn’t include the $25,000 loan that I borrowed. MR. MC NALLY-Have you ever run your numbers, ma’am, with a refinanced mortgage, see what else you can get, as far as payment? I mean, for instance, I have a home in Queensbury, and I’ve got a mortgage with a balance of $62,000 on it, and my interest rate is 7.99%, and I pay $710 a month, and that includes taxes. So I’m curious that you pay $1700, on fifty some odd thousand dollars. MR. READ-On ninety thousand dollars. MR. MC NALLY-Well, the balance, of course, is fifty now, so if you refinance, it would be that much lower. I see equity of at least $1,000 a month income. MS. LEDFORD-Right. MR. MC NALLY-So, I’m just curious, have you ever run those numbers to see where you would be? MR. READ-Well, that presumes that she would qualify, in terms of credit, for another loan, and that is another factor here which she has considered. MS. LEDFORD-I doubt it. MR. ROUND-I’d point out that that’s a person’s individual economic status, not the economic status of the property. MR. MC NALLY-But don’t you think, when you talk about a reasonable return, expenses are part of that. If she chooses to put gold fixtures on all of her toilets, such that her expenses become, instead of $31,000 a year, $50,000 a year, would that justify a sixth or a seventh apartment? I mean, what’s reasonable is the question, and I’m just asking in terms of this particular applicant, has she considered other alternative means of getting a reasonable return. MR. ROUND-Her ability to obtain credit is outside your, I was supporting your argument. MR. MC NALLY-I see. I’m sorry. MR. ROUND-If you were to finance a $90,000, it was $90,000 over a 30 year period, again, the expense, the cash flow relationship would change, in that you may be able to show a positive cash flow financed over a longer period of time. So again, it’s come back to reasonableness, and what’s reasonable to expect, as a return for this property. MR. READ-Well, I think we commented that that is something that she has looked into, and based on her particular credit situation, she is not able to go out and get 30 year financing at a rate. MR. ROUND-Again, that’s an individual’s economic consideration, and not a consideration of the property. We’re looking at it as the use of the property, not an individual’s ability to use the property, and it also relates to Use Variances. If I was able to use a piece of property as a gas station on this property and have a better cash return on this, is that a reasonable return? Well, just the ability to make more money, is not a satisfaction of this reasonable test. 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. READ-Well, I think what you have to look at it, from a practical point of view, the property and Ms. Ledford are intertwined here. She’s the owner of the property. She has to borrow the money. You can look at the property, but she absolutely has to be responsible for it. MR. ROUND-That’s a case that you could make, but the law does not allow, does not ask for that relationship to be established or to be tested. MR. READ-Well, it may not ask for it to be established, but it is a practical, as a practical matter, it is a part of this problem that my client has. If she could go out and borrow $100,000 at 7% interest for 30 years, that would be fine. That would be a way out of this. She could make the renovations and live with four apartments. She cannot do that, and it’s not because the property, you know, they look at the property. They look at the borrower. They’re intertwined in this point. She’s the owner of the property. MR. ROUND-I typically don’t get involved, but again, an individual’s economic situation is not related to the property itself. A person’s ability to borrow money or a person’s ability to sustain a property and the way it’s zoned is not a part of the test of the Use Variance. MR. READ-Well, when a person is the owner of the property, I disagree with you. I think that, quite frankly, I’ve represented a number of people who own property and were not able to refinance, and the only way they could get by and keep the property were to get a variance so that they could use the property for a more profitable purpose. MR. ROUND-I can’t comment on that. MR. STONE-Out of curiosity, how long has this mortgage got to run, right now? MS. LEDFORD-Six more years. MR. STONE-Six years. MR. MC NALLY-But didn’t you tell us, ma’am, in 1991, you took this mortgage out for 10 years? MS. LEDFORD-That’s right, but I also borrowed on that. So I still have six more years at $1710. I had borrowed twice on it, to renovate the apartments and the homes. MR. STONE-Okay, but six years is a relatively short time, for a $58,000 balance. I mean, I think as Chris said, it’s certainly, I think, within whatever capability you have, one could get an extension of that mortgage, because there’s a lot of principal being paid, if this is going to be paid off in six years. That’s six years, $58,000, that’s $12,000 a year. MR. READ-It’s about $10,000 a year. MR. STONE-$10,000, I’m sorry. Ten thousand a year. Now that has to be considered in a profit and loss. I think that’s what Bob was saying. That’s $10,000 that you are making every year, on renting this