Loading...
1999-07-28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN PAUL HAYES LEWIS STONE ROBERT MC NALLY CHARLES MC NULTY DANIEL STEC MEMBERS ABSENT BONNIE LAPHAM CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: 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 MR. THOMAS-We had a carry over last week because we didn’t have enough people on the Board to vote for it, vote one way or another. So, is anybody here for Whitman? MR. BROWN-He said he may not be here, if you remember. He was going to be out of town. MR. STONE-That’s right, he did say that. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Do you want to read the tabling motion? MR. STEC-Sure. “Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: July 21, 1999 Area Variance No. 64-1999 Walter & Wendy Whitman Tabled 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: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. st Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes Sincerely, Chris Thomas, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals” MR. THOMAS-All right. I did leave the public hearing open. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application or opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-That takes care of that. All right. We need to talk about this one and then vote on it. MR. STONE-He agreed to certain things, remember? MR. STEC-Right. I believe he agreed to put in. MR. STONE-Ten foot cedars. MR. STEC-Put in a cedar hedge. MR. THOMAS-Yes, a cedar hedge on the side property. Did we ask him for on the back and the side, or just the side? 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. STEC-I believe it was the side. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Yes, I think so. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STEC-As that was the neighbor who had a concern, was his side neighbor. I should also state for the record, again, that I will be abstaining in this vote, as I live across the street from the property in question. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. STONE-What he agreed to do, to put in screening in here. This neighbor, to this side, to the right as you look at the house, lets put it that way, was concerned that he would be too close here to the fence. He’s got the proper fence in. It’s an open chain link fence, I think. MR. HAYES-That’s all that’s required. MR. STONE-Yes, right, and he was willing to put in a buffer of a 10-foot cedar hedge. That’s what I recall. That’s what I wrote down. MR. MC NALLY-In the minutes there was some talk about moving the deck, maybe, too. He never consented to that. MR. STONE-No, he never consented to that, and that’s what he said he would do, and we didn’t push when he was willing to put in the buffer. Because of the garden and whatever else was there. MR. THOMAS-The kids stuff back there, swings and stuff. MR. STONE-And the septic system. He couldn’t move it this way. Putting the deck over on the left side as you face the house was, he didn’t want to do that because of the garden and the encroachment. Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Because of the garden, not because of the septic problem. MR. STONE-Well, they couldn’t put it here because of the septic. Yes. The three of us were, as long as he was willing to do that, my comment to myself was probably okay if a vegetative buffer is put in and he agreed that he would put in a 10 foot cedar hedge. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Are we going to have him put in 10 foot trees, now, or put in six footers that will grow to 10? MR. STONE-Yes. He didn’t seem to object to putting in 10 foot right now. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Can you get 10-foot cedars? MR. STONE-I don’t know. He can get anything for a price. He offered that. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I wonder if he checked the price. MR. THOMAS-Well, we’ll go with that and see what happens. MR. BROWN-You could word it so that it would be a substantial screening. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. HAYES-Maybe over six foot, or something like that. MR. THOMAS-I would say ask for over six. MR. HAYES-Yes. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. THOMAS-Because, you know, if he goes out there and he puts nine foot nine inch trees, well that’s not ten feet. MR. HAYES-We could say six feet plus or whatever. MR. STONE-And ones that will continue to grow. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, they’re to be maintained at at least that level. MR. STONE-That’s a good word, yes. MR. THOMAS-So do any of the other members of the Board have anything to say about this one or make comments on it? MR. MC NALLY-I read the minutes, and sitting here talking to you folks, it seems to me this is an acceptable proposal that would do justice to our Code and at the same time give him a chance to have a deck where he wants it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-1999 WALTER & WENDY WHITMAN, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 45 Heinrick Circle. The applicant proposes construction of a 140 square foot deck attached to an existing above ground pool and seeks setback relief from both the 20-foot minimum side and 20 foot minimum rear setback requirements. Actually, the applicant is requesting 11 foot of side relief and 10 foot from the rear, both of which require a 20 foot minimum setback per SFR-1A zone, 179-20. In granting this variance, it is recognized the applicant would be permitted to construct an additional recreation area on the property, and while there are feasible alternatives, such as relocation of the deck to a compliant location, because of other accoutrements in the yard, namely a garden and a children’s play area, and the septic system, the applicant would prefer to put the deck near the side yard line. The amount of relief that we’re granting may be interpreted as moderate, but since there were no objections by any neighbors except one that we will discuss later in this motion, that it would not be a problem, and there would be minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood as a result of this action, and while the difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, it is understandable that the applicant would like to put the deck where he has proposed. In granting this variance, we ask the applicant to put in a cedar buffer on the side yard, near the side yard fence, no less than six foot high at its initial planting, and properly maintained so that it will grow an additional three to four feet, this is in deference to the side neighbor who requested such relief. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stec ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-All right. That takes care of that one. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1999 TYPE II WR-1A KENNETH FUCHSLOCHER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF DUNHAM’S BAY ON ROUTE 9L THIRD PROPERTY PAST THE MOUNTAIN SIDE BED AND BREAKFAST APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 768 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND SEEKS BOTH HEIGHT AND SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 4-1-23 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-16 KENNETH FUCHSLOCHER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-1999, Kenneth Fuchslocher, Meeting Date: July 28, 1999 “Project Location: East side of Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) construction of a 768 sf detached garage and seeks both height and setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7 feet of relief from the 12 foot minimum sideline setback requirement and 4.66 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height restriction for an accessory structure in the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. 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 an additional storage structure on the property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the building to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 7 feet of relief from the 12 foot requirement along with 4.66 feet of relief from the 16 foot height requirement 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, given that there appears to be a compliant location available. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance. etc.): AV 1382 res. 7/20/88 construction of an accessory structure, setbacks Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. It appears as though this type of activity has taken place, or at least has been contemplated on this property in the past. There appears to be a compliant location available for the placement of this proposed structure. It is evident that the septic line will need to be relocated if a structure is to be located in this area. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STEC-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 8 July 1999 Project Name: Fuchslocher, Kenneth Owner: Same ID #: QBY AV 63-1999 County Project No.: July 99-27 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a 768 square foot detached garage and seeks both height and setback relief from the requirements of the Waterfront One Acre zone. Site Location: 1805 Bay Road, Lake George Tax Map No. 23-1-26.2 Staff Notes: A copy of the applicant’s drawing is included with the summaries. Staff feels that while the applicant is creating a hardship which could be alleviated with the construction of a smaller building, the applicant is not proposing an activity that would have a significant effect on County resources. Parcel size is 1.07 acre, and Staff is recommending No County Impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact.” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Fuchslocher, is there something else you want to tell us about this? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-I have a question. Under “Staff comments:”, it says, maybe I’m misunderstanding. “It appears as though this type of activity has taken place or at least has been contemplated on the property in the past”. Would you explain that to me? MR. BROWN-Yes, that goes to Area Variance 1382 from 1988. Was there at one time a consideration to put this type of garage up before on the property and never constructed? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-No. MR. BROWN-Before you purchased the property? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-No. This property has been in my family since 1928. MR. BROWN-Well, there was a reference to a previous variance. MR. FUCHSLOCHER-On the Bay Road property I put up a garage. MR. BROWN-Okay. It was referenced for this parcel. So, it may be just referenced improperly. MR. FUCHSLOCHER-Okay. I’m sorry. MR. BROWN-I’m confused now, too. When I pulled up the reference, it was for this property. So if it was on the Bay Road property, that’s probably the confusion. MR. FUCHSLOCHER-I was, at one time was contemplating the leach field. That’s why I’m filling in all the dirt. It’s taken a lot longer than I had ever anticipated. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. FUCHSLOCHER-Okay. MR. STONE-Since you mentioned the filling in, is filling legal? I mean, I have no idea. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-You can put fill on your own property? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. That was one thing I noticed today when I was there. That’s all. MR. STEC-That’s what I thought the reference was. It looked like there was some fill there in preparation of putting in a garage or something. That’s what I thought the reference was. MR. FUCHSLOCHER-No. The reason, how this all started is the septic system I have dates back to the early 50’s. It really is not adequate for full time living over there, and what I plan to do, in a couple of more years, I plan to retire, and at that time, I want to live on the property as a full time resident, and so I want to put in a regular regulation leach field, but in order to squeeze everything in, the way that drawing that I believe each of you have, is the only way that I can see doing it. The reason for the garage being so large is I've got a boat. I have a truck/camper, a car and another truck, and I would like to keep them out of the weather as much as possible. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any questions? MR. STONE-The garage that is half submerged, whatever it is, it says here that it’s going to be moved? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-Yes, this is going to take place over a period of time. I don’t have the funding to just go out and hire somebody to do this thing for me. The same way with the dirt. I've been working on the dirt thing for nine years, during the summer, and I've been hauling it over myself. What I’m proposing is I’d like to pour, this fall, a 12 and a half foot cement slab, 32 feet long, and place the submerged garage on it, as an interim thing, to store my boat, and then at a later time, within the next couple of years, build the actual garage that would go there. MR. STONE-A variance only holds for two years, if we grant one. Right? MR. BROWN-Yes, you have to take action on the variance, either pursue it by getting a building permit. MR. HAYES-It might give him another year if he gets a building permit. MR. BROWN-Once you take an action on the variance, it’s. MR. STONE-Okay. It’s a three year from granting. MR. BROWN-Yes, but you could always grant an extension to it. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? MR. HAYES-Did you design this leach field yourself, with this particular configuration, the one you have outlined on the plan? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-Actually, no. One of the fellows in the, not the variance people, the Building and Codes worked with me on this, and then he took it to his supervisor because we both weren’t sure that this would work, and the supervisor said, yes, it would. MR. STONE-Right now you have just the two pits? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-The two pit tanks, yes. MR. STONE-And where does the overflow go? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-It’s absorbed, believe it or not it’s absorbed. MR. STONE-Okay. You show on this thing and below this wall there is this little cottage. What is it? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-What is it? It’s a little cottage. It dates back to when the house was built. Originally it was an icehouse, and then back, I don’t know in the history of time, it was turned into a little cottage. As far as I know, it’s been on the property since 1928. It’s not longer used, it’s a little storage area, but there’s an outhouse on the back of it. MR. STONE-You’re seeking relief from the height. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. FUCHSLOCHER-The height and also. MR. STONE-For what reason? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-Because the, do you have a picture of? MR. STONE-We’ve got pictures. MR. FUCHSLOCHER-Okay. The second part of that garage will be a storage area, and probably a woodworking shop, and it’ll equate out to a room, 12 foot wide and 32 feet long. MR. STONE-Will it be used for business? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-No, sir. MR. STONE-Will it be heated? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-If it’s heated, it will be heated with a kerosene heater. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? No? 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? MR. STEC-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Fuchslocher? If not, we’ll talk about it. I’ll start with Dan. MR. STEC-Well, I guess, in my opinion, I don’t have a tremendous problem with granting this relief. Seven feet from the twelve foot side line setback, a lot of that, I think, is attributed to the narrow nature of the lot. I’m encouraged that this variance, we’re talking about something that’s located much closer to the Route 9L end of the lot than the lake end of the lot, and for that reason alone, I think that really mitigates a lot of the problems I would have had. Oftentimes on a Waterfront Residential lot it appears that, you know, most of the activity is taking place on the shoreline, but this is back further from the road. In looking at it, I don’t think that the 4.66 feet of relief from the height is going to impact anybody. It’s not going to impact any views, certainly from any of this neighbors or from the lake. I don’t have a problem with the height, myself. I’m all right with granting this relief. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I do have one question. This lot is 50 foot wide the whole length? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Not just at the lake, but all over, a perfect rectangle. It’s a perfect rectangle. Okay. I don’t really have a problem. I always object, at least I give lip service to the fact that we’re going up along the lake. However, this is so far back from the lake and I know that part of the lake very well. You can’t see anything there, if there were a building this high. I am a little concerned that we’re going to have two tall buildings right next to each other. Apparently there’s one to your south, fairly new one, which, I’ll ask Staff while I’m talking, do we know of that one? Is that more than 16 feet high? Was a variance granted for that? MR. BROWN-Not to my knowledge. MR. STONE-Did anybody else notice that, where the parking area was? It just seemed to be high. That’s the only concern, but generally, no. I think that I can go along with this. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, we have, you know, several beautiful lakes in our community, and there’s been an ongoing trend to turn summer camps into permanent residences for the desire to be by the lake, and 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) that’s understandable, and there’s two major concerns that are generated by that. Sewage, or septic systems, and visualization, and I think in this particular case, both are okay. I mean, he’s going to be updating his sewer system, or his septic system significantly, in knowledge. MR. STONE-Did anybody else notice that, where the parking area was? It just seemed to be high. That’s the only concern, but generally, no. I think that I can go along with this. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, we have, you know, several beautiful lakes in our community, and there’s been an ongoing trend to turn summer camps into permanent residences for the desire to be by the lake, and that’s understandable, and there’s two major concerns that are generated by that. Sewage, or septic systems, and visualization, and I think in this particular case, both are okay. I mean, he’s going to be updating his sewer system, or his septic system significantly, in my mind. You say it’s fully absorbed, but just eyeballing that thing, it seems like it’s still pretty close to the lake. I’m sure it’s okay. MR. FUCHSLOCHER-It may be close to the lake. I grew up in that house. We lived there year round, and right now, it’s just used during the summertime, and it seems to be absorbing it quite well. MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, I guess in this particular case, the septic system is being improved, and I agree with Lew. I don’t think that far back, in that part of the lake, the little bit of height relief that you’re asking is going to have an impact. So my two major concerns are okay, and therefore, I think, on balance, it falls in favor of you, the application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m not terribly fond of the request for an additional 4.66 feet of relief from the 16 foot height requirement, but I agree with my brethren that there would be minimal effect on the neighborhood, given the fact that it’s so far back from the lake. So I would not be opposed to it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I, too, have the same reservations that have been expressed, as far as granting variances in a case like this, but on the other hand, it does not appear that it’s going to have any severe effect on the neighborhood, and given no neighbors have appeared to object to it, balancing that against the benefit to the applicant, I guess I can go along with it as well. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members, that the side setback of seven feet is moderate to substantial, but in this case, I don’t see a problem with it. Because the neighbor didn’t have any problem with it. It sits back far enough from the lake and from the road that it won’t be a hindrance. You can see right over the top of it, or will be able to see right over the top of it, for what little bit of lake you can see in that 50 foot stretch. I like the idea of the new septic system that will eventually go in there. I think that’s the big plus on this one, and as far as the height goes, I think the Town Board needs to re-examine that issue because it seems that every time a garage comes through here in a WR-1A zone, that the people are asking for variances. I think that the 16 foot maximum the Town Board put on that accessory building is too short, and I’ll make an attempt to convey that to the Town Board, that we’ve had a number of WR-1A garages come through here for over height. MR. STONE-Should we consider putting a condition on that the septic system be done as soon as possible? MR. MC NALLY-That was my question, too. We could make it a condition. Your intent is to include that septic system? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-Definitely. That’s the reason for all the dirt. MR. MC NALLY-And your timeframe is what for that? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-I thought it was going to happen about seven years ago, to be honest with you. MR. MC NALLY-As you sit here today, what kind of timeframe are we talking about until you get done? Completed? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-I would like to see it done in four years. By then I figure I’ll have all the dirt in place to do it. MR. MC NALLY-That’s a long time. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. FUCHSLOCHER-Yes, a lot of dirt. Trust me, it’s a lot of dirt. MR. MC NALLY-I understand. MR. FUCHSLOCHER-I’m using a small utility trailer. It hauls about a third of a yard at a time, and some of the depths of that dirt is eight feet in that hole. That was a hollow at one time, and then I have to finish up the stone wall. The stone wall on the side took me just about a summer to do, and the stone wall in the front took me a summer to do. So it’s going to be awhile, guys. I’m sorry, but it is my intent to do it. Unless I have a heart attack first. MR. STONE-Let me just ask one more clarification. You said what you were going to put in this building. Can you tell me again? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-Yes. I have a truck/camper, I have a boat, I have a car, and a I have a truck. MR. STONE-What kind of truck? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-It’s an F150, a four-wheel drive. MR. STONE-That’s a half ton? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. Any more questions? If not, I’ll ask for a motion. MR. MC NALLY-I’m still not satisfied with this sewage thing. MR. STEC-Make it a condition, then it’s his burden to meet the time lines. If he needs an extension, then. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t mind giving him a break, but I want to see that that improvement is done. That’s the real improvement that’s important. MR. THOMAS-Well, he said, you know, in four years. MR. STEC-The variance is good for two, plus a building permit or extension. MR. FUCHSLOCHER-Well, guys, I’ll tell you what. It is my intention to do the septic system, but please don’t put me on a time line. The only time I have off is summers. I work a school year, and I don’t get time off during school, other than school holidays. I’m doing all the work myself, because I can’t afford to pay people to do it, because I’m not a teacher. I’m a teaching assistant, and I make about $15,000 a year at that. That’s the reason why I’m doing the work myself. I started this project in the intent of doing the septic system, but I also need to do something with that garage, and I don’t want to just knock it down right now and have nothing. So everything is kind of dovetailed together. You can put a four year restriction on me and say I have to have that septic system in, but chances are, I will not be able to get the other garage built and do the septic at the same time. If you want to put a 10 year restriction on it, fine. I’m sure I’ll have it all done by then. MR. THOMAS-What do you think? MR. STONE-Are you comfortable with a reference to it, that the applicant states he hopes to have the septic upgraded in four years? MR. MC NALLY-In this case, I would be happy with that, and I hope I don’t live to regret that. Okay? MR. FUCHSLOCHER-Fair enough. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1999 KENNETH FUCHSLOCHER, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: East side of Route 9L. The applicant proposes the construction of a 768 sq. ft. detached garage and seeks both height and setback relief. Specifically, the applicant requests seven feet of relief from the twelve-foot minimum side line setback requirement. He also seeks 4.66 feet of relief from the 16- foot maximum height restriction for an accessory structure in a WR-1A zone, that is Section 179-16. I move that we approve this application on the following grounds. First, the applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize an additional storage structure on his property, and to do so in a 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) modern structure that would meet his needs, in the event he decided to live there on a year round basis as he intends. Second, while the feasible alternatives may include the relocation of a building to a compliant location and construction of a building at a lesser height, given the narrow nature of this particular lot, and given the placement of the existing septic system, these alternatives are truly not feasible. In addition, the addition of 4.66 feet to the 16-foot maximum height in a WR-1A zone is not inordinate, given that he wishes to use the upper structure as work room and storage area. In my opinion, the relief is not substantial to the Ordinance, given that none of the neighbors have complained, and the depth of the lot makes it very unlikely that he would have any significant or any impact on the lake, as far as I can tell. The effects on the neighborhood and community are minimal, and while it may be interpreted as self-created, given that there appears to be difficulty to the site as it currently exists, I don’t find this as a substantial factor barring the application. The applicant has also proposed that he will be modernizing his septic system in the future, and given that he has expressed a strong interest in doing that, I move that we approve the application. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. You’re all set. MR. FUCHSLOCHER-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 64A-1999 TYPE II WR-1A PAUL & NANCY DWYER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 7 BOSS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE WR-1A ZONE AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 142-1-19 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 PAUL DWYER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 64A-1999, Paul & Nancy Dwyer, Meeting Date: July 28, 1999 “Project Location: 7 Boss Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a second story addition and seeks setback relief and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 13.5 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Additionally, since the existing structure and the proposed addition does not meet the setback requirement, relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure is requested. Criteria for considering a Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to create additional living space in the residence. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to a second story addition. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 13.5 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 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 53-1999 res. 6/23/99 placement of 2 car detached garage BP99-383 issued 6/24/99 Septic Alteration Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. This second story addition does not encroach on the setbacks further than the existing structure. The applicant has presented and had approved plans for an upgrade of the on-site septic system which is necessary for construction of additional floor area in a WR-1A zone. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STEC-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 8 July 1999 Project Name: Dwyer, Paul & Nancy Owner: Same ID #: QBY AV 64A-1999 County Project No.: July 99-26 Current Zoning: residential Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a second story addition and seeks setback relief from the Waterfront One Acre zone and the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: Corinth Road to Big Bay Road, to Wolfe Road, take a right on Wolfe Road, take Wolfe Road, 7 Boss Road is third house on left, brown with a carport on the right. Tax Map No. 142-1-19 Staff Notes: The applicant is proposing a dormer for an existing nonconforming structure. The existing structure does not front on a County or State highway and is in a subdivision off of Big Bay Road. Staff, therefore, feels that the issues presented are not significant to County resources since there is no increase in building 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) footprint and there is no direct frontage on County or State highway. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact.” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Dwyer. MR. DWYER-I’m Paul Dwyer. I live at 7 Boss Road, Queensbury. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything else you want to tell us, talk about? MR. DWYER-No, sir. This is not adding to the footprint of the building. It’s just making more efficient use of the space that’s there. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant? MR. HAYES-Yes, I have a question. How much higher is the peak of the roof on the dormer going to be than the peak of the roof as it exists now? I mean, what is the? MR. DWYER-It’s purely glass, about four feet. MR. HAYES-Purely glass. MR. STONE-Both ends are going to be glass? MR. DWYER-Yes. MR. STONE-Below the pitch, below the peak of the roof? MR. DWYER-Yes, at the peak, yes. MR. STONE-And that’s going to be four feet above the current pitch, the front to back pitch that’s on the house now? MR. DWYER-I’m not sure of the exact height. It’s less than four feet. MR. HAYES-So you’re saying you’re nine feet already over the height restriction, and that you’ll go another four, then? MR. DWYER-Yes. MR. BROWN-The height restriction is 28 feet for a principal building, 16 for accessory. MR. MC NALLY-This is well within the 28 feet. MR. BROWN-I thought you said he was going to go over. I’m sorry. MR. STONE-This dormer is going to start right at the peak of the other roof and go down the one side? MR. DWYER-Yes, 20 feet wide. MR. STONE-Twenty feet wide? You say the house is 20 feet wide. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, it’s 20 feet along its length. MR. DWYER-Yes, 20 feet along its length. The dormer itself will be 20 feet wide. I’m sorry if I confused you. MR. MC NALLY-And that started from the Boss Road end, right? MR. DWYER-Right. MR. STONE-I understand that, but I just asked, it looks as if, in this picture, that the dormer is going to start, this end of that is going to start right here at the peak. MR. MC NALLY-I think the corner is there, and then it goes up, and the roof pitches in, but the actual corner looks like it starts in the corner of the building itself. MR. STONE-I’m not arguing that point. I’m talking about this. It looks as if it goes right from the peak. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. HAYES-It goes the entire width of the house. MR. DWYER-Right. MR. HAYES-Yes, not half. MR. STONE-So it’s going to straddle the roof of the house as it is now, going to sit on a cap, so to speak? MR. DWYER-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s not what the picture. So this is going to feel just like a saddle on top of the house going from north wall to south wall? MR. DWYER-No, it’s only going to be the north wall. Just as it depicts here. MR. STONE-So it’s only going to the peak of the other roof? MR. DWYER-It’s only going to the peak of the other roof. It’s not straddling the entire roof. MR. STONE-Okay. Fine. That’s what the picture says. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it just goes from the peak down to the eaves. MR. STONE-Yes, the peak down to the eaves, right. Okay. MR. MC NALLY-I’m happy. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? 