Loading...
1998-03-18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 18, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY JOSEPH PORTER ROBERT MC NALLY LEWIS STONE MEMBERS ABSENT PAUL HAYES BRIAN CUSTER OLD BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 68-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-20 JAMES HITCHCOCK AGENT: LARRY CLUTE 373 PINELLO ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF A MOBILE HOME PARK. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THIS REQUIREMENT. TAX MAP NO. 147-1-72 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION 179-19 LARRY CLUTE & JAMES HITCHCOCK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 68-1997, James Hitchcock, Meeting Date: March 18, 1998 Project Location:Description of previously heard on October 29, 1997 “ 373 Pinello Road Proposed Project: Applicant proposes siting a mobile home outside a mobile home park or Relief Required: mobile home overlay district. The proposed project requires relief from the requirements of §179-19: SR-20. Mobile homes are not an allowable use in the SR-20 zoning The applicant for a use variance must satisfy all four (4) of the following criteria for district. the granting of a Use Variance: 1. Can a reasonable return be realized as the property is currently zoned:2. Is the alleged The property could be utilized in a residential manner. hardship unique to the property: The hardship demonstrated by the applicant may be 3. Will the requested variance alter the attributable to the property or zoning restrictions. essential character of the neighborhood?: The area is residential in character, mobile homes and modified homes are the predominant housing type on Pinello Road. Minimal impacts are 4. Is the alleged hardship self-created? anticipated as a result of the proposed action. No Staff comments: comment. As indicated above the applicant must satisfy all of the criteria established for the granting of a Use Variance. The applicant has presented new financial evidence SEQR in support of the application. The minutes of the October 29, 1997 meeting are attached. Status: Unlisted” MR. THOMAS-All right. Larry, do you want to tell us what you intend to do? MR. CLUTE-You have the pictures in front of you. Do you have some pictures? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CLUTE-Okay. I have an existing, I have a ’91 double wide that sits in Northwinds at this point, and my intent would be to bring that on over to Pinello Road, and you have some pictures of another double wide that I had done some modifications to. The same intent would apply to the double wide that I just described. The same intent would apply to the mobile home that I now have in Northwinds as to the pictures that you have there. That’s a different project, those pictures, but you can see the outcome. When completed, you’d be hard pressed to tell that that’s not a stick built, from the street side. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The last time we heard this, the big hang up was the financial hardship. Did you want to talk about that? 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. CLUTE-All right. The dollars and cents over there, I think it’s pretty self-explanatory, if you drive the neighborhood. First off, just the assessed value, of Queensbury’s assessed value, if you did an assessment of just that street, it’s assessed roughly averaged value of $47,000. Trying to sell a project in that $70,000, $80,000, it’s not going to work. People have to drive by all these mobile homes. They’re not going to sell. I think it’s going to be a hard press to even sell at $60,000, to be honest with you, just with the character of the neighborhood. In this particular situation, I mean, I live it in my neighborhood. You slowly have to upgrade the neighborhood to increase the values to get any kind of re-sale. So, I mean, I gave you a quick breakdown as to what say a stick built would cost and the overall value, you know, what it would overall cost to put on to that lot, and then I gave you the cost of the double wide that I now have and what it’s overall cost would be. Significant difference. MR. THOMAS-So we’re looking at about a, what, a $20,000 difference? MR. CLUTE-A $20,000 difference. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The 24 by 40 ranch, it’s, what 800 square feet? MR. STONE-Nine hundred and sixty. MR. THOMAS-Yes, about a 1,000 square feet. MR. CLUTE-It’s just about 1,000 square foot, three bedroom, one bath, and to be honest with you, the stick built, once you see, I mean, if the trailer is done to the specs that I described, the two, appearance wise from the street, would be identical. You’d be hard pressed to tell that it was a double wide, once I’m through with it, but the costs are, obviously, significantly different. MR. THOMAS-What’s the square footage on that double wide? MR. CLUTE-That’s a 24 by 40 as well. MR. THOMAS-24 by 40. So they’re the same exact size. MR. CLUTE-The same, yes. The only difference is, is that the trailer actually tends to be, for even less money, the trailer’s going to be more of a product. As you see the notes that I have just got, this home is a three bed, two bath, the double wide that I have, and in the overall price, it comes with appliances. I know none of this matters, but it does create a dollar value. It will have a front porch on it. It will also have a rear deck on it, whereas the other, the stick built house, no front porch, no rear deck, no appliances, just a brand new home, that’s all, still $20,000 difference. So the trailer actually, ultimately, overall, will be more of a value. MR. THOMAS-On that stick built house, are the foundations the same, crawl spaces? MR. CLUTE-No. The foundation is full. That’s the difference. The trailer is on crawl, four foot crawl space. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the stick built’s on a full foundation? MR. CLUTE-The stick built’s on a full. That’s the difference between the two, yes. The trailer’s expensive to put onto a full foundation. That’s an expensive task. It can be done, but that’s a bit outrageous. MR. THOMAS-But then again, too, you wouldn’t be able to tell, with a four foot, with a crawl space. MR. CLUTE-No, you’re not. From the road, you’re going to see concrete. It’s going to look like a full foundation. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and are the axles and the under carriage? MR. CLUTE-No, they get removed. They get pulled right out. MR. THOMAS-The axles get removed? MR. CLUTE-Yes. You can’t move this once it’s, once I do what I do to them, you can’t move it. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. THOMAS-You set it in place? MR. CLUTE-It’s there. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any more questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-I have a couple of questions. One, the garage. MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. STONE-When was it built? MR. CLUTE-To be honest with you, I really don’t know. Mr. Hitchcock might know better than I. He built it. MR. HITCHCOCK-It was started in 1989, completed in 1991. MR. STONE-Okay. So it looks by your numbers that it’s oversized. MR. HITCHCOCK-Yes, it is. It’s 1,008 square feet. They let me get a variance to build it. We were only allowed 900 square feet without the variance. MR. STONE-Correct. You did get a variance? MR. HITCHCOCK-Yes, I did. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions from the Board members? MR. MC NALLY-I did. If I look at the photographs that you attached to the application, I see two different mobile homes, if I’m not mistaken. One which I think is your home, the first photograph? MR. CLUTE-I no longer own either one. It’s, actually, you’re backing up what I’m describing. They’re the same home. They’re the same home, and so you just kind of helped me. MR. MC NALLY-Are they? You indicated that you were going to put a front and back porch on this proposed mobile home. MR. CLUTE-On the new one, absolutely. MR. MC NALLY-And would that be in accordance with the one that’s shown in the first photograph here? MR. CLUTE-Right. The first photograph is what this came out looking like. This is the double wide as it started. This is what it looked like after it was done. MR. MC NALLY-But that’s what you’re proposing on this project? MR. CLUTE-This is exactly, right, same appearance, front porch, reverse gable, yes. Actually, the set up of the property would be roughly the same, because it’s a detached garage, two car. So roughly it would look the same as this. MR. STONE-The house across the street, is that a stick built? MR. CLUTE-It is. MR. STONE-So at the end of the road, if you take the last three properties, stick built across the street, this vacant lot, and the one to the extreme end of the road, that’s a mobile home? MR. CLUTE-There’s, the two last homes on the end of the street, whether it’s right or left, are single wide trailers. MR. STONE-There were two there that I didn’t really notice. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. CLUTE-Right. If you go right to the end of the dead end, two single wides. Move back, second lot on the right hand side is the vacant lot I’m describing. Second lot on the left hand side is a stick built colonial. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’ll give you, right now it’s one stick built, and two, on the end of the road. MR. CLUTE-Single wides, correct. MR. STONE-And we could balance that off if we forced you to put a stick built there. MR. CLUTE-Well, yes. MR. STONE-In terms of upgrading the neighborhood. I mean, it is one of the concerns. That’s why we have zoning, is to attempt to bring the neighborhood into compliance. MR., CLUTE-I completely understand. MRS. LAPHAM-Larry, how many stick built homes are there on that street? MR. CLUTE-Out of 31, there’s a total of three. That’s on the notes here. So, 87% of the homes are trailers. MR. MC NALLY-You indicated the average assessed value is $47,000? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-What were the extremes? MR. CLUTE-The highest is the stick built colonial across the street. That’s assessed at $105,000. The lowest would be $5600. MR. MC NALLY-And would that be one of the mobile homes that are toward Corinth Road? MR. CLUTE-It is, toward the face, yes. So it’s quite a sweep. MR. STONE-I’m told, and this is hearsay, but let me put it on the table, that you have been on record as opposing mobile homes, in neighborhoods where you have been involved. MR. CLUTE-Yes. I’m very much against the single wides. As a builder, I mean, there’s a lot of criteria. I’m forced, as a builder, stick built homes, to abide by X codes, and I build them pretty solid. All builders, you have to build by New York State Code. Well, these single wide trailers, or trailers, period. Actually, the double wides are getting much better, but the single wides are brought in. They don’t have to meet any kind of Codes. I call them temporary housing, for all intents and purposes, that’s exactly what they are. Twenty years, they’re gone. They are not there any more, and they just fall apart, and neighborhoods with them. It’s quite evident, it’s hard to keep up on them. They’re an expensive, the people are under the illusion that that’s an inexpensive home, but in reality, once into them, they’re a very expensive home, because the upkeep on them are phenomenal. MR. STONE-You said single wide. You’re saying double wide are not? MR. CLUTE-Double wides are easier to maintain, you can dress, I can dress them out, or actually, a homeowner can. It’s very easy. The main thing about a double wide is put a roof on the darn thing. Get the three twelve off of the double wide and put a roof on it. That in itself, and create some overhang. That in itself changes the whole appearance of the home, plus gets the weight off of it, you know, the snow loads off of them. I don’t know how they get away with what they get away with. That’s why I’m so against mobile homes. I just don’t know how they get away with it. A three twelve pitch, I mean, everything is sitting there. So in the winter, the North Country winters, it just beats the tar out of these homes. They’re just not built to tolerate this, but yet they’re put in on a daily basis. So, yes, I’m definitely against them. I live this. I mean, this isn’t where I personally live. MR. STONE-I understand. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. CLUTE-But in my neighborhood I live exactly Pinello Road, and I can understand the concerns of the neighbors. I mean, that’s what I live with on a daily basis, and I constantly. It’s a give and take. You’ve got to kind of foresee, I mean, you want to, like this here. You bring in a double wide. I’ll probably be assessed at 60K, well, that’s going to raise that assessed value. So, it’s a slow process to bring a neighborhood from single wide trailers, predominant, to stick builts. Just because we came in and did a sweep, no more trailers, obviously, it’s not going to correct that. So it takes a working effort on an owner or developer such as myself, Queensbury, and the neighbors. They have to be, have to handshake. MR. STONE-Is the garage stick built? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s what it appeared to be. MR. CLUTE-Yes. It’s commercial oriented. It looks, it’s very big. It looks commercial from the street. It’s a nice garage. MR. MC NALLY-You said it was a four foot crawl space. How is that constructed? What’s involved in a four foot crawl space? MR. CLUTE-It’s the same as an eight foot foundation except it’s four foot walls versus eight foot walls. MR. MC NALLY-So you have a footing? MR. CLUTE-Yes, absolutely. You have a footing. You have four foot worth of concrete walls, and you have a slab. MR. MC NALLY-Would they be poured walls or concrete? MR. CLUTE-Poured. I pour my walls. Well, no, in this here I have to block it because the thing with a trailer is you literally, you pour the slab, and you pour the slab extremely heavy, thick. You drag the home onto it, jack it up, three to four foot, I mean, I can’t pour, obviously. The home’s in the way. So I have to block for these projects. This home is blocked, and my stick built I pour them. MR. STONE-Yes, but the crawl space is on a slab? MR. CLUTE-Absolutely, and you get underneath these. That’s another thing about a mobile home, too. You drag a mobile home. A lot of them are just sitting on footings, you know, and then they’re skirted with this vinyl, whatever. To maintain these is a nightmare. You pull your vinyl off. You climb underneath it, water lines freeze. It’s just, it’s a pain. It’s temporary housing. Whereas this here, you’ve got an access door. You crawl underneath it. It’s four foot worth of space. I mean, it’s still not as comfortable as eight foot, obviously, but it’s a lot easier. It’s clean. You’re not on the ground, and it’s easy to access everything. All the plumbing is right there. There’s no way it’s going to freeze because it’s solid block now, versus vinyl skirting, so to speak, or plywood. I mean, some people just use plywood as skirting. So it’s pretty solid. MR. MC NALLY-And you’re going to pour a concrete floor? MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. I pour the floor first, and you drag the trailer onto the floor. Once the trailer’s on the floor, then you simply block to the trailer. MR. STONE-Is there heat down there? You’re saying it doesn’t freeze. MR. CLUTE-No, it doesn’t. Well, it’s just like most basements in any stick built home. You don’t have to heat it. It’ll maintain a certain temperature because your ductwork’s down there. Well, a trailer’s no different. It’s going to stay roughly 50 degrees down there in the winter. It’s not going to get to freezing underneath the trailer with block, because the ductwork is there, too, just like a stick built home. So it’ll keep a fairly decent temperature. It won’t get under freezing underneath the trailer. MR. STONE-Chris, let me ask you a question. You wrote mobile homes and modified homes. What do you mean by that? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. ROUND-Well, I guess a lot of the homes, when I went down to the neighborhood, that a lot of them are mobile homes, or even older, before you called a mobile home a mobile home, they’re more single wide trailers that have modifications to them, whether they’re completely modified to meet building code, I didn’t do that kind of an assessment, but. MR. MC NALLY-Those were the ones where they built stick built structures and attached? MR. ROUND-Stick built structures, and minor attachment to the structures or a roof structure on top of them, or some other modification. MR. STONE-It’s not a term of our Code? MR. ROUND-No, no, it’s a loose usage of. MRS. LAPHAM-It’s a loose way of describing things. MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-No, not really. MR. THOMAS-Okay. 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 GAIL MOREHOUSE MRS. MOREHOUSE-Not really opposed. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, if you want to come forward, state your name, and we’ll listen to what you have to say. MRS. MOREHOUSE-My name’s Gail Morehouse. I just have a question. Once this is passed, he can’t deviate from what he’s doing? He can’t drag a single wide in there? MR. THOMAS-No. MRS. MOREHOUSE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Because the resolution, when it’s made, will be very specific, as what will and won’t. MRS. MOREHOUSE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-As to what will go in there. We can’t say what won’t go in there, but what we will allow, and we’re going to use this picture right here as almost like a basis, as to what it’s going to look like. MRS. MOREHOUSE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Because that’s what he stated. That’s what Mr. Clute has stated that it’s going to look like is that picture right there, when everything is said and done. MRS. MOREHOUSE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay? MRS. MOREHOUSE-Yes. MR. STONE-Is that Exhibit A we’re talking about, Chris? MR. THOMAS-There’s no number on it, or letter. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak opposed? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. MC NALLY-Do you put the slab down, put the walls up and back fill it two feet, so it’s two feet below grade? MR. CLUTE-I put the slab down, drag the home into it, block it, then back fill. So the actual foundation, I mean, some of the crawl space, just like a normal house. Crawl space is, some of it’s underground. Well, that would apply in this case, too. MR. STONE-In this case it’s underground, not eight feet but four feet. MR. THOMAS-Well, no, it’s under two feet. Because you put the slab on top MR. CLUTE-Two foot to thirty inches below grade. MR. THOMAS-You put the slab on top of the ground, come up four foot with the walls, then you back fill against the walls two feet, and you slope it down. MR. CLUTE-Right. Well, I actually dig in. I’ll dig a slight hole, two foot, and pour a slab. So the lot will look nice and level. It will look just like I came in there and did a stick built home. It’ll be clean. MR. THOMAS-Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed? Would anyone else like to say anything about this project? BRIAN BENJAMIN MR. BENJAMIN-I would, if nobody else does. Yes. My name is Brian Benjamin. I’ve go the house on the end of the street, and my question was just, how many feet off the road is it going to be? MR. CLUTE-I roughed it out, doing this here. I’d probably set it back at least 50 feet. MR. STONE-Well, it has to be 30 by Code. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it would have to be set back. MR. STONE-He’s got it set for 50 in this drawing. MR. BENJAMIN-I didn’t see the drawing. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-He’s showing it 50. MR. BENJAMIN-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anyone else? Mr. Hitchcock? Since you are the property owner, I guess you do get a chance. MR. HITCHCOCK-I don’t believe I do own the property. Thanks to you people, I had to cut the price and loose a lot of money at it. Originally, I was for Larry. I had come on to something the other day which, I want to bring it to the Town Board, or the variance board. Number One, all right. I’ll going to ask the Board members, how many went to inspect this property prior to the first variance meeting, so they knew the circumstances before the meeting? I would like this recorded as a yes or no, who it was, and so forth, for the minutes of the meeting. th MR. THOMAS-Did everyone that was on the Board at the time of the October 29 meeting visit the property? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. STONE-I did not because I knew I would not be at that meeting. MR. THOMAS-And I was also there. MR. HITCHCOCK-Okay. Would you mention which names were and which names weren’t? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. THOMAS-Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas. I don’t know about the other two. I can’t speak for them, and I’m not going to speak for them. They’re not here. MR. ROUND-Yes. There’s two members that are not here, and there’s also a member that’s no longer a member of the Board. So there’s three people that are here that are represented tonight. MR. HITCHCOCK-These members that you just mentioned did go out and visit the property? MR. THOMAS-Three of us were there at the property, yes. MR. HITCHCOCK-Okay, and which members did not? MR. STONE-I did not because I was not here for the meeting. I would have gone. I go to every piece of property in meetings I know I’m going to be at. MR. HITCHCOCK-Okay. You refused to look at two dozen photos from Marian Marcy which is my agent, which she had with her the night of the variance, which was the first rejection. Is this correct? She had them right here. She offered to show them to anybody that wanted them, and nobody wanted to look at them. MR. THOMAS-I don’t remember, to tell you the truth. MR. HITCHCOCK-It must be in the minutes of the meeting. MR. THOMAS-It must be. I don’t have the minutes of the meeting here with me. Do you have them? MR. ROUND-There may be a set in the box. MR. STONE-Here’s the motion. That’s all. I don’t have the other one. MR. THOMAS-No, I don’t have that either. MR. STONE-Yes, you do. It’s in your. MR. THOMAS-Well, yes, I’ve got the motion, but I don’t have the. MRS. LAPHAM-We really don’t have the minutes. