Loading...
1999-07-21 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 21, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN LEWIS STONE CHARLES MC NULTY DANIEL STEC MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT MC NALLY PAUL HAYES BONNIE LAPHAM CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1999 TYPE II (RE-REVIEW FROM FORMER DENIAL BY ZBA) WR-1A CEA DAVID DUFRESNE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 24 BRAYTON ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN ENCLOSED PORCH ADDITION AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE WR-1A ZONE AND THE SHORELINE AND WETLANDS REGULATIONS. ALSO, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR THTE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. AV 21-1999 SEPTIC VAR. NO. ____ ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/11/98 RESUBMISSION WARREN COUNTY 7/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-24 LOT SIZE: 0.13 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79, 179-60 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVID DUFRESNE, PRESENT MR. STEC-I've got a letter from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart, & Rhodes, dated July 1, 1999, to Mr. Christian A. Thomas, Chairman, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, re: David Dufresne, Cleverdale “Dear Mr. Thomas: On behalf of Mr. Dufresne, I hereby enclose the application fee in the amount of $50.00, 10 copies of the original Area Variance application, along with my letter to you of May 26, 1999, which describes the modification of the previously denied application to eliminate the portion of the deck line between the lake and the porch addition. It is our intention that the original application, plus the May 26, plus the letter from the Town Building th Inspector, Dave Hatin, constitute the new application. Please place this matter on the agenda for one of the July Zoning Board of Appeals meetings. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 81-1999, David Dufresne, Meeting Date: July 21, 1999 “Project Location: 24 Brayton Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 276 square foot enclosed porch addition to an existing two story camp. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4.98 feet of side setback relief and 16.12 feet of shoreline setback relief as well as relief from the floor area ratio 22% requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179- 16. The applicant proposes a total floor area ratio of 37%, a 4% increase above the existing 33%. Applicant also seeks relief for the expansion of a non conforming structure, Section 179-79, as the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to complete the proposed addition and occupy same. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the addition and no construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 4.98 feet and 16.12 feet of setback relief may be interpreted as moderate, however, this proposal calls for expansion of a site on which the current Floor Area Ratio is 33%, the proposal calls for a total Floor Area Ratio of 37%, which may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this construction. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The proposed expansion may be interpreted as self created, however, the difficulty may be related to the pre-existing non conforming nature of the parcel and buildings. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc): Sanitary Sewage Disposal Variance; Board of Health res. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) no.: 60,98 12/21/98 AV 81-1998 res. 3/17/99 denied enclosed porch addition Staff comments: Moderate impacts on the neighborhood and community, in relation to the relief from the area requirements, may be anticipated. Relief for the addition of floor area to a site with a FAR already well in excess of the requirements may have impacts in the form of additional requests for similar relief. The applicant is proposing removal of the open deck area between the construction and shoreline. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STEC-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 8 July 1999 Project Name: David Dufresne Owner: Same ID #: QBY AV 81-1999 County Project #: July 99-25 Current Zoning: Waterfront Residential One Acre Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has constructed an enclosed porch addition and seeks setback relief from the requirements of both the Waterfront One Acre zone and Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations. Also, relief is requested from Floor Area Ratio requirements as well as relief for the expansion of a non conforming structure. Site Location: 24 Brayton Road, Cleverdale Tax Map No. 11-1-24 Staff Notes: Copies of letters provided by the applicant’s counsel are included in the summaries which explain the project. Also included is a copy of November 16, 1998 Planning Board recommendation regarding the previous application. Staff recommendation is for discussion with the possibility that the previous decision stands. Local Actions to Date, If Any: This project was previously presented to the Warren County Planning Board at the November 1998 Board meeting. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with the stipulation that the present septic system be upgraded and that there be on-site control of stormwater runoff with proper maintenance. The Board also wishes that it be clarified that it does not normally condone approvals or No County Impacts of projects presented after the fact of being built.” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jon? MR. LAPPER-Good evening. First of all, I’d like to just re-count the unfortunate history of this project very quickly. I know you’re all very familiar with it. Of course, Mr. Dufresne incorrectly assumed that because he was building, enclosing the porch on the existing deck, and wasn’t putting any footings in, that it wasn’t really structural and didn’t require a building permit, and that, of course, was terribly wrong, and therefore, the Town issued a Stop Work Order, but he didn’t consult with anyone, and he made an assumption, and he was wrong, and the process since then has been his attempt to make amends for that. We very much appreciate the Board, at its last meeting, voting to re-hear this and considering this as a new application. I can tell you that the County, last week, was swayed by the fact that the septic is going to be conforming in all respects except for the distance to the side of the house, but that it’s going to be 100 feet back from the lake, and conform to the new design as indicated in Dave Hatin’s letter, which you read at the last meeting, which we think justifies, as a positive benefit to the neighborhood, and a $6,000 or more expenditure for Dave, which is something that he could leave there as a non conforming septic system, which wouldn’t be in anybody’s interest, and then further, to try and make an attempt to make this the minimum variance that this Board could grant to cut off the deck and to have only the stair area going down from the sliding doors was his attempt to remove what was already there, since the deck is grandfathered as the deck, both the Floor Area Ratio and the distance to the lake, is grandfathered, that he’s going to be improving that situation, in exchange for the Board hopefully giving him the relief to finish the enclosure which is already there. I can tell you that his neighbors are in favor of this, that they didn’t see this as any impact on them. I know that, or I believe that a few of them are here. I have four letters, one from an immediate neighbor and three from neighbors that all state that they’re within 500 feet that were sent in for the first variance, before we made all these positive changes to try and make it a better application, which I’ll submit, but I think that a couple of the people that have written letters are here tonight to speak on the record, and generally Dave’s just sorry that he got into this situation, and hopes that the Board will grant him the relief requested and see this as a positive change. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Can you tell us what the difference is between the previous variance and this variance? MR. LAPPER-Yes. What is proposed now is that the deck will be sliced off, in front of the building itself, in front of the area which has been enclosed, the enclosed porch area. So that there would only be stairs coming down from the sliding glass doors at that point, but that there won’t be deck to sit on. So it’ll be less Floor Area Ratio, and less of the setback, greater setback from the lake. MR. THOMAS-How much of the porch is he going to cut off? MR. LAPPER-What I have to show you. MR. STONE-That’s one of the things we didn’t have, Jon. There were no dimensions on anything that was given me. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. LAPPER-What I have now, this is the only, Dave went to Lowe’s and had this designed, since we were here, because I asked him. I knew that you were interested, and that’s a drawing of the, so this would be just the width of the sliding door, and it would just be stairs. MR. STONE-But how wide is this in relationship to the deck that’s there now? As wide as the deck? MR. LAPPER-The application, which Dave did, it does have dimensions on it. MR. STONE-I didn’t have any dimensions. I went out there and I sort of threw up my hands. MR. BROWN-It says outside deck, 6 by 24. I believe that’s the portion to be removed. MR. LAPPER-Yes. The only thing that would be there. MR. BROWN-Was that in with your application, this drawing? MR. STONE-Okay. So the outside deck is, is this a top view? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-This is from above? Or is this, this drawing? It’s a top view. That’s what he’s now saying. See, this certainly didn’t look like a top view. MR. THOMAS-No, it looks like the roof. MR. BROWN-It’s probably a little bit above. MR. LAPPER-Right. The perspective isn’t good, but it is. MR. STONE-This is a top view? MR. LAPPER-As it relates to the deck, it is a top view. Yes. MR. STONE-No wonder I was confused yesterday. All right. The stairs that are shown do not look like the stairs that are designed here. MR. THOMAS-No, those are gone. That’s gone. MR. STONE-These stairs are there? MR. LAPPER-The stairs in the picture, that says stair to front yard, would be removed. MR. STONE-Are they still there? I didn’t see them yesterday. Were the stairs there, the old stairs there? MR. LAPPER-Are those stairs still there? MR. DUFRESNE-No, they’re not there. There’s nothing there. MR. STONE-That’s what I thought. There’s no stairs. That’s what I thought I saw. MR. DUFRESNE-Right. It’s just the deck across the front. MR. LAPPER-Was that proposed at first? MR. DUFRESNE-That was proposed to put the stairs down there. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Lew, that was, in his proposal in the first variance, he was going to add those. That’s no longer part of the proposal. MR. STONE-Okay. So now we’re taking off this outside deck that is shown, six by twenty-four, and moving back to the patio door. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-And putting steps in how wide, relative to toward the lake? MR. LAPPER-I think Code requires four feet. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. THOMAS-This is the old six by twenty-four deck. MR. STONE-It’s the deck, but how wide is this? Does it say? MR. LAPPER-It should say. The doors are six feet wide. MR. STONE-I understand the width, that’s the width. I’m talking about from the deck toward the lake. How wide is it? MR. LAPPER-Do you know how wide the stairs are? It should be on what I submitted. MR. STONE-We’re looking. MR. DUFRESNE-It’s six foot out from the sliding doors. MR. STONE-Okay. MR THOMAS-So it’s six by six. MR. THOMAS-Because the sliding door is six foot wide, and it’s going out six foot to get the stairs on. MR. STONE-Okay. So now where does that put us, relative to the lake? Right where the deck is now. MR. LAPPER-Only with respect to that six foot area. MR. STONE-I understand, but it’ll be the same setback from the lake that it is now. MR. LAPPER-In that area, but the sides would all be removed. MR. STONE-Well, we’re going to have a double stair, down on both sides? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s what’s proposed. MR. LAPPER-And that’s an important consideration to go both ways? MR. DUFRESNE-No. I just thought, the looks on it, it would look better going both ways than going one way. MR. LAPPER-If you would prefer, we could. MR. STONE-Well, we haven’t gotten there yet. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions? 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? Correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STEC-Yes, four new letters. October 18, 1998, “To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that I am one of the owners of the Lake George Boat Company, and we are within 500 feet of the property located at 24 Brayton Road, belonging to Mr. and Mrs. David Dufresne. The enclosed porch area would not effect us in any way, and would be an added attraction to their camp. It would not hinder us in any way in the conduct of our business. Secretary/Treasurer/Owner Lake George Boat Company, David Eber” October 18, 1998 “To Whom It May Concern: We are the owners of 20 Brayton Road, and are within 500 feet of the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Dufresne at 24 Brayton Road. This letter is to confirm that we have no objections to the enclosing of the front porch on the Dufresne property. It will cause no negative impact to our property or the neighborhood in general. Respectfully Yours, E. Lynn Higgins” “To Whom It May Concern: I own property at 22 Brayton Road, next door to 24 Brayton Road, owned by Mr. and Mrs. David Dufresne. I have no objection to the enclosed porch area. It will have no effect on me or my property. Sincerely, Ken Piacente, October 17, 1998” “To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that I have a summer residence located at 30 Brayton Road, and am within 500 feet of 24 Brayton Road, owned by Mr. and Mrs. David Dufresne. I have no objection to the Dufresnes enclosing the porch in on their property, which would have no adverse effect to me or my property”, and that’s signed by Elizabeth Miller. Those are the only four that I see. MR. THOMAS-That’s it? All right, I’ll close the public hearing. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Lapper? MR. STONE-As I understand, let me just try to understand what’s happening, if I could sum it up. The porch that was illegally enclosed, or partially enclosed to date, will stay. The deck, the additional six feet of deck that extends toward the lake, will go, but in place of that, will be at least a portion of a six foot wide deck which are stairs? MR. LAPPER-But only for the purpose of having enough area to safely, yes. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. STONE-I mean, there’ll be stairs leading from this enclosed porch down, and the applicant has said one direction is sufficient. MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. STONE-So what you’re asking for is to allow what has been started to stay, with the deck in front of that to go, but a portion, if you will, to remain and be part of the steps going down, and the steps will be going down within the six foot? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-In other words, it will not extend closer to the lake. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. STONE-So it’ll be running parallel to the house, now. MR. LAPPER-Right, and part in parcel of that, the septic system will be replaced, as a condition. MR. STONE-That’s Town Board. That’s not us. MR. LAPPER-But it doesn’t have to be done. The Town Board allowed it, but that’s not a requirement that it be done. So that would be a condition of this that it will be done. MR. STONE-Okay. Fine. We could certainly put that in. It is now clear to me what’s being done. It was not, again, clear yesterday when I went out there. MR. LAPPER-Sorry about that. MR. STONE-But I’m close enough to go. I don’t know if the other guys went or not, but since I live close by, I figured I could take another look. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any other questions? If not, lets talk about it. Chuck, what do you think? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’d prefer that the project hadn’t been done to begin with, or had just been a simple screening in, but I think the applicant has made some concessions. Certainly improving the septic system is a gain, and his willingness to do what he can to shorten the infringement on the setback by removing part of the deck I think certainly is a plus. So, in sum, I guess I’m willing to go along with this. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-Well, I certainly feel for the sincerity of the applicant. I don’t question his motives, although, you know, the Board has seen and I think, you know, the County politely stated that they’re leery of approvals or No County Impacts, for after the fact kind of projects or constructions, but in my mind, while I feel for the expense and the willingness to try to undo as much as can be done, given the fact that money has been put into the project, certainly, already, I’d prefer, I’d like to be able to look at it and say, would I approve this had no construction been performed, and so in that sense, I really think that this Board has been put on the spot. Because clearly, while the Board would like to say, we’re going to treat all things equally and we’re not going to consider the fact that construction has already been made and there’s money into the property, the fact of the matter is that it has, and that is a factor that’s weighing on all of our minds. I think that if there was no construction, I think that people would be less inclined to grant this because I still think that it is an awful lot. I think that your 33% Floor Area Ratio, and asking to go an additional 4% to 37% above the 22 max is a lot. That’s a lot to ask, and it’s there for the protection of the neighbors. Now, 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) certainly the neighbors not having a problem with it is a big mitigating factor, and I guess I feel uncomfortable. I think the Board has been put in a position that really the Board shouldn’t have been put in. MR. LAPPER-Could I respond to that? MR. STEC-Yes, sure. MR. LAPPER-To perhaps make you feel a little more comfortable. Part of it is that, in this zone, I mean, the houses were built before the Floor Area Ratio was put into effect, and this is not the case where somebody went and, again, built a foundation and built out. The deck was already there. So in terms of the way the Code treats the Floor Area Ratio, a deck is treated differently than a porch, but as a structure, it was there already. So in terms of the setbacks, in terms of the visual impact, the fact that he covered it up so that there’s some protection, it’s still a structure that was there, and I think that’s why the neighbors don’t view this. MR. STEC-And I agree with you, and that’s why. That’s the conclusion that I came to, as well, that that, in my mind anyway, it’s my rationale that this isn’t an increase in footprint. It’s not an increase in the foundation. The porch pre-existing, we’re essentially talking about enclosing something that’s already there. The letter of the law, he has to come for a variance. The scope of the project, the common sense approach you could say, gee, he’s just enclosing a porch. He’s not adding plumbing. He’s not adding a bedroom. He’s not adding a foundation. I know that certainly I've seen it at the Town Board meetings, and at these meetings, that there are people that certainly interpret these things to mean different things, that this is new construction, and that this is not allowed. I go by what the Board’s done in the past. I think precedent carries a lot of weight, and that’s yet another thing that I have an issue with this. I have a hard time giving somebody a hard time about two feet of variance for a garage down off of Dixon Road or whatever. To me, this is an awful lot more than that, but again, I think for me, the scope of the fact that this is essentially a porch that is pre-existing, it really adds nothing more to the shell of this structure, other than adding essentially, some walls to a porch that already has a roof, but to me, I also think that making the sewage upgrade is enough of a good faith concession where I think that the applicant has gone just far enough for me to be comfortable with, well for me to approve this, but again, you know, I shudder to think that, a month from now or a year from now, this Board is going to have this very case used as a precedent saying, you approved this for Mr. Dufresne. You must approve this, and I think that we start down a slippery slope, but with that said, I think I’m close enough to say, this is a tough call, but I can go with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, this is one of those cases where I’m going to have to listen to myself as I talk. I've said this before, I’m very troubled, not only by the fact that this was constructed, or at least began construction, without permits and without a variance. Having said that, it certainly appears that the applicant is willing to give up something real. In essence, this finished structure will be no closer to the lake than it is now, given, however, that it is too close to the lake by current standards. The Floor Area Ratio, in this particular case, troubles me almost not at all. I understand we have this law, and I understand it’s a good law, and it has been very helpful to us. In this particular case, the area of the house is actually being diminished by the fact that part of a porch is being taken off, and looking at the balancing test that we have to go through, obviously the benefit to the applicant is very clear, an enclosed porch, and we hear Mr. Dufresne has an allergy to wildlife in the area, to small flying wildlife in the area, and I appreciate his wanting, if you will, to get in from that and still enjoy the outdoors part of the lake. Obviously, we’re supposed to consider whether this benefit can be achieved in any other way. Well, it’s hard to enclose a porch without enclosing a porch. Therefore, to get the benefit that he’s seeking, you have to enclose the porch. Is there an undesirable change in the neighborhood? Not really. My only problem with the neighborhood is that, and I don’t mean to offend anybody who lives there, that it is an undesirable neighborhood, in the sense that it’s overcrowded. I understand people want to be on the lake, and here’s an opportunity, and I understand when they were built, this is what you did. You put as many houses in small area, cottages, if you will. So, having said that, I don’t mean it’s an undesirable neighborhood, and please don’t, neighbors and Mr. Dufresne, don’t take it wrong when I say that. I’m looking only at what we say here. I don’t think the request is substantial, in terms of the size of that, the effect on the land around it, because obviously we’re opening up land, if you will, more permeable land, even though a deck is supposedly permeable, in a sense. The request isn’t really, it’s substantial but it’s not substantial. It is one, I think as Mr. Stec says, puts us in a very difficult situation, but that’s why I’m rambling, and you’ve got to give me, so at least it’s in the record that we’ve thought of all these things. I am more troubled, off the subject, by the amount of dockage in the area. I was appalled yesterday, having really taken a look at it, and this is nothing, it’s not Mr. Dufresne’s fault. It’s not Mr. Piacente’s, one of the neighbor’s, fault. It’s just an awful lot of docks in there, and I personally intend to at least look into it. I mean, I’ll put people on notice, I want the Park Commission to look at it, because I really think we’ve got a very difficult situation, and now I’m talking, having said that 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) and gone through this whole rationale, because of the willingness of Mr. Dufresne to remove a substantial portion of the deck and not encroach further on the setback, visa vie the shoreline, I can reluctantly approve this. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll agree with the other Board members. It’s not really a good idea to build before you get a building permit, or especially when it needs a variance, but in this case, it happened, and I look at these as if it was a brand new application and nothing was there, and I said in the last meeting, or the last application, that I have no problem with it as it stood, but Mr. Dufresne is willing to cut down the size of the deck. MR. STONE-Because four of us do. Lets keep that in mind. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because four of you did, but I have no problem, with this proposed plan. The only thing I would like is that Mr. Dufresne install one set of stairs instead of two, and leave the 36 square foot deck in front of the sliding glass door as he requests. As far as, Dan, you said something about a precedent. This Board has always decided each variance on its own merit. We don’t really look back at other ones, just because we did it for this guy we’re going to do it for this guy. Each one goes on its own, and that’s the way we’ve been doing it here for the seven years I've been here. I forgot to talk to you about that. MR. STONE-It does give an argument to somebody. It falls on deaf ears, but it is an argument that some might use, but I agree with you. Each case is an individual case. That’s why we’re here. If it were cookie cutters, we wouldn’t have to worry about it. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. So, having said that, I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1999 DAVID DUFRESNE, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 24 Brayton Lane. The applicant has constructed a 276 square foot enclosed porch addition, or partially constructed, to an existing two-story camp. The applicant requests 4.98 feet of side setback relief, owing to the construction of the enclosed porch, and 16.12 feet of shoreline setback relief, as well as relief from the Floor Area Ratio, 22% requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. The applicant proposes a total Floor Area Ratio of 37%, a 4% increase above the existing 33%. The applicant also seeks relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, Section 179-79, as the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements. The project, as we understand, involves completing the enclosure of the porch, as begun, removal of the existing six foot deck that currently extends beyond that porch toward the lake, and installing a set of stairs, one way up and down, which will extend six feet from the enclosed porch, but will, in fact, encroach no further toward the lake than the existing deck. In granting this Area Variance, we’re considering the benefit to the applicant, in that he would be permitted to complete the proposed addition with modifications, and occupy same. Obviously, there are feasible alternatives which could include downsizing the addition, somewhat, and obviously no construction. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The 4.98 feet and 16.12 feet of setback relief may be interpreted as moderate, but the important thing is that the side setback will not be any more than it currently is, nor will the setback from the lake be anymore than it currently is, and that will be only that small portion of the six foot plus the riser down to the ground. That will be within the current setback. In addition, the Floor Area Ratio increased by four percent is really moderate when one considers the fact that the porch was always there, and all we’re doing is making it technically part of the Floor Area Ratio where it wasn’t before. The effects on the neighborhood or community may be considered moderate, particularly in light of the fact that the only comments made by the neighbors were positive. No negative comments were received, and, yes ,the difficulty is self-created, and this has been reflected in comments made by the Board toward the applicant, condemnation, if you will, of doing something without asking permission. In granting this variance, we recognize that the applicant will upgrade the septic system per the variance granted by the Town Board on 12/21/98. Further, we recognize that no Certificate of Occupancy will be issued by the Town until said septic system is in place and functioning. Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. LAPPER-I know this wasn’t an easy one. Thanks very much. I trust that it’s Mr. Dufresne’s choice whether he goes on the right or the left side with the stairs? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. THOMAS-Right or left, it doesn’t matter. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA HOWLAND CONSTRUCTION, INC. OWNER: STEVEN & CATHIE SCHONWETTER END OF HOLIDAY POINT, OFF OF SEELEY ROAD, OFF ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED CARPORT AND A SMALL ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE WR-1A ZONE AND THE SHORELINE AND WETLANS REGULATIONS AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR EXPANSIONOF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SPR 16-99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-24.1 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79, 179-60 DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT PRESENT MR. STEC-“Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, To Howland Construction, Inc. 28 Hunter Lane, Queensbury, NY The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: April 21, 1999 Variance No. 22-1999 Area Variance Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 22-1999 Howland Construction, Inc, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: For 62 days. The applicant is aware that a significant modification of this application must be made available to the Board for a positive determination, and that, in all likelihood, a new application will be necessary. Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 1999, by the st following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas Sincerely, Bonnie Lapham, Secretary, Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals”. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Do we, in fact, have a new application in front of us? MR. HOWLAND-Yes, you do. MR. THOMAS-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-1999, Howland Construction, Inc., Meeting Date: July 21, 1999 – Tabled April 21, 1999 “Project Location: End of Holiday Point, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 396 sf carport addition and a 48 sf storage shed addition to an existing single family dwelling and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 24 feet (shed) and 47 feet (carport) of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16 and simultaneous relief from the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. Additionally, since the existing structure and the proposed additions do not meet the setback requirements, relief for expansion of a non conforming structure is requested as per § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize protective areas for vehicles and equipment. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. Given that this property averages 75 feet in width, any development on this site would need some level of relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative relief requesting 24 and 47 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirements, and for the expansion of a significantly non conforming structure, may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be partially attributed to the pre-existing nature of the lot and structures. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR 16-99 – pending expansion of a N/C structure in a CEA. Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Construction within 50 feet of the shore of Lake George may present a significant visual impact. This proposal calls for construction within 3 feet of the shore. While this property may be encumbered by its pre-existing structure and its location, further encroachment on the shoreline will not improve the situation. Additionally, the proposed “new shed” addition appears to be encroaching on a “deeded building restriction line”. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-It didn’t go to Warren County, did it? MR. BROWN-Yes, it went to the County in April, the first time through. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. THOMAS-Okay. They still have the same comment? MR. BROWN-It didn’t go back. MR. THOMAS-It didn’t go back? Then we won’t worry about it. MR. STONE-But you said this was a new application. MR. BROWN-It’s an amended application. It’s not a brand new application. MR. STONE-I think that’s something that we have to at least talk about, the fact that it’s beyond 62 days, without a request. I mean, you can accept it. I have no problem with that. MR. THOMAS-I don’t have any problem with it either, seeing what we’ve been going through lately, that they’ve been tabling all these variances because of attendance, I have no problem whatsoever letting this one go, or any other one. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Howland. MR. HOWLAND-Yes. I’m Dean Howland. On the second application, what we’ve done, the first time I wasn’t here. I was on vacation, but the first time we also had added a variance request for taking the existing dock and making it smaller into a conforming feet size of 700 square feet. Since then, we’ve removed the variance application for the dock, because we’re going to remove the dock and bring it into conformance with all the Park Commission regulations, which would require a variance from this Board. MR. STONE-Will not, you say. MR. HOWLAND-Will not. MR. STONE-Okay. I see it’s within 20 feet of the. MR. HOWLAND-Twenty feet is the setback that we’re required, correct. The second thing we’ve done, the first application, we wanted to raise the roof and add to the south end of the second floor square footage. We’ve done away with that. We're not adding any square foot at all to the existing residence, but I have drawn on the south end, there’s a five foot knee wall in the living area upstairs, and we raised it up, so that I can put some dormer windows in there, just to get light to make the area upstairs look larger than what it is. We’ve also added a dormer over the living room, which is one floor below, but in front of the balcony on the second floor. Those are the two visual impacts on the main house on the outside that would be an added structure to the house, but there’s no square footage added to it. The third thing, it was mis spoken that the carport we’re requesting is 22 feet deep and 18 feet wide, because I’m trying to cover the front entryway and the two columns, and before the request was for a carport 22 by 26. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the new one is? MR. HOWLAND-Twenty-two by eighteen. MR. BROWN-I've got 18. MR. STONE-How high is the new chimney going to be, that you show? MR. HOWLAND-No higher than the existing chimney. It’s just a new location. MR. STONE-It’s not going to be any higher than 28 feet? MR. HOWLAND-It’s not even close to 28 feet. MR. STONE-I didn’t think it was. I was just asking a question. MR. HOWLAND-I don’t think I need a variance for a chimney, do I? MR. THOMAS-I don’t think so, either. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. STONE-Question. Looking at the house again yesterday, there seems to be something on the south side that extends out, that I don’t see on any of the old drawings. If it had a cover on it, it would be like a big woodshed, but I don’t think it’s a woodshed. MR. HOWLAND-Behind there, the existing oil tank is stored. You’re talking about the little low thing off the ground? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HOWLAND-Yes. I think it’s an oil tank behind there. MR. STONE-It’s an oil tank? Okay. It doesn’t show in any of the pictures. MR. HOWLAND-I didn’t draw that in. MR. STONE-Okay, and that would go? MR. HOWLAND-That would be removed, correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HOWLAND-In addition, too, there’s also an application that we turned in for an upgrade on the septic system, but the employees needed some additional information from the engineer, which tabled us, put us off until next month. MR. STONE-How long have the Schonwetters owned this property? MR. HOWLAND-The family’s owned it, I believe, since 1978, and now they bought it from their parents. So they’ve been there for a long time. MR. STONE-You bought it from your parents recently? MR. SCHONWETTER-Two years ago. MR. STONE-Two years, okay. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions? MR. STONE-In looking at your drawings, I wrote a comment here, this will be almost a new house when you get done? MR. HOWLAND-Basically we’re going to be gutting the outside, all the siding, because we’re going to put stone on it. MR. STONE-Okay. Then my observation was correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions for Mr. Howland? If not, I’ll open the public meeting. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence in there? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STEC-I’m not sure how new it is. MR. THOMAS-Read it anyway. MR. STEC-I've got a fax from a Linda B. McCollister, 103 Seeley Road, Cleverdale, NY, dated April 21, 1999, Town of Queensbury, Attention Zoning Board of Appeals, re: Area Variance No. 22-1999 Schonwetter “I have been a year round resident of the Lake since 1968, living on the same property my grandfather purchased in 1910. Over the years, I've seen many dramatic changes to the properties surround Warner Bay, some good – some not so good. I’m writing you to share some of my concerns and objections to the above variance request. I also want to share some historical background, as I know it, regarding this parcel of land. 1. I am opposed to the addition of a covered boat slip because it will further reduce our view of the bay and Lake. Back in the late 1950’s the original developer constructed a roof over the docks in this same location, so I remember how that structure seriously impeded our view. That roof structure was challenged by the neighbors and subsequently removed. In the late 60’s the same owner expanded this particular property until there was sufficient land area to build a house – which has permanently blocked our view of the bay. The addition of a covered boat slip in the proposed location will result in yet another structure closing off 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) the view (I have included photo copies of two recent photo’s of the area for your review) I think we’ve given up enough of our view and would like to avoid any further obstructions. I ask that you not allow this portion of the application. 2. Given the man made nature of this particular parcel and the current proximity of the house to the Lake, I think the Board should be extremely reluctant to approve any additional relief from the Town’s setback requirements. 3. It’s very difficult to believe the building area represents less than 1/10 of the land area or that the floor area ratio is 15%. Does the building really rest on .43 contiguous acres owned solely by the applicant? Can we be certain this calculation doesn’t include property owned jointly with the association? 4. I presume the additional living space will lead to an upgrade of the existing septic system? How is this accomplished on such a small parcel of land? I’m sure the Schonwetters will make some fine improvements to their home, but I’m also very concerned about granting more exemptions to the zoning ordinances in a case where an existing home already enjoys numerous exceptions. I believe these ordinances were enacted to protect our neighborhood and the Lake and I hope the Board will be very reluctant to grant yet another variance enabling more expansion on an undersized parcel. Unfortunately, a previous commitment does not allow me to attend your meeting in person. I would, however, appreciate a written response to my concerns. Sincerely, Linda Beals McCollister” And that’s it. MR. THOMAS-That does it? MR. STEC-Yes. That’s it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything you want to comment on, on that letter? MR. HOWLAND-There’s a few things on there. I know the piece of property, because I grew up on it. I know that a sea wall was built in 1951 because my handprints are in it. I also have pictures that there was rock ledge there, and there wasn’t any increased size of the property, per se. When the piece of property was built and the dock, there were eight boat slips out on that dock on the end, was a summer resort, and it was owned by my parents. There wasn’t any zoning action because there wasn’t any zoning action at that time. The roofs were removed by a hurricane, as a matter of fact, and they were never put back up. Now we’re not asking for a roof on top of a dock or anything. So we really won’t be, even if we built a carport we’re allowed to get the variance to build the carport that would not be in the way of Linda McCollister’s view in any way. She’d still be looking at the back of a house. She looks at the back of the house now. She’d still be looking at the back of the house, with the angle from her view. That’s about it. MR. STONE-What about the comment about the Association lands? The .29 is, in fact, what the Schonwetters own? MR. HOWLAND-There was a survey. They’re taxed for .43 acres. What you have is you have the parcel that the house is on. They have a right-of-way, and then there’s a second parcel that is where the septic system is, and we tried to get the two pieces of property tied together in the County, but since part of it’s a right-of-way, they wouldn’t do it. So, as far as, the land they pay taxes on, as of a survey they did, is .29 acres. The tax map and what they’re taxed on is .43 acres. It depends on where you go right now to get where the acreage is, I guess, but the actual acreage off the survey map is .29. MR. STONE-The septic system is not on that .29? MR. HOWLAND-The septic system is included in the .29. The house is on .20. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-On this thing here, the plot plan, it shows a building restriction line that goes right through the proposed shed. MR. HOWLAND-That’s a deed. We’ve spoken to Peter Collins, who’s a neighbor who has no problem where the shed is, actually removing a shed that’s in the view on one side, and it seemed to be the least restricted view, and he had no problem with it. Otherwise he would have written something. It’s something that has to be taken care of with him. MR. THOMAS-You’re not going to run into any legal problem because of that, because this building restriction is on there? MR. HOWLAND-No, the building restriction is for Peter Collins who lives right to the right as you’re going out to the Schonwetters’ residence. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. HOWLAND-And I've spent numerous times with Peter, and there is no problem with this. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. THOMAS-Okay. How about somebody that comes in after Peter? MR. HOWLAND-Well, we’ll have to have it changed. That’s all. I think, I know it’s drawn that way, but it seems to be that, we have survey pins. It seems to be that when we put it in there, that we are just missing that view. MR. THOMAS-The corner of the shed? MR. HOWLAND-That point. You’re dealing with, the scale is so small there, you know, if you miss it by a pencil point, you’d (lost word) over it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Time to talk about it, then. I’ll start with Dan. MR. STEC-Again, this is another sticky one, in my opinion anyway. I know we talked about this a lot back in April. I certainly, you know, I apologize to the applicant, all the applicants, really, for the need to table these and then have only four members show for the meeting tonight, except it makes it harder to come to some sort of solution, but as far as the application, again, are we adding living space? Are we increasing the footprint? I’m most bothered by granting 47 feet of relief from a 50 foot minimum shoreline setback. That means construction within a yard of the shoreline, and like I said. I know that we consider each case on its own merits, however, I know that one of the contributing factors for me is the prominent location that this has on the lake. I would liken this to, you know, it’s a very visible spot. If it was tucked away, where it would be less noticeable, that would mitigate the circumstances for me, but to add, essentially a garage, albeit an open, one that’s open on four sides, but construction of a covered structure of this size, within three feet of the lake really bothers me a lot, and on that basis alone, it gives me enough of a problem to really have to listen to my fellow three Board members, but as it stands to me, I recognize and I applaud applicants that are willing to compromise and to work to try to maybe sweeten the pot by being willing to go, you know, upgrade and improve whatever they can, septic systems especially on the lake. That’s a plus, but again, I’m deeply concerned by approving a variance that allows for construction on the end of a point, three feet from the edge of the lake. I don’t own property on the lake, so I don’t have a direct stake in it, other than the fact that I know there are other people that are very concerned about that kind of variance, and so, for that reason, I guess I’m really not inclined, but I’ll listen to my other Board members and see if some their ideas sway me. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I very seldom come to a meeting with my mind made up, because I always want to listen to everything that’s said, and as you heard in the earlier one, sometimes I don’t know where I’m going to vote until I start talking. In this particular case, I can’t in good conscience, even consider a variance that is going to put something so close to the lake. We have a 50 foot setback, and I know the house is only three feet in spots from where the water is. I will not go into, because we have a person in this room who will wonder, when I say from where the lake is, but where the water is on the lake is about three feet from where the house is. As I read this thing, you’re even going to be closer to the lake. I’m not quite sure I understand the setbacks from three to thirty feet, and you’re going to go from thirty to twenty-four. It seems to make it even worse than it is, and we have an obligation, in the Town of Queensbury, to protect Lake George. It’s a very important asset. I give a good part of my life, outside of this room, in helping to protect the lake, and all lakes in the State of New York, and there’s no way, in good conscience, I could say, we can further encroach upon the shoreline of Lake George by putting a carport so close to the lake. I’m offended by the fact that there’s asphalt now within three or four feet of the lake, because what comes on asphalt goes directly into the lake, whatever falls, whatever runoff you get. So, having said all this, I think there’s obviously a benefit to the applicant. I think the detriment to the community, particularly Lake George, far outweighs the benefit to the applicant. One of the reasons I asked the question, in terms of how long the Schonwetters have owned the property or been involved with the property, I appreciate it’s been a long time in terms of the family, but we’re not here to bail people out of what I would call a bad business decision. Here’s a house. They bought it. It’s obviously usable. Modifications can be made inside the house. We have nothing to say about that, as long as they don’t encroach any further on the setback. I just can’t encroach further on the lake. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m not as bothered as my fellow Board members are with this, in it’s current form, and the proposals for modifications to the house aren’t changing the footprint of the square footage, and I kind of doubt it’s going to impact the visual qualities that much for any of the neighbors. I can also understand the desire to put a carport over the existing parking area. If this were a new carport for a new parking area, I’d have a lot more problems with it, but with it being an existing one, it doesn’t bother me as much. I’m torn, too, because on the flip side, if we were to look 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) at the rules, really, we wouldn’t allow this house to be built. No way, if it were a new construction. It shouldn’t be there, but I guess I’d be willing to allow the variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with Lew. I mean, this carport is just too close to the lake. The visual impact, just from the lake on the roof from the east elevation, or looking to the west, you’re looking at a whole roof with a cupola on top of it. To me, it looks good, but I think that the visual impact from the lake is going to be a big problem on that. As far as putting in a garage somewhere else on the property, I really don’t see where a garage could be put in, of any substantial size. You could probably put a single stall garage in, somewhere, but there again, too, you’d be next to the lake, because this house does sit out on a point, but I have a real problem with that carport being there, because of its size, and just the visual impact. So, having said that, would someone like to make a motion, one way or the other? MR. STEC-I will. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1999 HOWLAND CONSTRUCTION, INC., Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: End of Holiday Point. The applicant proposes construction of a 396 square foot carport addition and a 48 square foot storage shed addition to the existing single family dwelling and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Specifically, the relief required is the applicant requested 24 feet for the shed and 47 feet for the carport of a relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the Waterfront One Acre Zone, Section 179-16, and simultaneous relief from the shoreline and wetlands regulations, Section 179-60. Additionally, since the existing structure and the proposed addition do not meet the setback requirements, relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure was requested as per Section 179-79. Criteria for considering the Area Variance, according to Chapter 267 of Town Law, first we consider the benefit to the applicant, which it is clear that the applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize the protected area for vehicles and equipment. Feasible alternatives, really do, because of the nature of the lot, limit the feasible alternatives to no construction at all. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The Board feels that the relief, requesting 24 and 47 feet of relief from a 50 foot requirement on Lake George is excessive and we interpret it as substantial, and the effects on the neighborhood or community go similarly with that, in that we feel that granting this sort of relief on a point, and essentially allowing for construction within three feet of the lake would have a negative impact on the neighborhood and community, and as far as, is the difficulty self-created, we felt that while some of it is clearly due to the size of the pre- existing lot and the structures on it, that it could be attributed to the nature of the lot. So, with that said, we felt that in the balancing test, the benefit to the applicant was outweighed by the substance of the relief sought and the potential negative impact on the lake neighborhood, and so, with that said, I move that we deny Area Variance No. 22-1999. Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: st MR. STONE-I have a question, I’m looking here, as far as the expansion, I mean, we’re talking the carport would be the expansion. MR. THOMAS-So would the shed. MR. STONE-So would the shed. MR. THOMAS-Because it’s attached. MR. STONE-Right. Okay. I have no problem. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll ask for a second. MR. STONE-Second. AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-Lets see, it looks like we’ll have to wait for a full Board to get here. It’s three to one. MR. HOWLAND-Could I ask you a couple of questions on this? MR. THOMAS-Yes. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. HOWLAND-Okay. We have a shed that’s existing, that we can leave, which is closer to the lake than the one where we wanted to move it. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. HOWLAND-Was the application denied just because of the carport or are the dormers are a problem? What else is a problem in this, if we have to re-submit? MR. STEC-For me anyway, and you may want to get an answer from all of us, the carport bothers me the most. MR. THOMAS-It is the carport. MR. HOWLAND-It’s just the carport. MR. STONE-As I said in my comments, what you do, raising the dormer. MR. STEC-That requires a variance for. MR. STONE-It requires. MR. HOWLAND-If we left the shed there, lets say the option would be better to move it, because we’d be moving it further away from the water, but it doesn’t have to be done. MR. STONE-Well, I didn’t mention that shed, because in the application it said it was going to be removed. Almost anything that you’re going to do to this house is going to require that shed to go, in my mind, the existing shed. MR. HOWLAND-But I've got to have some place to put, otherwise you’re going to have lawnmowers and everything outside. MR. STONE-I understand, and that’s a separate issue, and until we see the plan, I mean, I don’t think I would be terribly, speaking now, upset if there were a shed where you were talking about the new shed. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. I’m trying to come back one more time and not have to. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. HOWLAND-My third question is, the carport, it would be on the corner of, it would be the easterly corner there. It’s where we want to put the front entryway, we have a big roof coming over. If I put a little roof overhang with a stoop there, would that be a problem? MR. THOMAS-It depends on the size. MR. HOWLAND-Well, we’re only talking something about six feet, something to make it look better. MR. STONE-But it is encroaching on the setback. So, we’d have to hear it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but what are you talking for size, six by? MR. HOWLAND-Well, I could just do it with a gable, I might have to just go out by three feet. You don’t want to go out very far, because you’re into their parking. So that’s the object, and I’m just trying to get what you’re looking for. I assumed it was the carport that was the problem, but I wasn’t sure if that’s what you were, because you also mentioned the shed on the other side there. MR. THOMAS-Well, we can’t move it, one way or the other, because we have to have a majority of four. MR. STEC-That’s for everyone. Unfortunately we have to be unanimous tonight, yes or no. MR. HOWLAND-So we’re still open? MR. THOMAS-You’re still open. MR. HOWLAND-So I can come back again. MR. STONE-Yes. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. THOMAS-If you want to come back next month with a revised plan. This application is still open. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. Very good. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-And I’ll leave the public hearing open on this one, too, because of this. So, it doesn’t have to be re-advertised. Okay. MR. HOWLAND-Thank you. MR. STEC-All right. Thanks a lot. AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-1999 TYPE II WR-1A EARL UNDERHILL OWNER: EARL & IRENE UNDERHILL 148 SUNNYSIDE NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED, SCREENED-IN PORCH ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CAMP AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE WR-1A ZONE AND THE SHORELINE AND WETLANDS REGULATIONS AS WELL AS EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. TAX MAP NO. 50-1-75 LOT SIZE: 0.10 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 MARTIN SEELEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Okay. This one was just tabled last month. MR. STEC-You need the tabling motion. MR. THOMAS-Yes, read the tabling motion. MR. STEC-Okay. “Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: June 23, 1999 Area Variance No. 50-1999 Earl Underhill Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 50-1999 Earl Underhill, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Until no later than the August meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by this Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for tabling this application is for the applicant to submit new site plan and smaller deck. Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. rd Stec, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Underhill and Mr. Seeley. So you’ve submitted a new plan here, a reduced size from the previous application? EARL UNDERHILL MR. UNDERHILL-Yes, correct. MR. SEELEY-I just more or less re-drew and laid over the original. MR. THOMAS-I’m trying to compare the two, here, not that I haven’t done it before. All right. So you went from a 432 square foot deck to a 192 square foot deck. MR. SEELEY-Correct. MR. THOMAS-The 120 foot deck is existing. MR. STONE-Right. I don’t have the old one here. MR. THOMAS-It’s right here. MR. SEELEY-I don’t have the old figures, but we’ve basically gone from an 18 by 24 down to a 7 by 16 addition. MR. STONE-And you’re going to cut off part of the current deck, or not? MR. SEELEY-We're going to cut off nine inches of the current deck, so we’ll ask for no relief on the north side. MR. STONE-The south side is going to stay? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. SEELEY-The south side stays as it is, four foot nine, out five feet. That’s pre-existing, and that stays. Okay. MR. STONE-I wasn’t sure from the drawing, that’s all. MR. SEELEY-But the new portion we’ve brought back from the 12 foot from the boundary line. So we’re not asking for any relief on the north or the south side. MR. THOMAS-So you need no side setback. MR. SEELEY-No side setback relief required. MR. THOMAS-So the only thing you need is 14 feet from the lake. MR. SEELEY-Correct. MR. STONE-Are we legal on the bottom side? MR. THOMAS-Yes, 12 foot. MR. SEELEY-Yes, it’s 12 feet. MR. STONE-It’s 12, okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Seeley or Mr. Underhill? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any new correspondence? It has to be dated after June 23. rd MR. STEC-No, none. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Underhill or Mr. Seeley? If not, lets talk about it. I’ll start with Lew this time. MR. STONE-Well, I think this is an example of where the system does work. We obviously were not happy with your first application, in terms of its encroachment on the lake setback. We also recognize, in this particular case, that these are substandard lots, by our current Ordinance, and that you’re not alone in your distance from the lake. You’re probably better than some and worse than others, and none of them are very good, but you were willing to make a change, as I understand, (lost word) that the stairway down is going to be enclosed in that seven foot extension. Am I right in saying that? MR. SEELEY-Actually, I had forgotten to show it. I had figured that it would come off the front and go sideways, so it doesn’t encroach anymore than what is minimal to get down the stairs. MR. STONE-I was under the impression that it was going to be inside? MR. SEELEY-On the original plans, when we were going to be hopefully allowed the 18 by 24, we had planned to include enough room to enclose a stairway within that deck structure. Now that we have cut back much more than half of what we had planned on, by the time we take a set of stairs out of there, we’re down to nothing. MR. STONE-Okay. So the six foot set of stairs. MR. SEELEY-Not six foot. I’m looking at whatever is minimal, three foot, three and a half foot, just enough to get down the stairs, whatever Code requires. MR. STONE-Do you know Code, Craig? MR. BROWN-The drawing scales three feet. I would think that would be sufficient. MR. STONE-All right. So the landing is, the upper landing is three feet, or three feet wide treads. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. SEELEY-A three by three, and then down sideways, parallel with the shoreline, so we don’t encroach any farther on the shore. MR. STONE-And that’s the applicant that requests 17 feet, counting from the stairs? Because looking at it, I thought, in my mind, the stairs were inside. MR. SEELEY-The original plans were, yes. MR. STONE-I didn’t look. I have to admit that. Well, that’s the existing steps, but I thought the new steps were going to be inside this addition, in other words, not extend further toward the lake, and this is what they’re going to look like. Here’s the seven feet that they’re asking us to give them, but the stairs will be another three feet. So they’ll be 10 feet closer to the lake than you are now. Is that correct? MR. SEELEY-Seven and three. Yes. Well, no, because the existing deck as shown does not show the stairway that you saw there when you were there. MR. STONE-That’s right. MR. SEELEY-So, and they come out a full six feet from the existing deck. MR. STONE-Okay. So they come out six feet now, and you’re going to come out ten feet. So you’re asking for four feet of additional relief. MR. SEELEY-For the purpose of the stairs, yes. MR. STONE-And is that the 17, Craig, that we’re talking about? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-So they’re going to be 33 feet from the lake at the stairs. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-I have to admit, I looked at it too hurriedly. Nevertheless, what I’m saying, I still think that, given the conditions in this area, and certainly what exists, particularly to your right as you view the lake, you’re going to be no worse than he is, when you get done, plus the fact that you have this steep lot and it is tiered, and I just think that the benefit to you, the applicant, far outweighs an undesirable change in the neighborhood, and again, I've used the same thing that I said before. It’s an undesirable neighborhood, not really if you know what I mean, but in terms of our law, it’s a neighborhood that we would prefer weren’t there, obviously, but it is, and it’s a good neighborhood, and it’s obviously a good place to live and recreate, and I have no problem in granting this variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Considering everything, I can basically echo Lew. It would be nicer if we didn’t have to infringe into the 50 foot setback, but there’s no way that can be avoided, and given the applicant has been willing to downsize his proposal, it fits better with what’s existing in the neighborhood now. So I’d be inclined, I think, to approve. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with the other Board members. Again, I’m sensitive to the waterfront encroachment. However, 33 feet is a lot easier to take than 3 feet, but again, the other thing, I applaud the applicant in his willingness to re-think his original submission. That’s not to say that we should suggest that applicant’s ask for the moon, knowing that we’ll come in under somewhere, but I think that your first application was well-intended and was a serious application, and so, again, I think that a 192 square foot covered porch addition, setback 33 feet, again, given the conditions of the individual parcel being on a steep bank, this is relief that I think is reasonable and I’m comfortable with. MR. THOMAS-All right. I think the request that the applicant has amended to is a very reasonable request, getting away from the side line request for a setback, and narrowing the request from the water setback is, like Dan says, it’s to be commended, and I just hope that the applicant can live with that 192 square foot deck, because I don’t think we’re going to go any farther for you. So, I would go along with this variance. MR. STONE-Do we still have a Floor Area Ratio on this thing? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. THOMAS-It’s just covered. It’s not enclosed. MR. BROWN-It still counts as Floor Area Ratio. MR. STONE-It’s in the Staff Notes. MR. STEC-It still counts. MR. STONE-That’s why I’m asking. MR. BROWN-Covered porches. MR. STONE-This is covered. MR. THOMAS-Has it got walls on it, or has it just got a roof over it? MR. SEELEY-Screened-in. MR. THOMAS-Screened-in. Okay. Yes, that way it is. I still don’t have any problem with the Floor Area Ratio. MR. STONE-No. Let me just go back to my own comments, which I neglected to say. I think the fact that you’re willing to move the new addition in 12 feet from the line on the left side, as we face the lake, and one or two feet on the other side to meet the setback I think is evidence of good faith that you’re listening to what we’re saying and you’re willing to work with us, and I applaud that. MR. SEELEY-I think the Board understands that, not coming before you very often, if ever, and not knowing your feeling about this type of subject, that the first time we ask for what we really want, the second time we ask for what we think we can get approved, and go home happy. MR. STONE-That’s what I say, as I said, this is the process. We have been thought, by some people, to be a rubber stamp organization. We're not. We really are trying to follow the Town Code, to the best possible, recognizing there are inequities. No code can be perfect, as much as we’d like it to be. MR. SEELEY-Sure. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other comments anybody wants to make? Do we have a percentage figured out for this Floor Area Ratio? MR. STONE-Twenty-six percent total. It’s right here. The steps don’t count on that one, though, because they’re not covered. MR. THOMAS-In the Floor Area Ratio, because they’re open steps. MR. BROWN-Yes, I didn’t include them. MR. THOMAS-No. I wouldn’t count the steps. MR. STONE-I’d just mention that we’re not. MR. BROWN-We can if you’d like to throw them in there. The roof doesn’t extend over that portion, but a portion of where the roof extends, there’s nothing. There’s steps on one side and the other portion that’s just. MR. STONE-Yes, but there are eaves from the roof. They obviously come out a foot or so. MR. BROWN-Well, they extend over the steps, the roof extends over the steps. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but it’s not screened in. MR. STONE-Will there be a door at the top of these stairs? MR. UNDERHILL-I hope so. MR. THOMAS-All right. Does somebody want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-1999 EARL UNDERHILL, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) 148 Sunnyside Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 192 square foot covered porch addition to an existing camp, and requests 17 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of both the WR-1A zone, Paragraph 179-16, and the shoreline and wetlands regulations, Paragraph 179-60. Additionally, the applicant is requesting relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure, as the existing camp does not meet current minimum setback requirements. The applicant is also requesting relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the WR-1A zone, Paragraph 179-16, and is proposing a total of 26% Floor Area Ratio. In considering this, the benefit to the applicant would be that the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired deck and be allowed to utilize an additional outdoor recreation area. Feasible alternatives would include reconfiguration from the applicant’s original proposal on this proposal. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The 17 feet of shoreline relief and the four percent Floor Area Ratio increase may be interpreted probably as moderate. The effects on the neighborhood or community, given the nature of the neighborhood, probably minimal effects on the neighborhood as a result of this action. The difficulty can be interpreted as being self-created. However, a portion of the difficulty we feel can be attributed to the pre-existing location of the camp on the property. For all these reasons, I recommend that we approve this variance. The project, as we understand it, includes a new deck portion which will be 192 square feet, seven by sixteen. It will be located on the property such that it will be 12 feet from both side property lines, and in addition will have a three foot wide staircase, lake side, going down parallel to the length of the deck. Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: st MR. STONE-I have two thoughts. One, as I understand it, the current deck was 45 feet from the lake. Are my numbers right? Thirty-three and ten is, well, maybe two, maybe it was 48. MR. BROWN-It was 43 feet. MR. THOMAS-Forty-three feet. MR. STONE-Plus the steps. The steps count in the setback. So it’s about, so it was about 40 feet from the lake, give or take. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-So what I want to get in there is it was already nonconforming from that standpoint. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-The other thing that I would like to do, on the basis of something that I've recently noticed, nothing to do with you, I think I did in the previous motion, is describe the project as we understand it, because we have a situation that I've been questioning because we didn’t do that, a number of months ago, and I would really like us to say what we think a project is, in terms of where the steps are, in terms of the dimensions. I know the map says that, but I’d like to have it in there. If it’s okay with you. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to add it in there, Chuck, or do you want Lew to add it in? MR. MC NULTY-If you want to add it, go ahead. If you’ve got in your mind what you’d like. MR. STONE-Yes. The project, as we understand it, includes a new deck portion which will be 192 square feet, seven by sixteen. It will be located on the property such that it will be 12 feet from both side property lines, and in addition will have a three foot wide staircase, lake side, going down parallel to the length of the deck. That’s all. I just want to make sure we. AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. SEELEY-Gentlemen, thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA MARK W. RYAN OWNER: HAROLD J. KIRKPATRICK ROUTE 9L, CLEVERDALE, ROCKHURST ROAD 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CAMP AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SEPTIC VARIANCE FOR REVIEW CROSS REF. SPR 30-99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 16-1-4 LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60, 179-79 MARK RYAN, PRESENT MR. STEC-“Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: June 23, 1999 Area Variance No. 51- 1999 Mark W. Ryan Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 51-1999 Mark W. Ryan, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Until no later than the August meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by this Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for tabling application is awaiting approval of the septic system from the Town Board acting as the Board of Health. Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. rd McNulty, Mr. Stec, Mr. Stone, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Ryan? MR. RYAN-Yes. My name is Mark Ryan. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything else? Did the Town Board, acting as the Board of Health, approve a septic system? MR. RYAN-Yes, they did, with a deed restriction of no heating system being added to the property. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Is that to make it a seasonal home? MR. RYAN-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Where did the Board say that you were to put that system? MR. RYAN-On the drawing. MR. THOMAS-This drawing here? MR. RYAN-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That deck on that back, is that existing? MR. RYAN-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-And it is over the property line onto the lands of Harold Kirkpatrick? MR. RYAN-Right. Harold Kirkpatrick owns three properties there. We're purchasing one of the properties. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and this is one of the properties? MR. RYAN-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. RYAN-On the plans for the second story, that should show the decks to be removed. MR. STONE-Now the septic system they approved is on the building side of Rockhurst Road? MR. RYAN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Somehow I thought I heard it was the other side, but obviously I was misinformed. I wasn’t there. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. RYAN-No, there’s two existing tanks, now, that are there now, and we’re going to add an additional tank to bring the system up to size, and also add an alarm system to bring that up to Code. MR. STONE-This is a holding tank, rather than a septic tank? MR. RYAN-That’s correct. There’s two holding tanks now. We're going to add a third to bring it up to gallon size and to add alarms which are not in the system at this time. MR. STONE-Because you wanted a holding tank, is that why the Board of Health said it had to be a seasonal? MR. RYAN-That’s correct. To give you the history on the property, the building was sitting right where the road is now, and the road went through the building, well, where it is now. So it was moved at one time. It was an ice cream stand. It was a commercial use. MR. STONE-I was right looking at it. MR. RYAN-The overhangs on there, they kind of give you that impression, and the window kind of placement and size, and when it was moved, I don’t think there was any sort of sanitary facilities, when it was sitting where the road was at that time. It was probably just, there’s no evidence of any systems there at that time. So it was moved to where it is now, and we’re not asking for any new setbacks. We're just asking to go up, in a sense, and we’re asking to remove the deck that is over the line, and we’re asking to upgrade the septic system to current Code and regulations. We're asking to keep the same number of bedrooms. There was two. We're going to keep two. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Ryan? MR. RYAN-It is used as a rental now. We're planning to keep it as our personal summer use. Adjacent to both sides are two commercial marinas. Dr. Kirkpatrick operates a Class A marina to the south. He uses the lot next to that property as parking areas for his moorings as well as his dock, and to the north is Warner Bay dockage, which is a commercial marina, also. The APA had done an on-site visit to review the extent of the wetlands on the area, and on the map there’s markers where, and markers in the field where they’ve designated the wetlands across Rockhurst Road. That would be I guess the west side. MR. THOMAS-Because that’s the .32 acres that would be on the west side of the road? MR. RYAN-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-And are there any plans for that land over there? MR. RYAN-Well, originally, when we met with Craig, and that’s how all these plans have been developed, in September we asked if anything could be put there. The APA said, well, Craig and I discussed we couldn’t put any residence there. We're asking possibly in the future if we could put a boat storage area or car storage area over there, but no residential or anything like that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The building that’s there now, is that really buildable to put a second story on to it? MR. RYAN-When Williams and Williams were out there, and (lost words) the contractors, what they suggested to do was put concrete piers under there. There’s no rot or any deterioration that they can tell at this time. They were to make the first floor eight foot ceiling instead of the less than eight foot ceiling. They were going to build a small wall on top, and then build the new walls and the flooring above that. So they said yes. They said the condition of the woods and materials were without any damage that they could tell. MR. STONE-Do you own this property at the present time, or do you have a contract to buy if you? MR. RYAN-A contract to buy, pending approval of things. We have approvals, now, for the septic. I have approvals for a U-Shaped dock. MR. STONE-What happened yesterday? I didn’t get there to the project review on Dr. Kirkpatrick’s buoy situation? MR. RYAN-They’ve asked him to submit a survey to show the actual placements of the moorings. He had the surveyor put some survey lines in. As it turns out, Craig’s familiar with our line issue. The Park Commission picked a line. We’ve got a line that Queensbury accepted, not in the same spot, which resulted me with two different approvals. One with one size dock and one with another sized dock. The County disapproved one of the plans because the stairs were going to encroach on 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) the land instead of the dock by 40 inches by 42 inches. That was considered a land bridge. So, we got the change that. New submittals to both sides, Park Commission and Queensbury, and still with not an agreement where my reparian rights line would be. The Park Commission visited Craig Brown, and they came up with a line that is, they say, 155 degrees from the property line, which is about 25 degrees out. Then there’s the property line which goes out, and now Dr. Kirkpatrick is faced with a reparian line which is even further over. So I’m faced with a line that’s 25 degrees from the property line. He was going to be able to use, because he was grandfathered, the property line for his moorings, and now it looks like that’s even been moved a little bit over from what the surveyor has done. The surveyor had not put the moorings on there, so the Park Commission has tabled his until he does what they request. MR. STONE-They tabled it again yesterday? MR. RYAN-That’s correct. I was there at the meeting just to ask if, once I’m the owner, since all the moorings, I had a condition on my approval. My condition was to build a U-Shaped dock, I had to remove two moorings from the property, or Dr. Kirkpatrick had to, and was able to keep one. Those moorings have been removed, and my request was, have they been removed in your eyes, and the agreement was, there’s no moorings from the property line, my 155/25 degree line, and there’s no moorings there at all. So, their resolution, and what they’ve asked for, I've been able to do. There’s been a request to the Town and the Park Commission for this downsized U-Shaped dock, and I've received a letter from Craig Brown that says that it appears to meet their requirement, and Molly Gallagher of the Park Commission says that it appears to meet their requirement also. MR. STONE-Where is this dock supposed to be, on this drawing? Not as on this drawing, or is that an existing dock? MR. RYAN-That existing dock is in a condition to be removed. MR. STONE-And the dock is going to be well within the property line? So it will meet the setback? MR. RYAN-That’s correct, it will meet the side setbacks of 20 feet on the left, which is using the property line, and on the right, it will be using a 25 degree less than property line angle. It’s less than 700 square feet. It meets all the requirements. We had no variances asked for and granted for that. All these plans and drawings were based upon the original submittals in September, and again, December, February and March, and then this last drawing from Williams and Williams was from all that information and letters received back, that Dave Hatin went over the drawings with Williams, and that’s how the Williams had produced these drawings. They’ve been scaled back significantly from what we thought we could ask for, as the second floor possibly being cantilevered, to the overhang size of the structure and so on. So what we’ve gone to is the existing size and not asking for anything new, other than to be able to go up. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Ryan? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. I think I did leave it open. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN SALVADOR, JR. MR. SALVADOR-I’m not necessarily opposed, but I do have some questions. John Salvador. I would have brought up this issue at the Town Board of Health. However, they had closed the public hearing when Mr. Merrill brought up the issue of the deed encumbrance. Mr. Stone, you asked a question pertaining to the seasonal operation and the heating system, or something like that, earlier this evening. MR. STONE-It was an understanding of what the Town Board did, and I was just getting clarification from Mr. Ryan. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. The heating system and the seasonal are separate issues. The public health code does not allow holding tanks for year round residential use, and so the Town has found a way to grant the use of a holding tank if you’ll agree to a seasonal use, which is something less than nine months. That takes care of the seasonal aspect of it. The non residential use is, they think, is the heating system. I’m not convinced, in my own mind, that that does it. In any case, I think the deed encumbrance should come before the building permit. I was made to do this once when I was forced to accept a deed encumbrance on an application, and that was a condition, that the deed encumbrance was done first, and then the building permit could be issued. With regard to the docks, the Park Commission and the Class A Marina, I’m just wondering if, when I hear reparian rights, I begin to get nervous, but the Office of General Services has a regulatory program involving how you carve up the water body with regard to your reparian rights and the extension of property boundary 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) lines. Now the Park Commission has regulations for the same subject, but they don’t agree. I do know that the OGS is moving to get all marinas in the State of New York under permit, and to have them get easements for the use of the public lands, and they’re going to do this on Lake George eventually, but just for your own benefit, you should look into that. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-That triggers a question of Staff. I mean, I know what the Town Board did Monday night. I mean, I was aware that they had put this so called seasonal, so called no heat deed encumbrance, but I keep hearing, from our Staff, that we don’t enforce deed encumbrances. So if I may ask the Town Board, and they’re not here, what does it mean, a deed encumbrance, technically, if we don’t enforce them? MR. SALVADOR-Or can’t enforce them. MR. STONE-Or can’t enforce them. What does it mean? It’s a rhetorical question, Craig. MR. BROWN-The Town has no position, or is in no position to enforce those private contracts. It would be a civil matter or I really don’t know what we could do about a deed encumbrance. MR. SALVADOR-Well, it’s not a private matter when the permit is conditioned upon it. I mean. MR. STONE-That’s why I asked the question. MR. BROWN-Perhaps it could have been a condition of approval, rather than a deed encumbrance. That might have been a different way to do it. MR. SALVADOR-Well, you see, what happens is if it’s a condition of approval, then it’s enforceable by the Town. MR. STONE-Right. MR. SALVADOR-Well, can you imagine the Town going around enforcing all these ridiculous variances they’re granting? That’s the problem. MR. STONE-Just so that we put the record straight with Mr. Salvador’s comment, that the proposed dock, which we are not considering tonight, has no relationship to where the reparian rights are. It is well within the property lines as, even if you put them at an angle in the water. MR. BROWN-The dock, as proposed, meets the setback requirements. I wouldn’t say it’s well within, but it’s. MR. STONE-Well, one inch from twenty feet is still within. MR. BROWN-That’s about it. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. MR. RYAN-Well, the north side is one inch, and the south side is, well, it runs right parallel with it, to stay consistent with DeMarco’s docks. MR. STONE-But regardless of this, the sweep of this reparian rights line, the dock is going to be legal? MR. RYAN-That’s right. It’s 25 degrees off of the right hand side. So at points it’s, I think the closest point there is 28 from property, 30 from property, 20 from the setback, or to setback, but. MR. BROWN-It’s consistent with what the Town requires. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there any correspondence? MR. STEC-No, there’s no other correspondence. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak opposed? No correspondence? MR. STEC-No. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. THOMAS-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Ryan? Do you want to explain to me exactly what this deed restriction or deed encumbrance is? MR. RYAN-From the Town? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. RYAN-Well, this is the second time I was in front of the Town. We got to debate at length what a heating system was, and I asked them to look at the plans, and the plans had an air conditioning system, because my wife has asthma. They would not approve the plan that I had submitted, which is the identical plan that they approved, other than the fact that I had to prove to them that there was no heating system on the plan that you have in front of you. So we got to debate that for quite some time. So the second meeting, no questions, first or second, about the septic at all, no questions about what it was, the size of the tanks or placement or alarms, nothing. So they discussed if it was seasonal or not, and I said it’s seasonal. There’s no heating system as per plan, and they got copies of the plan that you have, and when they were reviewing that, they said, okay, we’ll approve this with the deed restriction that states, because of the holding tanks, there will be no heating system allowed, and I understand the spirit of that is that I can’t put a heating system in, and that means it’s a seasonal use. MR. THOMAS-That means from now and forever, there’ll never be a heating system in there. MR. RYAN-With holding tanks, that’s correct. MR. STONE-I do have a further question. I’d forgotten about this drawing. It says, the application as described to us is a second story. These pictures seem to show three. MR. RYAN-Well, the roof line and so on. MR. STONE-But there’s a window up there. MR. RYAN-Right. MR. STONE-So there is a livable story. MR. RYAN-Well, because of the window? MR. STONE-Well, what’s the window looking in on? MR. RYAN-When Williams and Williams designed this, he said since it was so small, he wanted to break up the view and the look of it. He thought that would add to it. MR. STONE-How high is this building? MR. THOMAS-Twenty-eight feet. MR. STONE-It says 28 feet. I’m sorry. So it’s taking the full 28 feet that’s allowed. MR. RYAN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-But it certainly looks like three stories to me, when I look at a picture. MR. RYAN-The print should show that there’s just two bedrooms on the second story and no anything on the third story. MR. STONE-I don’t think I have any. MR. RYAN-I submitted 10 copies of the, well, you must have something, because if you have that picture, then you should have. MR. BROWN-They may have been submitted with the site plan application. I don’t know if you submitted any for the variance. MR. RYAN-Well, I did for both, because I had to come back up. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. BROWN-Twenty copies? MR. RYAN-Yes. I gave ten, and then there was site plan, so I came back up and brought up another ten the following day. MR. STONE-Well, there’s 10 sitting somewhere. MR. RYAN-And they were submitted again for the septic system. They wanted to see the floor plan. MR. BROWN-Yes. Unfortunately, they’re all separate applications, and they don’t share copies of floor plans from the septic and the site plan and, they’re not shared. MR. RYAN-Well, there was a mistake at time of application, because when we submitted a variance and site plan, I did not include all that, and they asked me to come back the following day, and we brought additional copies up. It basically shows the first floor has a kitchen and a living room, with a small bathroom, and the second story has two bedrooms with a bathroom. MR. BROWN-Do you have a copy there? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. BROWN-I don’t know if the Board wants to. MR. THOMAS-Yes, if we could just take a quick look at them. MR. RYAN-It has existing, that’s existing, that’s the deck to be removed. This is the lake front. So that’s existing. Then we go to the new first floor, which is kitchen, powder room, a door to the lake, and then a door to the lake and a door to the front. MR. STONE-And this we’re facing? MR. RYAN-This is lake. MR. STONE-That’s lake. Okay. MR. RYAN-That’s east. And then that was the second story. MR. STONE-It still doesn’t show me what the windows look in on. MR. RYAN-Well, these are the windows on the second story. There’s no third story drawing. MR. THOMAS-Is it a vaulted ceiling? Is it just a regular ceiling, or does it go up into the pitch? MR. STONE-That’s the attic floor plan. Okay. So there is floor up there. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. RYAN-Well, I didn’t ask for a floor. MR. STONE-Well, you’ve got stairs going up, and you’ve got storage. So that means you have something over the joists. MR. RYAN-But Dave Hatin said, since we weren’t going to finish walls or anything there, that it was an unfinished area. MR. STEC-If it’s unfinished, does that factor into the relief sought? MR. BROWN-It has to meet certain criteria to be floor area, yes. If Dave said it’s not. MR. STONE-Well, it’s a big lot. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I don’t think you’re going to have any problem with the floor area. MR. STONE-But that certainly looks like a third floor to me. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but if that window is coming into there, and that’s a clipped ceiling. MR. RYAN-Well, there shouldn’t be any ceiling. Well, I could have a drawing showing that there’s no ceiling. Because we weren’t intending on any ceiling. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. THOMAS-It really doesn’t make any difference, because this meets the height requirement and the Floor Area Ratio. So if he wants it, he can have it. Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Ryan? All right. Lets talk about it. I’m back to Dan. All right. Dan? MR. STEC-All right. Again, 40 and a half feet of relief from a 50 foot shoreline setback on Lake George, that really concerns me. Really, I echo my past statements. We’ve had several of these tonight, and they are remarkably similar. Again, almost 18 feet of relief from a 20 foot side setback, those two really bother me. I think that the Staff Notes on this are really concise and to the point. I think that the relief is substantial. Again, I recognize the willingness to do everything possible to make this more attractive to the Board, the removal of the deck, the upgrade of the septic system. There’s clear benefit to the applicant, but I really think that we do have a duty to protect Lake George, and for me anyway, I think that this is an awful lot of relief. Again, you know, we’ve talked before, and this is just for me, you know, the addition of living space, as opposed to a covered area or a porch area or something like that, to me, I differentiate between the two. Quite frankly, I think that this is harder for me to go to a second story. I recognize that it remains on the same footprint, and I’m not saying that there aren’t pluses to the application, but I’m bothered by the substance of the relief that’s sought, and, clearly, I’ll listen to my other Board members, but going first here, my first look at it, I think that it’s an awful lot of relief. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, very clearly, in my mind, this variance is not even almost thinkable. A twenty foot high building, ten feet from the lake is even worse than the one that we previously at least denied in theory. That’s not even close to 28 feet high, three feet from the lake. I mean, this thing sitting out there where it does is going to be such a visual detriment to the lake, the people on the other side, over on Warner Bay, people boating up and down the area, I just think it’s visual pollution of the highest order. I wouldn’t even be happy if you put a regular second story on, but when I look at this thing that’s going to use the maximum height allowed under the law and ask for 40 feet of relief from the lake, there is no way that I, in good conscience, can even consider this variance, in a positive light. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Regrettably, I have to agree with the other Board members. Again, going back, if this were a new building, there’s no question but what I would say no. I wouldn’t want to see a building built there that close to the lake. Expanding it to this degree just doesn’t seem appropriate to me, in that case, and as Lew said, it strikes me as being a bigger expansion, a worse expansion, than the one we were just talking about a carport out there, and I see no way around it. It just strikes me that it’s really not a buildable lot. I guess that says it all. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The only question I had in my mind is, where else on this lot could you build? MR. RYAN-We asked that in September, October, February, again in May, and we were said no. We certainly would have loved to have moved it back, move it to the side, move it anywhere you want, but we were told that wasn’t even something we should consider. So we never made any expense or effort to explore that, and this is the first time we ever get to have this dialogue. We talked to Dave Hatin. We talked to Craig Brown. We go through the regulation books, but we never get to find out what’s (lost word) here. The process is, spend the money first, with engineering, with designs, with ideas, and since I’m not asking for any new setbacks, we’re just asking to go up. MR. STONE-This is something that the Town Board has taken on the responsibility of doing septic variances before we get to talk about them. I can only suggest that you mention that to the Town Board. I mean, we’re dealing with a Code. I don’t want to answer for everybody, but I’ll answer for myself. We're dealing with a Code that says 50 feet from the lake. You’re looking at a property, and maybe it’s fortunate you haven’t bought the property, but you’re looking at a property that has a house on it that’s 10 feet from the lake, that should ring some bells. Then on top of that, you want to take a thing which is about 10 foot high, and make it almost three times as high, and at the same time, it would appear to me, probably take out some trees, but that’s not necessarily germane to what we’re talking about, but the point is, some bells should have gone off somewhere. I can’t speak for Staff. I have no idea what they told you. I do know that the Town Board has taken it on themselves, as the Board of Health, to begin acting on these septic variances before we get a chance. I’m not sure I totally understand why. I kind of wish that we would have a chance first, because there are many cases that we’re going to say no. Just because the Town Board gives a septic variance doesn’t mean that our interpretation of the Zoning Code is going to change because they’ve given a septic variance, and as I say, looking at this thing, 10 feet from the lake, very close to the other property line, as defined by your current contract, and maybe, that could be minimized by changing what 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) you’re buying, but the point remains, regardless of that, you’re 10 feet from the lake and you want to go up almost 28 feet. Somebody should have at least cautioned you that maybe we might not like it. MR. RYAN-Well, that’s why they asked for drawings from a designer, as opposed to me just drawing a stick figure of 28 feet high. I couldn’t get to this point without having to go to somebody like that, and that’s not anything to do with the Health Department or septic tanks. In September, when I walked in there, and I want to do this, that would have been nice to get it in front of you at that point, and say, don’t spend the money to have a designer draw something that we’re not even going to consider. So, in all the meetings, and all the letters back saying, do this and do that, it makes these changes here, brings us to a point, we’re now spend the money so that a designer can have something to give you a visual on. MR. STONE-Well, I can only tell you, this visual does not help me. It looks massive, 10 feet from the lake. I know it’s a small building, but this drawing makes it look massive to me. MR. THOMAS-Because it’s a big drawing on a small piece of paper. That’s all it is. MR. RYAN-And this is what was submitted, a big piece of paper. MR. STONE-But I count three stories. Okay. Well, as I say, I make no apologies for my position. I have been clear for quite some time that I think we have to be very concerned, and to me, this isn’t even, this is easy. MR. RYAN-Well, what you have right now is a two bedroom place that’s 10 feet from the lake. MR. STONE-And I wish we didn’t, but we do. I understand that. I can’t change that. MR. RYAN-Right, and what I’m asking to have is a two bedroom place, 10 feet from the lake. MR. STONE-I don’t agree with your interpretation of what you want there. I mean, yes, you’re absolutely right. It’s two bedrooms, but it’s got a family room, it’s got a bigger kitchen. It’s got a number of things that you just showed me. MR. RYAN-I mean, the APA was definitely in favor of moving it back from the lake, from a lot of areas. They definitely were in favor of that, but to quote them, and I’m probably going to get it a little bit wrong, but this is where regulation is going to get in the way of common sense. Moving it back, no matter what the size of the property, is a good idea, or size of the building, is a good idea. MR. STONE-Well, if in fact they put regulations over common sense, because I believe my position is common sense. It’s too close. MR. RYAN-Right, and that’s what their idea was. This is too close, lets make it better, and that’s what I’m willing to do, but I was never allowed, as an option, to put that in front of you, in a sense. MR. STONE-As far as I’m concerned, you can put anything you want before us. MR. RYAN-Many of the applications that I had submitted, the 10 copies, and I've got two bags of carrying them all around, were, no, we can’t put that, that’s not enough information, that’s wrong, that you can’t do that. MR. BROWN-Yes. I can only speak for myself, but I know, Mr. Ryan, I never had any conversation about moving the building. Whether he did with Dave or not. MR. RYAN-That was with Dave. MR. STONE-This is the Code Enforcement Officer. MR. RYAN-I understand that. MR. BROWN-I mean, certainly, if you move it to the other portion of the parcel, across the road, and, you know, have your septic on the other side, that would definitely be an improvement, or change the property line, like you suggested. There are a number of options. MR. STONE-And we’re open to options, but this is not an option, to me. We haven’t heard from you, Chris. MR. THOMAS-I started. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. THOMAS-Can you or can you not build across the road, on that .32 acres? MR. RYAN-No, the whole area was designated as a wetland, and since it was filled in, somewhere when they built the road, the APA came out with new lines that have not been submitted as a request of the Queensbury to do anything over there. So, I don’t know. MR. STONE-You’re saying APA. APA or DEC? MR. RYAN-APA. I had to get a (lost word) informational form filled out to see if I needed a permit from them or not, and they sent me a letter saying, no, I do not need a permit because the building was prior to the, well, 70 something regulation, and so when they came out to do the survey, I asked them to also look at the extent of the wetlands, since it was filled in when the road was built, since the whole area of Rockhurst and all that is considered wetlands. MR. BROWN-Based on this drawing right here, if he wanted to construct something on the west side of Rockhurst Road, I know we’ve had this discussion before that that wouldn’t be allowed, if he wanted to maintain the existing principle building. If that existing principle was to go, there’s a potential, probably, for the principle on the other side, you’re going to run into setback issues from the road, from the wetlands, from whatever. It’s going to be more removed from the lake. You may even, well, you’re not going to have a 50 foot setback problem from the lake, but there is potential there, I would guess. MR. THOMAS-Plain and simple, Craig, yes or no, could he build a house on that side? MR. BROWN-Well, without seeing something proposed, can he build a house of this size on the other side of the road? MR. THOMAS-I mean, what kind of setbacks from the wetlands would he have? MR. BROWN-Fifty feet, I believe. MR. RYAN-Well, I think the whole depth of the. MR. BROWN-Well, I’m just looking at this drawing here that shows the wetland back here and it leaves this portion potential building. I mean, needing a 50 foot setback. MR. STONE-Where’s the wetland? We don’t have it. MR. BROWN-You don’t have this? MR. STONE-No. MR. RYAN-See, that was submitted also. You know what they have, they have the septic map in front of them. MR. THOMAS-You know why we don’t have it? MR. STEC-Because they’re all in the file. I thought I saw you looking. MR. THOMAS-I've got this one. MR. STEC-All right, but I don’t have the floor plan. That’s still missing. MR. STONE-Well, it may need a variance. MR. BROWN-Yes. I’m just going to guess that the road setback and the wetland setbacks are going to overlap. It’s certainly going to address your closeness to the lake concerns, but. MR. STONE-Yes, it’s a long, narrow house. MR. MC NULTY-And even that area is kind of damp in there, even though it’s not classified as a wetland. MR. THOMAS-Yes. There’s a 30 foot setback. So, on this end. MR. RYAN-Craig, there was a question if that road was actually a Town road or not. See how the lines end on the width. So is that portion of road there really a Town road? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. BROWN-As far as I know, yes, that’s. MR. STONE-Is this one lot or two lots? MR. RYAN-It’s one lot. MR. STONE-It’s one lot with a road in the middle? MR. RYAN-Yes, because the house was sitting right about where the “R” is on Rockhurst Road. That was the corner of it, and then the road was right straight through where it says “Building” in the little building itself, and went along there. That’s why the concrete retaining wall was built way back when. MR. STONE-But you could, for example, move it back along that property line, closer to the 30 foot front yard setback on the lake side? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. STONE-Which makes it more tolerable, if you will. I mean, there are alternatives here. We could move it over this way somehow. MR. THOMAS-But now you’ve got to watch that septic system, because you don’t, you know, you start encroaching on that septic system. MR. STONE-It’s holding tanks. They could be almost anywhere. MR. RYAN-Yes. I guess I've got to be 10 feet, is that? MR. STONE-Well, I mean there’s distance. I don’t mean to suggest you can be right on top of them. MR. RYAN-No, I can’t be closer than 10 feet to one. Is that correct, Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes. I think if you do any substantial changes from the septic variance, you may have to go through that process. MR. RYAN-Yes. They never even asked where they were. If I understand you correctly, I can’t get closer than 10 feet from a tank, without asking for anything else. MR. STONE-Right. MR. RYAN-Ideally, we thought right where it says, I guess the 0.16, place something there, and we would be better, and that’s what the APA suggested, too, but Dave Hatin warned me, as soon as I did anything then I had to meet all Codes. Anything moving of a structure, then I had to meet every single Code that exists. MR. STEC-Or get a variance. MR. STONE-Well, Code is one thing. You’ve got to build it so it meets building codes, electrical and water and all those things, and strength of walls, whatever else. MR. BROWN-I have a feeling that’s probably what Dave was, at least a portion of what he. MR. RYAN-He kind of warned me that since we don’t meet setbacks and nonconforming, you’re asking to move a nonconforming, that that would be a bigger can of worms than this. MR. STONE-Yes, but the question, it seems to me, is that you want a house on the lake, on this property. If it’s a new house. MR. RYAN-I can’t have holding tanks. We debated that, and that’s why the meeting at the table. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. RYAN-But the way they determined that was how much money I spent, and I figured out, if it was a new house, my expenses for lawyers and engineers and so on would exceed the cost of the house, to build a new one. So I could argue the fact that that cost, plus building a brand new one, as opposed to just dragging this across with a backhoe, I could win that argument. I’m pretty well convinced. Because this is movable. It’s sitting on cinder blocks. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s what I was thinking, too. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-If you moved it back here where the 0.16 acres, moved it back in there, and reconfigured the septic system. MR. RYAN-Yes. I think just the placement of the tank, as long as it’s not within 10 feet of the house, I guess they were happy with. MR. STONE-And you can clock that building, too, so that, and depending upon, you know, turn it. MR. RYAN-Yes, right. That would make sense. MR. STONE-Well, I’m unhappy to hear that you weren’t given some of the options that we’re suggesting, and I’m not throwing bats at anybody. MR. RYAN-And I understand. I know how everybody has to, well, do the position. I would have just loved to have walked in here with a blank piece of paper and said, this is what I want to do, and lets talk about it, just like we’re doing right now, because I think this would be the best for the lake, and for the property, and everybody else involved, and from my expense point of view, this would fit, because we can get rid of the windows or whatever we’ve got to do here, but we can, I don’t have to re-invent the wheel, in a sense. I just basically have the surveyor put a new square on the block. Would I be out of line to ask a consideration for approval with putting this back? MR. THOMAS-No, if you want to re-submit. MR. RYAN-Well, ask now. MR. THOMAS-Yes. If you want to re-submit new drawings. We can’t tell you one way or another right now. MR. RYAN-I see. Okay. MR. STONE-Because we don’t know what you’d be asking for. It’s very hard to debate. MR. RYAN-Well, the same building, just in a different spot. MR. STONE-Yes, but where? MR. STEC-You’d still need some level of variance, relief. MR. RYAN-Okay. All right. MR. STONE-What numbers? MR. RYAN-Can I get clear on what my setbacks will be from the road, from the lake, and from the side what the rules are? And the reason why I ask that is I got different answers from different people. Since the property is bordered by a shoreline and by a road, the side setbacks are different than, or if it’s just the road setback and the lake setback. Is it the average of the two adjoining properties, too? MR. STONE-That’s setback. They’re further back. It’s 50 feet or more, depending upon where the other properties are. MR. RYAN-Okay, and what about if this property is bordered by a road and a shoreline, or do I just go with the 20 and, that’s what I’m trying to get a clarification on. MR. STEC-Front setback 30 feet, side setback 25 feet, but it’s the width of the lot, right. MR. STONE-If they’re less than 50. The width of this lot is. MR. RYAN-Measured at the road, 110 feet, .61. MR. STONE-When it comes to the lake, we’re talking three different kinds of setbacks. I mean, we’re talking shoreline setback, which is 50 feet, or the average of the two on either side, if it’s greater. That’s not a problem here. So it’s 50 feet from the, the rear is the road, or is that the front? See, that’s what, it doesn’t really address well. It never has. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. RYAN-And that’s why I’m asking this question now, because if I draw something, I’d like to do it the best way possible. MR. STEC-The front setback’s the road, right, Lew? MR. BROWN-Right. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s 30 feet. MR. STONE-That’s 30 feet, yes, but then we have the rear setback, and when you’re on the, but see, that’s in the area. The question that doesn’t get answered, and I don’t think ever has gotten answered, and maybe John’s been at this more, but is the shoreline the front or the rear? To me, the shoreline is the front, because I live on the lake, but I don’t think it’s been addressed in this law well. MR. BROWN-The shoreline setback is the shoreline setback. The front setback is the. MR. STONE-I understand that, but which of the other two, front and rear, do you use for the other side? MR. STEC-The front’s the road. MR. BROWN-The front’s on the road, if it’s a public right-of-way. If it’s a private right of way, you use a rear setback. MR. STONE-So it’s 30 feet. Okay. MR. RYAN-Okay. So I’m dealing with 30 feet from the road? MR. STEC-Correct. MR. RYAN-Fifty feet from the lake. MR. STEC-Correct. MR. RYAN-And the side. MR. THOMAS-Side setback. MR. STONE-For that size lot, 25. MR. BROWN-Twenty. MR. STONE-Well, if it’s less than 150, it’s 20. MR. THOMAS-Sixty feet and less than 150 is 20 foot. That’s less than 150, right? MR. RYAN-Yes. It’s 110 or 11 on the road. MR. THOMAS-So the side setback is 20 feet. MR. RYAN-Is there anything, because we’re bordered by shoreline and bordered by a road? MR. STONE-No, that’s the Code. That’s what we’re talking about. You’ve got shoreline setback, and then you’ve got front setback, because considering the road. MR. RYAN-Can I reference to Section 179-30.1, Lots bounded by two roads or a road and a shoreline? And I think I’m a road and a shoreline. MR. STONE-Yes, you are. MR. RYAN-The remaining areas shall be considered rear yards. MR. BROWN-It’s not going to make a difference on this lot. MR. RYAN-It’s still 25? MR. BROWN-Yes, it’s still going to be 25. MR. RYAN-Okay. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. STEC-You know where we’re looking, right? I mean, all right, because I saw you’ve got a copy of the Code. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. STEC-I just wanted to make sure you knew where we were. MR. RYAN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-What I would do is take one of these, and just get it fitted on there the best you can, come back and talk to us. MR. RYAN-Would you like the existing structure removed from the drawing for clarification, or? MR. THOMAS-Leave it on there so we know where it is, in relation to the new one. MR. RYAN-All right, and just put new setback lines on. Okay. MR. STONE-Well, put where you’d like to put it, to the best of. MR. STEC-And if you’re looking for guidance, which I sense you are, I can’t speak for the entire Board, but I think you probably get the flavor that we’re very concerned about the lake front. MR. RYAN-Get away from the lake. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Craig will help you out if you need it. MR. RYAN-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-I think Dave Hatin’s comments are well taken, when you begin to move this building, as to whether or not you can qualify for a building permit. There are certain criteria. You gentlemen here mentioned the fact that the present building is on cinder blocks. You’re not going to do that with a new construction. (Lost words) below frost line. So I think Dave Hatin’s comments are well taken. MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s something else that Mr. Ryan will have to take into consideration when he puts this new building, or relocates this building on this property. MR. RYAN-Yes. I’m not going to build a new building. I’m just going to ask to move it with expansion to it. MR. THOMAS-But I’d say talk to Craig. Talk to Dave Hatin, and see what they’ve got to say about the building of it, the ins and outs of the building, especially the foundations, where the septic’s going to go, and all this other stuff. MR. RYAN-Okay. Dave’s on vacation, a honeymoon. Okay. He’s in Cancun. Can I ask for this application to be tabled? MR. THOMAS-We’ll table it. MR. RYAN-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All right. We’ll make the tabling motion right now. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1999 MARK W. RYAN, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until no later than the September meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by this Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month, if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for tabling this application is for the applicant to re-locate the existing building somewhere else on the property, on paper, and submit it to the Board, at the request of the applicant and the request of the Board. Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. RYAN-Craig, do you know the deadline for next month? MR. BROWN-Next Wednesday. MR. RYAN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-So you’re still alive. MR. RYAN-All right. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JOHN SALVADOR, JR. KATHLEEN A. SALVADOR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 18 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 300 SQ. FT. HUNTING AND FISHING CABIN AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/14/99 LOT SIZE: 3 ACRES SECTION 179-16 JOHN & KATHLEEN SALVADOR, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-There should be a tabling motion right there with that. MR. STEC-“Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Area Variance No. 25-1999 John, Jr. & Kathleen A. Salvador Meeting Date: June 29, 1999 Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 25-1999 John Salvador, Jr. & Kathleen A. Salvador: Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Until no later than the August meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by this Board must be filed by the following deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for tabling this application is to get an accurate map that both parties agree to so that the Zoning Board of Appeals can determine the setback relief required. The parties involved are Kathleen A. and John Salvador, Jr., Area Variance No. 25-1999, and the Town of Queensbury or its representatives. I would also ask that the Planning Staff forward a memo to Mr. Paul Naylor, Town Highway Superintendent, to ask him to lay out the centerline of the Dunham’s Bay Road so we can proceed on this application. Duly adopted this 29 day of June, th 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes” MR. THOMAS-All right. We have received a map from Mr. Naylor. MR. SALVADOR-You have? MR. THOMAS-A confirmation of a map that we already own. MR. STONE-It’s the same map. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s the official Town map. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. THOMAS-In fact, read his memorandum in there, that’s to me. It could be in the file there. MR. STEC-I thought I saw one. This is from Craig Brown. I thought I saw one from Mr. Naylor. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That’s what I’m looking for. MR. STONE-We got your interpretation of what he said, but we got your request to him. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. THOMAS-That’s what I’m looking for is that request. Here it is. It’s right here. MR. STEC-Yes, I have that, too. Do you want me to read that in? MR. THOMAS-Yes. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. STEC-Okay. July 2, 1999 “Dear Mr. Naylor: Enclosed please find, for your review, a copy of the above-referenced area variance motion that was approved at the June 29, 1999 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. As you will see, the application was again tabled with the condition that a map depicting Dunham’s Bay Road be agreed to by both parties. Further, the Zoning Board of Appeals has requested that this office submit correspondence to you requesting a response in this matter. Please consider this letter as such. A response may be directed to this office to the attention of Mr. Christian G. Thomas, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Craig Brown Code Compliance Officer” MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the one from Craig. MR. STEC-Okay. Memorandum to Christian G. Thomas, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, from Craig Brown, Code Compliance Officer, date July 6, 1999 re: Salvador, Dunham’s Bay Road “Dear Chris: As requested in a tabling for the above application, I have forwarded a request to Mr. Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent to address the concerns of the Zoning Board of Appeals. After discussion with Mr. Naylor, today, it is my understanding that his position has not changed in regards to the above matter. It is my understanding that Mr. Naylor’s position is that the 1993 VD & S map was prepared for him, at his request, to delineate the location of the limits of Dunhams Bay Road. Further, if Mr. Salvador does not agree with this map, the burden is on him to provide documentation to dispute the VD & S map. The 1993 VD & S map should be used when considering any relief for the application.” MR. THOMAS-That’s all I could get. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, but you did not get a map. MR. THOMAS-We were referred to the map, which we have a copy of. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I have that also. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-This one here, so we’re talking about the same one. MR. SALVADOR-That’s a photocopy of it. MR. THOMAS-A photocopy of it. MR. STONE-We assume it’s Van Dusen and Steves. MR. BROWN-The original is in the file. MR. STEC-Yes. I have an original in the file, or a more original copy, I should say. Certified original. MR. THOMAS-That’s the one that Paul’s talking about, or the one that Craig is saying, the 1993 Van Dusen & Steves map. I just want to make sure we’ve got the right one here. MR. STEC-Yes. I have the made for Town of Queensbury Van Dusen & Steves map, and it is stamped Matthew C. Steves. MR. THOMAS-What’s the date on that stamp? MR. STEC-There’s no date, on this, on the stamp. MR. THOMAS-But the map is dated July 12, 1993. MR. STEC-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. That’s the map that Mr. Naylor says is the official Town map. So you can take it from there. MR. SALVADOR-All right. I’d like to take a page out of Jonathan Lapper’s presentation, and I’d like to recount the history of this application. If you’ll recall on April the 14, the County found No th County Impact with regard to this variance request. That was the beginning of the permitting process. We made a project presentation to this Board on April 28, wherein we are requesting four th feet of setback relief from the Town road, and it’s based on our site plan, which in turn was based on a 1992 Coulter & McCormack map showing all the roads, all the right of ways, all the buildings, everything in the vicinity of tax parcel 4-1-11. I mention this because that Van Dusen & Steves map 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) you have doesn’t show any of that. For some unknown reason, the Community Development Department came into an uncertified map prepared by Van Dusen & Steves. That was supposed to depict Dunhams Bay Road. At the April 28 meeting, Mr. Brown is quoted as saying, “Well, I think th you’ve got an accurate map in front of you, depicting where the claimed road by use is. I think at one point the Town Highway Superintendent, the Supervisor, the Town Surveyor, put their heads together and said, this is the map that depicts the area that the Town wants to claim as a road by use. That’s this map.” Firstly, it’s not necessary for the Town to claim a road by use. The public has already done it. They have a right, a prescriptive right of use to use that road. There’s no claim to be made in what the public is using. The second aspect of that statement is that this trio, the Town Highway Superintendent, the Supervisor, and the Town Surveyor, are in no way authorized to make a claim on land that the Town may need for a road. That’s not their, they’re not authorized to do that, and I’ll go over that later. This map, this Van Dusen & Steves map, is a claim for land, for a dedicated road. The Town has never used it for that purpose. It’s laid in a file since 1973, dormant until Staff decided, for some reason, to exhume this thing. I will not deny that the Town, at one time, thought they needed this land for a dedicated road, and so they made this map, but they didn’t perfect their claim. That’s the purpose of this map. In addition, the procedure, and I’ll go over this in a moment, the procedure they followed in developing that map was flawed. If it were not for this map, I believe our variance request of April would have been approved by this Board. So our variance request of April was tabled for not more than 60 days, in order to get, One, an accurate map, and Two, one that both parties could agree to. I have done all I can to show you that our map has a degree of accuracy that it acceptable for purposes of this variance request. Our underlying map was certified by Coulter & McCormack, done in 1992, before this 1993 map was done. We have used this. We have used this as an underlayman, if you will, for our site plan. I showed you where no other surveying, engineering, municipal, private, neighborhood people have ever, ever been able to locate something called the Dunham Bay Road. It’s only Mr. Naylor who can do this. He’s the only one authorized in the law to do this. We wrote Mr. Naylor a couple of letters, one on the 29 th of April, another one on the 5 of May, asking him to either agree to our site plan or to lay out the th centerline of the road. In both instances he refused to do this. We wrote a letter to the Town Board requesting their intervention. Nothing happened. We have filed a petition in Supreme Court. I mentioned it to you, and we’re claiming that because Mr. Naylor has the care and superintendence of all roads in the Town less than two rods wide, that the road has been used at least 10 years, that these roads shall be ascertained, described and entered and that he shall erect monuments showing the public where the road is, and we’ve asked him to lay out the centerline of the road, which we feel is his duty. On June 29, we made an effort to show that as the Town Highway Superintendent is the th only one other than a user like ourselves, we use this road every day. We think we know where it is. If we weren’t on this road, we’d be on private property, and we would be trespassing. So we know where the Town road is. No one’s arrested us for trespassing, and this information has been put on our map. He’s the only one who can locate his 17-foot wide, one way, shoulderless Town road by use. We presented some 16 maps at the last meeting. None of them showed the road as Dunham Bay Road. Rather, it’s been called a dirt road, a paved area, a parking area, etc., and we did this to demonstrate that only the Highway Superintendent can determine where a road by use is located. Until the monuments are erected in accordance with Article VII, Section 140(8), no one knows where the road is located, and our arguments before you on the 29 were persuasive. You instructed th Staff to request Mr. Naylor, to write Mr. Naylor, and request that the Town Highway Superintendent, to ask him to lay out the centerline of the Dunham Bay Road, so we can proceed with this application. Mr. Naylor wasn’t requested to do that. That’s why he didn’t do it, and that’s why we’re back here tonight. Your request was to lay out the centerline of the road. It’s in your resolution, last sentence. MR. THOMAS-Yes, the resolution. It’s the last line. MR. SALVADOR-You did ask that, and Mr. Brown did not make it clear to Mr. Naylor that that was your request. MR. STONE-He did send the tabling motion. MR. SALVADOR-He sent it? MR. STEC-Right. It says, “Enclosed please find, for your review, a copy of the above-referenced area variance.” So whether or not he specifically said, he referred him to the copy. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. The presumption is that Mr. Naylor read it very carefully. MR. STEC-Right, that is the presumption. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I believe your request was not fulfilled. The memo to Mr. Naylor requesting to lay out the centerline of Dunhams Bay Road was really never sent. A memo requesting that, your resolution was somebody’s got to read through the whole thing before they discover that. I would like to now present a summary of reasons why I think the Van Dusen and Steves map is not 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) valid. If, in fact, the Town Highway Superintendent was attempting to lay out the Dunham Bay Road, as is his duty after the public has used a roadway for 10 years, and he has maintained it the same period, at public expense, for a like period of time, the map, this map, does not meet the procedural requirements for doing so. The Highway Law is very explicit. When our Highway Superintendent is to map and lay out a road, the procedure is very explicit. Procedural requirements for ascertaining and describing any Town road, not sufficiently described and recorded in the Town Clerk’s Office, are defined in State Highway Law Section 170, as follows: Whenever the Town Superintendent shall lay out any highway, any highway, without exception, either upon application to him or otherwise, he shall notify the County Superintendent, whose duty it shall be to either make a survey or cause the same to be made, and the Town Superintendent shall incorporate the survey in an order to be signed by him and to be filed and recorded in the office of the Town Clerk, who shall note the time of recording the same. The cost of such survey shall be a Town charge payable in the same set and manner as other charges against the Town. The Town Superintendent may enter upon the property to make surveys. That’s clear. He’s allowed to do that in the law, and we suspect that’s what he did here. The cost of the survey is a Town charge. I've seen no evidence that the Town paid for the survey. Whenever the Town Superintendent shall lay out any highway, he shall notify the County Superintendent. There is absolutely no evidence on the record, with regard to this map, that the County Superintendent was so notified. Absolutely no reference. No nothing. The County Superintendent has the duty to make a survey or to cause the same to be made. There is absolutely no evidence that the County Superintendent did this or caused it to be done. The Town Superintendent shall incorporate the survey in an order to be signed by him. Nowhere has Mr. Naylor signed an order, and the Town Superintendent has not yet filed and recorded in the office of the Town Clerk his order, and of course the Town Clerk has not noted the time of the recording. So, procedurally, that map doesn’t satisfy what Mr. Naylor is trying to accomplish. I believe that map was made in anticipation of doing something, but the Town never staked its claim. The Van Dusen and Steves map is not current. It was made in 1993. A lot of things have happened to that road since then. The use has changed. Because the use has changed, maybe the location has changed. It has a different use today, and that’s not depicted on the map. The 1993 map first certified in 1999, is six years old. I’m surprised that a surveyor, other than the surveyor in that firm that had something to do with that map, signed that, sealed that. You said Matt Steves signed that? MR. STONE-That’s what it says. MR. SALVADOR-I know Leon involved in this. So I guess the firm is Van Dusen and Steves. The Dunham Bay Road was made one way since the 1993 map was made. That’s another issue that’s really not so important here, but will have to be settled some day. I really believe it was illegal to make the road one way. Mind you, the people’s right to pass in both directions had long matured on that road. The people had a right to pass in both directions, and our Highway Superintendent recommended to our Town Board to make that a one way road. He stripped the public of their right to go in one direction. Okay. I don’t think he has the authority to do that. Now the reason he had to do this was because the DOT said they would not allow the signage to be put up allowing egress onto Route 9L at one of those intersections. That’s understandable. The solution is not to cut the public off from their right of use. The solution is to get that intersection up to standards that will allow the people to egress onto Route 9L there, and by the way, the County appropriated the land in 1931 that would allow this to be done. It’s there. The land is there. Okay. The Van Dusen and Steves map is not accurate. The map was made in 1993, was, in fact, a proposed map. It should have said proposed claim. Usually maps are done this way, and when it’s finally determined that this will be it, then the final map is prepared, but out of the box, it should have been a proposed map, and of course, as I mentioned before, the claim was never perfected. The map does not show the 17-foot wide Dunham Bay Road, and that road, if you look at the lay out and the dimensions, that piece of land floats in space. It’s not tied down to anything but a building. Buildings move. Buildings can burn. I mentioned before the north arrow orientation is not dated. Probably the greatest failure, the greatest failure of that map in some of its lay out is that the major portion of the land that encompasses that taking line is the title is in Warren County. Now I had the lesspendence where that land was appropriated from us, from our predecessor. The title of that land is in Warren County, and no user can gain a prescriptive right over a municipality. You cannot gain the right of prescriptive use or adverse possession over a municipality, and that’s what the Town is trying to do here is saying the user has taken a right from the owner of the land. The major portion of that land is owned by Warren County, and that portion, usually on a land taking map, you show what is, who owns what. It doesn’t show on that map that the County owns the major portion of it. The map is made for the Town of Queensbury. The map must be made for the Highway Superintendent. That’s who it has to be made for, not the Town of Queensbury. The map does not show the proper boundaries between Shortsleeve/Shriner property and the Woodin/Banta property. It doesn’t have deed references which usually these maps have. The map does not show our easement into Niagara Mohawk, to and from utility pole 172B. The map does not reflect the court decision of 1998, where the Town abandoned the unused portion of the road right-of-way. The map does not show property owners and boundaries northwest of the blacktop. The blacktop I think is what they’re trying to call Dunham Bay Road, but the Salvadors, the Dunhams Bay Boat Company and the State of New York 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) own land on the north side, and that cannot, the State of New York land cannot be appropriated, and that’s why it should be delineated. The great lot line of the French Mountain tract is not designated and it’s improperly located. There’s a portion of it there. The Van Dusen & Steves map is not complete. It does not show Dunham Bay Road. It does not reflect the court decision of 1998. It does not show the County owned land. That’s probably its greatest failure, and the map was never used in a challenge that we brought in State Supreme Court that that was, in fact, a Town road. We brought a challenge to that, and that map was never introduced as evidence. So, to me, it doesn’t exist. Another thing, we’re here. We don’t see the Highway Superintendent isn’t here defending his rights. Van Dusen & Steves is not represented here tonight to defend what they’re doing. I would suggest that this Board not accept this Staff generated information being used to impede the granting of our variance four foot of relief from a Town road, and I would ask you to so vote this evening. MR. THOMAS-So what you’re saying, bottom line is we still don’t have an agreement on the maps. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I mean, I can’t force someone to do something that they don’t want to do. I just don’t have that power. I’m sorry. MR. THOMAS-Nor can we. MR. STEC-Right. The only remedy I think that you have is through the courts. Because this body isn’t going to say this is the map. That’s definitely not our job description. MR. SALVADOR-Is that body saying that that’s the map? MR. THOMAS-No. It’s Paul Naylor saying that’s the map. MR. STEC-Paul Naylor is saying that’s the map. MR. SALVADOR-He did not bring that map forth in this application. Staff brought it forth. Staff brought that map forth. MR. THOMAS-Because Paul Naylor says that’s the map. MR. STONE-Yes, we’re getting it second hand, John. There’s no question. MRS. SALVADOR-That’s your side. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. MR. STONE-It’s second hand, I agree, but our Staff has made a comment which you certainly can challenge, appeal Staff’s decision, and that’s not what we’re doing right here. Staff says the 1993 Van Dusen & Steves map should be used when considering any relief for the application. That’s a decision, in black and white. MR. STEC-You can appeal it. MR. STONE-You can appeal that. MR. SALVADOR-I’m not interested. I think we have laid enough evidence forth to show that this map does not have any application. I agree that it had a purpose in 1993, but it went nowhere. MR. STONE-Mr. Salvador, you made a comment, in your presentation, a lot has happened since ’93? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. STONE-So why are your maps valid that you tried to show us last month, sixteen different maps? A lot has changed since 1700 and something. MR. SALVADOR-Nothing has changed on the maps that I brought forth. We haven’t changed anything. MR. STONE-What does it mean, “a lot has happened since ’93”? That’s a quote. A lot has happened, therefore, this map is invalid. I ask why are your maps valid. MR. SALVADOR-Two significant things. One is it’s a one way road, okay. Mr. Naylor has, since 1993, called it a 17 foot wide road, with no shoulders, okay. That’s his documentation. Is he signing a false document? MR. STONE-But he hasn’t told us where this 17-foot right-of-way is. Except by this note here. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. SALVADOR-And you have asked, in your resolution, for the centerline to be, you asked that. MR. STONE-And we have. MR. SALVADOR-That map, that Van Dusen & Steves map, does not show a centerline. It was made for another purpose. MR. STONE-I guess the question that I’ll ask, and only because if I’m not asking it, somebody else is going to think it, why does your hunting and fishing cabin have to be exactly where you have positioned it on your request? Can it be, I know the 50 feet from the lake, that we have made you tow to, and you know we’re not happy with anything less than that, but can it be moved along the roadway somehow? MR. SALVADOR-We don’t want to destroy the view from the lodging facilities. That’s, tuck it in that corner, and if we went over further, we’d just increase that four-foot. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. SALVADOR-And we don’t want to do that, and fast, by the way, because the lines converge. The shoreline and the road line, they converge. So you move that thing one-foot. MR. STONE-No, I realize that. MR. THOMAS-To me, nothing’s been resolved yet. MR. BROWN-I think what you’ve got in front of you, if I could just maybe add a little something, you’ve got a determination from a responsible party that the property lines that you need to give relief from have been established to his satisfaction. So you’re just dealing with a setback issue, not whether a procedure for filing a map was correct or if the correct parties were involved in preparing the map. You’ve got a determination as to where the property line is, and you need to act on that determination. It’s like a Zoning Administrator determination you need to act on. You’ve got a determination or information, interpretation from the Highway Superintendent as to where the property lines are. MR. STONE-So we act on, if we follow your guidance, then we have to be asked to grant 28 feet of relief. MR. BROWN-Whether the map was prepared and followed the correct procedure, that’s a burden Mr. Naylor’s going to have to bear. He’s instructed you or informed you, directly or indirectly, that that’s where the property line is, and that’s where the relief should be granted from. MR. SALVADOR-The lines, you call those property lines? They’re not on record any place. MR. BROWN-Right-of-way lines, whatever lines you want to call them. That’s where the relief should be granted from. MR. STONE-What I hear Staff saying is that we can ask you questions. We can go through with this procedure and we have to determine whether we’re willing to grant 28 feet of relief, per our instructions from the Code Compliance Officer from the Zoning Administrator. Are we willing to grant 28 feet of relief? We can do that. I mean, if you want us to go forward, we can consider granting 28 feet of relief. MR. SALVADOR-I’m not saying that you should consider that because I don’t think that’s the right number. You’re at liberty to consider anything you want, but I will not agree to that. MR. STONE-Well, Staff is telling us you have an application before us. In the Zoning Administrator’s feeling, position, is that your request requires 28 feet of relief, and that’s what we can consider. MR. SALVADOR-Are they saying that our map is inaccurate? We have mapped, and we say four feet of relief. MR. STONE-We have a statement here that the burden of proof is on you to provide documentation to dispute the map. MR. STEC-Now he’s going to argue that he’s demonstrated that, and then I would say that we’re not qualified or empowered to say that we can use that map. That’s not our call. We're not the board of maps that’s going to say, this is the right map. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. SALVADOR-Are they the board of maps? MR. STEC-Well, you identified whose responsibility the correct map is. MR. STONE-May I ask, where does the suit that you filed in Supreme Court stand? MR. SALVADOR-It’s returnable Wednesday, next week, before Judge Moynihan, oral arguments. I should say oral arguments are scheduled next. MR. STONE-I’ll be glad to, no I can’t, go and listen, but Wednesday I can’t. MR. STEC-I guess what I’m trying to say is I, at least I feel, our hands are tied, in that it’s not the duty of this Board to say that’s the right map. That’s Staff’s, and Staff has said that they’ve done that. Now, if you disagree, then we act on theirs, then I guess you have grounds for some sort of appeal saying, well, they’re using the wrong map, but if you’re asking us to pick your map over the one that Staff is telling us to pick tonight, I mean, I've only been doing this for a little less than a year, but I've never seen this issue come up before where a map is questioned. MR. STONE-I’m willing to vote on a 28-foot relief. MR. STEC-I am too, but then the question is. MR. SALVADOR-That’s your privilege. MRS. SALVADOR-May I ask a question? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. SALVADOR-On the Van Dusen & Steves map, do they have any deed numbers or names of adjoining property owners or dimensions as to where the property lines are, or are they just lines out in space? MR. STEC-Lands of Earl and Lillian Shortsleeves, Lands of John and Kathleen Salvador. MRS. SALVADOR-And do they have deed book numbers? MR. STEC-No. MRS. SALVADOR-Do they show monuments? MR. STEC-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-On the Shortsleeves, yes. MRS. SALVADOR-On the Shortsleeves they do? MR. STEC-They show utilities, a utility pole. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, that’s the utility pole that’s on our property. MR. THOMAS-Do they show a concrete monument on your property? MR. SALVADOR-No, that’s on, is that Shortsleeves? MR. STONE-No, it’s on your side. MR. STEC-On your end. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but it’s between us and Shortsleeves. MR. THOMAS-No, Shortsleeves has got one, well, almost. MR. SALVADOR-That’s a highway monument. MR. THOMAS-And it shows a concrete monument down by the seawall there, between you and Dunhams Bay. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Those are private monuments. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. THOMAS-It shows another concrete monument on the State highway boundary. MR. SALVADOR-That’s done by the DOT. MR. THOMAS-I don’t see any other monuments. MR. SALVADOR-There’s a couple of them there. MR. THOMAS-There’s a couple of old clumps of maples. MR. SALVADOR-That map is incomplete for what we are trying to do. MR. STONE-All right, but we can do it, because we were directed to use it. I mean, we can vote, and I mean, I’ll say right now that I’m not going to grant 28 feet of relief from anything. MR. SALVADOR-Neither am I asking you to do that. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what we’ve been told we have to do. MR. SALVADOR-Not by this applicant. MR. STONE-No, I understand that. MR. STEC-I agree. MR. THOMAS-So, which way should we go? Well, are there any questions for Mr. or Mrs. Salvador? If not, I believe I left the public hearing open. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any additional correspondence? MR. STEC-No additional correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. THOMAS-All right. I’m going to leave the public hearing open, and do you want us to table it again, Mr. Salvador? MR. SALVADOR-I wish you would vote. MR. THOMAS-You want us to vote on it? Okay. I will then close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-And it’s time to talk about it. All right. Lets see. I think I’m up to Lew. MR. STONE-Given the information provided by Staff, the determination by the Zoning Administrator, who we eventually have the right or the obligation to determine whether that decision was right or wrong upon a proper appeal, none having been made, the determination is that this application requires 28 foot of relief. That’s what we’re told. I, for one, will buy that. Having said that, obviously, the benefit to the applicant in granting 28 feet of relief would permit this building to be built where the applicant would like it to be, 50 feet from the lake, which is important to all of us, but two feet from the right-of-way as defined to us. To me, two feet of relief is more than the community should permit. It is too close to a roadway which is used, traveled by the public, as a public right-of-way, and I believe it is too large a variance to grant. Therefore, I would vote no on granting 28 feet of relief. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I guess I echo Lew again. Twenty-eight feet is way too much. In this particular location, frankly, I’m not sure I would even go along with a four foot relief, but certainly 28 foot is a definite no for me, and looking at the land the other day, it appears to me that the Van Dusen and Steves map is much closer to reality than any other map we’ve been presented, but my bottom line is 28 feet, way too much, and I would vote no. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I think Lew was well-spoken on how he characterized the issue, and I agree, and I think that the applicant probably has very persuasive arguments, if argued at a future appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision, that decision being that we are to use the Van Dusen & Steves map, but 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) based on, I feel we’ve been directed that this is what the Town, or at least the Zoning Administrator’s office feel is the map to base our relief on. I think that 28 feet from the 30 foot setback is excessive. However, I differ. If we were, in fact, talking about four feet, I’d be very comfortable with that, but in my mind I think there’s a question of the maps, but based on how we conduct business, we’re going to use the map as adopted by the Town, at least to our understanding what the Town has adopted, and I’m inclined to say no to 28 feet of relief. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-You’ll recall that the first time that map was brought into this permit was on the evening of the 28 of April. Should our application have been accepted by Staff as complete and th presented to this Board under those circumstances? We’ve been blindsided. We came into that meeting seeking four feet of relief. Our drawings weren’t rejected as being inaccurate. Nothing we had submitted was in question. It all came before you. We filled out the forms, and we’re responsible for the accuracy. Now in comes a sideshow. I maintain that we have been unfairly treated. If there was any question of the accuracy of our work, our application should not have been accepted as complete and been able to move forward, and we would have had a chance, in an appeal process, to appeal their decision. Now we can’t. We're before you. Procedurally, procedurally, I think there’s something wrong there. I think if Staff really felt that there was a more accurate map, as they did, then ours should have been rejected, and the application should not have been considered to be complete. MR. THOMAS-I really don’t know how to answer that, except that another map was provided that conflicted with Mr. Salvador’s map, and in the meantime, since this application was first heard, in April, that we’ve tried to get this thing resolved, to find out whose map is right and whose map is wrong, and so far we, at the Town Board, or the Zoning Board of Appeals, have come to the conclusion that the map that Mr. Naylor has submitted to us and has told us, that the Van Dusen & Steves map of 1993 is his map, and that’s what Mr. Salvador was asking for was some kind of map. He wanted the centerline laid out, but we couldn’t get that done, but we have a map that Paul Naylor, the Town Highway Superintendent says is the official Town map, even though he didn’t follow procedures as to record it, notify, and whatever else he was supposed to do, but I think if he had done all this, this still would have been the official Town map. So I believe this is the map we should use in determining this application, and all the other Board members have spoken, and I agree with the other Board members that 28 feet of relief from the 30 foot setback is too much, and I think the applicant can relocate his building, to bring it more into compliance. He may not be able to get the entire 30 feet, as required by the Ordinance, but I think he can move it, so he could get something more in compliance. So I would have to vote no on this. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-1999 JOHN SALVADOR, JR. KATHLEEN A. SALVADOR, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 18 Dunham’s Bay Road. The applicant’s proposing construction of a 300 square foot seasonal hunting and fishing cabin and is seeking setback relief. Specifically, the applicant requires 28 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, paragraph 179-16. Benefit to the applicant would be that the applicant would be allowed to construct and inhabit the desired cabin in the chosen location. Feasible alternatives include the possibility of relocating the cabin to a more compliant location westerly. This relief is substantial to the Ordinance, in that 28 feet of relief from the 30 foot setback requirement has to be interpreted as being substantial. The effects on the neighborhood or community are going to be moderate or substantial as a result of this action if it were approved, and the difficulty may be interpreted as being self-created. Given the substantial impacts that we can anticipate from such an action, I recommend that we deny this Area Variance application. Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-The application is denied. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Whitman’s here. I don’t know if you want to make a statement for him. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. THOMAS-Yes. Mr. Whitman, there’s only four members of the Board here tonight. We usually have a Board of seven. We can vote with four on here, but one of your neighbors sits on the Board and has determined that he really, in good conscience, can’t vote one way or another on it. So we’re going to ask to table this over until next week. MR. WHITMAN-I won’t be here next week. MR. THOMAS-How about next month? See, the only thing is, if I had four members here that could vote, I’d run this through, but I can’t, because I can only get three votes and one abstention. I’m sorry that’s the way it is. We've been having a problem with attendance here on the Board. MR. BROWN-It’s possible to be able to act on the application without him being present. If somebody else could come, or, be able to answer questions. MR. STEC-That’s what I was going to suggest. If you could hear it tonight, and then, I don’t think you’d necessarily need to be present. You might want to send your wife, or you don’t have to be here next week. We have an attendance problem tonight. MR. STONE-One of our members has had surgery, just so we get that on the record, and she’s been out for a couple of months. MR. THOMAS-So, what we can do is, if you want, we can run it through, right up to, you know, where we can close the public hearing, and then end it right there, and then take it up again next week, if your wife’s going to be here, or somebody else could be here to represent you, or you don’t even really need to be here. MR. STEC-Or you could send a neighbor or whatever. You could designate somebody to answer any questions for you, because I know you’re not going to be here, and rather than see it go all the way to August, that might be an option you might want to consider. MR. WHITMAN-All right. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA FRANCIS & MARILYN M. KOENIG OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L TO HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND ADDITION TOTALING 1,288 SQ. FT. AND SEEKS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION, IN EXCESS OF 50%, OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SEPTIC VAR. TOWN BOARD SPR 37-99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 19-1-13 LOT SIZE: 0.36 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 FRANCIS KOENIG, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-1999, Francis & Marilyn M. Koenig, Meeting Date: July 21, 1999 “Project Location: Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1288 sf addition and deck and seeks relief for the expansion of a non conforming structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 768 sf of relief above the allowable 50% expansion of the existing 1040 sf camp. The applicant would be allowed a 520 sf addition and is proposing a 1288 sf structure (including deck). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and inhabit an enlarged living area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to downsizing the addition. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 768 sf (148%) of relief may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc): AV 24-1999 withdrawn 6/99 SPR 37-99 pending expansion of N/C structure in CEA Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the proposed construction may not pose a significant visual impact to the adjoining residences on Hanneford Rod, an oversized structure, atop a substantial ledge area above Pilot Knob Road, may present a moderate visual impact when viewed from the lake. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STEC-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 8 July 1999 Project Name: Koenig, Francis R. Owner: Same ID #: QBY AV 59-1999 County Project #: July 99-30 Current Zoning: Waterfront One Acre Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) proposes to construct a deck and addition totaling 1288 square feet and seeks relief from the expansion in excess of 50% of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: First camp on left side of Hanneford after blacktop road ends Tax Map No. 19-1-13 Staff Notes: The applicant is proposing an addition that will not result in an increase in any setback variances. The existing building will expand from 624 square feet to 1688 square feet, and the porches will expand from 416 square feet to 640 square feet. The applicant is required to have a 20 foot side yard setback. They currently have a one foot setback and the proposal is to maintain the one foot setback with the construction being on the other side of the property. Total non-permeable surface resulting will be 13.2 square feet. Staff feels that since there’s no encroachment on setback requirements for the lakeshore, in that the expansion itself does not result in any new variances, only continuation of a variance for a pre- existing condition, that there are no significant impacts on County resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. KOENIG-You may recall I was here with the other application, and it was tabled at the time, to get a variance for the well and the holding tank, which has been approved by the Board, but at that time, I met with Dave Hatin, and he advised that I could not do what I wanted to do because I couldn’t tear the camp down and build a new one, and use a holding tank, which somebody else here tonight mentioned, and he suggested that I could file for a variance to put an addition on, and that’s what’s changed this around the other way. MR. STONE-Has it got heat, by the way? MR. KOENIG-No. No heat, and actually I got into a pretty good discussion with Dave on that, because under the building code, if you’re going to build a home, you’ve got to have heat in it, and the State Health Law, as this gentleman mentioned earlier, says that you can’t build a new home. Well, my home is in Kingston. This is a seasonal summer camp. We’ve had it for 40 years. It’s got a fireplace in it, two small bedrooms and a small bath and kitchen and the small kitchen, living room and dining room, and then a big porch, but I said, Dave, I’m not going to heat it. Where do you say it’s a home? You tell me the building code says you have to have heat in a home. I’m not building a home, but he said it’s a gray area. So that’s why I’m here, to try to accomplish what I want to accomplish and be able to use it as a family place for the summer, like we’ve been doing for 40 years, but better, in that when my mom and dad were alive, and my older brother, we were just jammed in there. In fact, I ended up getting a motel because we just couldn’t, there wasn’t enough room there. As far as comments from the Staff, I don’t think that the difficulty was self-created because the Town let whoever built this years ago build it where they built it. So we didn’t create the problem there. It was, in fact, my next door neighbor is a foot over the line on my side. So they must have allowed them to build on the line years ago, but we didn’t create that problem. MR. STONE-It was a laisse faire attitude. They weren’t allowed to build. They did build, I’m sure. MR. KOENIG-I would have to comment on the substantial relief, the 148%. I mean, we can take figures and play any way we want with them. If you look at the floor area ratio worksheet, I’m allowed 3,872 square feet, to get the 22% that’s allowed under your floor area worksheet. I presently have less than 20% of that in living area right now, in the 624 square feet. The porch was something different. My dad lost a leg, he had circulation, he made the porch bigger so he could walk. That’s neither here or nor there, but my proposal meets your setback requirements, front yard, back yard, side yard, height requirements, everything else. So I don’t know, you know, if there’s any other questions you might have. Dave said that I have to put a two hour firewall, I guess, between the structures to meet the building code. MR. STONE-The drawing that we’re talking about is the one with yellow? With Number Four being the proposed location? MR. KOENIG-No. There was a brand new one that I. MR. STONE-That was the one that was dated the latest, I thought. Okay. I was confused, I have to admit, because I have both. MR. THOMAS-This one? MR. KOENIG-Yes, that’s the one right there. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So it shows the 28 by 40 addition on the south side. MR. KOENIG-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s, I got the dates confused. The holding tank has been approved? 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. KOENIG-The well and the holding tank have been approved. MR. STONE-Any conditions by the Town Board? MR. KOENIG-No. MR. STONE-By the Board of Health? MR. KOENIG-No. The other gentleman came, I guess, after mine. MR. STONE-So you have approval for a holding tank. MR. KOENIG-Right. MR. STONE-With no seasonal, no deed encumbrances, no nothing. MR. KOENIG-I don’t think there was. There might have been a seasonal. MR. STEC-The condition of this approval, the residence shall only be utilized as a seasonal camp and not for year round occupancy. MR. KOENIG-All right. MR. THOMAS-Just like the other guy. MR. STONE-Just like the other guy. MR. KOENIG-I don’t know what his was. MR. STONE-The same thing. MR. KOENIG-But I can’t use it anyway, because the Town road doesn’t go that far. That’s the one we had, remember the status unknown road last time we were talking about? MR. STONE-Where does he plow to? MR. KOENIG-Back before me. So they don’t plow into me. MR. STEC-That’s still a Town road. MR. KOENIG-No, it’s not. MR. STEC-But plowing does not a Town road make, or not make. MR. THOMAS-If it were a Town road, and they didn’t plow it, they’d have to put a sign up, no. MR. STEC-The Highway Superintendent is required to have a list of Town roads that he does not plow. That’s the only requirement. MR. THOMAS-Is that on the list? MR. STEC-According to the Town Supervisor, the only road that he does not plow in the Town is the Traver Road, up above Butler Pond Road. MR. STONE-Well, the point is he probably plows at the end of the paved area, because he probably put the paved area in. MR. KOENIG-Yes, right, but that’s where the Town road stops, they told me, according to resolutions of the Board. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’re going to have to rely on a snowy winter to keep you out of your house in the winter? MR. KOENIG-I’m not coming up here in the winter anyway. I had enough trouble the last couple of weeks with the heat up here. MR. STONE-Well, it was worse where you come from. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. KOENIG-No, it wasn’t. MR. STONE-Okay. So right now you’re talking this 40 by 28 addition is just a square box, heading south? MR. KOENIG-Yes, on the south side, attached to the present camp, yes. MR. STONE-Now the stream is still going to go underneath it? MR. KOENIG-It’s a drainage, it’s not a stream, it’s a drainage ditch, yes. The only time it’s wet is when it rains. MR. STONE-Okay. We have elevations. I thought we were looking at the (lost words), I really did. That’s why I got myself confused. MR. THOMAS-Yes, there is an elevation in there. MR. KOENIG-The 24 and a half feet, I think, is the sketch that I gave you, and I would have to. MR. STONE-Yes, five and a half inches. MR. KOENIG-I would have to disagree with the comments about a moderate visual impact when viewed from the lake, because where we’re located is almost a dead end of the lake on that bay, with the marina across the street. It’s a five mile bay. The only, nobody, years ago they used to go in there and water ski and everything else, and now it’s just maybe once in a while a fishing boat will be in there, or just the people who live in there go in that way now. MR. STONE-You’re proposing a two story addition? MR. KOENIG-It’s one story, well, I guess you’d call it, two. It’ll be a loft. MR. STONE-Help me here. Is this all the new portion? MR. KOENIG-Yes. MR. STONE-So this is going to come down. Am I facing east here? Yes. Where’s the old portion of the house? MR. KOENIG-It would be to your left. MR. STONE-And it’s just going to come down here to the roofline? MR. KOENIG-Well, they’re going to have to connect it in there. I don’t know how, they haven’t told me how they’re going to do it. MR. STONE-Okay, but it’s going to be connected somewhere? MR. KOENIG-It’s got to be. MR. STONE-To the left side of this page? MR. KOENIG-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for Mr. Koenig? 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? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STEC-Yes. I've got one here that says, “Just writing to let you know that as neighbors one house away we have no problem with the Koenig’s construction and expansion. Harold and Eleanor Smith 19-1-11, 43 Hannaford Road” There’s a couple more. MR. STONE-That’s south of you? MR. KOENIG-Yes. MR. STEC-Bonnie Lapham, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals, Queensbury, NY, re: Variance and/or Appeal Application of Francis R. and Marilyn M. Koenig, location tax map no. 19-1-13, “To 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) Whom It May Concern: This request for a structure over 100% larger than the present nonconforming one is completely inappropriate for the size of the parcel. The Town of Queensbury has set building rules believed to be in the best interest of everyone. Please comply with the established precedents. Sincerely, Ruth M. Bredlaw, property owner, Route 9L, Hannaford Road, tax map no. 19-1-13, next door.” And that’s dated July 21, 1999 That’s it. Just those two. MR. KOENIG-She has vacant land to the north. I don’t know where she gets that it’s in violation, because the total square footage would be 13.2%, versus the 22% allowable. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-That’s not on the table, the floor area ratio. MR. THOMAS-No. You’re well within that. MR. KOENIG-That’s what I mean. MR. THOMAS-That’s what she was referring to. MR. KOENIG-Yes. MR. STEC-Not to argue her case, but I thought what she was talking about was the fact that the 768 square foot is 148% of relief, so it’s over 100%. That’s how I read it. MR. KOENIG-All right. MR. STONE-It’s 1590 over 1040. Would you agree with that? You’re adding 1590 square feet to a building which is 1,040 square feet. MR. KOENIG-I’m adding 1288, I guess, isn’t it? MR. THOMAS-Yes, 1288, to an existing building. MR. STONE-Well, I’m looking at this ratio. Is that what it is? MR. KOENIG-All right. I see what you’re, yes. MR. STEC-I think that’s where her complaint is, not the floor area ratio, but the 50% expansion level. Although, when you get these things in the mail, they don’t tell you exactly what the relief is sought. So I don’t know how she could comment unless she called to find out what was the relief. MR. STONE-The numbers on the application, you’ve got site development data, setback, and you’ve got floor area ratio. What we’re really talking about is an addition, including the two stories, of 1596. MR. KOENIG-1586. MR. STONE-Eighty-six, right. Yes. 1586, and does that include a deck, too? Is there a deck in front of this? How big is this deck? It looks like there’s a deck. MR. KOENIG-No, in front of the new proposal? 224. What is it, eight feet by twenty-eight, I think. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’re talking 1064 is the first floor, 522 on the second floor, an additional 224 on the deck. MR. KOENIG-Right, for the deck. MR. STONE-So that’s 1814. Am I right? Right now you’re 1,040. MR. KOENIG-Right, and the maximum I could go is 3800. MR. STONE-The maximum you could go is 500 and something. MR. KOENIG-Well, yes, under the 50% rule, okay. MR. STONE-That’s the only one we’re talking about. So you could go 520, and you want to go 1814, which is about three times what’s allowable. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. STEC-Well, two and half, 148%. MR. THOMAS-One hundred percent would be double, right? MR. BROWN-It’s 148%, and I neglected to add in the second floor. I just used the 1288 footprint size, and I didn’t add the second 500. MR. STEC-Two and a half times what’s allowed. He could go 520, which is 50% of 1040, but he wants, instead of 520, he wants to go 1288. MR. STONE-Even if it was one story, he wanted to be 1,064 plus the deck of 224. That’s a lot. It’s below the floor area. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Koenig? All right. Lets talk about it. I think I’m back to Chuck. MR. MC NULTY-On the one hand, comparing the proposal to what’s existing, it is a substantial increase. On the other hand, that’s the only relief the applicant needs. He’s going to conform with all the side setbacks and front and rear setbacks on the new work, and I’m inclined to agree with the applicant, that it doesn’t strike me that this is going to be that objectionable, when viewed from down on the Bay, and given what he wants to do, and the benefit to him, I can’t see that it’s going to bother the neighborhood that much. So I’m inclined to approve. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with Chuck. I think that, more often than not, when we see the expansion of a nonconforming existing structure, usually the expansion is also in requirement of relief, but this goes away from that. That mitigates it a great deal for me. Again, while it’s Waterfront Residential, it’s certainly set well back from the lake. I don’t think it’s going to be an issue as far as aesthetically from the lake. Clearly, I think the benefit to the applicant outweighs any possible perceived negative impact on the community. It’s true that it’s a fairly large relief that’s being sought, but that’s driven largely by the fact that the existing camp is just over 1,000 feet. So any increase, really, is going to start eating into that 50%, and that’s the only relief that’s sought. So because we’re starting off with a smaller structure, I think that really mitigates the fact that the relief is so substantial, according to the numbers, but I don’t have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-What’s “Gross Floor Area”? We don’t have it defined. MR. THOMAS-We have “Gross Leaseable Area” MR. STONE-Yes, I see that, but this is not leaseable area. Under the total in the Waterfront, we’re talking every floor and including the deck. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-What I’m really starting to question is the numbers here, first of all. I mean, I can talk about where I’m coming from. I’m sure, if we’re going to grant it, I don’t know what these numbers exactly mean. I’m conflicted by this. One, I think the impact from the lake, it was described as moderate. I read moderate in this case as not very much, strangely enough, because I don’t think it will really impact upon the lake where it sits, and the depth of your lot, I don’t think anybody is even going to notice, when your constructing they may not even see it. So I’m not troubled by that. I’m troubled by the massiveness of the increase, and I’m not sure in what way I’m troubled. I’m being very candid here. I mean, it just, it’s a big number. MR. KOENIG-Can I address that just for a second? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. KOENIG-If I had been able to do what I wanted to do under the 24-1999 I wouldn’t have the problem. In other words, that 1,040 would have been taken out. MR. STONE-You just wanted to go up, you mean. MR. KOENIG-I can’t go up on that structure, though. That’s the problem I've got, because the thing is 50 something years old. It’s got two by fours in it. So my only alternative is to go to the side. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. STONE-But you’re going up a second story, though. MR. KOENIG-Yes. Well, to get the living area that I need, that’s my problem. I don’t have enough living area. MR. STONE-By that you mean sleeping area? MR. KOENIG-Sleeping area, bathrooms. I've got a granddaughter now and she’s out on the porch where there’s all the equipment and tools and stuff, and there’s problems with the structure itself, and I can’t tear it down. MR. STONE-Well, I understand. That’s the benefit of the applicant, and that’s the thing that we have to weigh. Somehow I guess I would like not to be granting, and I’m not sure, Craig, what we’re granting, because, is the 50%, it says “Gross” Floor Area. What has that got to do with the Waterfront zoning of floor area ratio? Gross Area, it’s not defined. Gross Area is both stories, not footprint? Okay. So the number, I think, is considerably higher than what you say in here, because he wants 1800 feet, additional. MR. BROWN-Yes. See, I neglected to add that 522, the second story. MR. STONE-All right. The numbers are considerably higher than what we have in the Staff Notes. MR. BROWN-Yes, you want to go with the 1816. MR. STONE-Whatever. This is what troubles me. It just seems very, very large, and so I’m throwing out Staff Notes, in the sense that the numbers are, until I recalculate them, they’re very high. What are we saying to people, build as big a house as you want as long as you meet certain things? MR. RYAN-Let me tear down the other one. That’s, you know, it’s the problem. MR. STONE-Well, the problem with tearing down the other one is you need some sort of relief. You could build another house. MR. RYAN-It’s not usable, really, other than if I’m probably going to use it for a t.v. room or storage or something. MR. STONE-But see, that’s another variance. I mean, you could come in to us and say, I’d like to re-build this house, and I want to put it five feet from the line. MR. RYAN-I was here for that, and they told me I can’t do that. MR. MC NULTY-He can’t do it because he’s on a holding tank. He can’t build a new one. MR. STONE-He can’t build a new structure, all right. Okay. We’ve got to solve this dilemma, and actually I know it’s being discussed at the State level, because it is a dilemma. As I say, I’m troubled, and I guess I want to see the numbers before I commit myself, because I think they’re very big, but I’ll listen to what Chris has to say. As I say, I’m troubled, but if I’m troubled enough to vote no, I’m not sure yet. MR. THOMAS-Well, lets go back to what we were talking about before. If Mr. Koenig was allowed to tear this house down and build, he could build an even bigger house than what he’s asking for with the addition. MR. STONE-With a variance. MR. THOMAS-No, not with a variance. Because he has 17,600 square feet of property. MR. STONE-A location variance, I’m talking about. MR. THOMAS-This is 40 feet wide right here. So all he needs is 20 foot setbacks. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re saying. MR. THOMAS-So he could build a house 40 foot wide, and probably 100 foot long. He could build a 4,000 square foot and probably still be just, well, he’d probably be just over, but, I mean, he could put a substantial size house on here, if he wanted to, but all he’s asking for is this addition right here. That’, what, 1228 on the first floor and 528 on the second floor. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. STONE-I’m disturbed more by the numbers than by the size of the house. MR. THOMAS-Well, you’re saying that the numbers are big, but look at the size of the lot. We're only talking, he’s allowed to have, he still has less than 22%. The only thing he’s asking for is expansion of a nonconforming use. MR. STONE-Chris, I don’t think you have to sell me that way. What I’m concerned about is what the numbers are going to look like. As I say, I don’t think the project’s a big project, for the size of the lot, and particularly the depth of the lot from the lake. I don’t think it’s a real problem. I just want to be sure that we’re talking, 200, 300% increase. MR. BROWN-250. MR. STONE-250%. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-That’s a large number, but I could probably go with it. It’s just that I want it out there, for all of us to know. MR. THOMAS-A number’s a number, but it would fit on here. It doesn’t matter what he did. It just so happens the existing is over on one side of the property, and he could put an addition within all the setbacks. MR. STONE-Using the thing that you’ve used many times, and I think it’s a good one, would I have granted the house, everything else being equal. MR. THOMAS-If he wanted to build a new house, he wouldn’t even have to be here. MR. STONE-I know. You’re right. I’m doing apples and oranges, but I don’t have a real problem. It’s just the number. MR. THOMAS-So, I have no problem with it whatsoever. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1999 FRANCIS R. & MARILYN M. KOENIG, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Hanneford Road. Applicant proposes construction of a 1810 addition and deck and seeks relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The applicant requests 1290 square feet of relief above the allowable 50% expansion of the existing 1,040 square foot camp. The applicant would be allowed a 520 square foot addition and is proposing a 1,810 square foot addition, including the deck. Additionally, the applicant requests relief for expansion of a nonconforming pre-existing structure in accordance with Section 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law, the benefit to the applicant is that the applicant would be permitted to expand his living area. Feasible alternatives are limited to a downsized proposal to reduce the amount of relief that is sought. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 1,290 square feet of relief is substantial. However, we felt that the effects on the neighborhood were minimal, in that, due to the topography of the lot, there would be no visual impact from the lake or for any of his surrounding neighbors, and the difficulty, we felt really, was created largely by the layout of the property lines that created the nonconforming structure. Based on that knowledge, as we understand the project, I move that we approve the variance sought. Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. KOENIG-A point of information. Since these are new applications, you might, and it’s confusing to you and confusing to me now looking it over, on your site development data, you have the building footprint, which is one figure. Over on the floor area ratio worksheet, they have first floor, second floor, you know, so forth, covered decks, but there’s no way you could combine them. Maybe I’m saying it wrong. I don’t know. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. STONE-Yes, well, there’s no room on the proposed area for a deck. MR. KOENIG-The deck shows up on the site development, but it doesn’t show up on the floor area worksheet. I don’t know whether it had to or not. MR. STONE-Are these your new worksheets, new application? Well, think about where deck goes under. MR. BROWN-It’s not included in floor area ratio, a covered porch is. MR. STONE-You’ve got to have some place where you’re totaling up the total square footage being built, if decks count in the 50%. MR. BROWN-But that’s not floor area ratio. MR. STONE-No, I know, but it’s the 50%. MR. BROWN-Right. That’s on the site development sheet. MR. STONE-But you don’t have the second story on there, or you just, you said building footprint. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-You’ve got to find a place to put the three numbers where they add up somewhere, whatever sheet you call it. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. KOENIG-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. MR. STONE-Thank you for your help, too. AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-1999 TYPE II WALTER & WENDY WHITMAN SFR-1A OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE HEINRICK CIRCLE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 144 SQ. FT. DECK ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING POOL AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 90-4-119 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION 179-67 WALTER WHITMAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 64-1999, Walter & Wendy Whitman, Meeting Date: July 21, 1999 “Project Location: Heinrick Circle Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 144 sf deck attached to an existing pool and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 9 feet and 10 feet of relief from both the 20 foot minimum side and rear setback requirements of the SFR-1A zone, § 179-20. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct an additional recreation area on the property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the deck to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 9 feet and 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirements may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action given the existing trees provide screening for the adjoining lots. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STEC-And I should also state for the record that I live across the street from the Whitmans, and for that purpose, I will not contribute to the discussion, nor will I vote. I will abstain in the vote. However, I will continue on my duties as Secretary to assist the Board in the performance of its duties tonight. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Whitman, is there anything else you want to add, tell us about, talk about? 