property. MR. MC NALLY-Going toward the equity, yes. MR. READ-You say that’s what she’s making. The question is, can she continue to own the property? She just went in the hole for $25,000 in taxes, and had to borrow that. Now she’s running at a negative cash flow here. Suppose she has to borrow another $25,000? She’s got $50,000 to pay off, and she’s got another $25,000 to pay off on a private loan. There’s $75,000. The point that is clear is that she’s not making enough money to pay the bills. MR. STONE-But right now, the way this thing sits, I can argue that her positive cash flow is approximately $8,000 to the good. Would you agree with that, Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I think I would. MR. READ-Well, if you argued that, then how do you pay the current expenses, without going back to refinance? 58 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. STONE-That’s paying the current expenses. She is picking up $10,000 a year in equity by paying $1710 a month, twelve into fifty-eight, $10,000 a year. MR. READ-Yes, what she’s picking up down the road, and what she’s having to pay immediately are two different things. You have to get by the current expenses before you can get to the final solution on this. MR. STONE-If you’re talking on a cash basis, the property is earning approximately $8,000 a year. Is it not? MR. READ-Well, no. MR. STONE-The investment is earning. MR. READ-Well, the investment might, but a profit and loss statement, you have to be able to pay your taxes. If we don’t pay the Town of Queensbury $2300 in taxes, will the Town of Queensbury be satisfied with that? I don’t think so. MR. MC NALLY-But isn’t the question whether there’s a reasonable return, not whether you can pay all your bills out of current rents? MR. READ-Is it a reasonable return, you see, you’re figuring long term capital gain her, and we’re trying to figure the daily expenses of owning the property, and you have to be able to own the property, to pay off the mortgage. MR. STONE-You also have to be aware that we’re coming from a concern about the lake coming in a Waterfront One Acre zoning, residential. MR. READ-I agree with you. MR. STONE-That’s in our thinking, at least in my thinking. MR. READ-I understand, and I’m not going to argue that issue with you at all. That’s what you’re here for, and that’s what the community is obviously concerned about, and my client is concerned about that. There’s been no evidence put forth this evening that indicates the sewage systems are not working properly. As a matter of fact, we have, from the Town, a certificate that the sewage system is adequate. MR. STONE-For the front building. MR. READ-For the front building. MR. STONE-I mean, that’s all we know, the front building, correct, not for the property in total, but for the front building. MR. READ-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. READ-But has there been any evidence to the contrary? MR. STONE-I’m only talking facts. This is what I know. I don’t know anything else. MR. READ-Exactly. Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other comments, questions, concerns? I’ve already closed the public hearing. I guess we’re going to talk about it, then. Jamie, since you’re the. MR. HAYES-Well, I guess I would have to agree with Chris Round’s comments that a number of rental complexes, while they run on a cash flow deficit, in reality, have a long term positive outlook, because I know some of ours run that way. I think that that’s appropriate and it is germane in this circumstance. I would agree with the applicant in that, if they were indicating that it might be hard to get additional financing on that property, and that approvals might be a problem, but it’s difficult for me to imagine that, not asking for anymore principal and just increasing the term would necessarily be an obstacle that couldn’t be overcome, versus all the other 59 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) things that we’re talking about and the neighbors are expressing concerns about, and that is increasing the usage and density on a small piece of property that’s in a Critical Environmental Area, and that when I consider those two things combined, which I think that they’re hopelessly intertwined, when you talk about reasonable return, if you will, I would think that the test hasn’t been made. I think that, and I do believe that there would be a negative impact on the neighborhood, in this circumstance, by converting a third apartment in the main building. So I would say One is, the first part of the test is close and probably not, and the third part I would definitely have a problem with. So I guess I think it’s a stretch. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-As I look at this application, I have to, in all honesty, I’m not in favor of it. The first criteria is whether the applicant could realize a reasonable return, provided that the lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. The profit and loss statement that we’ve been provided indicates a loss of $2,368.37, which I don’t find is substantial, given the total annual income and expenses to the property. I’m not sure, necessarily, that there aren’t alternative ways that a reasonable return could be made. The question is balance. The property is earning a great deal of equity. I can’t believe that someone would not consider refinancing, and if they did, they would get a substantial reduction in the monthly costs, as least in regard to that, and while there may be difficulty meeting current expenses, that is, again, a question of balancing your equity income versus your income that you use for expenses, and as Jamie indicated, sometimes property owners do that, because they know that each year they’re earning, like in this case, $10,000 net. I don’t find that this property owner has been deprived of all economic use or benefit of the property. It’s not enough that there be a greater profit. I also don’t know what the return would be if it sold. I think it’s a unique property, but it’s on a wonderful lake where properties can sell for a great deal of money, and I think return also has to do with this person could earn if they sold that property, either under the current use, as a nonconforming use, or under the existing one family designation. I don’t think a mere showing of this present loss is enough. There’s a lot of other opportunities there. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? Well, I think it could be interpreted as unique, since it’s, the one building in question, at least, is too large for a single family dwelling, but I keep in mind that there are currently four units on this property, two apartments in the building they want to expand, and two other rental properties. Will the requested Use Variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? I do think so. Moderate impacts can be anticipated as a result of the action. I think that it’s going to have a significant effect on what is essentially a summer lake, where there are many year round residences, but there are primarily single family residences. The density here is also unusual. This is a property, if I understand it having something like 3900 square feet, and you’ve got four units on it, 39,000 square feet. That’s even less than an acre. So already we’ve got four times the current density allowed in a Waterfront Residential Critical Environmental Area. It’s not (lost words). Is the alleged hardship self-created? I think it can be interpreted as self- created. The only reason there’s not a return greater than it could be is because of the personal financial decisions made by the applicant. I just don’t see it. I’m against it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-There isn’t an awful lot to add after that. I also agree that, I mean, the simple test of profit and loss is not enough to say that the property is not returning a reasonable, providing a reasonable return for the investment involved. The other things that Bob and Jamie talk about, I certainly tend to go along with, but even if I didn’t agree with them, I would have a great deal of, I couldn’t say that Number One was true, and therefore I would have to vote against a Use Variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. As far as the substantial return, I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to that. I just have to kind of lean on you guys to tell me, but what I do see in this profit and loss statement, that Ms. Ledford is operating at a loss, according to this piece of paper, but some of the other things the other Board members have mentioned, such as equity and all this other stuff, it makes sense to me, but, you know, do we really take that into consideration? What is a reasonable return? The State courts have come up with kind of a range of numbers on this fact, but to me, it looks like this property is running at a loss, period, end. Plain and simple to me. The alleged hardship is unique. It does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood. It is unique, because it was an operating commercial building, on Glen Lake, for a long time, one of the two commercial buildings operating on the lake, and as time has gone on, the commercial use has disappeared, and it’s turned into a residential use, which it’s zoned for. The requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There’s really no outside expansion on the building. All the changes are inside the building. There’s, with five units, two parking places 60 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) per unit, and there’s 11 on the property. So they’re one over. The applicant has stated that the garage is used mostly for storage, and it’s not operated as it had in the past, a body shop, a car repair shop, even temporary housing. The alleged hardship has not been self-created? Well, that one there, I don’t know. That’s a tough one, for me, but I have to depend on what you three other gentlemen say, when it comes to the financial evidence. So, I would have to go along with the rest of the Board members and say that I really couldn’t, in good conscience, and with the evidence presented, approve this variance. Lets see. This is an Unlisted action. MR. MC NALLY-If we’re going to vote it down, do we have to even consider the environmental? MR. ROUND-Yes, with any action. MR. STONE-With any action? Okay. MR. THOMAS-Even if it looks like it’s going to be negative? MR. ROUND-I