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. HITCHCOCK-So there’s no way you can answer this tonight? MR. THOMAS-I can’t answer for you right now, no. MR. HITCHCOCK-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Is this pertinent to this application? I don’t mind going over history. MR. HITCHCOCK-Yes, it is. This is several pages long, but when it’s done, I’ll prove the reason for all these questions, okay. MR. MC NALLY-What is the point you’re trying to make? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Lets here what the point. MR. HITCHCOCK-I’ll prove this at the end. MR. THOMAS-No, you tell us what the point is now. MR. HITCHCOCK-No, I’m not going to tell you what the point is now. MR. THOMAS-All right, then I’m going to cut you off. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. HITCHCOCK-You’re not aware of what’s going on here. MR. THOMAS-All I know is Mr. Clute asked to have this hearing re-heard, last month. He came in, gave us the evidence. We all agreed to re-hear this. Mr. Clute is here. We’ve re-heard it. We’re taking public comment now. We’re not sitting here to be judged or to be asked questions. MR. HITCHCOCK-Okay. If I prove why I’m bringing this up, can I ask the questions? MR. THOMAS-You tell us why, and I’ll let you go on. If it has anything to do with the legal. MR. MC NALLY-If we’re just hashing last October’s hearing. I don’t think that’s appropriate, but if you do have something to add as to this hearing, then we would like to hear it. MR. HITCHCOCK-How can a property be offered for sale back in February, before it was ever approved? MR. THOMAS-How could a property be offered for sale before it was approved? MR. HITCHCOCK-It was back in February where it’s listed in the real estate books and so forth, at $69,900 with a ’91 modular home on it. There’s nothing on it today. How can you list something for sale before it’s ever been approved? MR. THOMAS-That I couldn’t tell you. That’s not our bailiwick. MR. CLUTE-But it’s mine. It’s listed for $69,900, and if I get a client that calls me up and asks me about that $69,900, I say that it’s contingent upon this meeting right here. I can advertise anything I wish. I have to be able to produce it. If a customer calls me, I simply say, I can produce it, but you’re going to have to wait until this hearing right here. MR. ROUND-It’s called speculation. MR. CLUTE-It’s that simple, but that’s standard practice. I advertise a lot of “to be builts”, buildings that aren’t standing. I may not even build the ones that I have listed. I may build something that somebody else requests. I mean, somebody may show up and tell me they don’t want that double wide, they want a stick built. I’ll take it, but I’ll advertise. I always advertise right away, as soon as I can. It’s just good business practice. MR. HITCHCOCK-Do I get to go on or not? MR. THOMAS-I don’t see any point here, but you might as well. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. MR. HITCHCOCK-How many people went up to inspect the property before this meeting? I’d like this documented. MR. STONE-I did. MR. THOMAS-Lets see, Mr. Porter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Stone. MRS. LAPHAM-I didn’t because I saw it the last time and I’m very familiar with the property and where it is. I do appraisals all over Queensbury. So I didn’t think I needed to do it again. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. HITCHCOCK-Seeing as how most of you have been up there, or all of you have been up there, which piece of property has a blue tarp on it for a roof and has had for at least a year? MR. THOMAS-We’re not going to sit here and play 69 questions. This is a Zoning Board of Appeals hearing. We’re not going to sit here and answer silly questions, just for some point you want to prove because somebody’s got this thing advertised for $69,900. I’m sorry, Mr. Hitchcock, that’s it. I’m going to close the public hearing. Is there any correspondence? MRS. HITCHCOCK-I have a question. May I speak? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. ROUND-Yes. I guess I would add, in support of that, is if you’re questioning the judgment or a decision at a previous meeting, there’s avenues to do that. This is, the subject of this hearing is the application in front of us and not previous, a previous decision. This is considered a new application because there’s substantially additional information to make a judgment, and the Board, last month, was presented additional information and they thought that there was sufficient evidence to re-hear it. They haven’t made a decision on the application yet, either. I would just give you that much information as well. MR. HITCHCOCK-But doesn’t it seem to you, if anybody went up and inspected it, they’d know which roof had a blue tarp over it? MR. ROUND-Well, I’ve been there at least five times, and I couldn’t tell you that, because I’ve been on a couple of complaints on Pinello Road. I’ve been to at least to your site three times, and I don’t know that. MR. HITCHCOCK-Do you want to answer that, Larry? MR. CLUTE-To be honest with you, I have no clue which one has the blue tarp on it. MR. HITCHCOCK-It’s the one next door. MR. THOMAS-It has nothing to do with this hearing. MR. ROUND-Yes. If you have comment on the application, you know, I’d encourage you to provide comment, but if you’re, if you have a grievance with a previous determination, then there’s a different avenue. Now is not the time to address that. MR. HITCHCOCK-Well, the thing of it is, I was refused because of the impact that it would have on the land, in other words environment. How could you possibly refuse somebody when there’s already a blue tarp over the roof which has been on there for a year, and anything you put in there has got to be an improvement over something that has a blue tarp on it. NANCY HEWITT MRS. HEWITT-You can’t see that from the road. MR. ROUND-Again, if you’re questioning the decision of a previous, you know, your previous determination back in October, there’s a means to address that determination, whether it’s an appeal of the Zoning Board through the Town Board, or an Article 78 proceeding. There’s other avenues to proceed, but what they’re hearing is the application today, not a previous decision. MR. HITCHCOCK-How many of you Board members would put a stick built house on this, with the surrounding like Larry mentioned? MR. ROUND-Are you directing that question to the Board? MR. HITCHCOCK-Any or all. MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask, Mr. Hitchcock, are you unhappy because you had to sell the property? Did you sell the property? MR. HITCHCOCK-Yes, I did. MR. MC NALLY-And now that Mr. Clute is here, you think it’s unfair because he’s come up with a new application? MR. HITCHCOCK-No. I told him the other day I was 100% for it, until I find out where he’s turned around and got it listed. He’s already telling what’s going to go on there, and he doesn’t know if he’s going to get approval to put this on there or not, but he’s got it listed as such. I assume he owns the place which is going on here. So, bottom line is, how does he know what he can put on here, or even dare to even speculate as to the year or whatever, and which we turn around, Marian Marcy, as if there’s any stipulations anybody would like to add, like possibly a new mobile home, or a new double wide or anything, and nobody wanted to add any stipulations. So we couldn’t even as much as get it passed if stipulations were added as far as a new mobile 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) home, or a new double wide, and all of a sudden there’s a possibility where a used one is going to be on there and that’s going to be fine? MRS. HEWITT-I was there at the last meeting. I’m the one that opposed, and I’m the one in the colonial house, and you didn’t say you were going to do a single in there, and I didn’t want. MR. THOMAS-No, this has got to go on the record, and there are people going back and forth. It just isn’t going to get in there. MRS. HEWITT-If you (lost word) the property, why, you don’t even live on Pinello Road. MR. HITCHCOCK-Nancy’s the one that raised the most cane before, and yet she had her property up for sale and couldn’t sell it. MR. MC NALLY-I think your application was denied, sir. MR. HITCHCOCK-That’s right. MR. MC NALLY-We don’t have the minutes here, but we do have the resolution, and if I recollect correctly, you came forward with no financial proof, which requires actual figures and numbers, as one of the four criteria for granting a Use Variance. I think we also objected to your application because you really came forward with no proof as to exactly what you were going to put there, whether it was a single wide or what not. Now, certainly we could have suggested things, but normally we don’t. We require the applicant to say what their plans are. So given that we felt that there was no firm plan, and that there were no financial figures given, which is absolutely required for the granting of a Use Variance, at that time, sir, the application was not successful. So there was a distinction in what you presented, and there is a distinction, whether or not it will pass, as to what Mr. Clute is presenting today, too. MR. HITCHCOCK-All right. Did I not submit several site plans of different possibilities what could be put on there with the proper setbacks? MR. STONE-Mr. Hitchcock, let me make it very clear what Mr. McNally is trying to say. A Use Variance it is a very difficult variance for us to grant, because we have very little latitude in making our decision. There are four elements, four criteria that must be satisfied. All four. In an Area Variance, we have a lot more latitude. We can say, this is not pertinent. This is not very important as far as the variance is concerned, but here, on a Use Variance, and that’s what you were applying for, financial, the question is, can a reasonable return be realized as the property is currently zoned? You, I understand, I wasn’t here, but apparently, according to my fellow Board members, you did not provide any kind of financial information. That is, right then and there, it’s turned down. MR. ROUND-Yes. One criteria alone, and the other point is I think there was a lot of public opposition because of the lack of clarity of your presentation, and the Board felt, and I guess it’s my recollection, the Board felt that there was negative impacts associated with the proposal as you submitted it that night, and there was a two tests. So, I mean, they have to satisfy all four tests. The Board has not made a judgment whether all four tests have been satisfied tonight, and, again, but I’m glad to entertain this discussion, and it’s at the Chairman’s discretion, but we’ve got an application in front of us, and if you’ve got a grievance, or you’ve got an issue with a denial previously, you have the opportunity to re-present an application, if you had substantially or materially different information to add, and you chose not to. That’s where we’re at tonight, and I think that’s all we have to say in regards to the previous application. MR. HITCHCOCK-After the meeting, there was a few of you, including yourself, which we talked to outside and asked what we needed and so forth, and you were very reluctant to answer the question as to what was needed to come back in and re-open this and so forth. All right. So, the bottom line is, we didn’t know for sure exactly what we needed. Even Marian Marcy walked out of here not knowing exactly what was required. When a trailer was originally removed, it was never mentioned whatsoever. I was never notified or whatever, at any point in time, this is no longer grandfathered in. So, until this came about, and we applied to do something with this, we didn’t know that this was not grandfathered in, due to the fact you don’t inform anybody. MR. ROUND-Again, this is not the forum to address concerns that you have with a previous application or removal of your trailer, and if you want to discuss it with me tomorrow during business hours, I’d be happy to discuss it with you. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. HITCHCOCK-Tomorrow isn’t going to make any difference. I’ve sold the property, but I just want everybody to know right here what the circumstances were. In other words, myself, seeing how the people don’t know which one has a blue tarp on it, evidently, they didn’t look very close, if they looked at all. Marian Marcy had pictures which showed this, but nobody was interested in looking at them, and yet the concern was whether they put a new mobile home, a new double wide or whatever on there, why not bring up the value of the property because she even said there could be criteria added, at your discretion, whatever you wanted, as to the year and so forth added, and nobody offered to add anything. They just wanted to reject it. MR. ROUND-Again, the four tests were not met to the satisfaction of the Board, and whether it was because they didn’t want to look at photos. That’s one question, if they didn’t, if you didn’t present clear financial evidence, that’s in the application. I’ve got to believe that you were instructed that that was a requirement of part of the application process, and I really, I think we’re laboring here on this discussion. We’re not going anywhere with this. I don’t think we’re going to resolve anything to your satisfaction tonight, and I’d direct the Chairman to move along, as far as the application is concerned. MR. THOMAS-I’m ready to move along. Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. HITCHCOCK-One last question. Did I not make several trips to see you personally, asking you what was required? MR. ROUND-Yes, you did. I am to assist an applicant, and to give you instruction, and if I’ve failed you, in as far as giving you satisfactory instruction, so be it, and there’s, I cannot complete an application for you. I am not a consultant to provide you with information in support of your application. I can give you all kinds of guidance, but if you don’t do it, you’re responsible, as an applicant, to present an application to the Zoning Board. I can provide you with assistance, and I thought I did. Because your application is not successful, it’s not, doesn’t fall back on me. It falls back on the applicant. I can’t predict the way a Board is going to react or decide a particular application. That’s all I have to say, and I’d encourage you to talk to me during business hours. MR. HITCHCOCK-No. I’ve got a better suggestion, I’m not going to deal with the Town of Queensbury anymore in any way, shape or form, but in the future, you can count on, if different things which slip by the Town and so forth, I’m going to be aware of, and the proper people are going to be notified. As far as favoritism here and so on, I think it’s totally unreal. That’s all I’ve got to say. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-All right. Lets talk about this. Mr. Stone? MR. STONE-I have a number of concerns. The financial one. I mean, I hear you’re saying that to build a stick built home, it’s going to cost $80,000. MR. CLUTE-Sure. MR. STONE-To build, to put on this two wide, it’s approximately $60,000. I’m rounding off numbers. MR. CLUTE-Sure. MR. STONE-That’s fine, but that doesn’t say that you couldn’t put a stick built home on this property and use it as a home, and it’s a very difficult test for us when it comes to residential property. This, I mean, as we say, can not realize a reasonable return substantial as shown by competent financial evidence. That, to me, when you’re talking about a private home, it’s a very difficult test to meet, because a home is a home. You live in it. It protects you from the elements. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) It keeps you warm. It keeps you dry, and a home is a home. You can build a home on that piece of property as it is currently zoned. MR. CLUTE-Right. MR. STONE-To me, you haven’t offered enough evidence that says you can’t do it and sell the property. You mentioned re-sale, and that’s an important consideration for anybody buying a piece of property, but it’s like I used to say to a lot of people, young women who would come to me and say, I’m getting married for the first time. I said, that is not a positive statement. You are getting married. It may be for the first time, but hopefully it’s forever. When you buy a house, supposedly, it’s for a long time. So, I’m concerned. I want to listen to the rest of the Board members. The character of the neighborhood is certainly going to be improved more by a stick built. I hear your argument about a two wide modular done well, the way you do them, is certainly going to be a start up that ladder, and I appreciate that, but I’m still concerned about the financials, at the moment. MR. CLUTE-I understand. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I made the motion, when Mr. Hitchcock had his motion, to deny it. This application is different. I think that Mr. Clute has done a decent job demonstrating to my satisfaction that the essential character of the neighborhood will not be harmed or changed by his proposal, provided that it, in fact, is completed in the manner that he has proposed. I did not believe that a single wide or just a generic mobile home placed on this site would be appropriate, because while there are certainly mobile homes on the street, at least at that end of the street, there were double wides. There were stick builts, and there were homes of a character suggesting that the area was being improved slowly but surely. This application provides us with more essential information concerning the four foot crawl space or a concrete with a slab floor. He’s proposed constructing front and back porches, which gables fronting the street at least, and perhaps the back. He’s indicated he’s going to place the unit further back from the street than required under the zoning code, pursuant to his drawings. You’re going to put a five twelve pitch roof on the building? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-As opposed to the one that would normally be with a mobile home. These things indicate that the neighborhood is not going to be harmed, that the essential character of the neighborhood would be the same, and it probably would be approved. Is the hardship unique to the property? I have to say that I think that it is. The circumstances are such that that garage is built and adds to the value of the property, such that it’s not likely, at least in my opinion, that anyone is going to be able to buy it, and a return be realized from that garage, and the last comment, is the alleged hardship self-created? I don’t necessarily think so, but Lew Stone’s comment about a reasonable return is troubling, and I’d like to have his fortune of saying I’d like to hear from everyone else, but I guess I’m the second of five. Your financials are kind of interesting. You’ve provided certain financial information regarding the costs of putting a mobile home on versus the costs of putting a stick built home on, and you’ve compared the two values. I don’t know, and I don’t know if that means necessarily from the information he’s provided, that there is no reasonable return from any use of this property. Your point that houses vary in price from $105,000 to $5.6 thousand, tells that there’s a big variation on the street. Someone bought a house for $105,000. So presumably someone can buy it for $79,800. MR. CLUTE-No. They didn’t spend $105,000. They’re assessed at $105,000. MR. MC NALLY-But that, again, is of some concern. Generally, though, I am in favor of this, except for the financials, and I would like to hear the last three members of this Board before I make a decision. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I actually was in favor of this before and I am now, even more so, because I think financial information has been provided that does show, yes, you could build a home, Lew, and put it there, but that doesn’t mean that the property owner, Larry, is going to make a profit doing that. He will probably make a profit if he does the double wide, as he intends, and that’s, that’s been my experience as an appraiser, and from looking at the street in question, and I think 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) he’s going to upgrade the neighborhood from the way it has been. I do think the hardship is, all right, the property can be utilized in a residential manner, but it can be utilized in a residential manner with a double wide that looks like a stick built house, and when he gets finished, it probably will. Is the alleged hardship unique to the property? Yes. It’s surrounded by mobile homes of one sort or another, and this is a start toward, you know, bringing the property up a little bit, and the hardship demonstrated by the applicant is attributable to zoning restrictions, the restrictions against double wides or single wides, when most of the street is that way, and the same would go for the essential character of the neighborhood. So, as I said, I’m in favor of this, because I think it will upgrade the property, and I think it will be an improvement over what’s there now, and I really don’t think he could put a stick built house there and realize a profit, particularly when you get into the differentials between what it would cost a stick built and what it would cost to put a double wide there. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Joe, have you got any comment you want to make on this? MR. PORTER-No, basically, I’m pretty much in favor of the lady that spoke last there. I think he’s met the requirements, as far as his obligation and what he’s trying to do with the neighborhood. It’s just a period of time before you’ll see that transition will go throughout the neighborhood. That’s the only thing you can really see. MR. THOMAS-I agree with Bonnie on this one. I think Mr. Clute has shown that the Number Three, that the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. An existing double wide that’s put on there and made to look like a stick built house will blend in with that, well, it won’t blend in with the neighborhood, but it will appear to be upgrading the neighborhood on that particular piece of property. If you look at the pictures that the applicant presented, and he states that he’s going to build it just like this, it is very difficult to tell, if not impossible to tell, that this is a double wide versus being a stick built house. The hardship is unique, in that this is in the SR-20 zone, and before the zoning was changed, single wide trailers were allowed in there, and the hardship hasn’t been self-created. It’s just the fact that there was a single wide trailer on there and it was taken off. So that right there meant the grandfathering was lost on that property. So, having said that, the two members that were questioning, are you ready to vote? MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. STONE-I’m ready to vote. MR. THOMAS-Would someone like to make a motion? MR. MC NALLY-I will. MR. HITCHCOCK-May I ask one more question or say one more thing, first? MR. THOMAS-Go ahead. MR. HITCHCOCK-The garage which I built, which is on the property, has got a five twelve pitched roof. It doesn’t make any difference whether it’s a three twelve or a five twelve, as long as it’s got shingles, it has to be shoveled off. You can ask Roger Morehouse who’s sitting right there how many times that roof has been shoveled off due to severe snow. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Go ahead and make your motion. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 68-1997 JAMES HITCHCOCK , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: The applicant proposes siting a mobile home outside a mobile home park or a mobile home overlay district. The proposed project requires relief from the requirements of Section 179-19, SR-20. Mobile homes are not allowed uses in an SR-20 zoning district. In this case, Mr. Clute has presented to us financial information establishing to the satisfaction of the Board that a reasonable return could not be realized unless he places on the property a double wide in accordance with the plans that he’s proposed, and if he does so, the property can then be used in a residential manner. The alleged hardship is unique to the property, as our Mr. Chairman has mentioned, due to the fact that this property had historically been zoned for mobile homes and was changed after which a single wide mobile home was removed from the property. The surrounding area is primarily used by mobile homes, although the neighborhood is improving. Will the requested variance alter the 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) essential character of the neighborhood? The area is residential in character, with mobile homes and modified homes being predominant housing on the road. It’s the Board’s opinion that minimal impacts will be anticipated as a result of the proposed action, and in fact it might even be an improvement, provided the construction is built in accordance with Mr. Clute’s application. Finally, is the alleged hardship self created? No, but I do believe that this application, my motion, is contingent upon Mr. Clute or whoever else uses this property to construct the mobile home, constructing the double wide as the proposal in this application sets forth, and that should be a specific condition, and that would include the 24 by 40 foot mobile home, double wide, a four foot crawl space over a concrete floor, cinder block walls, a front and back porch in accordance with the photographs that you’ve indicated, with the gable fronting Pinello Road, a 5/12 pitch roof to take the place of the existing roof on the double wide, the unit is to sit two feet below grade, and it’s to be set back 50 feet from the road, or otherwise sited in accordance with the drawings that you submitted to us, and built in accordance with the drawings you’ve submitted. With that, I’d move that the application be approved. If Mr. Clute does not build a house on this property he has described in this motion, that the variance be withdrawn. If Mr. Clute wants to put anything else up on this property other than what’s been described here, or other than the double wide that he has, that he wants to put up here, that the variance will be null and void or rescinded. th Duly adopted this 18 day of March, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Porter, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Custer MR. THOMAS-Four, that just passes it through. Okay. So any deviation it becomes null and void. Okay? MR. CLUTE-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1998 TYPE II WR-1A JON AND SUSAN DOUGHER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 122 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO BUILD A 2 CAR GARAGE WHICH REQUIRES RELIEF FROM HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF SECTION 179-16. CROSS REF. AV 61-1997 TAX MAP NO. 50-1-85 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION 179-16 JON & SUSAN DOUGHER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-1998, Jon and Susan Dougher, Meeting Date: March 18, Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: 1998 “ 122 Sunnyside North Applicant Relief Required: proposes construction of a two (2) car garage. The proposed project requires relief from the height restriction of §179-16 (WR-1A). The applicant proposes an 18 foot tall Criteria for considering an Area garage, the ordinance limits accessory structures to 16 feet. Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant 2. Feasible alternatives: would be allowed to construct a garage for vehicle storage purposes. 3. Is this relief substantial relative Alternatives are limited to conformance with the ordinance. to the ordinance?: 4. Effects on the neighborhood or The relief may be interpreted as minimal. community:5. Is this difficulty self- Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated. created?Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.) Open for interpretation. Staff comments: Setback relief for the proposed structure was granted on October 22, 1997. SEQR Status: Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed action. Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Dougher? MR. STONE-I have one question in the Staff notes before we go. It says it was granted on nd October 22. I have down that we tabled it on that day. Am I incorrect? MRS. LAPHAM-I thought we passed it. MR. THOMAS-I thought we passed it. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MRS. LAPHAM-I thought we passed it but they didn’t ask for a height. MR. STONE-I understand that one. MR. ROUND-You’re correct. We may have tabled it to come back the following. Did you come to two meetings? I may have given you incorrect data on that. MRS. DOUGHER-You did table it, because we needed a little more information. th MR. STONE-Right. It was on the 29 that you actually came back I guess. MRS. DOUGHER-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. STONE-Then I wasn’t there. Okay. A minor point. MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anything else you want to say, add? MRS. DOUGHER-Right. Well, the problem we ran into was when we hired the contractor, he said you can’t build a two car garage with overhead storage, that you can stand up in, at 16 feet, and we originally thought, well, that sounded like plenty of room. So, the contractor and my husband went down to Curtis Lumber and tried to work out something with them to get it down to 16 feet, and it’s just impossible. You have to have 18 feet. That’s the minimum, and that’s the predicament we’re in. We called the Planning Board. We talked to someone there who tried to work with us and they said come in and try to get a variance for it. MR. DOUGHER-See, the problem is you loose all your space on the upstairs floor, because you have to have so much space downstairs for these overhead doors to go up and down. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. MR. DOUGHER-So, like, there’s a minimum space that you need downstairs, and by the time you put your floor joists across and for the trusses and to get back up, you’re down to like five feet of head room at the center of it, and that more or less defeats my whole purpose of, you know, besides trying to get the cars protected, have a little storage space. So, I’m asking for a two foot variance. MR. STONE-They’re saying, if you, this is building from scratch? I mean, a stick built, 16 doesn’t work for even, for what you’re trying to get, for the storage? Okay. MR. DOUGHER-Right. MRS. DOUGHER-Either or, stick or packaged. MR. STONE-Okay. I had heard some comment that you were trying to get a pre-fab or a modular type thing and it didn’t come in 18. You’re just saying it doesn’t work at 16? MR. DOUGHER-Right. You just loose the head space because you have to have it from down below for the doors. MR. MC NALLY-Did we discuss height at the last application? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We said that, I think it was part of the resolution that it wouldn’t be over 16 feet. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t see a copy of the resolution in my papers. MR. THOMAS-I didn’t see a copy either. MR. STONE-No, and we don’t keep minutes, after we approve them. MRS. LAPHAM-The older one is in here probably. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I don’t know if that’s got the resolution in it, though. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. ROUND-It should have a copy. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, it has the tabling. MR. THOMAS-That’s the tabling. What about the resolution on it? MRS. LAPHAM-Part of it is here. MR. ROUND-Yes. I recollect that you informed them that there is a height restriction, and that it’s got to conform to that height. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 30 feet, and the applicant proposes a setback. They’re requiring 11 feet of, “122 Sunnyside The applicant proposes the construction of a two car garage requiring relief from the setback requirements of Section 179-16. The required front road setback is 30 feet, and the applicant proposes a setback of 19 feet.” MR. STONE-Yes. Height probably didn’t get mentioned because. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, it does. MR. DOUGHER-It was put into your final thing there, but we never gave it a thought because we figured we’d have eight feet to work with up above it. MR. THOMAS-“Also the applicant has sought a variance from the height of the garage structure. It is my motion that we approve the setback from the road and that we require the applicant to build no higher than 16 feet in accordance with the Ordinance”. The motion was made by Mr. McNally and seconded by Mr. Hayes. MR. MC NALLY-How did it pass? MR. THOMAS-How did it pass? MRS. LAPHAM-It passed with everyone that was here. MR. MC NALLY-It was unanimous? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas, absent th were Mr. Stone and Mr. Karpeles, duly adopted this 29 day of October. So the 16 feet was mentioned in the original motion, but it seems that the applicants can’t get it. MRS. DOUGHER-We weren’t really in here worrying about, or trying to get a height variance or anything because we thought 16 feet was plenty of room to work with, and we thought, no matter what, you’d be able to modify something down to 16 feet. So that wasn’t really like a big, any kind of a discussion when we were in here the last time. It was mainly, you know, how far off the road are you going to be. MR. DOUGHER-Right. That was the restriction you put on it after we, after you’d already given us our setback variances. I mean, the height was never a concern of mine, because we just figured we’d have eight feet down below and eight feet up above, and you come down a foot for your bracing or whatever and you’d have seven feet of space up there, but it doesn’t work that way. I mean, you’re coming up with your floor joists and you’re losing inches here and you’re losing inches from the top. MR. THOMAS-See the Ordinance, the new Ordinance for Waterfront Residential accessory structure, which a garage is, there’s a 16 foot height restriction. MR. DOUGHER-Right, but haven’t you people been having problems with this, people over on Glen Lake trying to build garages with storage space up above them, and they’re all running into the same problem with not being able to meet this 16 foot. MR. THOMAS-I can think of two over there, but I think they were before the new change. MR. STONE-I don’t think we’ve granted any relief that I can recall, from the 16. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. ROUND-I know there has been, there’s been practical difficulty, in order to meet that, because garage packages, I don’t know when they crafted the Ordinance, whether they, part of that, the creation in the Waterfront Residential district especially is additional habitable space over garages, and you run into that more so in the Waterfront Residential district, because you’ve got, it’s more attractive income property. You can rent another space out, and I know that, overall, that’s the position, Townwide, but more so in Waterfront Residential. They said, lets keep it down to 16, just so they would prohibit that space over there, and I know people, even with that, even if they’re not intending to use it as habitable space, it’s difficult to find garage packages, on Waterfront Residential properties, because most of the properties slope, and that there’s going to be something in excess of the 16 feet. It’s really a difficult, I’m surprised there haven’t been more requests, but sometimes that doesn’t mean that there’s not people constructing structures in violation of that. MRS. DOUGHER-Can I say one other thing? On the lake, there are loads of brand new homes that were erected that are way over 16 feet. MR. STONE-The houses can be 28. MRS. DOUGHER-Even with the attached garages, garages themselves on the other side of the lake. MR. THOMAS-Lets see, when was this Ordinance passed? MR. STONE-’96, October. October ’96. MR. THOMAS-So it’s the last year and a half. So I don’t know how many houses have been built over there in the last year and a half. MR. DOUGHER-I know of two of them. MR. STONE-Well, it’s a detached garage, the house. It can be next to it. It can be higher than 16 feet. If you had a here like this, the garage could be higher than 16 feet because it’s not detached. It’s where it’s detached. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because an accessory structure is defined as a structure freestanding away from the main, or the principal structure, which in this case it is. So, but anyway. MR. DOUGHER-Okay. So the only other thing I have to say is, I mean, none of the neighbors have a complaint with this, because I know them all. I’ve talked to them all, and across the road, there’s a vacant lot over there, which, even if this thing went up another two feet in height, it’s not going to obstruct anybody’s view, because Karen and Nick have assured me nothing’s ever going to be built on that property. So, I mean, it’s not really blocking the view of houses on that side from the lake, because there’s nothing really across from it. MR. THOMAS-Well, not in their lifetime, but that property will be there long after you and I are gone. Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-You’ve said that you were told when you went to Curtis, and so on, I mean, I’m not saying you’re wrong, but if necessary, somebody could? MRS. DOUGHER-We could bring a contractor in to say this to you. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask why you need to stand in that storage area? Because if I look at the application, it appears you can stand in the one, and you’ve got an opening that you’re proposing above the garage door, presumably access at the second floor level, at the 18 foot height? You don’t have that door above the garages at the 16 foot proposal, but the difference in height still is a substantial amount of storage space there. It’s just that you can’t stand in it? MRS. DOUGHER-Yes. I mean, your chances of hurting yourself would increase greatly when you’re, you know, if you’re moving things around, like you would use an attic. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. DOUGHER-You worry about smacking your head every time you turn around. MRS. DOUGHER-Right. I mean, that would be a major concern, being able to stand erect when you’re lifting or carrying something. MR. MC NALLY-But if it’s just storage space, it’s not as if you’ll be having people sleeping over during the summer time or anything. MR. DOUGHER-No, this is strictly storage. MR. MC NALLY-They’re not going to be there, right? So the odds of someone hitting their head is kind of small. I mean, if you’re just throwing up the Christmas stuff or the floats for the summer time, things like that. I’m trying to understand what the real trouble to you is. MRS. DOUGHER-It would be like walking around in an attic that you could not stand erect in if you’re going through boxes or moving boxes from one space to another. If it’s five foot something, you were completely crouched over, it would be extremely easy to hit your head or. MR. STONE-I have a crawl space like that. So, I mean, I understand what you’re saying, but it’s something that I live with, because that was not by Code, but it was something that we just did. So I understand it, and I survived. MR. DOUGHER-Yes, but if you had your druthers about it, though, you’d have a seven foot height in there, so you could just walk in and move around free. MR. STONE-It would be nice, but it might put the house, if I put that in in violation of. MRS. DOUGHER-Especially when you’re older, too. Down the road, when I’m a little old lady with a cane. MR. STONE-No, but Mr. McNally makes a good point. This is, in your mind, it’s to store. You haven’t said what you’re going to store. He has suggested certain things. You haven’t agreed or disagreed. They certain can get in there for one time or take it in and take it out during the year. I mean, it’s a valid point that he raises. Do you have any comments about it? MRS. DOUGHER-Yes. You did stipulate that in the Variance, that it would be for storage use only, and, I mean, that’s exactly what we plan to do with it. It’s not going to be used for any kind of living situation. There will not be any people sleeping up there or in the summer time, going up there and sleeping. This is purely for storage, and like Christmas tree or trunks or whatever people normally would store in their attic, boxes of clothing, you know, household things. MR. STONE-All of which could get into five foot, five feet. MRS. DOUGHER-That would be possible, but you would be stooped over walking from one side to the other, and you’re talking about a 24 foot span. It could run into difficulties, especially, if you ever developed a back problem, and you had to get up there and try to crawl around. MR. THOMAS-Let me ask you a couple of questions here. Your existing house is 24 by 24, right? And that’s a single story home. Does it have a full basement in it? MRS. DOUGHER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So we’re talking the first floor is 576 square feet, and I imagine it’s a full basement, it’s 576 square feet? MRS. DOUGHER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So we’re talking just a little over 1100 square feet of building/living space. I don’t know if you have any living space in the cellar or not. MRS. DOUGHER-It’s completely livable. It’s a bedroom, as a matter of fact. MR. THOMAS-So, what I’m looking at here is I don’t see much room for storage in that house. MR. DOUGHER-There isn’t any storage in that house. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MRS. DOUGHER-The house doesn’t even have a coat closet. MR. THOMAS-Bear with me here, so, you know, they need storage space. Storage space above the garage, which would be 16 by 24. Five hundred square feet, so, you know, I don’t see any big deal with the height, but I would open the public hearing, wait until I open a public hearing and see if we have anything, or if we have any correspondence about it. Are there any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-What’s the length of this garage? MR. DOUGHER-Twenty-four feet. MR. STONE-That’s the width. Is it 24 by 24? MR. DOUGHER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. PORTER-I have one question. What is the span on your trusses? Are they 16 or two foot? MR. DOUGHER-Apparently, it’s the whole 24 feet. MR. PORTER-Yes, but I mean, are they 16 or 24 foot? MR. DOUGHER-It’s all 16 on. MR. PORTER-Sixteen on center? MR. DOUGHER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, my biggest concern was for the neighbors and obscuring anyone’s view. When I went up there, the area is very congested. So, I thought that anything else would, could just add to the problem, but on the other hand, two feet is minimal, and I don’t hear any complaints from any of the neighbors. So, I’m not quite sure. I’ll wait and see what the rest of the Board does, even though I’m a little hesitant. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I’m hesitant. Because I’ve said this many times. This Waterfront zoning is something that is still fairly new. It’s a year and a half. We’ve had a number of tests of it in various ways. I think this is the first test of the height of an accessory building, and I recognize your need for storage. There’s no question about that. You’re going to get, approximately, as I look at your drawing, 400 square footage of storage. The question is whether it’s going to be five foot high or seven foot high. It’s wonderful to be able to store things and walk in upright. No question about that, but I’m not sure that granting relief from an untested. This is the first time it’s come to us, and I’m not sure that I want to grant a variance the first time out, since nobody else has made this request before, and, I mean, five foot, to me, you can get stuff in, put the Christmas tree in, you can put the clothes in, because you’re not going to go up there every day. It’s not going to be heated, I assume. So you’re going to go up there rarely. To me, it’s not a tremendous hardship to do that. So, I will continue to listen, though. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. MC NALLY-Whether it’s five or seven feet, I look at the benefit to the applicant as being the same. They’re going to have storage space, and the square footage of that storage space, whether it’s five or seven feet high, is going to be the same. The volume may change, but the footage, the square footage, is always going to remain the same, and if it’s storage space, I’m not convinced, necessarily, that you have to stand up to get in and out of there. I do think that this house and this garage are on a very cramped lot on Sunnyside, in an area of small houses and camps cramped together. You drive up on is it North Sunnyside Road? MR. STONE-North, Sunnyside North. MR. MC NALLY-And it is like driving, at some places, through a wall, a wall on either side of houses being built right up to the edge of the road. In some sense, you know, I had no problem with the garage, because I understood that you converted it to year round use. You’re going to increase that congestion, and we did discuss the height requirement when we passed this last time. Because as much as there’s no house directly across the street from the garage, there is a neighbor on one side across the street, and there was an indication that this was not going to be used for living space, and if it’s not to be used for living space or work space or for the kind of thing where you need a seven foot head room, I’m not convinced that we should change what the Town Board has decided should be the height of accessory use structures in this zone. There are feasible alternatives, 16 foot, but it’s not a seven foot ceiling if you do that. The effects on the neighborhood may be minimal, but again, we’re building a house very close to the road, and adding two feet, I’m not sure what the aesthetic impacts of the additional two feet would be. Is the difficulty self created? I tend to think, with all due respect, okay, that you came here to us last time and you said it would 16 feet tall, so that now that it’s not, it may have been an oversight, and I certainly do understand how that can be, but is it self created? I don’t know. I would tend to think that it might be. I’m not terribly in favor of the application, though it is minimal relief in many respects. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Joe? MR. PORTER-I have no comment. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. PORTER-I think in our conversation, we pretty much covered what. MRS. DOUGHER-Can I make one last statement? MR. THOMAS-Sure. MRS. DOUGHER-We thought about putting a flat roof on this, to get the, to stay at the 16 feet, and we thought that would really look cheesy. MR. DOUGHER-There’s a way I can build this thing and still have my seven feet up there. The question is do you want a square box sitting there? MRS. DOUGHER-We were trying to think of every possible way we could do this. MR. DOUGHER-I mean, I want this to look as nice as possible, too. I’m not building a shack here. MRS. DOUGHER-Right, and conform. We really, really thought about all the options, and that was one of them. That’s not something we really want to do. It would look gross. MR. THOMAS-I agree with you. I think a flat roof in the North Country, I think they should be outlawed. MRS. LAPHAM-You’re buying a lot of maintenance. MR. THOMAS-You’ve got that right. MRS. DOUGHER-Right. That would also be a problem. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, looking down through the balancing test, whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. It can be, but it’s not really feasible, as the applicant stated, a flat roof. Undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties, I don’t think anybody would know the difference because we gave them a variance for a th garage on the 29 of October anyway. Is the request substantial? Other Board members have said it’s very minimal. The request will have an adverse physical or environmental effect? A garage is a garage. I mean, it’s going to be the same number of square feet as it was, as we granted before. It’s just going to be two feet higher. Is the difficulty self created? Well, the applicant has tried all means, even though, you know, of getting it at 16 feet, but I agree with the applicant that a seven foot storage is what you need because, like I said, I did the map on the house, and the first floor is 500 and some square feet, and the basement floor is the same size. So, and the house is 1100 square feet. There’s very little storage in there, okay, very little, and they were going to be putting up a garage anyway, whether it’s, you know, five foot high or seven foot high storage on top. I don’t think it makes a difference, and I also agree with Chris, from Staff, stating that the 16 feet may be too short. When the Town Board was talking about this, that they didn’t take into consideration slopes and other requirements, because as the Ordinance states that height of the building, as measured from the lowest point of the ground level to the highest point of the building at that point, and luckily this one here is on a flat ground, whereas if it were being built on a slope or something like that, maybe 16 foot wouldn’t be feasible, even if they weren’t putting storage up there. So, you know, I have no problem with this one here, and as far as being a precedent, like the State law says, every variance is done on its own merit. MR. STONE-Agreed, but I seem to be contrary, and let me just retort something that you said, Chris. Whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible. The applicant came in here and said they wanted storage space. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Four hundred and eight square foot of storage space. They didn’t talk about a volume. All they talked about was the ease of getting to the storage space. So what they asked for they can get with the five foot height. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. STONE-I hear what you’re saying. It’s obviously easier to get to the storage if there’s seven, but the test, and maybe it’s only one of these tests, but whether the benefit can be achieved by other means, and the area of storage can be. MR. THOMAS-Well, in an Area Variance, you don’t have to, we don’t have to answer all five in the positive. MR. STONE-I understand that. No, we do not. MR. THOMAS-We have some latitude in these. MR. STONE-I agree. MR. THOMAS-And if it’s only one, and up here in the top, the Board of Appeals shall balance the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. That’s the balancing test. MR. STONE-Okay. The only thing I’m saying is the benefit they want can be achieved with what’s under the Code. Whether or not we choose to ignore that, that’s okay. I just want to be sure the record states that. MR. THOMAS-Well, I don’t think we’re ignoring the factors of the Code, but like I stated, and I’m echoing what Mr. Round said, that maybe the 16 feet is too short, in the Ordinance, when the Town Board came up with the 16 feet. Did they pull 16 feet out of their hat? Where did it come from? MR. MC NALLY-That’s the Town Board’s decision. MR. THOMAS-That’s the Town Board’s decision, but we’re here to give relief to that, if we see that it’s feasible, and in this case, I think it’s feasible, and that’s my opinion. I’m one seventh of the vote. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. STONE-One fifth tonight. MR. THOMAS-Well, one fifth tonight. So, having said that, are there any other questions, comments from the Board? I will ask for a motion. Would anyone like to make one? MRS. LAPHAM-All right. I’ll try. It’s just, I don’t know how I want to start it. Do I want to deny it or do I want to approve it. MR. THOMAS-I don’t know. What do you want to do? Do you want to table it until next month? Think about it when we have two more members? MRS. LAPHAM-If you think that would achieve something. MR. THOMAS-Well, right now it looks like it’s about two and a half to two and a half right now, and we need four. So, if you’d like we could table it until next month, and that way, we could get the other two members in here and up to speed on it, and they could make a decision one way or the other, because you’re going to need four positive votes, and I really don’t believe you’re going to get four tonight. MRS. DOUGHER-Then table it. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to table it for a month? MRS. DOUGHER-Sure. MR. THOMAS-It’s really the, you know, it’s an option. It’s up to you. MRS. DOUGHER-Well, if it might help us, then. MR. THOMAS-It might help you, but it might not. So, we don’t know. MRS. LAPHAM-But it’s guaranteed that it’s not going to work tonight. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-It also gives us a chance to think a little more, because I know two of us are, and Bonnie’s obviously indecisive at the moment. Granting the, being the first relief from the 16 foot is of concern to us, and the fact that it might be self created. You’re asking for, the Code says 16 you can get storage feet, at 16. You can’t get as easy access at 16 feet, but you can get storage. So, we’re not, the self created thing, we might have to answer that positively. MR. MC NALLY-And that goes for the feasible alternatives, too. Five feet is feasible, as far as I’m concerned, that’s three of the five. MR. THOMAS-Five feet isn’t feasible to me, because I stand 6’2”. MRS. LAPHAM-I’m also hung up on the change to the character of the neighborhood, because even if it’s only one foot in the Waterfront Residential district, you’re obscuring part of the view to the lake, and that’s a very congested area. MR. THOMAS-And we haven’t heard anybody say anything to the contrary. That’s the other thing, too. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. That was one of the things that I was thinking about, because I don’t live there. MR. THOMAS-It doesn’t look good for you tonight, lets put it that way. MRS. DOUGHER-I think if we are able to bring in the people that you’re worried about also maybe that will help us the next time. MR. STONE-That would be helpful. MRS. DOUGHER-That would be helpful, maybe bring the contractor in, if that will help you. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. STONE-I think it’s important if, one of the things we hear here, is people who are opposed to something. We very seldom get people saying, I think it’s the greatest thing in the world. They should go ahead and do it. Those are very helpful to us, whether it’s written, so that Bonnie can read it into the record, or whether the people come, because, I think Mr. Thomas made it very clear. Forever is a long time, and when we do something here, the land is, that’s the way it is. That garage can stay there forever. MRS. DOUGHER-So will we basically be having this exact same conversation with more added the next time? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MRS. DOUGHER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-With two more people, and you will a little more ammunition. Okay. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1998 JON AND SUSAN DOUGHER , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: So that two other Board members can come up to speed on this variance, and the applicant can produce more information at the Board’s request. th Duly adopted this 18 day of March, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-So, you’re still alive. MR. DOUGHER-What happens if, next month, the two of you guys are sick and we’ve got the other two here and we’re in the same situation we’re in right now? Then I have to wait for May for a variance? MR. STONE-Well, no, eventually, we’ll say yeah or nay. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. DOUGHER-Next year’s winter season. I want to get this thing built. MR. THOMAS-All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-1998 LC-42A MIKE DIPALMA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE RIDGE ROAD ACROSS FROM WILLIAMS VARIETY STORE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 15 FT. BY 22 FT. CARPORT ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING GARAGE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-13. CROSS REF. VAR. 1352 AV 26-1992, AV 94- 1993, SPR 59-93, SPR 1-94, UV 59-1995 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/11/98 TAX MAP NO. 20-1-8 LOT SIZE: 0.65 ACRES SECTION 179-13 MIKE DI PALMA & BOB FEENEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-1998, Mike DiPalma, Meeting Date: March 18, 1998 Project Location: Description of Proposed “2469 Ridge Road opposite Williams Variety Store Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 15 ft. x 22 ft. carport attached to an existing garage Relief Required: structure. The applicant requests relief from the setback requirements of the LC-42 zone. The side and front setback requirements are 100 feet, the applicant proposes an 18.6 Criteria for considering an Area Variance ft. front yard setback and a 12 foot side yard setback. according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be 2. Feasible alternatives: allowed to construct a carport at a desired location. Feasible 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) alternatives are limited to no construction. Relief from the ordinance is required for almost any 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: construction activity on the site. The relief may be interpreted as substantial, although the construction activity is occurring “inside” the 4. Effects on the neighborhood or building lines of existing, non-conforming structures. community:5. Is this difficulty self Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this activity. created?Parcel History (construction/site The difficulty is not interpreted as self created. plan/variance, etc.): Several area variances have been issued for the parcel relating to construction/expansion of the residential structure. Additionally the site has site plan approvals for Staff comments: use as a Bed & Breakfast. Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this SEQR Status: activity. Type II” th MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 11 day of March 1998, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a 15 x 22 ft. carport from an existing garage was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact” Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. DiPalma, nice to see you again. Is there anything else you want to add to the application, you want to tell us about? MR. DI PALMA-There’s really not much there except the main reason for having it is so I can use, when I got my variances, the Town required me to put, the ZBA required a like a little turn around driveway, a horseshoe from one end of the road to the other, which is really great, but the problem is, if you have more than one car, one’s stuck. So I can get off and under the structure there, on the carport, it would make the driveway more functional, plus, you know, the winters up there. We have like three different Town agencies plowing our roads, or sanding our roads, or at least going by the house, and sometimes the road is just mud and sand, and when it dries, every time a car goes by, if you’re within five feet of the road, which I am parked eight feet of the road, you just get devastated with the salt and the sand on your vehicle. So I figure, if I had a carport there, I can get the vehicle farther back from the road. MR. STONE-Is it Washington County? MR. DI PALMA-No. It’s very close to Washington County, though. MR. STONE-I know you are, but I mean, is it? MR. DI PALMA-No. We have Washington County go down our road. MR. STONE-That’s what I meant. MR. DI PALMA-The Town of Queensbury, the State and the County. They all use that road. MR. THOMAS-You just want a place to park, right? MR. DI PALMA-Yes, get out of the sun in the summertime, the heat of the sun coming down on your vehicle. MR. STONE-Is the garage right on the property line? MR. DI PALMA-It’s right on it. MR. STONE-That’s what it looks like. MR. DI PALMA-It’s right on the line. MR. THOMAS-Are you just going to park a car under this carport? MR. DI PALMA-That’s all. MR. THOMAS-No boats? MR. DI PALMA-No boats. Maybe some wood maybe for my wood stove. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the back of that isn’t going back as far as that side door, is it? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. DI PALMA-I think it’s going to almost reach it. MR. THOMAS-Almost reach it? MR. DI PALMA-Yes. There’s a door there. MR. THOMAS-Yes, on the back side. MR. STONE-We saw that. MR. THOMAS-So it’s going back about that far? MR. DI PALMA-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So you’re going to have to fill, you’re going to have to do some filling in there to bring it level? MR. DI PALMA-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you’re going to have to have some kind of retaining wall in the back there to hold it. MR. DI PALMA-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. My big question is, what about the run off from the roof? MR. DI PALMA-Mr. Feeney? MR. FEENEY-Well, there will be some runoff. You’ve already got an existing garage, which is going to be sloped the same way. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. FEENEY-You’re going to create, of course, a little more of the square footage of an area, which will break runoff probably just another 10 or 12 feet over. MR. THOMAS-Yes, and then going right down that bank into the lake. MR. FEENEY-I think it’s probably going down there right now anyway. MR. THOMAS-Well, maybe we can alleviate that. MR. FEENEY-By putting a gutter up and trying to shoot it up the front or something? MR. THOMAS-Something like that, or maybe a drywell or something like that. MR. STONE-Do you own the land behind you there? MR. DI PALMA-Yes, I do. MR. STONE-I’m trying to, unfortunately, this copy looks like a copy of about 1,000 copies. MR. DI PALMA-Most of the land abuts to that service road that goes behind the house, and some is maybe 10 feet away from the road. MR. MC NALLY-There’s a right-of-way behind there? MR. STONE-Yes, right over here. MR. DI PALMA-For the summer camps that are. MR. STONE-Well, it’s not plowed. The opening is not plowed, but it goes down behind the front of the house and around. I was going to go down there, and I said, no way. MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MRS. LAPHAM-What do you use the present garage for? MR. DI PALMA-I have a classic antique car in there now. It only comes out in the summer time. MR. MC NALLY-What’s the history of the zoning on this property? MR. THOMAS-It’s a long one. MR. MC NALLY-Is there a shorthand version? I’m curious what other applications have been granted. Anything relevant? MR. THOMAS-Not to this garage, no. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-But that circular, half circular driveway was a result of ZBA determination? MR. DI PALMA-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It was a subject of a Use Variance. MR. MC NALLY-Is that what it was? MR. THOMAS-Well, the main house for a hunting and fishing lodge, and then the Planning Board had an approval for a Bed and Breakfast in there. MRS. LAPHAM-Aren’t a hunting and fishing lodge and a Bed and Breakfast sort of comparable? I mean, people come and stay. MR. THOMAS-Well, at the time, there wasn’t anything in the Ordinance concerning that, in the sense the Ordinance has been changed. MRS. LAPHAM-So people come and stay and go fishing and hunting from? MR. DI PALMA-Yes. I take them fishing, either in the lake or to the streams. MR. STONE-How many cars are, what’s the maximum number of cars you have in that circular? MR. DI PALMA-The maximum number? 30. MR. STONE-How many rooms do you have for B & B or for hunting or lodging? MR. DI PALMA-Three plus the porch. MR. STONE-Three plus the porch. MR. DI PALMA-It’s a long porch. MR. STONE-So nobody lives on the premises? MR. DI PALMA-I do. MR. STONE-You live there, and three additional? MR. DI PALMA-No. This is not your normal bed and breakfast. It’s only being used when I have fishing people there. That’s only between the end of April and September, mainly. I might have a few here and there, but very limited. MRS. LAPHAM-And you have three bedrooms, including your own? MR. DI PALMA-Yes. MR. STONE-So for protection purposes, you’re really talking when nobody else is there except yourself? You said protection from the snow. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. DI PALMA-Yes. I’d like to get the vehicle off the driveway, under some cover. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DI PALMA-I looked into one of these portable ones, and I understand you don’t need to go through all this for that, but they look real good in the beginning. You have a nice red roof. MR. STONE-Well, you’d still have to go through it, because you’re still in violation of LC-42. MR. DI PALMA-They said you don’t need that. MRS. LAPHAM-Didn’t we have one like that, and we had it taken down? MR. STONE-Yes, we did. MR. DI PALMA-Well, I didn’t want one anyway, because after five years, they look terrible. It’s part of my house, I want it to look nice. MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Just a question, I noticed today. Did anyone ever discuss, in any of the hearings, the sight line coming up from the west, coming up the hill from the Pilot Knob Road, where it bends around? It looked like a terrible sight line for trying to get out of your place. MR. DI PALMA-It is terrible. What I do, now it’s not bad at all because there’s no foliage on the brush, but I get back and I cut, see there’s a bank there and the brush likes to grow up. If I keep that well cut, as long as I’m on a 90 degree angle, I can see pretty well coming out, and that was part of the idea of having that circular driveway, so I wouldn’t be backing out there. MR. STONE-I can see that. I parked in Williamson’s lot, looking at the thing, and I said, whee, these guys have got to be invisible to you coming out, coming up the hill. MR. THOMAS-That’s why the circular driveway’s there, so you don’t have to back out on the road. MR. STONE-Right. MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-As I understand, the carport’s 15 by 22, but how else is it going to be constructed as far as materials and height. Is it going to be an extension of the existing slope of the garage? MR. FEENEY-It won’t be the same slope, but it will be lower than the peak of the existing garage now, and (lost words) like a shed roof coming off of the garage now. MR. MC NALLY-You’re just going to have posts on the side closest to the house? MR. FEENEY-Yes. Posts and cones, with a couple of gussets, you know, to hold up the structure. MR. MC NALLY-It’s not going to be sided in any way? MR. FEENEY-No. MRS. LAPHAM-And a shingled roof? MR. FEENEY-A shingled roof. MR. PORTER-Do you have a concrete floor? MR. FEENEY-He wasn’t going to put a concrete floor, like an item. MR. DI PALMA-Either concrete or macadam, maybe. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. PORTER-How do you plan on containing your fill around the outside, on the low side? MR. FEENEY-Railroad ties, probably. It doesn’t drop off too bad, probably just a handful of railroad ties would probably do it. MR. STONE-The current garage is not guttered? It just comes off, total drip line all the way? MR. DI PALMA-No, it isn’t. Right. I don’t think it would be anymore adverse effect of water coming off the new roof than the water that comes off that garage now, or the other side of the garage. MR. STONE-It would be more concentrated because you’ve got more, Mr. Feeney says, more square footage. So you’ve got more water coming off on the drip line, because you’ve got just more impermeable area to drain, if you will. MR. THOMAS-Three hundred and thirty square feet more of roof to drain off. Whereas it soaks in the ground now. So, are there any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Is there anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GRACE HANNAFORD MRS. HANNAFORD-I would just like to make sure that. My name is Grace Hannaford, and I own the piece of property to the south of Mr. DiPalma’s garage. His garage is right on my line, and I want to make sure that the plans that he has handed to you are the plans that he is going to use, and there will be no changes. MR. STONE-In terms of what? MRS. HANNAFORD-The carport. MR. STONE-Just the size and where it’s located? MRS. HANNAFORD-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-In other words, you don’t object to it, per se, now, but you don’t want anything different than what we’re discussing. MRS. HANNAFORD-No, that’s right. I want to make sure that that’s the way it will be. MR. THOMAS-I think we can do that. MR. STONE-I was going to say, we can do that. MR. THOMAS-We did it before, and we can do it again. MRS. HANNAFORD-Okay. I just don’t, you know. MRS. LAPHAM-You don’t want any surprises. MRS. HANNAFORD-That’s right. I’ve had a few. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t think so. Let me take another look. No. MR. STONE-Mrs. Hannaford, the road was named for your family? MRS. HANNAFORD-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-No correspondence? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. MR. FEENEY-Chris, could I make one comment, before you close it. I think what you were thinking is, you’re concerned with some of the runoff, and from what I can gather, and Mike has told me, when they put the driveway, that whole portion of the driveway could be all ledge. He lives on an embankment that drops off, and I think he’s sitting on all solid ledge. I think the concern on the runoff is valid, but possibly if you were going to answer this by putting a catch basin in, it might be almost impossible to do something like that. I would think if you’re concerned about the runoff, we could put a gutter and try to re-direct it in a manner where it wouldn’t have any adverse effect into the lake or anything, but I think a catch basin would be out of the question. MR. THOMAS-Is there a full basement in that house? MR. DI PALMA-Yes. MR. THOMAS-There’s a full basement in that house? Is it in solid rock? MR. DI PALMA-Yes. The front of the house, the foundation goes right over the rock like this. MR. FEENEY-Yes. He’s got a walk out basement, but it’s, there’s a lot of ledge showing on that property, and I think, if you mandated a catch basin, you know, you’d be blasting, it wouldn’t be worth putting a carport in for the expense of trying to take care of the water runoff. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. FEENEY-It’s just a comment I wanted to make. MR. DI PALMA-I believe you said you couldn’t get behind the house from that road? Directly behind the house it drops off quite sharply, and right now it’s full of water. You’ll see it running, like puddles. Some of it’s from the melting snow, and a lot’s from the rain we’ve had. Any runoff is going to go right in there. It’s like it’s own big catch basin. The wetlands are right there, behind the house. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any more questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-The benefit to the applicant is kind of straight forward. He would be allowed to keep a car under a carport. I agree that there are very few feasible alternatives, since the property does slope back, and it’s not possible, actually, to drive behind the house. So that fact, and taking into account that the setback requirements essentially mandate a variance for any kind of construction that they want, there’s no feasible alternative. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I don’t know. It seems to me that the point that this is constructed inside the building lines is well taken. It is a large increase in size, but I don’t think it would be terribly important. Minimal effects on the neighborhood or community, and the difficulty is not self created. My concern though is, you know, I see a shaded in little box on a drawing, and not the specifics as to what this carport is going to look like. All right, and I know you’ve presented some things. You’ve said it’s going to be a concrete slab, or maybe it’s going to be macadam. I’d like to see more detail, whenever someone comes up to us and says, we’d like to build a carport or a garage or something like that, because sometimes, you know, you pass these things, and you never know exactly what the heck you’re going to get out of it. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And that’s a big concern to me. MR. DI PALMA-There should be a drawing, here, of that. MR. MC NALLY-Did we have a drawing? Because I know we didn’t get one. MR. STONE-We didn’t get one. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MRS. LAPHAM-We just got this map. MR. ROUND-All I got is a plot plan. I don’t recall seeing an elevation. MR. MC NALLY-With all due respect, I know you had the best of intentions, but the point is. MR. DI PALMA-I understand. MRS. LAPHAM-I’ll look in here. There wasn’t an elevation in my thing, you know, that I got at home. MR. MC NALLY-Did you bring another copy with you by any chance tonight? MR. DI PALMA-I think I have one in the truck. MR. ROUND-I don’t remember seeing one. MR. THOMAS-If you’ve got one in the truck, we’d like to see it. We haven’t got it. MR. STONE-All we’ve got is the. MRS. LAPHAM-Plot plan. MR. THOMAS-The plot plan. MR. DI PALMA-I don’t think there is an elevation. We have a plan of exactly how it would come off the roof. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s it. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That’s the elevation. MR. PORTER-Yes, that’s it, Mike, the elevation, a profile of what it’s going to look like. MR. STONE-Yes. That’s what we need, is what it looks like if you’re standing on the road looking at it. MR. MC NALLY-Chris, when we do something like this, what is the retaining wall going to look like? Do we even concern ourselves with something like that? MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s going to have to be structurally sound. MR. MC NALLY-The Building Department actually has to pass on that or not? MR. THOMAS-Well, the Building Department, they would have to go out and look at it. MR. ROUND-To be honest with you, I don’t think that that retaining wall structure, that there’s a review criteria for, as far as the Building Department is concerned, but there are concerns for retaining walls, I mean, there is a concern there that the structurally integrity, whether it’s going to satisfy what they’re saying it’s going to do. MR. MC NALLY-I get the feeling that no one’s gone to an architect or an engineer. MR. FEENEY-No. I did the drawing myself, and I spoke with Dave Hatin, and it doesn’t require any architect at all. Basically what it is, is all the support will be done on Sonotubes, four Sonotubes, and if you can’t get them four feet in the ground, because of the ledge, as long as they’re pinned to the ledge, that will be adequate support. I’ve given Dave the drawings. MR. MC NALLY-For the structure. MR. FEENEY-Yes, for the structure. MR. MC NALLY-What about, I mean, you’re going to have to add fill. There’s no question in my mind. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. FEENEY-Yes. There’s some fill going in. MR. MC NALLY-I know that the roof may be upheld on Sonotubes, but what about the floor, if it washes away in the next big rainstorm? Is there going to be a retaining wall or not? MR. FEENEY-Just across the back, is basically what we need, yes. MR. MC NALLY-Right, that’s what we’re talking about. Maybe the side. MR. PORTER-You’re going to have to have some kind of retaining wall on the sides. I mean, you’re dirt’s not going to just stay there with just the dirt in the back, you know, to match the slope that’s there now. MR. FEENEY-Well, you really shouldn’t get a lot of runoff with the roof above it, and as long as you can stabilize the product underneath the roof, you should be all set. MR. PORTER-Right, but the runoff is still going to go toward the side there where the MR. FEENEY-Towards the house. MR. PORTER-Right. You should have some kind of retaining wall. MR. FEENEY-That’s why you’re concerned about the infiltration of the, you know, the extra water into the ground. I believe it’s all ledge, and I think no matter what you do, it’s going to runoff anyway. I don’t care how big or little the roof would be. MR. MC NALLY-But is this even a legitimate concern of our Board? MR. THOMAS-What’s that? MR. MC NALLY-The slope of the retaining wall? MR. THOMAS-What the retaining wall is made of? MR. MC NALLY-Let them worry about that. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. ROUND-Yes. I think that’s a Building Department concern, and if they’re not addressing it now, it’s a good point to be raised, but as far as the Zoning Board’s concerned, it’s not an issue. MR. STONE-Well, we can put it in the motion, say that we are concerned. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We can voice our concern about it, but. MR. MC NALLY-You’re going to have water coming off the side, and it’s going to, even though it may be rock, I mean, you’re going to fill it. You have to fill it to make it level, and I can see you’ve got a problem without some kind of a good retaining wall. MR. FEENEY-There’s definitely a concern for that. I don’t think Mike’s going to address (lost words) make sure that he can hold material there. MR. MC NALLY-I know there’s concern. My question was what you’re planning to do about that. You mentioned railroad ties and things like that, but that’s kind of tentative, isn’t it? MR. FEENEY-You could bring up some stones, cement some stone in place. There are several options of what we could do there. MR. STONE-It has nothing to do with this discussion, but how big is this property? I mean, it’s an LC-42. I can’t, that one (lost word) half an acre. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it’s just half an acre. MR. STONE-So it’s a very small, for being on an LC-42. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. ROUND-Yes. Just a side note that the APA is looking at addressing some of the concerns with this particular area. There’s several smaller lots that don’t conform, and it creates practical difficulties, and they’re looking at addressing some zoning changes in the next year. MR. DI PALMA-I think I’ve got it. MR. STONE-So you’re going to pick it up part way up the roof? MR. FEENEY-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. PORTER-The gravel’s got to be contained, and again, that’s probably not one of our calls, but that’s just. MR. FEENEY-We realize that something has to be done about that. MR. PORTER-Yes. MR. FEENEY-We’re just not exactly sure what. MR. STONE-So is this going to be open-sided? MR. FEENEY-Yes, just strictly roof. MR. STONE-Just the roof. Okay. So toward the house it will be open. Either end open? Both ends open? MR. FEENEY-Front, back and side. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have any plans for filling in the portion below the roof itself, to make it match the existing structure? MR. FEENEY-You mean like the little gable here? MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. FEENEY-Yes. We’re going to put, you know, just square across and put some rough pine or something in there. MR. MC NALLY-To match the existing garage’s materials and siding? MR. FEENEY-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Not rough pine. The garage isn’t rough pine. It’s clapboard. MR. FEENEY-I think up there I plan on using rough pine. If you want clapboard, we could put clapboard in there. It was, you know, basically just supporting the roof and whatever looks pretty when we’re done. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is everybody satisfied with the drawing? MR. MC NALLY-Is that going to be part of the record? MR. THOMAS-Well, we’ll want a copy of that, if you haven’t got a copy tonight. MR. FEENEY-He can leave that with you, if you want. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So if you want to leave that for the record, but you’re still up, Robert. MR. MC NALLY-I’m still up? I thought we were done with this? MR. THOMAS-No, you’re the one that wanted the sketch. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. MC NALLY-I’ve gone through all the points. I think it’s relatively straightforward. I’d like to see the top in-filled to match the existing structure, because I’d like the appearance to be appropriate, even though it’s open. With that in mind, I don’t think I have a major problem with this. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I basically agree. I think with the considerations that we have talked about, namely the fill at the top there and containing the, whatever you have on the ground. I mean, according to this drawing, you have bank run gravel, which can, over time, if you get water in there, can go down the hill somewhere. I would prefer that we had something else underneath there, particularly since it’s open on all sides, and rain doesn’t always come straight down. Sometimes it even comes from the north. In fact, fairly often. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I guess. MR. STONE-I would prefer that we had some more impervious, I recognize the gravel’s going to be permeable, but it’s also going to be able to possibly go away. So I would like to, if you’re willing to stipulate that you put in macadam or something, it doesn’t have to be. MR. DI PALMA-You mean like a concrete floor? MR. STONE-Or a concrete floor. MR. DI PALMA-Poured concrete. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. DI PALMA-I’ll put I whatever makes that look the best and be the best, and I think a concrete floor is the best. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FEENEY-Well, it would only go for reason that Mike would want to contain whatever material he puts in there. If he could find a way of putting in a retaining wall, and putting in bank run gravel that will pack and stay, I mean, that would. MR. STONE-That would be fine, too. Sure. I mean, we don’t want to see the material on the floor outside of the roof area within a short period of time. MR. FEENEY-That’s correct. MR. DI PALMA-I don’t, either. MR. FEENEY-Otherwise, he won’t be able to park his car there. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-My feeling is the same as the rest of the Board members. I don’t have a big problem with it, as long as it’s aesthetically pleasing, when you get finished, and goes with the existing house, and that there’s no deviation from the plan. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Joe? MR. PORTER-I pretty much agree with everybody else on this. The biggest thing is just containing the material, the fill material, and there’s varying ways of doing it, even though there’s ledge rock there, along with the retaining wall. There’s several different methods, even fabric, you can put fabric in there to contain the gravel. That’s an alternative, but that’s merely a suggestion. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have no problem with this application. I agree with the other Board members that, as Mr. McNally has said, that the front of it be filled in to match the existing garage, and that the floor be stabilized somehow so it doesn’t run down the bank, but I would also 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) like to see something done with the runoff off that roof, to be re-directed off of that lake, or away from that downhill run toward the lake, re-directed toward the road somehow, along the edge with gutters and a downspout, pointing it toward Route 9N there. MR. STONE-And that immediately runs immediately into the lake, Chris, right down that hill. I would prefer it to go out the back, because it will at least go into the ground a little bit. MR. ROUND-Like I said, there are other methods, in absence of a catch basin or drywell. I mean, they could put in a crushed stone with a French drain type of structure, something to that effect, if that’s the concern. MR. THOMAS-Yes. See, my concern is that runoff going down that back hill, off that roof, because it’s going to go down that hill, into that lake. MR. STONE-You’re saying there’s a swale between you and that back road, isn’t there? Is that what you said? MR. DI PALMA-It’s a little mini swamp back. Whenever it heavy rains. You should have seen it, I guess the worst time was when we had the real bad flood, and part of 9L, part of the mountain slide onto 9L down closer to the Village. Do you know where I’m talking about? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I know where it slid. MR. DI PALMA-Well, okay. That, I have a concern. The amount of water coming from the road, in that little brook there that runs under the service road and goes down to the lake. That water rose right to the back, I have like concrete railroad ties where I had a new foundation put on the back of that house, concrete railroad ties, and they come up about six feet high, and I’m standing, and you look right down into that little swampy area. That water was right to those ties. MR. STONE-But you’re saying this lot that’s directly behind you, between you and that existing road, is a? MR. DI PALMA-That’s a natural buffer for the water. MR. STONE-It’s a natural buffer. This right here. This is low here. MR. DI PALMA-I mean, I tried to tell it to the, I had a problem with the lake itself, because lets face it, I make my living from the lake, and it goes into the lake, it could be detrimental. It could be detrimental to me, and I keep telling these people and nobody does anything about it. You have all these agencies sanding the roads, right. You have a lot of sand. If you ever saw that road after a snow storm, you wouldn’t believe it, the amount of sand and salt on it, and when it rains, it runs down the road, into the lake. There’s a pipe under that little bridge, that my boat goes under, all the water gushing right through that pipe. MR. STONE-At least Queensbury tries to pick it up on its roads, occasionally. MR. THOMAS-Occasionally. MR. DI PALMA-But it happens all the time, and they’re wondering about milfoil and things like this, well, that’s like, nutrients get into the lake that way, and that’s what causes it. MR. STONE-I try to address that in another forum when I, another thing that I do, but I agree with you, absolutely. MR. DI PALMA-But what I’m saying is, you’re so concerned about coming out of the front, if it comes out the front, it’s going down to the lake, and a lot quicker. If it goes out the back, it’s going to stay there awhile. MR. THOMAS-Yes, you’re right. MRS. LAPHAM-And maybe filter through. MR. STONE-Yes. It’s much better going out the back. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Any more comments from any members of the Board? If not, a motion is in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-1998 MIKE DI PALMA , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 2469 Ridge Road, as described opposite Williamsons’ Variety Store. The applicant proposes construction of a 15 foot by 22 foot carport attached to an existing garage structure. As the Board understands it, this will be an open-sided carport on three sides, with a roof attached to the existing garage at some point up the existing slope. The applicant requires relief from the setback requirements of the LC-42 zone, namely side and front setbacks are 100 feet. The applicant proposes an 18.6 foot front yard setback and a 12 foot side yard setback. At present, the front setback is 18.6 for the garage, and 0 setback for the garage as it sits on the property line. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be allowed to construct a carport at a desired location. Feasible alternatives are limited to no construction because of the nature of the LC-42 zoning, which requires 100 foot setback from both the yard and the road. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? The relief may be interpreted as substantial, although construction activity is occurring “inside” the building lines of the existing non conforming structures, namely the garage, which sits on the property line. The effect on the neighborhood will be minimal, as anticipated as a result of this activity, and the difficulty is not interpreted as self created because of the large demands made upon LC-42 for a half acre lot. In granting this variance, the Board would stipulate that the front facing where the carport joins the roof would be closed in with facing approximating the current facing of the garage, and also that whatever is put in as the base of the carport, namely the fill, that this be contained in such a way that it stays in place forever and ever, and that the water coming off the roof be directed back to the drainage area behind the house where hopefully it will infiltrate before it gets to the lake. Also, the applicant stipulates in accepting this granting of the variance, that nothing will be closer to the property line than the existing garage, owing to comments made by the adjacent property owner, and the carport will look, both size wise and appearance wise, as the drawings presented, both the plot plan and the vertical elevation. If not, the variance will be null and void, and the applicant will be in violation. th Duly adopted this 18 day of March, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-There you go. Get your building permit and go right ahead. MR. FEENEY-Thank you. MR. DI PALMA-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A NOBLE TRUE VALUE OWNER: KEN NOBLE AND CHRIS ST. ANDREWS APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF STORAGE SPACE TO EXISTING RETAIL/COMMERCIAL BUSINESS. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS, PERMEABLE AREA, AND MAXIMUM BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-72, AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-66. CROSS REF. AV 23- 1989 AV 72-1995 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/11/98 TAX MAP NO. 72-6-24 LOT SIZE: 1.26 ACRES SECTION 179-22, 179-66, 179-72 CHRIS ST. ANDREWS & KEN NOBLE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-1998, Noble True Value Hardware, Meeting Date: March Project Location: Description of Proposed Project: 18, 1998 “Route 9 The applicant Relief Required: proposes construction of storage space additions to the existing structure. The applicant requests the following relief: 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) Type Required Proposed Side/Rear Setback 30 8.7 179-22 30 5/7 Buffer 179-22 50 5 & 179-72 50 5 Permeability 30% 12% 179-22 22 Building Density 12,000ft./acre 16,928 ft. 2 179-22 or 15,449 ft. Section 179-66 Parking requirements indicate parking is required for all “buildings…enlarged” after the effective date of the Ordinance. Parking space requirements are calculated on the basis of floor area excluding storage areas, therefore no additional parking spaces are required for the Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of proposed project. Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct additions to 2. Feasible alternatives: an existing facility. Feasible alternatives are limited to no construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Several of the request may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance, although the requests are relatively minor with respect to 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: existing conditions. The most significant 5. Is this difficulty self impacts will be to the Macey property directly west of the subject site. created?Parcel History (construction/site The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: None applicable. The project is being referred to the Planning Board for Site Plan review. The relief requests may be interpreted as significant relative to the Ordinance. The requests relative to the existing conditions are relatively minor. The permeable area and building size restrictions relate to the overall density development and the ability of a site to handle the associated impacts of development. The applicant proposes to address the impacts as part of the site plan review process. The setback and buffer relief requests have the greatest impact on the adjoining property owner and should be balanced with respect to SEQR Status: their concerns. Unlisted” th MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 11 day of March, 1998, the above application for: an Area Variance for an addition of warehouse space to existing retail business was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact” Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Noble and Mr. St. Andrews. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Hi. MR. NOBLE-Hi. MR. THOMAS-Would you like to add anything to the application? Tell us about anything? MR. ST. ANDREWS-The basic reason maybe why we’re doing this may be a help to start. We need the room. If you’ve ever been in the store, if you’ve ever been in the back of the store, you would see how hard it is for us to operate that business. So what we’re trying to do is to seek some relief, with the added storage space on the side and on the second story to the back of what already exists. We just need some relief, and this would help us a great deal, to remain competitive, to provide the level of service that we like to provide. I guess that’s it for starters. I’ll add anywhere along the way. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The first thing I noticed when I went back there, this isn’t really, well, it’s part of your concern but not ours, is the power lines going over that. I think they may have to be re-located or something. Have you contacted Niagara Mohawk and asked them? MR. ST. ANDREWS-No. There are three poles that are a problem, and I’ve gone as far as to find out how much they’re going to cost to move, and if they will be willing to move them. So that much has gone on. They would be glad to do it for $900 a piece, but they’re not going to move them on their own. We’ll have to pay for it to be done. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. THOMAS-But I just wanted to make you aware of that, because there’s, because clearance problems. You’re going to run into OSHA problems if somebody gets hurt while they’re putting this thing up. MR. STONE-Where are these? I missed them. MR. THOMAS-They’re right on that property line. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. They’re actually on our side. MR. THOMAS-They’re actually on your side of the property line. Because I see, you know, you’re going back there five feet from that property line, but just to make you aware of that, and there’s going to be safety concerns in there, and that’s part of the safety, health and welfare, that if somebody gets up there on that second story of that warehouse and starts swinging something around, they could actually land something right into that primary, and, oh well, they’re just a memory. MR. ST. ANDREWS-No, you’re absolutely right, and the one before it is leaning. I’m hoping they can remove that one, too. That’s like right by where her turn around is right there. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. MR. ST. ANDREWS-I don’t show it on what I’ve got, but there’s one right around in there. MR. STONE-Is that turnaround on your property or her property? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Well, it’s actually our property, but she has the right to use it as a turnaround, as long as she is there. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ST. ANDREWS-That’s in the deed. That’s the way we purchased it. I’ve had several conversations with her. I think I should probably bring that up right from the forefront, and she has given me a letter, which I hope, or given us a letter which I hope that you’ve received. I’ve spoken to her for a couple of months about this to address any concerns that she’s got, and she did get me a letter. MR. ROUND-It’s in the file. They’ll read it into the public record. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Okay. Just, I know there was a concern about her and about this turnaround coming up again. So, I mean, she has no problem with the project, with the things that we’ve addressed for her, and, you know, she at first was going to just let me take that turnaround right away, for example, and I, after several conversations with her, didn’t think that was in her best interest, but she’s been very nice about the whole thing, and understands that it is our property, but we don’t need it. It’s not that necessary. It’s not going to make that much of a difference, and it’s going to help her a lot. So, yes, she’d still get the turnaround. We’re going to have to make real sure that we support that wall real well, because it’s, you know, going to be substantial in height, you know, six feet or so. So we’ve got to be careful with that. MR. STONE-Well now it’s natural, isn’t it? MR. NOBLE-Kind of. There’s a bank you would have to move. Moving it out, it’s going to need to be supported. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, I have a question about this blue container. That’s storage space right now, I assume. MR. NOBLE-Temporary storage space. MR. STONE-Does that go when you do this? 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. MR. NOBLE-It goes anyway. MR. ST. ANDREWS-It just got there. MR. NOBLE-It’s not there all year round. MR. STONE-It isn’t? MR. ST. ANDREWS-No. MR. NOBLE-It comes and goes. Right now it’s the height of our inventory level, going into the spring. So we are (lost word) it’s full now. MR. STONE-Chris, is that something that has to be, do they have your permission for that? MR. ROUND-There’s a couple of ways you can look at it, and it hasn’t been an issue. How’s that? MR. STONE-Okay. Then I’m not going to raise it, at the moment. MR. ST. ANDREWS-We’ve only had that about two months, and we will get rid of it as soon as we can. We don’t like them at all. MR. NOBLE-You can’t get to the back room. I mean, they’re not practical for us. MR. ST. ANDREWS-We don’t want them either. MR. NOBLE-They’re a necessary evil. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Not at the moment. MR. THOMAS-I have one. This dotted line that shows, it looks like it was hand drawn in. It comes from the existing. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. That’s asphalt MR. THOMAS-That’s asphalt around there? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Correct. That’s asphalt all the way around. Even under that addition, I think it shows on that side addition, that’s also asphalt there. MR. ROUND-Yes. Is it underneath the addition, too? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I see where it says line of existing macadam, but that long end of the building, I didn’t know if that was something different. MR. STONE-There’s snow in there, too, when I went back there. MR. ST. ANDREWS-That’s what it is. That’s asphalt there, for the runoff off the roof. MR. STONE-Out of curiosity, this very long warehouse here, where do you get into it? MR. NOBLE-We’re going to have to make doors into the side going into it from the building. We’ll have to break through the wall. MR. STONE-Right where all you have your stuff hanging? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. There are actually two doors on that wall now. MR. STONE-Are there? 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. There’s one that’s an emergency exit. I think that is a real one. That one’s got the light and everything. That one we would be able to just go right through. There’s a door. So it’s already through. That’s a poured wall. It’s real hard to get through those walls. MR. MC NALLY-Which wall are you talking about? MR. STONE-The north wall. MR. NOBLE-The north wall. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes, the north wall, the long one where the additional warehousing would be, and up at the top, it doesn’t show it either, but there’s another door up there, right toward the end of the addition. MR. NOBLE-You wouldn’t see it inside the building. There’s that windowed corner. MR. STONE-It’s where the office? MR. NOBLE-Yes. It’s at the other side of that wall. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. There’s another one right there. You could see them on the outside of that wall. They’re right flush with the metal doors. That one isn’t an emergency exit. So there are two existing holes now, but we might add another one, but those would allow us to get the overstocks for those departments right there, for easier access. Instead of everybody filing into the back of the store. 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? There’s correspondence, I know, on this one. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. LAPHAM-Let me make sure I have it all. February 27, 1998, NOBLE True Value, from Glen Lake Service Corporation, Post Office Box 4185, 91 Broadway, Albany, NY 12204, RE: Addition to NOBLE True Value “We do not have any problems concerning the proposed 10 foot additional to the True Value Hardware Store next to our property. We realize that this brings the building within eight feet of our property line. If you have any questions concerning this, please do not hesitate to call me at (518) 432-4165. Sincerely, Joshua E. Saxe, President/Owner” What I don’t have is the, or I haven’t found it anyway yet, is this letter from Mrs. Macey, that we talked about before. March 10, 1998, Mr. Chris St. Andrews, Noble True Value, Old Aviation Road, Queensbury, NY “Dear Chris: Please consider this my acknowledgment of your proposed store addition indicated on the preliminary site plan dated February 19, 1998. I have no objections to this addition, provided the following conditions are met: The landscape timber wall is designed and installed to handle the earth and live loads from the adjacent parking area. All required maintenance to the wall will be provided by Noble True Value. A six foot high cedar stockade fence will be properly installed and maintained by Noble True Value, along with the top of the landscape timber wall. The fence will taper down to the roadway level to provide a proper line of sight for pulling out of the driveway. We will agree on any specific trees which are to remain prior to clearing this area. Any property disturbed for construction purposes will be properly restored as soon as possible by Noble True Value. Sincerely, Susan Macey, property owner, 17 Old Aviation Road” MR. THOMAS-Okay, and that’s it, just those two things? MRS. LAPHAM-I think so. I didn’t have anymore in my own packet. I’m looking here. No, those are the only two. MR. STONE-There’s a letter from Mr. St. Andrews to Chris, answering the questions that Chris raised, which we didn’t read into the record either. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. ROUND-Yes. Those are related to site plan. I think the plans in front of you reflect some deficiencies that we had noted, and some of the other issues are related to site plan related issues. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. So you want me to read that? MR. THOMAS-No. I don’t think that has to be read in there. The only thing I, you know, from that last letter from Mrs. Macey was about the fence six foot high. I don’t think they can put a six foot fence in there. MR. ROUND-Six is the Ordinance. MR. THOMAS-I thought it was four. MR. ROUND-No. MR. ST. ANDREWS-I could probably add a little bit to those comments, because I talked to her on every one of those points. I mean, I went over everything with her, what we should do for her. I mean, her fence stops halfway down the yard, you know, and then we were just going to continue it for her, to give her a good look. I don’t know whether, maybe I just didn’t hear it, but it’s going to taper down at the end, so that she can see, so the view isn’t broken at all. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. ST. ANDREWS-We were just matching what she had. MR. ROUND-Yes. Six foot’s allowed in a residential zone in the side yard, and then you could go eight feet in a commercial zone. MR. THOMAS-“No fence over three feet in height shall be erected or maintained in any front or side yard” residential zone, 174B(2). MR. ROUND-I think you’re looking at an old reg. MR. THOMAS-Over four feet in height will be erected, mine says, then it says six in any side yard. MR. ROUND-Architectural front yard. MR. STONE-It’s a front yard. MR. ROUND-Front yard. MR. STONE-Six. MR. ROUND-Front yard is four feet, side and rear are six. MR. THOMAS-I think I better stop down and get me a new book. MR. ROUND-I think you’ve got it right. It says, B2 is no fence over four feet erected in a front yard. MR. THOMAS-Well, mine says, no fence over three feet in height shall be erected or maintained in any front or side yard. MR. ROUND-I’ve got 11/25 revision date. MR. THOMAS-I’ve got 6/25/93. MR. STONE-I’ve got 11/25/94. MR. ROUND-You’ve got an old. MR. THOMAS-I want a new book. MR. ROUND-So noted. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. ST. ANDREWS-And there’s one other issue there with one of her points about fixing her property. I spoke to her about it. We’d probably have to tie in this wall, actually on her property. It comes like within a foot of her line, back over by her yard. I mean, the turnaround is actually our land. So the first part of it, it’s really our land. It’s a moot point, but I did speak to her about, after that we’d have to come on her property to dig in those tie backs to hold that wall, and that’s where she addressed that point, that she understood that and didn’t have a problem with it, and we’d, you know, re-seed it for her after we were done. MR. STONE-About four or five years ago, four years ago, when we tried to straighten out, when Jim Martin and the Town Board tried to straighten out, and they wanted to come through your front yard. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Right, take up the parking lot. MR. STONE-Right. Is that, I guess, a dead issue at the moment? MR. NOBLE-From a meeting that we had here with the DOT and some other people, that’s a dead issue. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ROUND-Yes. Just as additional clarification, it’s the Greenway North connector proposal. It’s part of the traffic improvement program that they were looking at to alleviate Aviation Road and Route 9 and 254 intersection, and that was one of several proposals. Number One, there’s not political support, and Number Two, there was a difficulty negotiating in what the State was willing to pony up for money in support, like basically take all the parking for this particular site and not mitigate those concerns, other than monetary concerns, and that wasn’t an acceptable, I mean, they couldn’t have, they couldn’t reach a consensus of opinion on that, and in light of that, and some other situations, it’s no longer a priority project for the DOT. It’s not on their TIP, their Transportation Improvement Program. It’s going to be taken off that list. They’ve shelved it, so to speak. MR. MC NALLY-They wanted to make a street out of your parking lot? MR. NOBLE-They were going to compensate us for the street, but not for the building, which the people here at the Town said, you can’t do that. You’re going to put them out of business. MR. STONE-Some very active discussions for about six, eight months. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes, yes it was. MR. STONE-Okay. What about, one of the things I was concerned about, when I was visiting there today, because you know, I go all the time, which is not swaying one way or the other. I enjoy your store, but you see things differently when you go out as a ZBA member. That shed on the side, on the south side, you’ve got a roof, and then you’ve got the open chained fence there. I don’t know, it’s internal to the lot, so I guess it doesn’t encroach on any setbacks, but it’s messy. MR. ST. ANDREWS-But it’s ugly. MR. NOBLE-It’s ugly. MR. STONE-It’s ugly. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. It’s real ugly. MR. NOBLE-We don’t like it. MR. ST. ANDREWS-We could go back on the history, from when the road came to the fact that we were looking elsewhere, you know, we were going to move. I don’t really want to get too far away from the point, but when we did decide to stay, we need every spot we’ve got. We pack that little thing that’s out there, because we’re forced to, but with what we’re going to do, we’d like to, we hate to give it up here and say that to you. We don’t want to, but we don’t like it. We’d rather have the parking spaces, quite honestly 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. STONE-Have you considered moving your divider, in terms of the Old Aviation Road? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. MR. NOBLE-Yes. We thought about different methods. MR. ST. ANDREWS-In what way do you mean, back? MR. STONE-Move it back to Old Aviation Road, because I don’t know how many people you get, you get trucks coming down there. MR. NOBLE-And have everyone come in from Route 9? Yes. We thought of it. We don’t think it, you know, we have so many people that love to come in the back. MR. STONE-Do you? MR. NOBLE-Yes. MR. ST. ANDREWS-But I still think that we will think more about that when we do this, that that might be a good idea. Because what we should be able to get it more usable parking spaces in the back, which we don’t have now. MR. STONE-You’d have to take that shed out, obviously. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Once the shed goes, just the way the trucks access now, though, the way they come in. They’re always blocking, we have to page people to come down and move their cars because a truck needs to make a delivery. It’s a problem. If we’re able to do what we want to do, we’ll be able to move these trucks farther up the hill, and they won’t be blocking the available parking that exists there now. So that will be better for the people who do come in the back way, which is a great way to come in, but we could move those back. MR. NOBLE-Initially (lost words) people wouldn’t use it as a thoroughfare (lost words) because that’s where everybody cut through when it was Continental, and nobody, the building wasn’t used, just once in a while. People used to cut through there. Somebody was going to get killed. So that was our initial purpose of putting those there. MR. STONE-The Town didn’t ask you to put those up? MR. ST. ANDREWS-No. MR. NOBLE-No, we did it. MR. ST. ANDREWS-We were going to get killed. MR. NOBLE-So we have always thought of a better scheme to handle parking, but a lot of people, in fact, do use the back way, and I think, you know, the way the road is set up now, I think it’s prudent to let people still come in the back way, and come down that way. I think it helps the traffic. MR. STONE-Where do your employees park, out of curiosity? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Down at Kubricky’s, down the street, down in his parking lot, there, behind Warren Tire, on the back side of all that. MR. STONE-Way down there? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Well, it’s not that far. MR. STONE-No, the other Warren Tire. There’s so many Warren Tires. I was thinking down Glen. MR. NOBLE-They just walk up. MR. STONE-They walk up. Okay. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. ST. ANDREWS-It’s like right across from McDonalds, in back of McDonalds. MR. NOBLE-He kicks us out occasionally, when his equipment’s in there and stuff. MR. THOMAS-All right. So, taking care of that, anymore questions for the applicant? I’ve already closed the public hearing. Time to talk about it. Bonnie, I’ll start with you this time. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Well, when I walked around there and looked around, I don’t think I have a problem with this, except that it’s so close to the neighboring property, and I think they do need storage space, and we certainly want to, at least I want to encourage a local business to stay competitive. MR. THOMAS-What about the buffers? Do you have any problems with those? MRS. LAPHAM-As long as they’re, as stated, the six foot fence and the planters, and the retaining wall. MR. THOMAS-Because it’s supposed to be 50 feet, and they’re only proposing five feet. MRS. LAPHAM-But I don’t see how they could do anything else, you know, and go ahead with this project, and I haven’t heard objection from the neighbors, which is what I generally will listen for. MR. THOMAS-How about the permeability? They require 30% and they have 16 now and they’re going down to 12. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Can I say something? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. ST. ANDREWS-There are no drywells there. There are no problems with the runoff as it exists right now. Everything runs down the hill. There’s, we really have no problems with water. MRS. LAPHAM-Runs down the hill where? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Well, in the back side, it runs down Old Aviation Road, just runs right down along the road. MR. STONE-To what? MR. ST. ANDREWS-I don’t know where it goes. It goes right by us down the hill. We’ve never had any standing water. We’ve never had any flooding problems. We’ve never had any water in our parking lot or any problems at all. MR. STONE-Are there any storm sewers? MR. ROUND-I don’t know about Old Aviation. There is on 9. MR. STONE-There is on 9. So it probably hopefully, it must, because it doesn’t pool anywhere on there. MR. ROUND-Right, but they are proposing to some structures. MR. STONE-I see that. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Even though we don’t have a problem with it, we’re putting some in to hopefully help that permeability issue. MR. STONE-And you will grade such that they will? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Right, run into them, but we want to re-pave. MR. NOBLE-Yes. We’re going to re-pave the parking lot at some point in time. That’ll be part of this project. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else you want to add on there, Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-No, not right now. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I share Bonnie’s concern about the closeness, but I do want to understand the numbers. I mean, we say five feet on the buffer, but that’s also five feet from the side yard, too, or the side. We’re saying 8.7, but as I look at the corner of the new building, it says five feet, which is both buffer and the side/rear setback. MR. ROUND-The 8.7 adjacent to another Highway Commercial use. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. ROUND-Now, right below that, there’s not a line item on the type. It’s also side and rear setback, and it says five and seven, do you see that right there? MR. STONE-I see what you’re saying. MR. ROUND-It’s 30 feet’s required, and five and seven. So you’re granting relief from the side setback and from the buffer requirement. MR. STONE-Okay. That was the concern. I think it’s very close, but we’ve heard from the owner of the residential property. We’ve heard from the owner of the commercial property. It’s going to change the permeability. Although, is it really only 12%, when I look at all this land? It’s all paved, I’m sorry. But they’re going to try to drain some of this water off, before it even gets off the property. I said to myself when I looked at the thing, I need convincing, but I think I’m convinced. I did write a facetious note, why not build to the property line itself? Why only leave five feet? MR. THOMAS-You’ve got to have something there. MR. STONE-I know. MR. THOMAS-This isn’t the Village of Lake George. MR. STONE-Well, I put “Ha, Ha”, also when I wrote that down. No, I think it’s a worthwhile project. It obviously is, to the average eye looking at this thing, they’re not going to see a difference. They’re going to see a store. It’ll be a little wider. It’ll be a little deeper, but on the same token, you’re clearing out this shed on the back side, on Old Aviation Road. You’re putting in, going to the expense of putting in these drywells and everything else. I have no problem. MR. THOMAS-All right. Robert? MR. MC NALLY-It would be a great benefit to Noble True Value to construct additions to the existing facility. They’re kind of tight to begin with, and I share Lew’s point that I don’t think anyone’s really going to notice any change in the actual building itself, when you come down to it. The addition in the back particularly is going to be non noticeable. The one along the side, I don’t really think that there’s any major impact on the area whatsoever. There are no real feasible alternatives, given the limited site that they have already. So the second exception certainly is not applicable. Relief is substantial to the Ordinance, though. It is a small lot, relative to the kind of business being operated on the premises, but all in all, I don’t see it as being of major significance, in view of the fact that the neighbors don’t care, and that Mrs. Macey’s property concerns are going to be addressed by the applicants. Is the difficulty self created? It can be considered as such, but this is an on-going and an existing business which simply needs room to expand for storage space, not store space, per se, and given the limitations on the property, I don’t have a problem with it. MR. STONE-I do have one question, if I may, Mr. Chairman. What is the height of this long tunnel building you have? Is that one story? MR. THOMAS-The one that says single story, 10 by 130 feet warehouse. MR. STONE-Where does it say single story? 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. THOMAS-Right above “10 by 130 feet”. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. I can’t give you the exact height. I’m not sure. MR. STONE-On this one. I’m sorry. I didn’t, I was looking at the other. MR. THOMAS-You’ve got to look at both. I noticed that, too. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s my mea culpa. Sorry, guys. Okay. MR. MC NALLY-I think some of the permeability concerns were addressed by the drywell, and given the existing structure, the buffer concerns aren’t of any major concern to me. MR. THOMAS-What about the building density? They’re asking, you know, they’re asking for about 1480 square feet more than the zoning allows. MR. MC NALLY-That’s true. MR. STONE-Is that with the old shed, or the shed taken down? MR. THOMAS-This is the proposed, with the old shed removed. MR. STONE-I just wondered how it was figured now. MR. MC NALLY-Figure about 1500 square feet more than he’s allowed. MR. THOMAS-Yes, on the density, the density issue. MR. STONE-I understand the density issue, but, first of all, the required is, 15,000. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s the maximum he could have because the property is 1.4 something acres. MR. STONE-Right. MR. MC NALLY-See, if you were adding on the front, somewhere really visible, I’d be more concerned with the total square footage, but it’s a relatively insubstantial increase, when you consider the total size of the building. It’s got to be close to that already. MR. STONE-I have a question I’ll ask later. It has nothing to do with this, but it’s a question that came up in our discussions earlier. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else you want to add on to that, Bob? MR. MC NALLY-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Joe? MR. PORTER-The retaining wall I had a concern on, but in discussion, I think you guys had mentioned that you’re going to have tie backs on it, which is going to protect it, the drywells which should take care of the water runoff, you know providing you (lost words) heavy traffic ones for your own protection, of course, but it’s a much needed thing. The addition on the side there, on the north side, will that change the integrity, or the structural part of the building at all? You’re just adding on to it the big roof, just butting up to it? MR. ST. ANDREWS-That’s all, yes. MR. NOBLE-Just butting up to it. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Will that do it for you? I had one question that slipped my mind. I don’t have a problem with this. The neighbors don’t have a problem with it. That was my big concern is what the neighbors were going to say, and I think that the applicant has addressed all the neighbor’s 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) concerns, and the runoff we’re taking care of with some drywells proposed there. Getting rid of the shed, moving that propane tank back and making that back more accessible, because I can see where they have a problem with deliveries back in there. As far as everything else, the setbacks no problems. The buffer, the neighbors don’t have a problem with it. I don’t have a problem with it. Permeability, trying to alleviate it with the drywells and the building density. It’s like the other Board members said that, you know, what else could they do on this property? The applicants feel they need to expand to stay competitive. I can’t argue with them. I’m not in the retail business, thank God, because I’d starve, and like I say, like Bob said, the additions are on the sides and on the back, and they’re going to be not very visible from the main travel corridor of Route 9. So I have no problem whatsoever with this. MR. STONE-I have one quick question. When you do this, would you, are you re-considering your parking line striping? Have you ever considered one way in on the northern driveway, and then everything out by the light? You do have a light on the lower one, and somebody commented to me, and I’ve noticed it myself, that if you come in from the south, from the south entrance, and you try to park in the front of the building, it’s almost a contortion. If you came in, just throw it out as a, it probably loses half a space, though. I recognize that if you put the parking spaces at an angle. MR. ST. ANDREWS-If we angled them back uphill? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ST. ANDREWS-I never thought of it really. Yes, I know coming in that way myself, you’re right. I go to the right. I park over to the right. MR. STONE-If you made the other entrance only, and you’d get people driving right straight into those slots, but anyway, I’d just throw it out. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-No more questions for the applicant? Anymore comment from the Board members? This is an Unlisted action, so we have to do a review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Does anybody have any problems with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form? Does anyone see where this threshold would be exceeded? MR. STONE-This property is likely to stay commercial, Chris, with the new zoning, I assume. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Well, I see it here, that’s all, the existing plans or goals as officially adopted. MRS. LAPHAM-Nothing’s going to happen that hasn’t happened there already. MR. THOMAS-Yes. All right. Anyone else? All right. MOTION THAT AFTER A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: th Duly adopted this 18 day of March, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-Okay. Now a motion’s in order, to approve, deny or table this application. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1998 NOBLE TRUE VALUE , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) Route 9. The applicant proposes the construction of storage space additions to existing commercial property as depicted on their drawings, to also include removal of a shed and propane tank relocation as indicated on those drawings. I move that the applicant be given the following relief. With respect to the side/rear setback requirements of Section 179-22, normally requiring a 30 foot setback, I move that we grant relief of 21.3 feet, with respect to the northerly line, as indicated on the drawings, which would result in an 8.7 foot setback, and with respect to the northwestern corner, where the corners of the proposed structures are respectively five and seven feet, I move that we approve a setback relief of 25 and 23 feet respectively for those two corners. With respect to the buffer requirements of Section 179-22 and Section 179-72, I propose that the applicant be allowed a setback relief of 45 feet from the required 50 foot setback. With respect to the permeability requirements of Section 179-22, I propose and move that the applicant be allowed a 12% permeability, where otherwise a 30% permeability would be required, provided, of course, that they construct the drywells as indicated in the drawings and submissions on this application to accommodate some of our concerns in that regard. With respect to the building density requirements of Section 179-22, I move that the applicant be allowed a total building density of 16,928 square feet, which would be relief of 1,479 square feet. There was concern during this application that the applicant would have to meet Section 179-66, but since the space that they’re increasing this building by is pure storage space, as opposed to actual retail storage space, there is no actual parking requirement. Mr. Chairman, the benefit to the applicant would be that they would be allowed to construct an addition to an existing facility and thereby continue their operations as they have been on this site for several years. The feasible alternatives are limited. In fact, there are no feasible alternatives because irrespective of how they wish to expand at this site, they’re going to run into these very same concerns with the side and rear setback requirements, the buffer permeability and building density limitations of the zoning code. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Well, altogether the requests, I believe, are relatively minor given the existing use and the density of the structure and the size and position of the building on the lot. The effects on the neighborhood or community I believe are going to be minimal. The property is already used as a commercial property, and it is relatively intensely used, given the site size, and the neighbors to the north and west, that is the Macey’s and Mr. Saxe, have all consented to the proposed additions. As part of this motion, I would require the applicant and make it contingent, an express contingency of the motion that the concerns of Ms. Macey, as addressed in her letter submitted to this Board be met, and I think the applicant has consented to that already. The difficulty, and the last requirement, as to whether or not the problem is self created, it is self created, in that this is an option that the applicants have chosen to go forward with. They’re certainly under no compulsion to do so, but given all the factors, on balance, I feel that it should be in favor of passing this proposed variance, and therefore, I ‘d make that motion. th Duly adopted this 18 day of March, 1998, by the following vote: MR. STONE-Can we put in there that, he mentioned the plan, but can we date it 3/8/98, in terms of the? MR. ROUND-I guess I’d be concerned that it’s going to be subject to site plan review, and there may be some modifications as a result of site plan review, and I wouldn’t want to have to have them come back to you guys. MR. STONE-Okay. Good point. MR. THOMAS-But, you know, when it goes to site plan review, they move the buildings, without coming back to us. MR. ROUND-I could say that the size of the structures, I mean, basically you’ve closed that in by the amount of relief you’re granting, but as far as the size of the structures as they’re presented on the plan, I’d be comfortable with that, but anything else. MR. STONE-Okay. Fine. Good point. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Very good. AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Porter, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-I only have one question. I should know this. You are? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Chris St. Andrews. MR. STONE-You’re Chris. Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-1998 TYPE II WR-1A MORGAN & MARY VITTENGL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE END OF BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A LAKEFRONT HOME. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16. CROSS REF. AV 5-1996 TAX MAP NO. 40-1-33 LOT SIZE: 0.03 ACRES SECTION 179-16 MORGAN VITTENGL, PRESENT MR. ROUND-Just a note, we utilized the previous application. I allowed Mr. Vittengl to modify that, and there’s some inconsistencies, just to correct. The structure has been built. The Board did grant, previously, relief, side setback and other relief unrelated to the current application, but the current application is the structure’s been built and requires additional relief, above and beyond what was granted previously, and that’ll be reflected in my notes to you. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-1998, Morgan & Mary Vittengl, Meeting Date: March 18, Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: 1998 “ Birdsall Road/Glen Lake The Relief applicant has constructed a house requiring additional relief from the setback requirements. Required: Variance No. 5-1996 was issued, allowing a 7 foot side setback. The house is located 5.1 feet from the side line and requires relief from the 12 foot WR-1A setback requirement. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:2. Feasible alternatives: Maintenance of a non-conforming structure. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Limited/none. The relief may be 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: interpreted as substantial. Effects are limited to 5. Is this difficulty self-created?Parcel History the adjoining property owner. Yes. (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: See noted area variance above. None. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Dr. Vittengl, two words, what happened? DR. VITTENGL-I miss you guys. I guess I’m the end of the line. So the construction error, and I acted as general contractor. I think as you, or a few of you recalled, the property was narrow to begin with, and in order to appease a neighbor on the west side to the left, as you’re looking at the lake, we pushed everything to the opposite side, to the east, and put some shrubs in there, and unfortunately, during excavation or when the foundation was set up, it wasn’t exactly where it should have been, and so the house ended up in the position that it’s in. Unfortunately, it gives me no benefit whatsoever and adds more chaos to the whole situation, but that’s the gist of it. MR. STONE-Well, first of all, the deck, in terms of relief, the deck appears to me to be closer than the 5.1. I mean, I recognize that Staff has said 5.1, based upon the drawing, but the deck, I would, I don’t have a scale with me. DR. VITTENGL-The deck is, it’s two story on the front. MR. STONE-No, no, no, but from the line. It’s closer than 5.1 feet. DR. VITTENGL-Okay. I’m just going by what the Town. MR. ROUND-I guess there’s a note from a neighbor that it’s approximately four and a half feet. MR. STONE-Four and a half, okay. It’s obviously closer than the 5.1, and if we do choose to give relief, we have to know that number, or chop it off. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any more questions for Dr. Vittengl? 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. STONE-I would have to say two words. We can always give our speech, as a lot of us have, that we’re very upset when something comes before us that is already a fait accompli, particularly when a variance was granted in the first place, but I have no questions. Obviously, it happened. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Anymore questions, Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-None down there on the right wing? All right. 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 GLENN POWELL MR. POWELL-My name is Glenn Powell, and I’m adjacent to Morgan Vittengl there. I’ve owned the property for 20 years, and I own where the boundary still has the two original markers there, the survey markers, and you can stand at the point, up on top of the hill, and you can look down at both the survey markers, and you could come within inches of where you’re located, and what it is, the soffit of the house is 38 inches off my boundary, and the whole house is less than five foot from my property, and then the timbers, he’s got landscape timbers where he landscaped up through, it’s eight foot over my property, and all the runoff for the house and whatever, on that side is all over six foot on my property on a four inch tube that runs over into my parcel, and he has planted cedars on the property, it’s up to five feet over, and then he has one hemlock that’s planted on the property, seven foot over the line, and then during the excavation of the cellar, most of the excavation materials was bulldozed over onto my property, and that’s 30 foot over, plus boulders about 40 foot over, and another variance I’d disagree with it all. MR. STONE-Are you saying, sir, that the eaves of the house are closer than the 5.1 that’s shown here? MR. POWELL-Yes. MR. STONE-Chris, I didn’t really notice. MR. POWELL-The building itself is less than five, but then the soffit and the eaves trough is out further, yes. DR. VITTENGL-Maybe to clarify that, that deck you’re saying is the closest point to that boundary line. There’s a post that comes down from that deck, that would be the closest. MR. STONE-The deck is still the closest? DR. VITTENGL-That would still be the closest point to the property line. MR. POWELL-And then the chimney, that’s actually even closer yet, Morgan. That’s 4.6. MR. STONE-Is it? Not according to this drawing, but that doesn’t say this is right. MR. THOMAS-That would be about right, because that chimney’s 30 inches, and it shows 7.7 to the corner. MR. STONE-I’m sorry, yes. MR. POWELL-All the landscaping and everything was all over onto my property there. MR. STONE-You say over. You mean the trees hang over, the trunks, or are the trunks over? MR. POWELL-No, but the landscaping, they were planted, and the landscape timbers were eight foot onto my property, for landscaping, and then the soffit and drainage of the house is six foot over onto my property also, the pipe, is everything over the line, and then the excavation 30 foot over the line, on the excavation. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. STONE-This is something that Staff should see? MR. ROUND-I wasn’t aware of it. Mr. Powell wrote a letter to the Staff, and I believe Dr. Vittengl had addressed some of those concerns, and John O’Brien, of our Building Department, had verified that some of the things were addressed as of today, and it’s in the file. We’ve got a copy of the letter and a copy of John’s inspection report, but again, I’d rely on Mr. Powell. If he’s got concerns, that you’d have to address his concerns. MRS. LAPHAM-Here’s the letter. MR. ROUND-This is the letter, and here’s a copy of the inspection report. Then I would address, if you want to read Mr. Powell’s letter, and then this in response, and go from there. MR. THOMAS-We’ll do that with the correspondence. Because Mr. Powell’s sitting right in front of us right now. Are there any questions for Mr. Powell? MR. MC NALLY-You’re on the property which is, okay, I see, right here. MR. STONE-You said, is your house in the middle of this, it looks like there’s two lot lines there. There are two lot lines on this property, according to the plot plan that we have. MR. POWELL-I don’t know. I never did see that, Mr. Stone. MR. THOMAS-One says Lot 55. The other says Lot 34. It’s probably the old great lot lines. MR. POWELL-That could be. I don’t know. MR. STONE-You access your property from Mannix? MR. POWELL-Yes, I do. MR. STONE-You guys are at opposite ends of the access to the lake. MR. POWELL-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And your concern was there was a drain that went six feet onto your property? MR. POWELL-Yes, the drainage of his house. MR. ROUND-There is a sketch that we received from Mr. Powell. MR. POWELL-Plus the landscaping and everything is all over onto my property, and the fill, that’s what really, the fill is 30 foot deep. It’s 30 foot over onto my property, and then the boulders are 40 foot. MR. STONE-That hill is not natural? MR. POWELL-Where the excavation was taken out for the cellar was bulldozed over onto my property. MR. STONE-So that hill that sort of sits alongside the house is excavation, more than anything. MRS. LAPHAM-And that’s on your property? MR. STONE-Yes, it is. MR. MC NALLY-Have you had any discussions with Dr. Vittengl regarding what plans there are regarding that fill? MR. POWELL-No, I didn’t. MR. MC NALLY-And you objected to the landscaping more because it was on your property, as opposed to the fact that it was landscaping itself. I presume the shrubs were decent, in and of themselves. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. POWELL-Well, like he says, it doesn’t benefit his property, having his house closer to mine. Well, it sure does. I mean, he’s landscaped over onto my property eight feet more. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Powell? I guess not. MR. MC NALLY-What does he want us to do? MR. THOMAS-I don’t know. What would you like us to do? MR. MC NALLY-The landscape thing is an easy thing to resolve, I think. MR. POWELL-Yes, but the stone over the back. MR. MC NALLY-Is it the fill and the rocks? MR. POWELL-Another variance, I just don’t go with. I okayed it once, and it wasn’t right, and with the 50 foot frontage, there should have been more care taken. That’s all. MR. STONE-So you’re saying, there’s still property way on the back side, up near the road, up near Birdsall. MR. POWELL-Yes, on the back side of mine. MR. STONE-Right. MR. POWELL-But on the Birdsall Road. MR. STONE-This red line you put in here, that is your interpretation of the property line? MR. POWELL-Yes, and there’s two stakes there. MR. STONE-Yes. I know, I see the flag, too, which I’ve never quite understood how exact a flag can be, but. MR. THOMAS-You never know. MR. STONE-That’s the lake side, of course. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Powell? MR. STONE-Well, let me ask a very basic question. How would you feel if we said to Dr. Vittengl, take it down, the house, to make it conform? Which is an option that we have. MR. POWELL-That’s right. It’s a mistake, but it was a mistake to a certain point. I know, with the corners and everything, the way it sits there, it was not an honest mistake, and I know with the 30 foot of dumping, bulldozing materials over on my property, that wasn’t an honest mistake. MR. STONE-So you have no sympathy? MR. POWELL-No. MR. STONE-Okay. I just want to know where you stand. Thank you for your candor. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak opposed? The correspondence, you’ve got to read that letter. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. March 12, 1998, Dr. Morgan Vittengl, 2554 Route 9, Ballston Spa, NY 12020 “Dear Morgan: In response to your call two weeks ago requesting a letter to the Town of Queensbury; I have carefully inspected the property line between our parcels on Glen Lake. You have taken much more liberty at landscaping along that line than was previously agreed upon. When you started excavating for the new house, I did write a letter allowing for sloping of the bank along 30’ (thirty feet) of the boundary between the properties. However, you have gone beyond that: 1. Your house is only 4’6” from the property line. 2. The roof gutter drains extend 6 ft. over the line onto our property. 3. Three landscape timbers are 8 feet over the line onto our property. 4. Trees planted on our property to benefit your landscaping include 1 hemlock and 3 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) cedar trees. 5. The parking area on top is leveled out 30 feet over the property line with rocks and boulders edging the area that are 30 feet into our property. None of these changes on our property were discussed with us or agreed upon. They certainly give you a nice advantage while doing little to help our property. Because of this, I cannot reasonably write the Town as you requested. I will send them a copy of this letter. I have pictures of the property line available if you have any questions. Sincerely, Glenn” A copy to the Town of Queensbury. “Residential Final Inspection Report Inspection Received 3/17/98 Permit No. 96-577 “As per Glenn Powell’s request, the following items have been removed: Gutter drain removed, landscape timbers removed, trees removed, rocks and boulders 8 total at the most will be removed in spring (within next month) cover Kraft faced insulation in electrical room” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Dr. Vittengl? MR. MC NALLY-Do you have any response to your neighbor’s? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. I mean, I’d like to clarify a few things, if I can. One is, those were definitely on his property. The landscaping, again, with the line discrepancy, I’m sorry about that, and those were removed. That whole area up there was originally a large, I don’t know what you call it, a berm I guess, all through there, and the parcel that I bought originally had a ridge that ran into it. Probably three quarters of the way across. So that had to be removed in order to excavate for the house. That’s the only spot on that property that could have been used to place a camp. The old camp was actually an old trailer down by the water. The property slopes at both ends pretty radically, not so much toward the lake, but pretty much so toward the back side where the pond is, and as it does all the way along that ridge as it continues. If any debris went on his property, it only served to build and give him more property on the back side. I’m not saying that was done intentionally. We hauled debris out of there for excavation. If some of it went over it here, I won’t deny that maybe some of it went over there. We didn’t do that intentionally, and I think you have to see the property to understand what’s happening there as far as that dropping off. His camp sits down on the other side, completely down in front. The ridge rises to the middle where you see the utility pole on the top there, and then drops again, like a peak down toward, almost directly down toward the pond, at whatever angle, 30 degree angle. What lies in there is debris, old trees, many things. As far as the rock border that I put up, I have it along the back side, some boulders that we got from excavating and pushed them against the wall so that people wouldn’t drive over that bank. I can’t remember how tall. It’s at least 30 feet up, in the back. On the back side, where it was bermed, if it’s graded over a little bit, there were a few boulders on that side. John was up there today, O’Brien, and he said pull those, there were eight or ten boulders along the edge. He said bring those back over on your property line, and a far as the other items that he mentioned in his letter, those were taken care of as well. I have nothing to gain from turning this house. I only have more frustration. It would have suited me much better to put the house much further on the other side, the way the whole lot is set up. So I absolutely have no gain here, from any of this. I guess that’s about it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the doctor? MR. STONE-Well, yes. There’s more to this than I thought when I visited the property. I was not aware of this stuff in the back. I was out looking at the, how it sat to the property line in terms of the house. I would like to consider tabling this thing and go back and take another look at the property, in light of all of this material going on. At the same time, I would ask that the neighbors talk to each other, and maybe we can come to a better understanding. I have to admit, looking at the simple fact, I wrote down on my little note that I had no sympathy because, when I looked at the property, obviously I had more concern than I even had before, but I would like to look at the property, with this new information that I have to admit I did not have. If I should have had it, I ask forgiveness, but I didn’t know all of these other details. MR. THOMAS-Lets see, you read in all the correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. DR. VITTENGL-I only received the letter the day before yesterday, the same letter you did. I called him to get together to figure out. MR. ROUND-Yes. No, I didn’t receive it. I didn’t know that we had it in the file until today. We received it yesterday also. Had I known that there were compliance problems during the construction activity, we would have addressed them at that time, you know, put a stop work order, 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) etc. So it’s, I think we’re all kind of, it’s all kind of new to us. So, I mean, it’s difficult to deal with it tonight. MR. STONE-I went out today and looked at one very simple thing. How close was it to the line, not understanding everything. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-I guess it is mine. As I say, we did grant variances, the Board did grant variances. It was not followed. Therefore, I am very upset by that, and then I get even more upset when I hear this other problem with a neighboring property, and I would ask that we can take time to do the two things that I asked. One, that we can reconsider it, go out and look at it again in light, and also ask the Vittengl’s and the Powells to talk about it a little bit more, so that we don’t have to do something that I don’t think that I wouldn’t want to do, but I also feel very strongly that we might have to do. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob, what do you think? MR. MC NALLY-Well, in my mind, there’s a problem in landscaping. There’s a problem with timbers being across the line. There’s a problem with dirt on the one side of the line. There’s a problem with the drainage on one side of the line. That’s not really a zoning problem. It’s a problem between the neighbors, because you shouldn’t be on someone else’s property, but it seems like a relatively easy problem to fix. Timbers come up, bushes get torn out, pipes get re-directed. The real problem with have is the placement of this house at variance with the permission we gave it, and closer to the line. That’s really the only issue, as far as I can tell. Now these other problems effect, like you said, they effect the concern that we might have regarding the effect on the neighborhood, and how this is approached in a general sense, but your point about maybe the neighbors speaking about these issues amongst themselves and trying to take these things out of our concern would probably be well taken, but if it’s just a difference of two feet, I don’t like having to, after the fact, do something like that, but I might be inclined to do that. DR. VITTENGL-Just to add something, I’ve already got an approval to build a garage within five feet of the property border, above that, for whatever that’s worth, on that same property line. MR. MC NALLY-When I looked at the property, today, it did seem as if this Powell house was much closer to the lake and down the hill and away. That’s not to justify it, but it doesn’t seem as if they’re on top of each other. That’s for certain, and a difference of two feet, I’m not sure the world is going to end because of that. Whether or not the soffit goes over or whether or not the deck is even close, that’s kind of an interesting issue, too, but that goes more toward what relief would be granted, as opposed to whether or not we should grant relief. Maybe that’s another reason why we should table it, just to see exactly what the problems are with the boundary. MR. THOMAS-Joe? MR. PORTER-I feel the issues are in hand, I agree also. MR. THOMAS-You think we should table it? MR. PORTER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I agree. I think it should be tabled, so that we can gather a little bit more information and maybe take another look at things. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would somebody like to make a tabling motion? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-1998 MORGAN & MARY VITTENGL , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: So that we have more time to get more input, since other things have come to the attention of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and also to allow the applicant and his neighbor to discuss the situation as it currently exists. 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) th Duly adopted this 18 day of March, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-So we’re table it for a month, and talk to your neighbor. See what you can do, and we’ll be out looking at it again. MR. MC NALLY-Are we going to do the one minutes that we? st MR. STONE-Minutes of January 21. st MR. THOMAS-21. MR. ROUND-Item One on James Hitchcock, it’s an Unlisted Action. I don’t think you did the SEQRA review on that, and if you want to. MR. THOMAS-No, we didn’t. MR. STONE-We did not. I thought about that. MR. ROUND-Just because I know there may be some concerns down the road, and to make sure that we address that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MOTION THAT USE VARIANCE NO. 68-1997 AFTER A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM I FIND THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: th Duly adopted this 18 day of March, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-All right. That takes care of that one. We had a question last month on the motion for denial for Area Variance No. 1-1998, John Salvador, Jr. and Kathleen A. Salvador. I believe the records have been corrected to the satisfaction of everyone. Is that right, Mr. McNally, since you made the motion? MR. ROUND-I think he’s still confused as to what he said. MR. MC NALLY-I do believe that the corrected version is what I said. The one change I would add though, and again, it could be just on the tape, but if I recollect, it is our finding, if you look the sixth line up from the bottom, I began “It is our finding that the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance”, and then it says “in the fact”. I think I said, and I believe I said “and” a-n-d, rather than “in”. So I was commenting on the two points, that it’s substantial and it’s also self created. MR. THOMAS-So you want to change that “in” to “and”. MR. MC NALLY-“and”, other than that, the corrected version looks correct. CORRECTION OF MINUTES January 21, 1998: sixth line up from bottom, change “in” to “and” MR. STONE-Was that the correction? 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/18/98) MR. THOMAS-No. There was a whole paragraph, or a whole bunch of sentences that were. MR. MC NALLY-This is the old here, and this is the new. MR. STONE-I got it but I didn’t get a chance to read it. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So is everybody happy with that? MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-That was the only thing holding up for the approval of the minutes for January st 21. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 1998 WITH THE CORRECTIONS AS SUBMITTED AT TONIGHT’S MEETING , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: th Duly adopted this 18 day of March, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Porter ABSENT: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 56