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. WHITMAN-No. I talked to my one neighbor who had concerns of being able to see the deck from his yard, and I told him that I would put in the plans that I would put up a fence or cedar trees to screen the deck, and he has no problem with it as long as I agree to do that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The obvious question, why can’t you put it over on the garden side and move the garden? MR. WHITMAN-There’s no room on the other side, as far as for the garden on the right side of the pool, as far as plantable space. The garden won’t grow over there, is what I’m trying to say. If I put the garden over here, where I want the deck. MR. STONE-Yes, if you put the garden where the deck is. MR. THOMAS-If you moved it back this way. MR. WHITMAN-Well, I've got my kid’s swing set and everything else over there. MR. THOMAS-You can pick it up and move that, and move that somewhere else. MR. WHITMAN-It’s just going to take away from the whole yard. That’s the only feasible spot I've got for it. MR. STONE-Well, I had the same question. I mean, I looked in your backyard today. It’s a very nice back yard. It’s very big, and it seems to me that this pool, because it is an above ground pool and supposedly those are movable. I saw space that I thought you could put it in. I had the same question. You’re not willing, at this point, to consider that, and that’s fine. MR. THOMAS-I didn’t say move the pool. I just said move the deck on the other side of the pool. MR. STONE-I’m suggesting he could move the pool. MR. THOMAS-No, I’m just saying put it over here on this side. MR. STONE-That’s the first choice. That’s the easiest choice, I agree, but the pool, there’s plenty of room to move the pool, too. So, I mean, there’s a couple of things, and you have a perfect right to say, right now, you want us to consider it the way it is. That’s okay. MR. WHITMAN-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Whitman? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STEC-Yes. I've got a letter dated July 17, 1999, Bonnie Lapham, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals, re: Area Variance No. 64-1999 “We have no objection to the above matter, except we request some form of screen to shield the deck from our direct view, and to help reduce any exceptionally loud noises which might occur through sheer exuberance of the users. The Whitmans are good neighbors, and with the above screening will continue to be so. My wife’s physical condition requires little or no extra effort on her part, and is limited to our home, except for doctor or hospital visits. We are, therefore, unable to attend the above hearing, and hope this letter will suffice. Any questions for us, please call. Thank you, Thomas P. McGrath and Lucia W. McGrath” And I have letter dated July 19, 1999, Mr. Chris Thomas, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals “Dear Mr. Thomas: I have absolutely no objection to Area Variance No. 64-1999, which seeks relief for the addition of a deck to the Whitman’s pool. I feel that this relief sought it very minor, and will improve the property while having no negative impact on the surrounding neighbors. Sincerely, Hillary A. Stec” MR. THOMAS-Is that it for the correspondence? MR. STEC-That’s the only two. MR. THOMAS-And where does Mr. McGrath live in relation to you? MR. WHITMAN-He lives right on the side I want the deck on. MR. THOMAS-Okay. He’s the one that wants the screening and all the other stuff? 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. WHITMAN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the other respondent lives across the street? MR. WHITMAN-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Whitman? If not, we’ll start talking about it. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m a little torn, because as you pointed out a question, it strikes me that one option would be put the deck on the other side of the pool and not require the relief from the setbacks. I guess I want to hear what the other Board members have to say, because I’m kind of on the fence of whether to say it would work okay since the neighbors don’t bother, or whether I’d really rather see it on the other side of the pool. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, as I asked earlier, to me, there’s two or three options, at least two basic options. One is the deck to the other side, and I hear your story. I hear your concern about the garden and it won’t grow. MR. WHITMAN-Well, it’s not so much the garden. Actually, I’ll be taking away from the actual play space I have for the kids, too, by putting it on that side, and I can’t put it on the front side, because my septic is right there, and I can’t put it over the septic. MR. STONE-I understand that, but you also can move the pool to the other side of the yard, and leave the deck in the middle. I mean, you’re putting so many constraints on what I’m trying to say. You’re saying you’ve got a septic system. I understand that one. You’ve got a garden. A garden can go other places. You say it won’t grow, but it could go other places. MR. WHITMAN-Right. MR. STONE-The play area, you’re property is large. I mean, you don’t want to consider, you want to use unusable space, in a sense, and I understand that. It’s a perfectly valid thing to do. I’m concerned, however, by the neighbor who asked for screening. I’m not sure what kind of screening can be given quickly. You already have a fence, which of course you’re required to with a pool in there. The fence can only be so high. So we’re talking some kind of greenery or some kind of buffer that’s going to have to be high enough to shield the pool, and I don’t know how quickly that can happen. If you want to tell me you’re going to bring in five 20 foot trees, that’s one thing, but I’m just concerned that there are options, you’re not willing to take them. So I’m torn. I don’t think it’s a terrible thing to put it in there, but we do have the Ordinance. You do have a neighbor who says I have no problem, if, and you haven’t told me what the if is, what you can do. MR. WHITMAN-I already told him I would, A., put up a stockade fence, or. MR. STONE-How high? MR. WHITMAN-As high as the Ordinance allows. I don’t know how high you’re allowed to go. MR. STONE-Six feet on the side. MR. WHITMAN-Or I would put up cedar trees. MR. STONE-And how quickly do they grow? MR. WHITMAN-You can buy them anywhere from three foot to ten foot high. So I could have 10 footers in there tomorrow. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, that’s certainly. MR. BROWN-Just a point to consider. If this was just the pool going in, he could put it as close as 10 feet to the side line. We're considering it an accessory structure. Since it’s a separate deck, it’s for the pool. So the accessory structure would have to meet the principal setbacks for buildings. Like I said, if it was the pool, it could be 10 feet, and he’s proposing nine. MR. STONE-So we could move the pool 10 feet from the line and put the deck on the other side. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. BROWN-No, I wasn’t suggesting moving the pool, but if it was a new pool, he could put a deck as close to the line as he wants the deck. MR. STONE-Well, I have no idea how hard it is to move an above ground pool. I’ll listen to what you have to say. As I say, I think there are alternatives, and I’d like to hear from the applicant. I mean, if he says he’s willing to put in 10 foot cedar, that’s a condition that we can put in here, when we get around to making a motion. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Say it again what you said before about the setbacks of accessory structures. MR. BROWN-If this was just a pool, with no deck on, they can be as close as 10 feet to the side line. His proposed deck is nine feet from the side line. So, in essence, he’s only one foot closer than what he could put the pool. MR. STEC-Eleven feet, to correct the accuracy. MR. BROWN-He’s proposing eleven feet? MR. STEC-Well, he’s seeking nine feet of relief. So he’s proposing eleven. MR. BROWN-So the deck would meet the pool setbacks, then. MR. THOMAS-The deck would be at the pool setbacks. MR. BROWN-The deck would be, except for the rear setback, which is 20, and he’s proposing 10. MR. THOMAS-But he’s got 10 there. So he’d need 10 feet of relief. MR. BROWN-From the rear, if it was a pool. MR. THOMAS-From the rear, if it was just the pool. MR. STONE-What if it were put in at the same time? I mean, how do we define a pool? I guess I’m not sure what kind of deck, you’re talking a separate structure that you’re going to put into the ground that will be at the top of the pool height? MR. WHITMAN-Yes. It’s going to be right level with the pool, four foot off the ground. MR. STONE-With stairs going up somewhere? MR. WHITMAN-Right, off the front side of the. MR. STEC-Didn’t you say you were going to cover your pump, that’s on that side of the pool as well? MR. WHITMAN-Right. MR. STONE-That’s where it is now, yes. I saw it. MR. THOMAS-This is in a subdivision, right? Do you know how old that subdivision is? MR. WHITMAN-I have no idea. MR. STEC-Actually, I think my house is one of the older houses, and it’s 25 years old. MR. THOMAS-We didn’t have zoning back then. So we can’t go by the subdivision regulations there were at that time. Well, we can’t vote tonight anyway, this is about as far as we can go. I didn’t tell you what I thought. I don’t see a problem with it, really, as long as he puts in the vegetation to make the neighbor happy, and maintains it, I don’t see a problem with it. MR. STONE-As long as, that’s a change from the application, and that’s basically all I’m asking. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but this is as far as we can take it until we get three more people here with three other opinions. So, I don’t know if they’ll be back next week, but I’ll put it on the agenda for next week. I’ll leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. THOMAS-I know you’re not going to be here, but I don’t if your wife is here, if she can come, or a neighbor. MR. STONE-Would you state, so that we know, what would you, what are you willing to do in terms of a buffer? MR. WHITMAN-I’m willing to put the trees in, the cedar trees. MR. STONE-At what height? MR. WHITMAN-If he wants 10 foot, I’ll put in 10 foot. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Maybe some sort of correspondence from the neighbor that says I’d be satisfied with a four foot cedar row or whatever he’s. MR. STONE-Well, he’s given us something at least, if Mr. Whitman isn’t here, we know that he’s willing to put some kind of, if we ask for 30 foot trees, that’s unreasonable, obviously. If we ask for two-foot bushes, well, that doesn’t do anything. So we’ve got a ballpark to think about. Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. STEC-Can I vote to table? MR. THOMAS-Yes, because that doesn’t directly effect the application. So you can vote to table. MR. STEC-I just want to make sure that we’re totally on the up and up. I don’t want to get anyone in trouble, especially my esteemed neighbor. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-1999 WALTER & WENDY WHITMAN, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until no later than the July 28, 1999 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The reason for tabling this application is to get more members of the Board present to vote on this application. Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-1999 WR-1A LEIGH P. BEEMAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WEST SIDE OF CLEVERDALE ROAD, SOME 300 FT. NORTH OF HILLMAN ROAD, 1 DRIVEWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION ST AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM LOT STANDARDS AS WELL AS SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. SUB NO. 14-1999 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 12-3-27.1 LOT SIZE: 8.27 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60 LEIGH BEEMAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-1999, Leigh P. Beeman, Meeting Date: July 21, 1999 “Project Location: Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2 lot subdivision and seeks relief from the minimum lot standards as well as setback relief from the WR- 1A zone, § 179-16. Relief Required: Applicant requests 74 feet of relief from the 150 foot minimum lot width requirement and 20 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Also the applicant is requesting 73.62 feet of relief from the 150 foot minimum water frontage requirement of § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to create a separate residential lot. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a lot line reconfiguration to create a larger parcel, thereby alleviating much of the requested relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief from the requirements may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. However, the pre-existing dwellings on the parcel may contribute to the difficulty. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action given the lot to the north is approximately one half the size of the proposed lot. Also, the structures have existed and have been maintained for several years on one parcel and this action appears to be an effort to establish a separate ownership of the dwellings. However, consideration should be given to the potential redevelopment of this proposed undersized parcel and that variances may be necessary in the future. Additionally, some attention should be given to the existing septic system, is it on the proposed lot? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STEC-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 8 July 1999 Project Name: Beeman, Leigh P. Owner: Same ID #: QBY AV 60-1999 County Project #: July 99-24 Current Zoning: Waterfront Residential One Acre Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision to create two lots and seeks relief from the minimum lot standards. Lot size is 8.27 acres. Project Location: West side of Cleverdale Road, approximately 300 feet north of Hillman Road, first driveway Tax Map No.: 12-3-27.1 and 27.4 Staff Notes: The applicant is proposing a two lot subdivision and will need variances for lot width, front setback and side setback. The parcel currently has three separate residences on it, and the applicant is wishing to separate the property by deed so the residences may be attached to different parcels. Since the setback issues are existing, Staff does not identify any significant County issues. A copy of the relevant portion of the site drawing is included with the summaries, and the depicts a required lot width of 200 feet, cannot be attained due to the location of the pre-existing homes. Staff feels that this is an existing condition and the arbitrary drawing of a line on the property line will not affect any impacts on County resources. Staff, therefore, is recommending No County Impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-All right. Who’s going first? INGA FRICKE MS. FRICKE-I’ll go first. My name is Inga Fricke. I’m an associate of John Caffry, the attorney for the applicant, Leigh Beeman, who’s sitting to my right. Given the late hour, I’m not going to re-state the contents of the application, the addendum that you heard from John. I did want to mention, however, one thing that was not previously read into the record was a July 13 letter from John to th Chris Round, and it just included one additional deed restriction that would be imposed on the property, and it just states that in the event of further subdivision of the property, there shall be no access to any subdivision lot over Heron Hollow Road. That’s the small road that’s not named. It’s an extension of Hillman Road. MR. STONE-You mean where the judge lives? MS. FRICKE-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t realize it was Heron Hollow Road. I have friends who live on it. I didn’t even know it had a name. MS. FRICKE-I just want to state very briefly that this project is not in anticipation of any new development. As already stated, each proposed lot already has its own residence with a septic system, and I can show you, Ms. Beeman was kind enough to point out on my map, it’s unfortunately not on your maps, yet, exactly where the septic system for each lot currently exists. Each has its own independent septic system, own independent driveway. Nothing further will be added as a result of this subdivision. The relief requested, therefore, is the minimum necessary that we need in furtherance of that subdivision. There’ll be no effect on the character of the neighborhood, considering the fact that these are existing residences. No new development is anticipated. Ms. Beeman has been in contact with many of her neighbors, none of whom have offered any objections. There were some concerns expressed by the neighbors concerning access over Heron Hollow Road, which is why we added the additional deed restriction, and I would just call your attention to those deed restrictions that were read to you in the addendum written by John Caffry, a number of which are specifically intended to curtail further development on these lots, and ensure that they’re preserved in their current condition. MR. STONE-These are already divided for tax purposes? I mean, obviously the 27.4 and the 27.1? MRS. BEEMAN-No. When my step-mother was living there, she paid 21.99% of the taxes, but it was not separate. I got the whole tax bill. 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) MR. STONE-Okay, but we do have numbers on here. That’s the only reason I would suggest that as far as the County is concerned and the Town, they’re divided for tax purposes. MS. FRICKE-They’re not officially divided at this point. It was intended that they be divided, but apparently back in 1980, there was no requirement for a subdivision not to be filed. MR. STONE-It’s just a question. My other job is assessment review. I was just curious. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Where would the road by blocked, right where the line goes through, I mean, there would be some kind of barrier put in there next to that garage? MS. FRICKE-The driveway? Yes, actually I should point out as well that, I was just informed that the shed has been already removed. MR. STONE-I didn’t see it. I wondered. MS. FRICKE-Yes. It would be blocked right at the middle. MR. STONE-So we’d have, these still would be Sunnyfield Roads One and Two, or something, I guess. MRS. BEEMAN-The other property is for sale, and I believe they would change the name of their driveway. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? All right. I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BILL WETHERBEE MR. WETHERBEE-My name is Bill Wetherbee. I have property to the south of the Beeman property, and I just have one question. If the lot that is A. is subdivided, what is the minimum acreage on a new subdivision? MR. THOMAS-One acre. MR. WETHERBEE-One acre. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it’s in the Waterfront Residential One Acre zone. MR. STONE-Without any of the benefits. MR. WETHERBEE-That was my only question on that. As far as the subdivision that’s proposed today goes, I think if you look at the property around that area, you’re going to end up with some lots that are bigger than some of the lots surrounding. I really think it’ll be a very minimal impact. The houses are set in there very nicely. So I don’t think that you’re going to have any problems at all. I see no problems with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-No, obviously it would be one acre. There are very few one acre lots that are one acre waterfront zoning. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this application? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. STEC-Do you want me to read this letter John wrote to Chris Round? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STEC-We’ve got a letter, July 13, 1999, Chris Round, Town of Queensbury Department of Community Development, re: Area Variance No. 60-1999 and Subdivision No. 14-1999 applications of Leigh P. Beeman “Dear Chris: Based on a discussion between her son and one of the adjoining property owners, Mrs. Beeman wishes to add an additional condition to those listed on the July 9, 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) 1999 addendum to her Area Variance application. This condition would provide as follows: F. In the event of a further subdivision of the property, there shall be no access to any subdivision lot over Heron Hollow Road. If you have any questions about this, please let me know. Sincerely, John W. Caffry” And that’s the only correspondence. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. I’ll start with Dan. MR. STEC-Well, I think that the applicant’s done an adequate job anticipating any concerns that we might have, and I think that the restrictions that the applicant’s agent has proposed really addresses any concerns I may have had. So, with that said, I’m comfortable. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I basically have no problem. I made a note to myself, what can we do to improve, but when you look at the fact that the existing houses are there, I think you’ve done as much as you can to improve, and particularly by giving us the conditions with which you would live, I am more than satisfied with this thing, particularly as it effects the waterfront. I mean, you’ve heard a lot tonight, as you’ve sat here, about our concern for Lake George on the waterfront, and the fact that there will be two lots on the water, yes, one will be substandard, but what else can you do with existing homes, and it’s nice to know that at least the other your lot, the small one, will be one acre. It’ll be a rarity in the waterfront zoning. So I think it’s a reasonable request, and particularly with the conditions, I have no problem granting the variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I guess I come down about the same way. I have some problems with the lot not being as wide as it should be, but as the point’s been made, it’s still one acre, and the restrictions that have been placed on it alleviate a lot of my concerns. So, I guess, on total, considering the benefit to the applicant, I have no problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and I don’t have any problem with this one, either. I think the lot lines have been laid out the best they can, even though the one lot only has about 76 feet of lakefront where 150 is required, and just the way the house would sit on the existing lot, there’s no other way those lot lines could be run. I believe the six restrictions that the applicant has presented takes care of everything. I’d like to add one, that on Lot A, if anything is to be done to that garage, that it be moved to a compliant location, because it only is five feet from the property line. So, is there any problem with that? MRS. BEEMAN-There’s plenty of room. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I was going to say, you’ve still got another seven acres. If it falls down or you want to make any further changes to it, it would have to be moved to a compliant location. Having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-1999 LEIGH P. BEEMAN, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Cleverdale Road. Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision and seeks relief from the minimum lot standards as well as setback relief from the WR-1A zone, 179-16. The relief required is 74 feet of relief from the 150 foot minimum lot width requirement, and 20 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, 179-16. Also, the applicant is requesting 73.62 feet of relief from the 150 foot minimum water frontage requirement of 179-16. In considering this Area Variance, we note that the applicant would be permitted to create a separate residential lot, actually two lots, one 1.01 acres and the second lot 7.27 acres. While it is possible to conceive of a lot line reconfiguration that would create a larger parcel, because of the proximity, the location of the two existing homes, both substantial, there is no way to make a better lot line that would not require a variance from setback in another situation. In considering this variance, we do not believe that the cumulative request for relief from this requirement are any more than moderate, and again, considering the size of the lot, the two lots, there would be minimum to moderate effects on the neighborhood, as a result of this action, and while the difficulty may be self-created, it is confounded by the fact that there are pre-existing dwellings on the parcel which contribute to the difficulty of making less variance required. In granting this application, we acknowledge the conditions the applicant is willing to place upon the properties: A. That there shall be no further subdivision of the lakefront, provided, however, that the non-lakefront acreage of Lot A may be further subdivided, upon proper application to the Town of Queensbury. B. That there shall be no 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/21/99) use of the waterfront for contractual access to the lake by the remaining acreage of Lot A. C. That no new docks may be constructed on the lakefront, but the existing docks may be modified, within the allowable regulatory limits. D. That the existing shed located on Lot A shall be removed or relocated so as to comply with the requisite setbacks, prior to the conveyance of either lot (it has been noted that said shed is already removed). E. That prior to the conveyance of either lot, the existing driveway shall be barricaded at the property line, and neither lot shall have any right-of-way over the other. F. In the event of a further subdivision of the property, namely Lot A, there shall be no access to any subdivision lot over Heron Hollow Road. G. That in the event that the garage, currently five feet from the property line, needs to be replaced, that it be placed at a distance necessary to meet the required setback. Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-There you go. MS. FRICKE-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Lets close the meeting On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 58