would touch the bases. MR. THOMAS-Well, we might as well go through it here. “Part IIA Does action exceed any Type I threshold in NYCRR Part 617.17? If yes, coordinated review” I would say no on that one. MR. MC NALLY-Agreed. MR. THOMAS-Okay. “Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted actions in 6NYCRR Part 617.8? If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency.” I would say no on that one. Agreed? MR. STONE-Agreed. MR. THOMAS-“Part C Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-No. I would go with a no on that. MR. STONE-Well, it could have groundwater quality, by adding to, but we’re talking about that, that was satisfactory. MR. MC NALLY-They got the permit. MR. STONE-They’ve got a permit, leave it alone. MR. THOMAS-Yes, plus they’re not increasing or decreasing impervious area of the lot. So, it’s a no. “C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character?” MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-No, because it’s already a commercial. “C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats or threatened or endangered species?” No. MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-“A communities existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NALLY-It’s a change in use, though, a change in intensity of use. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s what got my attention. MR. HAYES-Moderate? 61 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. STONE-Moderate, yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll put, yes. MR. STONE-Can you put in our packets a printed copy of this form, at least one, give it to us? You could read it at least. MR. THOMAS-Yes. For C4. I’ll put, yes, moderate, “A communities existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” Yes, moderate, increase. MR. STONE-Well, the official community’s plans are residential one acre. So this would certainly increase the nonconformity. MR. THOMAS-Intensity and nonconformity. “C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. STONE-It certainly could explain, other people might want to do the same thing. That’s what we’re talking about. MR. THOMAS-I’ll put, yes, future development by others. “C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in C1 through C5?” MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-I’ll put none. “Other impacts including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy?” No. MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that cause the establishment of a C.E.A.?” MR. STONE-Possibly. MR. MC NALLY-This is a C.E.A.? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-So it possibly could. MR. THOMAS-Yes. “Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. STONE-Since we’ve heard from the neighbors, I would say, yes, there are concerns that there will be a negative impact on the lake. MR. THOMAS-I’ll put yes. MR. STONE-Well, neighbors have expressed concern in the Glen Lake Watershed. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. Lets see, “One or more potential large or significant adverse impacts which may occur?” MR. STONE-No. We have never said a large or significant. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So I’ll check the second box, and that’ll be it for that one. Okay. Having done that, I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 48-1998 JANET LEDFORD , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 94 Ash Drive. The applicant proposes construction, to convert a two family building into a three family building. In doing so, the applicant requests relief from the WR-1A zone requirements, 62 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) Section 179-16, to have a multifamily dwelling. Additionally, the applicant requests relief for expansion of a nonconforming building, under Section 179-79. The existing building consists of two apartments, and there are two other homes on the parcel, which is approximately 39,200 square feet in size. On the first issue, can the applicant realize a reasonable return provided the lack of return is substantial, as demonstrated by competent financial evidence? It is my finding that the alleged lack of reasonable return is not substantial, and has not necessarily been demonstrated by competent financial evidence. There’s been no showing that Ms. Ledford has been deprived of all economic use or benefit. The profit and loss statement given to us indicates that there may be a present loss, but this is not necessarily so, given the fact that she is earning in equity in the property approximately $10,000 per year, taking that into account, there would be a net profit to the property. In addition, there’s some question as to whether or not it might be possible for Ms. Ledford to refinance the property, resulting in a significant reduction in her monthly mortgage payment, such that there would be a significant increase in her income, resulting in no loss, in fact a substantial return. There’s also no proof of value of the property, or proof as to what exactly her equity is in the property, either by appraisal or other competent evidence. So we don’t also know what kind of return she might receive, should she choose to sell the property. There’s been no showing of no reasonable return with respect to the current use, as a nonconforming use, or with respect to all permitted uses within the WR-1A zone requirements. The hardship relating to the property unique in the sense that this was once a commercial property, a casino, and is not suited for single family dwellings, which are the permitted uses within the zone. Nonetheless, there are two apartments in the building, and there are two other home which are rented on the same parcel, and that should be taken into consideration when you consider the uniqueness of this property. Will the requested Use Variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? It is my finding that it will. Moderate impacts could be anticipated as a result of increasing the use, and those impacts would involved Glen Lake, the Glen Lake Watershed, the Critical Environmental Area and the water frontage along Glen Lake. There are concerns regarding increasing the intensity of use. There are concerns with respect to sanitation. There are concerns with respect to the use of the lake frontage. Is the alleged hardship self- created? In a sense, Ms. Ledford didn’t create the problem which was occasioned by having to convert a commercial property to residential use, but as far as I can tell, the only reason for not having a greater current reasonable return is the personal financial decisions she made with respect to the income and expenses related to this property. So in my judgment, it is a self-created problem which could be remedied by balancing the equity she is putting into the building against the current income which she might be able to use to offset expenses. I also find that her personal ability to finance these properties is not a factor that we should consider, and on balance, I would move that the Use Variance be denied. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter th MR. THOMAS-The variance is denied. We have minutes from June 24. CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 24, 1998: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 1998 AS PRINTED , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter MR. THOMAS-There, that takes care of that sponge. Now, one last thing. Mr. Salvador is still here, so that must mean he has a question. 63 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. STONE-He wants to be on the record about something, I think. I don’t know. MR. MC NALLY-He’s been very patient. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I’ve learned. At Monday night’s Town Board meeting, the Town Board discussed the ZBA’s request that somehow they incorporate into the building permit procedure, the Zoning Ordinance, something that would require a certified survey before the concrete is poured on a development. I guess this is to preclude the sort of thing that happened with Mr. Champagne. You get the building going up in the wrong place and then what the hell do you do about it, and you people are being faced, all the time, with after the fact problems with incorrect setbacks. This subject of setbacks in the Town of Queensbury is finally coming into focus. I’ve been complaining about it for a number of years, and you heard it tonight on two or three of your applications, all turned on setbacks. I’ve taken the trouble to purchase these two books. This is Skelton on legal elements of boundaries and adjacent properties. This is Clark on surveying and boundaries. I think you’ll agree that these are probably the bible for a surveyor, on boundaries, right, these are the bibles, and I’ve got to tell you, we’re not functioning according to the bible. There are two glaring areas where this Town does not recognize the law, the legal law, and this is legal across the Country. It’s not only in New York State or in the Town of Queensbury. These volumes address property boundaries across the Country, and, you know, there’s some uniformity to it. With regard to roads, and the other is shoreline, but with regard to roads, just to pick on Mr. Champagne, if we can, because it’s a perfect case in point, and I don’t even know which of the two roads there, Juniper Drive and Sunnyside North, I don’t know which one he was encroaching on. MR. STONE-He was on Sunnyside North. MR. SALVADOR-Sunnyside North. Okay. The other road there is Juniper Drive. Now both of these roads are so called roads by use. So called roads by use, and we have an Ordinance that says we’re supposed to set back, but we’re not very specific, and I maintain that this tells us we’re supposed to set back from property boundaries, the legal property boundary. It’s the only thing you can measure from. Now, even roads by use have property boundaries, we just don’t want to recognize it. This resolution, No. 270, was passed in 1983, by the Queensbury Town Board, and they say “Whereas, Section 189 of the Highway Law provides that any road used by the public as a highway for a period of 10 years or more shall be a highway with the same force and effect as if it had been duly laid out and recorded as a highway”, and they go on to the next Whereas, but Section 189 has a little more to it than what you read in this resolution. The remaining part of Section 189 of the Highway Law says, “and the Town Superintendent shall open all such highways to a width of at least three rods”. Now, the beginning of Section 189, as I read here, states that “such highway shall be a highway with the same force and effect as if it had been duly laid out”. Do you know what “laid out” means? A drawing, a map, dimensions, locations, and when you lay it out, you’ve got a plan, and when you lay it out, you’ve got a boundary, and the abutting property owner has a reference, a point to measure from. Now Juniper Drive, if you look at the Town Clerk’s record, she has all of this on the computer, the Town Clerk goes in there, Juniper Drive is a two rod road. It can’t be. It just can’t be. You can’t reference Section 189 and call it a two rod road. You can’t do it. “Shall open such highways to a width of at least three rods”, at least three rods. MR. STONE-Which is 49 and a half feet. MR. SALVADOR-That’s right. So, the worst thing that ever happened to us is calling these things Town roads. We begin to think their our roads. The Highway Superintendent talks about my roads. That’s BS. These roads belong to the public. The public in Queensbury, the public in New York State, the public in Connecticut, the public in Mexico, the public in Singi Mingi. They belong to the public, and we have an obligation to keep them open and serviceable and safe on behalf of the public, because they’re doing the same thing for us in their neck of the woods. That’s a right we have. That’s a property right we have. So much for highways. Lake shore, we do the same thing, we setback from the shoreline, and on Lake George I know we call the shoreline 320.2 above mean sea level. You will recall, when I passed this out to you once. Do you recall this? MR. STONE-Thank you, John. MR. THOMAS-If you’ve got extra copies, could you give it over there to Staff. 64 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/31/98) MR. SALVADOR-Now, our Ordinances, the County Tax Maps, everything refers to the apparent shoreline of Lake George, 320.2 above mean sea level. State law, however, the Public Lands Law, Section 15, 15A to be exact, defines that the shoreline at 317.74. That was a legislative enactment that took place in 1963. The State law defined the shoreline of Lake George, excuse me the mean low water mark of Lake George, at 317.74. If you’ll notice on this drawing, that is the demarcation between public land and private land. Now we don’t recognize that there’s a piece of land in there between 317.74 and 320.2. We don’t recognize it in our tax maps. We don’t recognize it in our zoning. We don’t recognize it in our assessments. Now, tonight, you’ve heard an application for a boat dock, something on Assembly Point. If any of that structure is to be placed below 317.74, it triggers this process, this process. You are a part of this process. You’re only a part of it. The Lake George Park Commission is a part of it. The APA is a part of it. The Army Corps of Engineers is a part of it. Okay, but the Major Domo is the agency that has the jurisdiction over those public lands, and we don’t want to recognize that up here, we just don’t want to recognize it, but this is the procedure, and believe me, slowly but surely, everyone is going to get in line. This is one heck of a thing to go through, okay, one heck of a thing to go through. When you occupy the public land, you’ve got to get permission. It’s called an easement, and you know what easements cost to build on, this is the people’s land, and the people will let you occupy their land if you pay for it. That’s what easements are all about, you pay. Now we’re scooting that up here on Lake George. We’re scooting around it. We think we pay a lousy $25 to a Park Commission for a dock fee, we’re home free. That’s only a part of it. That’s only a part of it, and as I say, in the Public Lands Law, that’s been laid out and spelled out, and I think some day we’re going to have to come to grips with it. Now I like your request to the Town Board, requiring that certification, because it’s going to make surveyors do this job right. They know the law. They know the system, but you see if they have to certify a drawing, a foundation location to our Building Department, that puts their work before us, the Town and the people. Right now all a surveyor has to do is certify for his client. Well, some of these surveyors will give them anything the client wants, make it convenient, okay, and it stands up as being holy, but if they’ve got to certify to the Town, then there’s liability involved if it’s not right, and I like that, and I like that. So that’s all I had to say tonight, if you have any questions. MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for Mr. Salvador? MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-I’ll read you just one sentence here. This is from some kind of a legal document I had. It talks about unconstitutional orders and policies. The seventh circuit of opinion supported the idea that an official could be libel for relying on a statute he should have realized was unconstitutional. Okay. MR. STONE-Thank you, John. MR. THOMAS-I’ll make a motion we adjourn this meeting. MR. STONE-I second it. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 65