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? Any correspondence? MR. STEC-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Lew? MR. STONE-I have a question. You’re going to have a bathroom in there. So there’ll be another bathroom in the house? MR. DWYER-Correct. MR. STONE-And that’s, the application for the variance reflects the other bathroom? MR. DWYER-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Basically, I don’t have any problem with this thing. I guess I wonder why you had to come out twice, why we couldn’t have this in one combined variance, or we can’t do that, the garage last month and the house this month? MR. STEC-He probably needed a septic variance. MR. DWYER-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Good explanation. MR. DWYER-I wasn’t for the lack of effort. MR. STONE-Okay. I have no problem. I think in considering what we did last month, looking at the property, the concessions that were made for the garage, the fact that the house is there, all we’re doing is saying, all right, you can go up from where the house is currently located. Is it going to have a terrible visual impact on Boss Road? I don’t think so. Obviously, it’s going to create a little more of a wall from somebody standing right in front of the house, but I think given the nature of the 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) road, the nature of the neighborhood, I don’t think it’s a problem, and certainly, since we have heard no comments by either neighbor, neighbors on either side or across the street, I have no problem with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, as usual Lew has left me crumbs to talk about. So basically it’s all been said. It’s really not any further encroachment. It’s the same footprint, and we’re really here because it’s already too close to the front setback That’s why we’re here, and I don’t think this presents a problem for the neighborhood or the community. So I don’t have any problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem with it, either, for the reasons you guys have raised. MR. THOMAS-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Ditto. MR. THOMAS-Have you got a shorter one than that? MR. STEC-No. The benefit’s clear, the feasible alternatives would be limited to no construction, but the benefit far outweighs any impact, and I think the relief is modest. So I’m in favor. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll agree with the other Board members. There’s really only one way to go with this house, and that’s up, due to the constrictions of the property, and it appears that Mr. Dwyer is doing an exceptional job on this addition. Having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64A-1999 PAUL & NANCY DWYER, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 7 Boss Road. The applicant has proposed construction of a second story addition and seeks setback relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure and setback relief. Specifically, we are granting the applicant 13.5 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirements of the Waterfront One Acre zone, in accordance with Section 179-16, and since the existing structure and the proposed addition do not currently meet the current setback requirements, relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure is granted in this motion, in Section 179-79. Weighing the five tests that we apply to variances, there’s clear benefit to the applicant in that this would certainly improve the value of his home and add additional living space on the current footprint. Feasible alternatives really we identified would be limited to no construction, but the benefit clearly outweighs the opportunity to expand the house. Thirteen and a half feet of relief from the thirty foot requirement is moderate, but again, we note that there’s no impact on the neighborhood or the community, as evidenced by no one objecting to it, and from our own visit, that it appears that this variance will have no impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The difficulty is self-created only in that the applicant has sought to improve his home, but based on all of our conversations, I move that we approve the relief sought. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. DWYER-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1999 TYPE II CR-15 LARRY CLUTE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 1 ROZELLE STREET, OFF MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE CR-15 ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 134-4-13, 14 LOT SIZE: 0.20 ACRES, 0.06 ACRES SECTION 179-24 LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 65-1999, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: July 28, 1999 “Project Location: 1 Rozelle Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a single family residence and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 30 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement and 2.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the CR-15 zone, § 179-24. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 30 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, while 2.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement, on both sides, may be interpreted as minimal to 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 as there appears to be a compliant location available to the applicant. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant is proposing a location for the dwelling which appears to be consistent with the neighboring properties and community. Will the required septic system fit on the property without any variances? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STEC-And nothing from the County. MR. THOMAS-Larry? MR. CLUTE-How are you tonight? MR. THOMAS-Not bad. Yourself? MR. CLUTE-Good. MR. THOMAS-So, is there anything else you want to tell us about this chunk of property? MR. CLUTE-No, not really. Originally when I submitted this, I just came up with these numbers as far as dimensions, but since that time, I have gone to contract. They haven’t been committed as of yet. So the side line setbacks on the house that’s anticipated are gone to contract, aren’t necessary, but I’d still like to keep this application just in case that deal falls through. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-You’re saying the house you’ve got a contract on is smaller? MR. CLUTE-Smaller than this unit, yes. MR. STONE-Question. On the drawing that was given us, and outlined in yellow, this back tail lot, 134-4-14, is that part of the property? MR. CLUTE-It’s actually, it is part of the deed. I’m going to separate that off and sell that to the Main Street owner, the tail end. So it’s just going to be a square, once I do change ownership. MR. STONE-Okay. So that, we can’t use that for a septic system or anything like that. MR. CLUTE-It would be difficult to do that anyway, to be honest with you, with a 10 foot setback on side, with the septic. MR. STONE-This is a two car garage that you’ve got proposed here. MR. CLUTE-Right. MR. STONE-So if it were a one car garage. MR. CLUTE-Again, this was, when I originally submitted for this, it was just, lets just go worst case or best case, in my point of view, if I can get somebody that wants a two car garage in this size home, this is what I’m going to need. Again, with the smaller house, I’m not going to have an encroachment, if indeed they’re committed on it. I mean, I’ll meet the 20 foot. MR. HAYES-On the sides. MR. CLUTE-Exactly. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. HAYES-You’ll still need the same for the front, though. MR. CLUTE-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. CLUTE-Right. The house that I’m in contract on is a 28/32 rather than a 28/36. So I gain back four foot. MR. STONE-Thirty-six being the? MR. CLUTE-The width, looking at it from the road. MR. STONE-Width, okay, so that’s the setback one, but you’re still going to be 28 feet deep from wherever you start? MR. CLUTE-I would like to. I mean, I can meet the setbacks, the existings, but it would look rather odd if I was forced into a 50 foot front yard, and nobody else was, which is what the existing setback is in that zone. So I’m trying to get up to what everybody else is. MR. STONE-Do you have the actual measurements? I looked at it quickly. I didn’t go on the other people’s property. MR. CLUTE-No. I know. I eyeballed, it, actually just kind of walked. MR. STONE-I mean, 30 feet’s a lot. MR. CLUTE-Yes, right. I’m going to stay with the face. I’m looking to match what’s next door. Fifty foot would be a dramatic depth on it. So I’m just looking to match existing setbacks, and it was roughly, I eyeballed it at 20 foot back, 28 foot back. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. STEC-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Clute? If not, lets talk about it. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, Mr. Clute has done a lot of building in West Glens Falls, an area that I’m familiar with, and it’s been my experience that they’ve all been done well. They’ve always been improvements in the neighborhood, sometimes dramatic. My impression is that he’s here to ask for relief tonight for good reason, because he’s trying to maintain a, to build a house that would sell well, and for that reason, it would seem his interest would be the same as the community, to put a project together that had value and was saleable. So, even though, while the relief certainly comes out and grabs you initially, as I looked at the other houses in the neighborhood, it appeared that they were kind of flushed up toward the road as well, and it, in fact, as I read through some of the Ordinances, I think part of the object of front setbacks is to maintain some consistency in the neighborhood. So, when I balance those things out, I think that this is a reasonable proposal, and I think that the effects on the neighborhood and community will be positive, and I think in that way I think the balance falls in favor of the applicant. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-One of the things I noticed when I looked at the CR-15 zone is that the purpose is to allow the transition from residential to commercial properties in a manner which permits the widening of the arterial route to encourage safe traffic patterns, and to be honest with you, Rozelle Road is never going to be a commercial arterial road. MR. CLUTE-No, sir. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. MC NALLY-And the intent was a 50 foot setback to allow for that. We’ve got a residential property. All the houses are about 20 feet from the road. I don’t have a problem with the side setback whatsoever. 17.5 feet and 20 feet is pretty much the same thing. You’ve centered it on the lot. That’s what the intent was supposed to be. It is a substantial relief, but given the unique nature of this area, I don’t have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m echoing again, but I feel about the same way. In this case, where we’re dealing with a regular residential street, it makes all the sense in the world to place this house so it matches the setback of the existing places on either side, and I would also agree that the side setback relief is minimal, and the benefit to the applicant is obvious, and so I do favor it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with the other Board members. Weighing the five criteria that we apply, all five really are in favor. The only one that’s in question, again, is the relief is substantial, but not really when you compare it to the remainder of the neighborhood, and as Bob mentioned, the rationale for the requirement. So I have no problem with it. I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I think Bob hit the nail on the head. I’m just looking back over Suburban Residential, where they do talk 30 feet. If we’re talking 30 feet setback from the road, you’re asking for 10 feet of relief. I mean, he’s not in that zone, but Bob is absolutely right. This is, we’re talking more about Main Street for this particular zone. We're not talking about Rozelle. So I have no problem with this whatsoever. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the other Board members. I have no problem with this. It appears that Mr. Clute is trying to just keep things the same in the neighborhood. There was a question about a one car garage or a two car garage. I think a two car garage is necessary these days, and it’s beginning to look like a three car garage is going to be necessary soon, but it’s consistent with the neighborhood, and as the other Board members have said, the 50 foot setback is more or less for Main Street, and not one of the side streets in the zone. Having said that, I would ask for a motion. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, just for accuracy, according to the tax map, the frontage on Rozelle was 95. So that would require him only to get .5 feet of relief on either side, if he centers it. The drawing shows 90. If it’s actually 95 on the road, that’s two feet less relief on either side for him. MR. STONE-My drawing says 95. MR. THOMAS-Yes, mine does, too. MR. BROWN-Okay. Well, the original drawing was submitted with 90 feet on Rozelle, and we talked about that. You must have the revised drawing that you submitted. You submitted a revised drawing? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STEC-So it’s .5. MR. BROWN-So it’s .5 instead of 2.5. So it’s less. MR. STONE-If I add my numbers up, I get 60 feet for the drawing that we have for the house and the garage, 95 leaves 35, which is 17 and a half. MR. BROWN-The garage is 20 feet wide and 24 feet deep. MR. STONE-Twenty-four by twenty-four, it says here. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. CLUTE-I think the mathematics were accurate. I think the dimensions on the road front were inaccurate. All I had to do, I mean my math is accurate. It was written as 90, I made a mistake and corrected it. MR. STONE-I see. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. CLUTE-The numbers still add up to 95, going across. MR. HAYES-So you’d still need 2.5 on each side? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-If someone wants to make a motion, go ahead. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1999 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: 1 Rozelle Street. Applicant proposes construction of a single family residence at that address and seeks setback relief. The applicant requests 30 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement and 2.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the CR-15 zone, Section 179-24. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the house as depicted in the drawing, in the preferred location, which is actually consistent with the neighborhood. Feasible alternatives, there are feasible alternatives, but I believe that this particular proposal is actually better, based on the fact that it’s consistent with the neighborhood. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? Thirty feet of relief on a fifty foot requirement certainly is moderate, but in this particular case, I think it is actually an improvement, desired. The 2.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot setback is very minimal. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe it to be a positive effect on the neighborhood and community, based on consistency and development of the property in a way that’s complimentary to the neighborhood. Is this difficulty self-created? I don’t believe that it is. I agree with the Chairman that, essentially, this house is well centered and that the necessity of a two car garage is certainly growing in our area. So I believe it’s well placed, and I don’t think it’s self-created. So, for that reason, I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. CLUTE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA DAVID H. PROL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CLIFF HOLLOW, SOUTH ROUTE 9L, 1 MILE PAST BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 600 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND SEEKS HEIGHT RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 2-1-5.2 LOT SIZE: 1.3 ACRES SECTION 179-16 DAVID PROL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 66-1999, David H. Prol, Meeting Date: July 28, 1999 “Project Location: Cliff Hollow Road, off Rte. 9L, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 600 sf detached garage and seeks height relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 8 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. The applicant is proposing a 24 foot tall structure. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a storage building with additional floor area above. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the structure to a compliant height, however, a downsized proposal may not meet the applicant’s wishes. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 8 feet of relief (50%) from the 16 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to 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.): BP 95-121 issued 8/31/95 1500 sf addition Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the proposed addition of this structure to the property would not present any violation of the floor area ratio limitations, it would present an additional accessory structure which would be in violation of the height requirements for this zone. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) Given the existing vegetative screening, minimal visual impacts on surrounding properties may be anticipated. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STEC-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 8 July 1999 Project Name: Prol, David H. Owner: DHPGJPQPRT ID #: QBY AV 66-1999 County Project No.: July 99-33 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a 600 square foot detached garage and seeks height relief from the requirements of the Waterfront Residential One Acre zone. Staff Notes: The applicant is looking for a 20 foot high garage in lieu of the required maximum 16 feet. The applicant states this is for winter boat storage and for an office and art studio on the second floor. Staff does not know if the studio will require a separate variance or a site plan review subsequent to this. A copy of the applicant’s site drawing is included, and Staff is assuming that the new building is labeled boat storage with a deck that is 20 feet by 30 feet and is the building in question. The applicant already has a separate detached garage on-site. Parcel size is 66,000 square feet. Using the materials provided, it is estimated that the proposed building will be in excess of 200 feet from the lake. Staff, therefore, does not identify any significant impacts, since the building will be screened by trees from the lake. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact.” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Prol, is there anything else you want to add, tell us about, talk about? MR. PROL-No. I think the application speaks for itself. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-Is there going to be water to this structure? MR. PROL-No. MR. MC NALLY-Is there going to be electrical? MR. PROL-If there is, it’ll be an electric base board type heat. MR. MC NALLY-Is anyone planning on living there, as far as guest room, that kind of thing? MR. PROL-No. It’s not a guest use. It would be for my wife’s art studio. MR. MC NALLY-And I understood it’s a 600 square foot detached garage? MR. PROL-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-That’s based on a 20 by 30 foot floor print? MR. PROL-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-How large is the upper floor? MR. PROL-Well, it’ll be, I think it’s on the plan. MR. STONE-It looks like, basically the same dimensions, isn’t it? MR. PROL-It’s smaller. It’s 19 by 23. The interior dimension is 19 by 23. MR. STONE-437. MR. MC NALLY-A little bit over 1,000 square feet. MR. STONE-Right. MR. THOMAS-Is this strictly for boat storage, and nothing else, I mean the lower part? MR. PROL-Well, it could be used for a car, also. In the summertime, the cars could be parked in it. MR. THOMAS-How big is the existing garage that you have? MR. PROL-It’s 24 by 28, a two car garage. MR. STONE-672. MR. THOMAS-Okay. What’s the other one? What’s the new? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. STONE-Six hundred, on the ground, with a total of 1,037. MR. MC NALLY-Overall. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-How high is the current garage? MR. PROL-It’s less than 16. I don’t know exactly. I think it’s 14 feet. I’m saying I think it is. I don’t know exactly, but I know it’s less than 16. MR. MC NALLY-Why do you need it so high? I mean, if I’m looking at 24 feet, and the garage maybe 12 feet tall. MR. PROL-The garage door has to be nine foot high, in order to back a boat in on a trailer, and then you have a foot for the floor structure, and then the pitch on the roof, you have eight foot on the second floor, plus about three to four feet above the ceiling height. MR. MC NALLY-So you’re saying it’s eight foot ceilings on the second floor? MR. PROL-It varies according to the pitch, on the drawing here. It’s a nine on twelve pitch. MR. MC NALLY-Of the useable area, you’re going to be talking about an eight foot ceiling, on the second floor. MR. PROL-Yes, it is. MR. STONE-But you’ve got a dormer up there though, too, it looks like. MR. PROL-That’s part of the, to the peak is the 24 foot. So if you were to draw a flat spot in the ceiling above the windows, you’d still have three to four feet above the ceiling height. MR. STONE-I’m going to ask a question that was asked to me about eight years ago, when I appeared before this Board. You say office. What do you mean by an office? Is this for a commercial operation? MR. PROL-No, no. I’m retired, and I just have a desk and a computer. MR. STONE-Same answer I gave eight years ago, but I had to ask the question. I assumed that was the answer, but it was asked of me, because on our plans it said office, and the same explanation you used. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM TOBIN MR. TOBIN-My name is Jim Tobin. I live at 15 Dark Bay Lane, Queensbury. I’m the adjoining property with Mr. Prol. MR. PROL-There’s one lot in between us. MR. TOBIN-The reason I’m here is that for a number of reasons, a number of questions I have, and I think the Board has asked some of the questions already. There’s an existing accessory use structure on the project. In my opinion, the Board, in their infinite wisdom, has put down 16 feet high for a reason, and the reason being that it’s called an accessory use, not a main building, and I think when you have a 16 foot high building, you limit the uses of buildings. On the property that I have, that overlooks David’s property, I have a view of the lake. The way I see on this site plan the orientation of the new building that’s going on, I could be wrong on this, but what I see in the way boats are long and narrow, the way the entrance of the building is, the ridge of the building would be perpendicular to the lake. That would be parallel to my existing back property and windows. I overlook the lake now. I have a view of it. I also have a greater seasonal view of it. So on that point, I believe the 24 feet high is going to have an adverse effect on my property, on my current use of the property, and the salability of the property. The other question I raise, which the Board raised before, is the existing building that’s on the property, which is oriented the opposite way, meaning 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) that I look down the ridge of the building, at the front of the building, at the slope of the roof. It’s higher than 16 feet. If I can see the building now with a seven foot high door, and I multiply up, the building is somewhere about 18 feet to 20 feet at the current height. So I believe there is an existing problem on the site already. So with those in mind, some of the questions have been answered. Apparently there’s no toilets going in the building. It’s not being used as a commercial structure. Obviously, that’s very positive, so just the view from my existing building is a detrimental effect to me. So I ask that the Board consider that this project be reduced in the massing of the building, and if you look at the building, the building has a footprint of 600 square feet. There’s a second floor which is another 600 square feet, and then there’s a porch. So we’re darn close to somewhere around 13 to 1400 square feet, a three bedroom house is about 1400 square feet. So what we’re putting up here, in my line of sight, is a house. So I think there’s a detrimental effect to my property, and I ask the Board to consider that the building be reduced to the 16 foot height. MR. STONE-Mr. Tobin, would you show me, maybe the other Board members would like to know, where your house is on this drawing? I still have some conflict of whether you’re the next door neighbor. MR. TOBIN-Yes. I’m on the lot, probably what’s on yours, Lot Number 10. MR. STONE-Lot Number 10. Okay. MR. TOBIN-So actually in elevation I’m up above. There’s a hill, up on a hill. The hill rises. MR. STONE-And there are four lots between the road and the lake, as I see this here, going down another road, obviously. MR. TOBIN-That is correct, to my understanding, yes. MR. STONE-What road are you off of? MR. TOBIN-It’s Dark Bay Lane. MR. STONE-You’re off Dark Bay Lane, okay. MR. TOBIN-That’s right. MR. STONE-But you’re number 10. MR. TOBIN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-And you say right now you can see the lake, looking to the northwest? MR. TOBIN-That is correct, sir. I can see David’s property, the garage and the Freighoffer property from my house. Actually, the lake, at that point, comes in somewhat. There’s a Bay that’s down that. MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff. Craig, under accessory structures, it says for a private garage/private boat storage building. Can you explain what that means? MR. BROWN-I think it’s been interpreted in the past that you could have both buildings, a garage and a boat storage building. I did discuss that with the Zoning Administrator, in anticipation of you asking that question. MR. STONE-My use of a slash would say it could be one or the other, but that’s why I’m asking the question. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think it’s historically been they could have one of each, because technically a boat storage building is not a garage. So you should be able to have a garage, as well as a boat storage building. MR. STONE-Then we also say storage shed, which we have determined has very few size limitations at the moment. MR. THOMAS-Depending on zone you’re in. MR. STONE-That’s true, which zone you’re in. MR. THOMAS-That’s the drawback on that one. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. MC NALLY-Chris, have we historically decided that you’re allowed to have two accessory structures? MR. THOMAS-Yes, you can have a garage and a boat storage on the same property, in the Waterfront Residential. Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Tobin? If not, thank you, sir. MR. TOBIN-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. STEC-No correspondence. MR. THOMAS-No correspondence, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PROL-Could I say? MR. THOMAS-Yes, go right ahead. Sure. MR. PROL-I would like to refute some of the statements that Mr. Tobin made. First of all, the existing garage is definitely 16 feet high. It’s not 20 feet high. Secondly, his house is located on the bluff that overlooks all the existing structures on my property, through trees that are on both my property and my neighbor next door, Detz’s, property, that exceed 100 feet in height. I don’t know if anybody has gone down to look at this site, but the trees are about as original as trees can be. I don’t think they’ve been cut in more than 100 years, and the trees obscure most of the view, and my houses are well below the treetops that are there. So I don’t understand how he can say that this structure would be blocking his view, because it’s right in line with the existing frame garage, also, and he isn’t on the adjacent property. There’s one lot in between my property and his property. MR. THOMAS-Can you tell me what kind of trees they are that are on that? MR. PROL-They’re birch, and there’s some big, huge birches. There’s a lot of hemlock. There’s huge pine trees, and there’s, the under story is mainly hemlock. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So the only thing on that bunch that loses their leaves is the birch trees. MR. PROL-Right. There probably are some other leafy trees also, maple and there’s another tree, poplar type tree, but the predominant trees in the area are hemlock, pine and birch. MR. THOMAS-Is there any other place on this piece of property you could site that building, other than where you have it? MR. PROL-Well, the reason I sited it where it is is because it would use the existing driveways that are there. So there would be a minimal impervious impact, additional impervious impact, on the property. The garage doors are going to be in the 20 foot width. So there’ll be some small paving off the existing driveway. MR. STONE-You’d be putting the boats in going up hill? I mean, going toward 9L, the doors will be facing the lake? MR. PROL-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. What is the purpose of the deck? MR. PROL-Just to have a place for the stairs, and a small landing to get into the building. The deck could be made smaller. It’s not a deck for sitting on. It’s just to get into the upstairs. MR. STONE-But you could enter from inside? MR. PROL-No. If I entered from inside, I would take away from the storage area of the building. That’s why I put the stairs on the outside. MR. MC NALLY-Are there stairs on the outside? MR. STONE-It doesn’t look like it on the drawings. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have any other drawings? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. PROL-No. The stairs would go up from where the garage doors are to the deck. MR. STONE-There was something you said, I don’t know if anybody else heard it, I’m sure that they did. You said maybe store a car during the summer. MR. PROL-The gentleman asked me if there was any other use the first floor could be put to. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. PROL-You could put a car in there, because it has an overhead door. MR. STONE-I understand that. That’s my concern, that it’s not supposed to be. Then it becomes a garage, a second garage. MR. PROL-What is better, to leave the car sit outside or to put it in the building? MR. STONE-I’m only going by the Code. You asked us to go by the Code, and that would constitute a second garage if you put a car in it, and I don’t know how we could enforce the fact that you don’t put a car in. We can’t send Craig out every day to look. It’s a concern. I only throw it out for the Board’s thought. MR. PROL-Is there an objection to putting the car? MR. STONE-It’s against the Code. MR. MC NALLY-You’re not allowed to have two garages, and they’re usually interpreted as buildings that store cars. MR. STEC-And Lew determined what a car was a couple of meetings ago. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Prol? No? Well, if there’s no more questions, lets talk about this. What do you think, Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think I've had too many applications where there’s been a second request for an accessory use structure. I remember a couple of greenhouses and things like that, but if this Board feels that they can have a second accessory structure for the storage of boats, and that’s what we’ve done before, then so be it, but this is more than just storage of boats. This is a substantial structure, at an extensive height, above what the Code requires. This deck is a deck. I mean, it’s not a landing, with all due respect, sir. MR. PROL-I said I could reduce it down to a landing size. MR. MC NALLY-I understand, and the second story goes beyond what I think the permitted accessory use structures are for storage of boats and other items and that kind of thing. So I’m disturbed by the extent of the size of the building, based on that second floor. It’s expanding, actually, a living structure, not a storage structure, and that’s what it’s going to be used for, for living for office, for art studio, other things that you otherwise could do in your own home. In my opinion, I didn’t see from the perspective of the one property owner what it would be to his effect. I do agree with you, though, that it’s a well wooded area, and it’s relatively quiet. So I don’t think it would have any substantial impact on the neighborhood, but it still is a large structure. That’s what I think. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t have any real problem with the second structure, for storage of boats, but of course that’s not what we’re being asked to give a variance on. I do have a problem with the height. There’s a height limitation in that area for a reason. One of the reasons we said before is visual impact. We have a neighbor that believes it is going to impact on him. Living in an area where there is a wood buffer between my home and other things that might be a nuisance to me, I know at various times of the year, regardless of the kinds of trees that are there, you can see through the woods. So I have to believe the neighbor that it might well impact his view. I can understand the reason for wanting to put a studio in an office above the boat storage structure. If it were in a different zone, if it didn’t have neighbors that had problems with it, I’d be more inclined to go along, but I just, the height increase is too much for me. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-When I looked at it, the first thing that struck me was I did think that it was very heavily wooded, and from my perspective, I honestly didn’t think that it would be a visual impact for any of the neighbors. That’s not to say that I don’t believe Mr. Tobin. In fact, I do. I didn’t see it from his 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) perspective, but I believe him, and listening to the other Board members, I think that, unless you stand on the lot, you won’t know. So I’ll take him at his word. In any event, he has a perception that it is going to hinder his view, and with that stated, not looking to create trouble between neighbors, but for me, that really made me start swinging my thought the other way, and then I started just looking at it a little more closely than, initially, driving through there, the woods struck me as being pretty dense, but again, the height bothers me. I don’t have an issue with a second accessory use structure, or even how they’re going to use it, although I do think that how they desire to use it adds to the problem or the relief that is sought. I think that if we were just talking about boat storage, a variance wouldn’t be required, but it seems to me that what we’re trying to accomplish here is pile a couple of activities into something that has now become a significant structure. So taking a closer, harder look on it, because at least one neighbor has a concern, I’m not sure that I’m comfortable granting a 50% relief from the height requirement, but I’ll listen to the rest of the Board and see what they say. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-As a boat owner, I certainly can appreciate your desire to have a place to store a boat. It’s not only expensive to store it with somebody else, it’s always nice to have it under your own control. Therefore, I wouldn’t have any problem with a boat storage facility designed for use exclusively for boat storage. However, I think the building as proposed goes well beyond a building that’s going to be used to store boats. I think it’s a massive structure, when you consider the extra eight foot of height, the fact that it’ll be 1300, give or take, 11, 12, 1300 square foot addition, and I think as one of the Board members said, part of this building will be used as an extension of the house, and to me, that’s a very compelling thing. I think it now becomes other than a boat storage building. So on the basis that it’s more than a boat storage building, it’s too high, it’s too massive, I’ll have to vote no. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I pretty much agree with my other Board members. The Code calls for a 16 foot maximum height in an accessory structure, and maybe for good reason, as the public has pointed out. As I look to the criteria involved with the test for this type of variance, in my mind, it is substantial relief. Certainly eight feet on 16 feet, it’s 50% of the requirement. Feasible alternatives, I believe that if, while boat storage is entirely reasonable and a good idea, as Lew pointed out, that if he wanted to do boat storage, we’d be fine with that. So he has feasible alternatives, build a boat storage building that stores his boat, and in an overall sense, I think that sometimes the Code gets in the way of a good project, and that’s why we’re here, but in this particular case, sometimes the Code helps us do what’s the right thing, and I think I would be against this application. MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other Board members. If this was strictly for boat storage, and it came up to a 16 foot building, Mr. Prol wouldn’t even be here, but like Lew said, one of the other Board members mentioned this is an extension of the house with a second story studio in there, and as someone else had stated, this is really close to a three bedroom house. Again, if there were some place else on this lot that this building could be sited, where it wouldn’t interfere with anybody else’s view or enjoyment of the lake, I wouldn’t have any problem going with a 24, but since it is in somebody’s view, and it’s an additional eight feet above what the current zoning calls for, I really can’t go along with it. I could go along with the boat storage, at 16 feet, like I said, and then Mr. Prol wouldn’t even be here. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-1999 DAVID H. PROL, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Cliff Hollow Road off Route 9L. The applicant has proposed the construction of a 600 sq. ft. on the footprint detached garage and seeks height relief. Specifically, the applicant has requested eight feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement of the Waterfront One Acre zone, Section 179-16. The applicant has proposed a 24 foot tall structure. The criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law, Number One, the benefit to the applicant is clear that had we approved this, he would have had a significant amount of boat storage area and above the storage area an art studio. However, we felt that there are feasible alternatives in that the second story of this structure really doesn’t contribute to the intent of boat storage, and is in fact more or less the extension of the home beyond the primary structure. So we felt that there were feasible alternatives to not have it a second story, which would eliminate the need for relief. We also feel that eight feet of relief, which is 50% of the 16 foot requirement, is substantial, and from our conversations and the conversations of the public, there would be at least some impact on the visual effects of some of the surrounding property owners, and we felt that this difficulty is self-created. So, failing four out of the five tests, I move that we deny Area Variance No. 66-1999. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-I’m sorry, it’s denied. MR. PROL-I find it surprising that the Board would make a decision based on one neighbor’s observation, which, as the applicant, I feel is totally incorrect. MR. THOMAS-I don’t think this was done on one neighbor’s observation. I think it was done in accordance with the way the Ordinance is written. It’s 16 foot for an accessory structure. MR. PROL-It seems to me like the motion was made based on one neighbor’s input, about his visual input of the lake being destroyed, which I refute, and I think that the Board should probably take a look at what he’s offering to the Board, before a decision against my application is made. MR. HAYES-We looked at all the facts. MR. PROL-That’s the only statement I wanted to make. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-I believe if you look at my statement, I didn’t even refer to Mr. Tobin. MR. PROL-Thanks for considering me. MR. THOMAS-I’m sorry. AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-1999 TYPE II SR-20 CRAIG & LEANN TAYLOR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 6 MOCKINGBIRD LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ABOVE-GROUND POOL AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 148-2-23 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION 179-67 CRAIG & LEANN TAYLOR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 67-1999, Craig & Leann Taylor, Meeting Date: July 28, 1999 “Project Location: 6 Mockingbird Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an above-ground pool and seeks accessory structure setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the SR- 20 zone, § 179-19. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a recreational area on the property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited, given the sizes of the lot and the proposed pool. However, relocation closer to the house may be considered. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 7.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement 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 attributed, partially, to the size of the lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Consideration to relocating the pool closer to the home should be given. Relocation would relieve some of the requested relief as well as lessen that portion of the septic system to be covered. The building department has acknowledged that covering the septic system is not recommended, nor is it prohibited. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay, and Warren County has nothing. MR. STEC-Nothing. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. or Mrs. Taylor, would you like to tell us about your project, here? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. TAYLOR-We were gifted a pool, and we’d like to put it in our back yard. There’s a recommendation to move it closer to the house. While I was originally for it, I’m remembering that access to the septic tank, which would be right on the edge, underneath the deck. MR. STONE-I was about to ask that question. MR. TAYLOR-I have, the way I've designed it, I have access to the septic tank now. By moving the pool closer to the house, which would then uncover one of the laterals, or at least expose it more to the surface, then it would be harder to service the septic tank. I did talk to Dave Hatin and John O’Brien. There’s a possibility of the septic system failure. We're aware of that. We're willing to take that risk. This is a temporary structure, technically. I mean, there’s no foundation to this pool. It’s just the kind you take down if there’s a problem. MR. STONE-Would there be any weight on the concrete tank itself? MR. TAYLOR-No, sir. It’s the deck, would actually extend over it. Well, there might be one outrigger that holds the deck up, but I don’t think it would be any significant weight, and I would put blocking or something underneath there to make sure it doesn’t endanger the top of the septic tank. In discussion with John O’Brien, we discovered there’s new products available. If there’s a septic, leach field failure, the remaining side of the yard that is exposed is more than sufficient to put in, there’s a new special corrugated plastic trough, leach field that’s now available. It’s just been recently approved by the State, or we just take the pool down and forget it. MR. STONE-How much weight, obviously 16 by 24. MR. TAYLOR-It’s about 10,000 gallons. MR. STONE-So that’s 80,000 pounds, approximately. I just don’t know whether it would crush these laterals, just by putting them in. I don’t know how far down they are. Does anybody have any ideas. MR. MC NALLY-I’d be pretty sure there’s going to be some damage over a period of time, but that’s their problem. Of course, I don’t know how much weight we should give that. MR. STONE-The relief that you’re seeking, you and I talked about this this afternoon, is actually from Association property. MR. TAYLOR-The back property. MR. STONE-The back property line. MR. STONE-And that’s a buffer zone. How wide is it? MR. TAYLOR-Last month my neighbor mis-spoke and said it was 25 feet. It is at least 50 feet. The drawings I have don’t show the exact dimension. It’s probably closer to 60 or 70 feet. I might have an actual. MR. STONE-So this will be a minimum of 60 to 70 feet from the neighbor’s usable property on the other side? MR. TAYLOR-Right, and they have, the people directly behind us, have the in-ground pool that you approved last year. MR. HAYES-So you’ve got a pretty big splash zone, then? MR. TAYLOR-Yes. MR. THOMAS-When you look at the tax maps, the space between that is wider than the 50 foot road. MR. TAYLOR-That is forever wild. We have a homeowners association that is, which I’m a board member of, that maintains that property, and it will never be. MR. STONE-As I asked you today, the board has not taken a position one way or the other on this? MR. TAYLOR-We have taken no position on any other homeowners. We have no rules or regulations regarding such requests. It’s implied that we would like to see seasonal things behind the home, but a pool in the front yard, while it’s not. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MRS. TAYLOR-Aesthetically pretty. MR. TAYLOR-It doesn’t say anything particular about it. MR. STONE-Okay. So you have neither been confirmed or denied this as far as they’re concerned. MR. TAYLOR-They would have no concern of it at all, whatsoever. MRS. TAYLOR-Actually, a couple are in favor because they want to come over and use it. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicants? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak against this variance? Against? Any correspondence? MR. STEC-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicants? If not, we’ll talk about it. Chuck, what do you think? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see any big problem with this. I’d rather not have to grant any variance, but I don’t see any place that the pool could be placed that really would be a great deal better. It seems like a reasonable location for it. It doesn’t appear that it’s going to impact any neighbors. As the applicant pointed out, it’s kind of a seasonal thing. So it’s not like putting up a permanent structure that might be there forever (lost words) rear lot line. I don’t have any problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with Chuck. Again, looking at the five criteria. Is the difficulty self-created? It is, in the sense that the desire of the pool creates the need to come to get the relief, because of the lot size, but I think that the only question, really, is, are we comfortable with seven and a half feet of relief from 20 feet, and I think that the benefit to the applicant and the extreme minimal impact on the neighborhood far outweighs granting seven and a half feet of the relief, and the applicant has adequately addressed my concerns about any feasible alternatives, as far as moving it closer due to the septic access. So I’m entirely in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-I agree with what I've heard so far. In talking to Mr. Taylor this afternoon, and Mrs. Taylor, it’s interesting that the two of them built in this neighborhood with the anticipation of moving on as they became more affluent or at least able to afford another house. They, on the other hand, have decided, because of the beauty of the neighborhood, and their home, they have invested more money in their home, and this is just another area of investment, because they really believe in the neighborhood and they believe in keeping it up, and I think this is just another piece of evidence that the Taylors are good neighbors, and now that they see what a pool can do for them, and they want to stay there. They want to put a pool in, I have no problem. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. I mean, I think as a Board, we’re here to consider reasonable relief from the Code, when there’s good cause to, and when the impact on the neighborhood and community is positive, and I think both have occurred here. This 7.5 feet of relief, especially considering the nature of the common property in the back, I think that there’s no real negative downside as far as impact on neighbors or the community. So I’m in favor. It’s really no problem. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree. The common area in the back effectively means that they’ve got a buffer zone far beyond the required 20 feet. So the amount of relief they’ve requested is minimal, in my eye, and will have no substantial effect on the neighborhood. I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. I looked at this drawing here to see if there was any other place it could be sited, and even twisting it around, there’s no other way. I think the Taylors have put this in the best place it can be. The buffer zone behind all these lots in 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) this subdivision I think was a very good idea, and it really adds to the distance from the other properties. The 10 foot side setback, I wish it could be a little farther than that, but there again, the septic system is in the way. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-1999 CRAIG & LEANN TAYLOR, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: 6 Mockingbird Lane. The applicant proposes construction of an above-ground pool and is seeking accessory structure setback relief. Specifically, the applicant requests seven and a half feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirements of the SR-20 zone, Paragraph 179-19. Considering this application, I note the applicant would benefit by being able to construct a recreation area, specifically a pool, on this property. The feasible alternatives are rather limited, given the size of the lot and the size of the proposed pool, and considering the possibility of relocating closer to the house is probably counter-balanced by the changes that will be made, the way the pool would be covering the septic system. The relief can be interpreted probably as being minimum in this situation. Seven and a half feet of relief from the twenty foot minimum rear setback, given that there is an additional buffer zone behind the property that’s common property to the neighborhood. Effects on the neighborhood or community will be minimal, again given the fact that there’s an additional buffer area behind this property. The difficulty can be considered self-created, in that the applicant wants to install a pool, but considering the configuration of the lot and its size, those are mitigating circumstances. Based on all these reasons, I move that we approve Area Variance No. 67- 1999. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-Jump in. MR. TAYLOR-Thank you very much. MRS. TAYLOR-Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-Enjoy your pool. AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-1999 TYPE II WR-1A CEA ANN & JOSEPH MC MAHON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1478 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE AND FOR RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-19.2 LOT SIZE: 0.29 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-70 ANN & JOSEPH MC MAHON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 68-1999, Ann & Joseph McMahon, Meeting Date: July 28, 1999 “Project Location: Russell Harris Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1478 sf single family dwelling and seeks both setback relief and minimum road frontage relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 2 feet and 12 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Also, the applicant is requesting 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement of § 179-70, Frontage on public streets. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired residence in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation or a downsized proposal. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 2 feet and 12 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. The request for 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum frontage requirement may be interpreted as minimal, as the lot has access over an existing deeded right-of-way. 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. There appears to be a more compliant location available for the placement of this proposed 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) dwelling. Given the requests recently imposed on the applicant for the property immediately to the north (Weber) a relocation to a more compliant location should be considered. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STEC-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 8 July 1999 Project Name: McMahon, Ann & Joseph Owner: Same ID #: QBY AV 68-1999 County Project No.: July 99-32 Current Zoning: Waterfront Residential 1 Acre Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicants propose to construct a 1478 square foot single family dwelling and seeks relief from the requirements of the Waterfront One Acre zone, and for relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. Staff Notes: A copy of the applicant’s drawing is included with the summaries. The parcel is .243 acres, or 10,585 square feet. The applicants are proposing to remove an existing abandoned structure and build a new dwelling unit. The existing building footprint is 450 square feet, and the proposed building footprint is 1320 square feet. Staff does not find any issue with the lot width, since the lot is pre-existing and there is a similar use on the parcel. The Queensbury Ordinance requires a 200 foot lot width and the applicant only has 158 feet. Staff does not find problems with a 1.5 foot setback and a 1 foot setback, in lieu of 25 foot setbacks. The applicant states that they are trying to retain the existing trees on the site, and hence the need for a variance. Staff feels there are density issues present and therefore recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with the condition that stormwater runoff be re- infiltrated.” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. and Mrs. McMahon, is there anything else you want to talk about, tell us about? MRS. MC MAHON-I think the one thing you said about a 1.5 foot, there was one piece of paper where I had the numbers written in there wrong. Where we would like to build a house, it would be eight foot from one property line and eight feet from the other. The 1.5, I don’t know where that came from. MR. THOMAS-That was from Warren County. Who knows. MR. STONE-Staff notes also said two feet, and I didn’t know where that came from. MR. BROWN-Two feet of relief? MR. STONE-Yes. MRS. MC MAHON-I think I had just made a mistake and whited out my numbers, and I didn’t write them in and left it blank. There was like a scribble left in there, but actually I had sent off a second piece of paper, the fax maybe didn’t copy right or something, but what we propose, one side yard would be eight feet. That would be on the south side, and one side yard would be about eight feet. MR. STONE-And that’s parallel, the south side is definitely parallel to the property line. So it is eight feet? MRS. MC MAHON-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC MAHON-We changed the orientation of the house slightly, as opposed to the original footprint, because on the north side of the lot, there’s a nice grove of trees, mature trees, along the boundary line there, as you saw probably when you were there, and it, we didn’t want to infringe on that anymore. On the south side, where we’re asking for the small change, that’s a driveway, and there’s, right adjacent to the driveway is a large rock outcropping. So there’s no chance of another building ever being put there or anything like that. MRS. MC MAHON-Yes. The neighbor on that side, on the south side, his house is way down next to the shore, because it was built before there was any zoning. So it’s not like we’re going to want to build our house right next to anybody else’s house. There’s just a driveway and this big rocky ledge. There would never be another house there, and I don’t know if you saw the letter from that neighbor, too. MR. STONE-We’ll get there. MR. THOMAS-We’ll probably have it in the correspondence. MRS. MC MAHON-Okay. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. MC NALLY-Did you ever consider centering the house a little bit more on the lot, without the deck on the side? MRS. MC MAHON-The only problem is like the trees there. If you centered it more, there’d be more trees, and it is kind of a narrow lot. The fellow who’s purchased the lot to the north, he wants to build a house also, and if he centers his, and we center ours, we’re awfully close together. By getting closer to Mr. Gorman’s driveway and this rocky area, we’re kind of sliding our house over to where nothing will be built on that side, and it’ll actually give us a little buffer zone between the next lot north, where that man’s going to have to build 50 foot from the lakeshore also, and be somewhat next to us. See Mr. Gorman’s built way down next to the water. MR. MC NALLY-That’s an older structure, isn’t it, the Gormans? MRS. MC MAHON-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So if he ever wants to improve it, he would have to comply with our Zoning Ordinance for setbacks. MRS. MC MAHON-His lot, I don’t think he can. The rock comes down quite a bit. He doesn’t really have too much room to do too much down there, and he would have to go to you, yes, but even if he built bigger, he couldn’t get close to us because of the way the hill is. MR. STONE-Obviously, as you call it, I called it a shack. That goes, obviously. MRS. MC MAHON-You’ve been there. MR. STONE-You’re not going to incorporate that into anything, not any emotional attachment? MRS. MC MAHON-We say the man who built it did it on weekends, and he didn’t own a ladder. It’s not habitable. MR. STONE-Is there any consideration, following up on what Bob said, any consideration of the north deck being less wide than you show it? MRS. MC MAHON-Yes. I think on the plans we have for the house, there’s a doorway on that side. So just to like a few steps, turn to get in the door, carrying your groceries or whatever. MR. STONE-So that’s the entrance to the kitchen, you’re saying there? MRS. MC MAHON-Yes. MR. MC MAHON-It really isn’t a deck, per se. It’s an entrance. MR. STONE-But it looks as if you took off some on this drawing. MRS. MC MAHON-I think, on the original plans, lets see. Well, no, I think on the original plans they were six feet, and then I had scribbles of his and white out and all that. I think the original plan said in little letters, it was six feet wide, that deck on that drawing right there. MR. STONE-I see a “6” a 6D or something. MRS. MC MAHON-Yes, and the actual length of that, that is arbitrary. I mean, it just has to be long enough to be able to get into the kitchen door there. MR. STONE-Well, the relief gets better, is less as you go away from the lake, only because of the lot line, but that 18 feet is based upon a 6 foot wide deck? MRS. MC MAHON-Yes, it is. MR. STONE-And a 28 foot wide, is the house 28 feet wide, or the total is 28? MRS. MC MAHON-The house is 28, and with the 6 foot deck, it’s 34. MR. STONE-34. Okay. MRS. MC MAHON-I guess if you made it four foot, maybe that would be fine. You’d be 20 foot on that boundary. I guess that would be okay. It’s not really the kind of deck that we’re going to really sit on because like I say, when the neighbor builds his house, we could make it four feet. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. HAYES-So if you do that there wouldn’t be any relief on that side then, right? MR. BROWN-That’s right. MRS. MC MAHON-If you want to do that, that’s okay. MR. STONE-Just as an aside, your dock is existing? MRS. MC MAHON-Yes. MR. STONE-You know it’s nonconforming? MRS. MC MAHON-Yes. MR. STONE-That the boat you park on the north side will probably be on Mr. Weber’s property. They’re his reparian rights. MRS. MC MAHON-I hope not. MR. STONE-It doesn’t have any effect on here, but you should know that if you propose anything, then you’ve got a number of agencies that you’re going to have to make happy, the Park Commission. MR. MC MAHON-To propose something to the dock, you mean? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC MAHON-I asked the neighbors around there. I talked to all them in the last couple of weeks about the dock situation there, and they said that everyone’s dock infringes on the next guy because the first guy, the first dock was built wrong, and everybody else is parallel to that, regardless of the property lines. So, they say that it’s a matter of that everybody has and nobody, you know, doesn’t make issue of it because you’re also taking advantage of the guy next to you. The left side of our dock, I think it’s the left side anyway, as we’re walking down the hill, the end of that infringes on the reparian rights on Mr. Gorman. So, I mean, it’s a situation that’s in that Bay. It’s not going to change. MR. STONE-And all those little coves in there, you’re absolutely right. It is, historically, terrible. MR. MC MAHON-Right. I mean, there’s nothing we can do about it, or we would, if we could, but we wanted to keep the character of the lot. If you were there, it’s a nice lot. It’s a high lot. It’s got nice mature trees on it. We didn’t want to change it. We didn’t want to strip it or anything like that, and we felt that with the driveway on the other side, in talking to the Gormans, when we were talking about this plan, they said that, you know, they actually said this really doesn’t bother us at all. We would prefer that you do it that way. MR. STONE-Has he written a letter? Is that the letter? MR. MC MAHON-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. You do know that in that neck of the woods, trees do fall? MR. MC MAHON-Yes. MR. STONE-Because I live on the lake. I know that they do fall. They’re beautiful to have, but they can be very devastating. MR. MC MAHON-They’re all hardwoods, pretty much. There’s not any pines. They’re all maples and oaks, and there’s a few bass woods in there, and a couple of ashes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicants? 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? Go ahead and read the letters there. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STEC-I have a letter dated July 25, 1999, from Richard Gorman, 1 Ridge Terrace, Burnt Hills, NY, Town of Queensbury, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804 “As the owner of property adjacent to Ann and Joseph McMahon, I am responding to your notification. I have knowledge of 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) their plans and am in full agreement and have absolutely no problem with what they want to do. The McMahons should be allowed to proceed. Richard A. Gorman, July 25, 1999” That’s it. MR. THOMAS-Just the one? MR. STEC-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicants? MR. STONE-I just want to state for the record, and we probably should get your initials on a drawing. You’re willing to reduce the deck on the north side to four feet so that you don’t need? MR. HAYES-We’ll only give them one side of relief. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’ll take care of the relief. MR. STONE-Yes, except the drawing doesn’t show that, and we’ve had a problem with not having drawings in the file that show what we’ve actually granted. MR. HAYES-They’re not going to get their CO if. MR. BROWN-Yes. A building permit won’t be issued if it’s not in compliance with what’s approved. Typically, we take a copy of the resolution, compare it to the plans that come in, and if they don’t jive, we don’t issue. MR. MC NALLY-My problem is basically where it’s located on the lot. The Gormans may be living in a shack for the rest of their lives, but I know very well that if everyone along this lake started to develop their property, and at one point or another someone’s going to want to build a house on the Gorman property, and then you’ve got a house, eight feet from the line. If we’re going to do it, we’re going to do it right. This is new construction. I’m not as concerned about the deck on the one side, but I think it could be located a little bit more centered on that lot. That would alleviate any future problem that could crop up if the Gormans do develop, or if whoever they sell it to develops. MRS. MC MAHON-I see your point, except for Gormans lot, anywhere near that house, there really is a huge boulder that slopes down. I don’t think you could build a house there, unless you like dynamited it away. Just the size of the house. MR. MC MAHON-It’s a ledge. MRS. MC MAHON-It’s not like there’s a living spot there. MR. MC NALLY-I didn’t notice anything when I was there. That significant that you can’t build around it? MR. THOMAS-Build around a rock? MR. MC NALLY-No, to deal with the Gormans property. MR. THOMAS-They could build on a ledge if they wanted to. I mean, there’s ways of doing it. It’s very expensive, really expensive, but it can be done. MR. STONE-You could blast the ledge out of there, which is also very expensive. MR. THOMAS-Or you can drill it and then pour concrete on that, hope it holds. MR. STONE-Well, Bob, I hear your concern, and I certainly understand, and I would normally share it. What would you propose that would? Then you’re going to have two reliefs. Assuming the size of the house is the same. MR. MC NALLY-Any way you’re looking at it, it’s going to be relief. The question is, how much relief on each side? MR. STONE-I understand, yes. MR. MC NALLY-I just think that center it better on the lot is all I’m saying. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. THOMAS-How does this sound? Take the two feet off the deck on that north side, slide the house over that two feet. You maintain the 18 feet off that side, but it gives you two more feet on the Gorman side. So you have 10 and 18. So you have, what, 10 feet of relief and 2 feet of relief. MR. STONE-That doesn’t impact upon the trees, because the deck was going to be. MR. THOMAS-It’s going to be there anyway. MR. MC MAHON-That would be there anyway if we had the deck. So, yes, with that two feet off, it will leave us the trees. MR. STONE-So it would be 18 and 10. MR. THOMAS-Eighteen and ten instead of eighteen and eight. MR. STONE-It would be two and ten. MR. THOMAS-Yes, two and ten. MRS. MC MAHON-The only thing I think, if it’s a really narrow lot, I kind of thought eight feet was a nice distance between us and Mr. Gorman’s driveway, to maybe plant a cedar hedge or do something like that. Since this is such a narrow lot, I just thought it would give us a little more room on that side to, I don’t know, hang out, put a picnic table, do whatever you do on your lot. MR. MC MAHON-Well, you’ve got two feet more, it doesn’t matter. MRS. MC MAHON-Yes, I guess. MR. STONE-Well, you’re going to still have the same distance on the north side. MR. THOMAS-Yes, you’re still going to have the 18 feet, just like you’ve got now. You can still have your picnic table. MRS. MC MAHON-All right. MR. THOMAS-If I were you, I’d move it down to the lake, though. MR. STONE-Not the house. MR. THOMAS-The picnic table. All right. Anymore questions for the applicants? If not, we’ll talk about it. Dan, you’re first. MR. STEC-I’m happy with elimination of the deck, and sliding the house over. MR. THOMAS-No, we’re not eliminating the deck. We're narrowing the deck. MR. STEC-Narrowing the deck, I’m sorry, and sliding the house over two feet to get a little further from that line. If I had a concern, that was it, is that 12 feet from 20 feet is a bit much. Granted, the narrowness of the property and the pitch of the land there contributes to it, but all in all, I don’t have a problem with granting the relief as we’ve discussed. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-I basically feel the same way. I am so pleased that you are concerned about the trees. Because quite often people aren’t concerned about the trees. They, that’s beautiful land, and then take them down, and so the fact that you want to preserve the trees, and I think I’m also encouraged by the fact that you’re willing to listen to us and to compromise, and by taking two feet off the deck on the north side, and using that to minimize the variance on the south side, makes me very pleased with my intention to approve this variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. It’s a pre-existing lot. Which means we’re really just looking for a reasonable proposal that has the best interest of the community at heart, and the neighborhood, and I think that this is a reasonable plan. It’s a fairly small house, and we’ve moved it around a little bit to make some accommodations. So I think all the bases have been touched, and I’m for the application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. MC NALLY-I agree. Given it’s an existing lot, it’s kind of hard to shoehorn a modern structure without moving it further from the lake. The applicant is willing to concede a little bit, and I think I’m wise enough not to push you too far and ask you to move it more. So I could live with this. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I, too, can live with this. I was not at all unhappy with the original proposal, and certainly taking two feet off the deck and moving the house over improves things a little bit. I think it’s definitely an asset to the neighborhood, versus what’s there now. So I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. I think the McMahons, in the spirit of negotiating, I guess you’d call it, have agreed to knock two feet off that deck and allowed the house to slide over so there’d only be a 10 foot variance rather than a 12 foot variance on that south side. Here again, like Bob said, it’s a modern house. This is the way that these are being built now, and as far as saving the trees, that’s a very good idea, until the next windstorm comes through, and I think this is a very good proposal that the McMahons have put forth. So I have no problem approving this application. Having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-1999 ANN & JOSEPH MC MAHON, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Russell Harris Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 1478 square foot single family dwelling, and needs relief from setback and minimum road frontage. Specifically, the applicant requests two feet and ten feet of relief from the twenty foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Also, the applicant is requesting 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement of Section 179-70, requirement for frontage on public streets. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, the benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired residence on their lot. Feasible alternatives, I believe the feasible alternatives are limited, based on the nature of this pre-existing lot, and the desire to maintain existing vegetation on the lot. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe it’s moderate, and there has been accommodations made by the applicants to make it even more moderate in the process. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe there’s minimum effects on the neighborhood or community. Additionally, we have granted the 40 foot minimum frontage relief on the lot right next door. So I don’t think it’s any change in the neighborhood, or it’s consistent with what we’ve decided in the past. Is the difficulty self-created? I don’t believe that it is. I believe this is a pre-existing lot, and that is what contributing to the necessity of relief. Therefore, I move for its approval. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. MC MAHON-Thank you. MRS. MC MAHON-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-1999 TYPE II R-3 OLD ZONING APPROVAL RICHARD SEELEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 1 STEPHANIE LANE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 186 SQ. FT. DECK AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FROM BOTH THE OLD R-3 ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND THE BUFFER ZONE REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. TAX MAP NO. 126-3-1 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION 179-72, (R-3 ZONING) RICHARD SEELEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 69-1999, Richard Seeley, Meeting Date: July 28, 1999 “Project Location: 1 Stephanie Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 186 sf deck and requests relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 12 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the old R-3 zone. Also, the applicant is requesting 32 feet of 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) relief from the 50 foot buffer zone requirements. Additionally, since the existing structure and the proposed deck addition do not meet the required setbacks, relief for the expansion of a non conforming structure is requested, 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 an additional outdoor recreational area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing and relocation. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 12 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement and 32 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? A portion of 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. Current zoning (SR-20) would allow a 20 foot rear setback. The encroachment into the buffer zone with a residential use would appear to be less of an impact than an encroachment by the adjoining uses (LI-1A) toward a residential area. Was any of the natural screening/buffer disturbed to construct this deck? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STEC-And nothing from the County. MR. THOMAS-Nothing from the County. All right. Mr. Seeley, do you want to tell us about your project here? MR. SEELEY-Well, we talked with a contractor to come over and do this particular project for us. The steps were deteriorating at that particular time. So as long as we were going to do the deck, we decided to put the steps on at the same time. To preface these remarks, the only thing I would say to you at this particular point is I was under the understanding he was taking full control of the project, including any, at this time, which I now realize variances and permits are required. We were more concerned at that particular point, my mother-in-law was in the hospital, gravely ill. Four or five days into construction, she did pass away, so we just kind of left everything in his hands because of the situation there. That was the time frame when he could operate to build, and so we let him start, even though the family situation. We did suspend operations during funerals and things like that, and whatever. At that particular point, I guess Mr. Clugstone was working around the corner, came around and happened to see him working there and stopped and notified him, where’s your permit, and I came home about an hour after that. I immediately went up and applied for the permit, once I realized that. He seemed to imply, at that particular point, that we were okay with our setbacks, that he would try to rush the building permit through for us as long as we were that far into the project. The following morning Mr. Brown called me concerning the variance requirements, and I went up to this office within about an hour after that and picked up the package to get on this month. I didn’t want to prolong it. I took some time off from work the following morning to finish the package, to get on for July. So that’s how this whole thing ended up with no permits and variances, but I was not able, at that particular point, to get a hold of the contractor. I did talk to the man that was working for him, and he stated to me that the contractor was Bob Barnaby, said that he was taking care of the permits, and I guess he never did. MR. THOMAS-Apparently he didn’t. MR. SEELEY-No, sir, and I apologize for coming to the Board this way, because, I mean, I had no intentions, and ever since I've been notified of this situation, I've tried to cooperate in every way, as quickly as I possibly could with them, but that’s where we’re at. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. SEELEY-Honestly, it’s probably got 95% done. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Questions for Mr. Seeley? MR. STONE-He’s already made the speech, so we won’t make the speech. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. SEELEY-I knew what to expect before I spoke with Mr. Stone this afternoon. MR. THOMAS-All right. If there’s no more questions for Mr. Seeley at this point, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STERLING AIKENS 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. AIKENS-Sterling Aikens. I live on the property next to him on the Corinth Road. I also own the corner lot across from him on Stephanie, and he keeps his property in excellent condition for a corner lot. I respect that because it’s so darn hard to hide anything on a corner lot, and he does a good job of taking care of his property. I’m sure the deck will be an additive to the community rather than a detriment. MR. THOMAS-All right. Thank you very much. MR. AIKENS-Actually, you’re talking about a back line that he’s asking relief from, and this is a side line for the restaurant next door to him. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thanks. MR. STONE-So you’re the house east on Corinth? MR. AIKENS-Right. MR. STONE-Across the empty lot looking down Corinth Road? MR. AIKENS-That’s right. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what I thought. I just wanted to confirm that. MR. AIKENS-How long has this been a 30 foot setback from a back line? MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s in the old R-3 zone. MR. AIKENS-They told me, I put a utility building on mine, and they told me 20 feet, and 10 from the side line. MR. THOMAS-Twenty feet from the back line and five feet from the side, in that zone, the old R-3 zones? MR. BROWN-When the subdivision was approved, it was approved under the R-3 zoning. Your lot may not be in the subdivision that was approved at that time. So you may be subject. MR. AIKENS-No, it isn’t. I was there before the subdivision. MR. BROWN-Right. So your lot would be subject to the current zoning, which may be whatever the Code. MR. AIKENS-I was the third house on that property, in ’52. MR. THOMAS-All right. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this application? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. STEC-Yes. A letter dated, it’s not dated, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, 742 Bay Road, RE: Area Variance No. 69-1999 “To Whom It May Concern: As property owners adjacent to 1 Stephanie Lane, Tax Map No. 126-3-1, we have no objections to the 186 square foot deck which was constructed by Richard Seeley, no relationship. Mr. Seeley is aware of the boundary lines for our property, and the fact that we moved our site and sound barrier fence back to allow him additional space in his back yard. Maintaining buffer zones and setbacks in this area are not possible nor practical in this instance. Sincerely, Charles E. Seeley and Barbara D. Seeley” MR. THOMAS-And that does it? MR. STEC-That’s it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Is that the restaurant? MR. SEELEY-That’s the restaurant owner, and as he stated, that is no relation of mine. It’s just a fluke. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. THOMAS-All right. Anymore questions for Mr. Seeley? If not, lets talk about it. I’ll start with Lew. MR. STONE-Well, this is, for me, relatively simple, simple because I think it’s minimal relief. Obviously, I’m not going to go into, I think Mr. Seeley was as surprised as anybody could have been by the fact that the right things weren’t done. So we’re not even going to talk about that. The nature of this lot, Mr. Aikens said for a corner lot, it’s a very interesting lot. Obviously, you’ve got a stand of trees on the Corinth Road side, so that from Corinth Road, you can’t see the deck in the back of the house. Obviously, if you stand on Stephanie Lane, you can’t see the deck. If you look from the restaurant property, all you see is their fence. The only people who can see it are up to the north, and they’re so far away, they probably can’t see it anyway. I’m being facetious when I say that, but it’s a, we quite often say, when this comes before us, somebody having built something, what would we have done if it had come to us with clean hands, lets say. I think this is the kind of project, looking at the piece of property, that would be very easy to grant a variance. It’s a nice deck. Because of the high fence between the two properties, and the line of trees, it doesn’t impact anybody, and I think the benefit to the applicant, in this particular case, far outweighs any detriment to the community. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with Lew. I think it’s fairly minimal relief. I think it’s a little bit of the function of the fact that you’re dealing with a 30 foot setback requirement versus a 20, which would make it only two feet of relief, and I think, you know, the Staff Notes are right on the button. I think, obviously, there would be much more of a concern if we had a light industrial use invading the buffer into a residential versus the other way around. Certainly, the height of my concern is a lot less in that direction. So I really don’t have a problem, and I think that you have good intentions, and that there really wasn’t a violation or an attempt to get around the ordinances in this particular case. So I’m fine. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Lew’s point was that there would be minimal effects on the neighborhood by this deck, and I agree, and I also think that since this is a residential encroachment of a minimal nature that the relief that you’re requesting, 12 feet from the 30 foot rear setback requirement and 32 feet of relief from the 50 foot setback requirement from a buffer zone is minimal. I don’t see it as substantial at all. So I don’t have a problem with this whatsoever. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t have a problem with it. It strikes me that this is definite improvement to the residential lot, and I can’t see that it has any kind of a detrimental effect on anybody else. So I think it comes across as a no-brainer. I have no problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with the other Board members. I have absolutely no problem with this. MR. THOMAS-All right. I say the same thing, that if Mr. Seeley had come before us before this deck was built, I think this deck would have been approved as it sits right now. I don’t see any detriment to the neighborhood. There’s no detrimental letters or notes from the neighbors, and I think it was a very nice project, well thought out. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-1999 RICHARD SEELEY, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: 1 Stephanie Lane. The applicant has constructed a 186 sq. ft. deck, and after the fact now requests relief. Specifically, the applicant requests 12 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum rear setback requirements of the old R-3 zone. Also, the applicant is requesting 32 feet of relief from the 50 foot buffer zone requirements. Moreover, since the existing structure and the proposed deck addition do not meet the required setbacks, relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure is requested pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 179-79. The benefit to the applicant is very straightforward. He would be permitted to maintain, construct and keep his outdoor recreational area, in other words, his deck. The feasible alternatives include simply downsizing, destroying or relocating the structure, and in all honesty, given the minimal nature of the relief requested, it is not feasible. The relief is not substantial, in my opinion, relative to the Ordinance. This is an unobtrusive, hidden, not readily observable deck in the rear of the house, which can’t be seen from, essentially, any properties around it, except possibly to the north, and then only if you try hard. The 12 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement and the 32 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement are insubstantial. There will be no effect, that I can tell, on the neighborhood. Certainly, those effects would not be characterized as 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) moderate or substantial, and while certainly the applicant should have known better than to build a deck and then come to us for relief, given his explanation as to the circumstances and the fact that he relied on his contractor, I don’t see the fifth requirement as any bar to the applicant, therefore I move the approval of the zoning variance. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. SEELEY-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-1999 TYPE II SFR-1A DONALD P. GROS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 4 COUNTRY COLONY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 120 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFR-1A ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 47-3-5 LOT SIZE: 0.38 ACRES SECTION 179-20 DONALD GROS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 70-1999, Donald P. Gros, Meeting Date: July 28, 1999 “Project Location: 4 Country Colony Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 120 sf addition and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement 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 a new protected entry into the existing residence. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited as a construction on the front of the home would require some level of review and relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal 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.): BP 99-390 issued 7/8/99 residential interior alterations Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed addition consists of an 8 by 10 entry with a 4 by 10 covered porch area. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STEC-And nothing from the County. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Gros, is there anything else you want to tell us about, talk about? MR. GROS-That about covers it. MR. STONE-What are you doing on the Glen Lake side of the house, the scaffolding? MR. GROS-The back side? MR. STONE-No, the left side as you face the house. You’ve got scaffolding up there. Is that for painting? MR. GROS-I’m putting vinyl siding on it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. GROS-The scaffolding is on the back. I’ll be taking it down, yes. MR. STONE-I was just curious what it was. That’s all. MR. THOMAS-Do you know how old this subdivision is? MR. GROS-I think in the 50’s. My house was built in ’54. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We didn’t have zoning back then. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. STONE-So the house is nonconforming, or is it right on the 30 foot? MR. BROWN-I think it’s right on, that’s what the drawing shows. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s 32. MR. STONE-Thirty-two. I’m sorry, yes, I see it there. MR. THOMAS-A corner lot, two fronts, two rears. Well, any questions for the applicant? It is pretty straightforward. MR. STONE-Yes, it is. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. STEC-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Gros? Do any of the Board members have anything to say about this application? MR. MC NALLY-I have nothing negative to say about it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Nor do I. MR. STEC-Nor do I. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So we might as well go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-1999 DONALD P. GROS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: 4 Country Colony Road. Applicant proposes construction of a 120 square foot addition on the front of the house and seeks front yard setback relief. Specifically, the applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement for the SFR-1A zone, 179-20. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: The benefit to the applicant would be that the applicant would be permitted to construct a new protected entry into the existing residence. Since the entry would be in front of the house, there are very few feasible alternatives for construction on the front of the house that would not require some level of review and relief. In this case, the 10 foot of relief from the 30 foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate. However, with no negative comments heard by any of the Board members, no concerns whatsoever, nor any concerns expressed by the neighbors, this amount of relief is really insignificant. There will be minimal effects on the neighborhood as a result of this action, and while the difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, to put a front entry on a house that has two front yards and mainly faces one road with a 30 foot setback requirement, to do anything would require a variance, and therefore, since I never really understand this self-created sometimes, I don’t think it has any bearing on this particular situation. Therefore, I move that we grant Area Variance No. 70-1999. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-Go get your building permit. MR. STONE-Just as a small point. Every time I read self-created on something, where the applicant wants to put something on the front of, obviously it’s self-created. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. THOMAS-We don’t make the rules, Lew, we just live by them. AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-1999 TYPE II WR-1A HILLTOP CONSTRUCTION OWNER: LAURIE GATES 75 PALMER DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 80 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND SEEKS HEIGHT AND SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. ALSO, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 144-1-29 & 33 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES, 0.14 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 TOM ALBRECHT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 62-1999, Hilltop Construction, Meeting Date: July 28, 1999 “Project Location: 75 Palmer Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an attached garage addition and a small addition to the residence. Relief Required: Applicant requests 5 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Also the applicant is requesting 5 feet of front setback relief from the 30 minimum, for the proposed residential addition. Additionally, an accessory structure may not be located closer than 10 feet to another structure on the property, the applicant’s plan appears to depict an approximate 8 foot separation. 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 area for both vehicle and equipment storage as well as construct additional living space. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives with regards to the garage may include relocation to meet the 10 foot separation requirement as well as downsizing to meet the height requirements. Alternatives for the additional living area appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief from the requirements may be interpreted as moderate. 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.): BP 91-385 issued 6/11/91 addition of a bedroom Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. There appear to be viable options available to the applicant, for at least some of the relief requested. The applicant has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the building department, that a compliant septic system can be installed on this property. The new septic system would comply with the requirements for upgrading when increasing floor area. A condition that no Certificate of Occupancy be issued until the system is installed would be reasonable. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STEC-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form 8 July 1999 Project Name: Hilltop Construction Owner: Laurie Gates ID #: QBY AV 62-1999 County Project No: July 99-29 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct an 80 sq. ft. addition and construction of a 576 square foot detached accessory structure and seeks height and setback relief from the requirements of the Waterfront One Acre zone. Also, the applicant is requesting relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: 75 Palmer Drive Tax Map No. 144-1-29 and 33 Staff Notes: The applicant is proposing to add a porch to the existing structure and to remove an existing garage and replace it with a new facility that will have less of a footprint than the existing detached garage. A copy of the applicant’s site drawing is included with the summary. Staff does not see anything that is significant to County resources with this application. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-All right. You are? MR. ALBRECHT-I’m Tom Albrecht, President of Hilltop. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. ALBRECHT-I think for clarification, I guess, and for my own benefit, in the notes that I've just heard, that this is a detached garage. MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s a typo. MR. ALBRECHT-Okay, and I guess my next thought on that is there is a Code regulation for not closer than 10 feet from a primary structure even though there is a fire separation? MR. BROWN-Yes, the building code and zoning code don’t go hand in hand. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. ALBRECHT-Okay. That’s not a big issue either way. I drew it in as eight foot separation. MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s what I said, approximately. MR. STONE-Where is the addition to the residence? I couldn’t find any drawing that suggested where that was. MR. ALBRECHT-Okay. If you were to look at, you probably have the sketches. MR. THOMAS-This is what we got right here. MR. STONE-We haven’t got that sketch. MR. ALBRECHT-You don’t have any of these sketches, okay. MR. STONE-This is it. MR. ALBRECHT-The building there and the garage that’s on that sketch is the existing structure that is there. The garage on that sketch, which is, I believe, this sketch here, that you’re speaking of. MR. STONE-Is the house really a trapezoid? MR. ALBRECHT-The garage, that was drawn off a surveyed map, believe it or not, but anyway. The garage that’s on that plan will be removed. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ALBRECHT-We will maintain the setback from the road for the new garage, in place of the old garage. The existing garage that is there is approximately 576 square feet that we would be removing, and if you’ve taken a look at it, it’s in very poor shape. MR. STONE-Yes, but it also says an addition to the house, though. MR. ALBRECHT-That’s right off to the left of the house, if you’re standing on Palmer Avenue looking at the house. It’s eight foot wide, 10 foot deep, on the left-hand corner. It would be on the southwest corner of the house, eight foot by ten foot. MR. HAYES-Out toward the road then? MR. ALBRECHT-No, it wouldn’t be toward the road. It would be parallel with the road. MR. STONE-Palmer is going along the river? MR. ALBRECHT-Going along the river, parallel with the river, right. MR. STONE-Between the garage and the house? MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-It’s a connector, then. MR. ALBRECHT-It’s a connecting area that’s expanding for her dining room table, if you will, and there’s also a connecting roof from that addition to the garage, a walkway. MR. STONE-Okay. So in other words, they’re going to be connected, the house and the garage? MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. MR. STONE-What does that do to this other thing, the 10 foot? MR. THOMAS-The 10 foot separation requirement, since they’re connected by a breezeway or walkway. MR. ALBRECHT-That’s just a roof connection, no walls. MR. BROWN-As far as the Zoning Ordinance or the Building Code? MR. THOMAS-No, the Zoning Ordinance. We don’t care about the Building Code. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. BROWN-Well, the Zoning Ordinance would require the building to be 10 feet. I don’t think that a walkway roof is really connection. It’s not like living space, habitable space, would constitute a connection. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-With Staalesen, where they had the hallway between the two. MR. STONE-So what wall are we talking from? Since the wall that seems to jut out. MR. BROWN-Whatever the two closest. MR. STONE-The two closest, where the internal house? MR. BROWN-Right. MR. HAYES-Not the eaves. MR. BROWN-Right, not the eaves, yes. MR. ALBRECHT-This is the living room expansion, eight feet by ten feet right here. MR. STONE-So this has got to be 10 feet, according to. MR. ALBRECHT-That’s drawn in as eight feet, but it doesn’t matter. That’s not an issue. If we need to move it two more feet, then so be it. I mean, that’s just arbitrary. MR. THOMAS-There’s other views in here, too. MR. MC NALLY-What’s the height of that? MR. ALBRECHT-Twenty-one, and the reason for the two story, it’s really a desired building that the owner would like, but she also doesn’t have a basement in that house. There’s no basement in that house. So storage is a real problem with this gal. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The living room addition’s going to be in a crawl space, over a crawl space? MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. MR. STONE-So what’s going to be upstairs? MR. ALBRECHT-Storage, unfinished. MR. STONE-Are these, there are two tax map numbers here. Are these joined by deed or do you have a garage on a lot with a non-principle building? MR. ALBRECHT-We had to do some paperwork, last minute paperwork, at the County office, to have her signature put on the paperwork, because these are joined as one parcel, but it was never documented in the County as such. So that’s been taken care of. MR. STONE-Okay. So they’re one tax map number? MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. MR. STONE-Therefore we don’t have that problem. MR. ALBRECHT-Yes, and we are conforming the septic system. I mean, we’re able to just squeeze that in there. So since we are adding on just 80 square feet of living space, she is upgrading the septic system. MR. THOMAS-How high is the existing house right now? MR. ALBRECHT-It’s a single story, ranch, maybe 14 feet, I’m guessing. MR. THOMAS-And the garage with the storage over it is 21? MR. ALBRECHT-Twenty-one, max. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. STONE-You’re aware you appear here on a night when we have been pretty tough on garages. MR. ALBRECHT-Elevations, also. MR. STONE-That’s what I meant, elevations. MR. ALBRECHT-Well, I think there are definitely needs around the lake where that’s important. MR. STONE-But you’re also in a WR-1A zone. MR. ALBRECHT-I realize that. MR. THOMAS-If there’s no more questions for the applicant, or the applicant’s agent in this case, I’ll open the public hearing. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed. Any correspondence? MR. STEC-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant’s agent? If not, lets talk about. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, while we have been giving full examination to heights and garages today, in this particular case, I think there’s a substantial difference between five feet of relief and the other application, and I also don’t think it’s impacting anybody else’s view in this circumstance. The agent’s applicant pointed out that the existing house doesn’t have a basement, and therefore, the need for storage certainly seems relevant. I know that the Chairman’s pointed out in some of our discussions earlier, too, that the garage issue is becoming a big thing, but we do live in an area where protection for vehicles and internal storage is certainly important, and, therefore, as far as the benefit to the applicant, I think that in our particular circumstances, that upgrading your property by upgrading your garage is a natural fact of living in an area that we live in in Upstate New York. So as far as feasible alternatives, I think that they could combine the two lots, and putting a garage onto what was already, could have been possibly an existing lot is, you know, I think that the alternatives are limited if she wished to gain the storage, and it’s not a stretch, as far as the other things she could have done. Is the relief substantial? I don’t believe that it is. I think it’s pretty minimal in this particular circumstance, and the applicant’s agent has already pointed out that, as far as the structures, the separation and the structure, two feet of relief, or possibly changing it to ten, I really don’t think that my decision would rotate on either one of those two facts. So I think it’s a reasonable (lost word). I think that on balance the weight falls in favor of the applicant in this particular circumstance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Jaime’s points are well taken. The addition to the house, and the breezeway between this new addition and the garage isn’t a problem. I don’t have a problem with the distance to between the two buildings at all. I’d like to see the height be kept within 16 feet, but five feet of extra relief in these circumstances, where there’s no other storage, because of the proximity to the river or otherwise, doesn’t pose a problem to me. So I would be in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I generally feel the same way. I think in this particular situation that the additional height on the garage is not going to be a problem for anybody’s view or the way that the house and the garage will appear once it’s finished, and given that the garage is going to be attached, at least by a roof, to the house, I don’t have any problem with the garage being eight feet from the house rather than 10 feet. I’m inclined to approve. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with the other Board members. I think this particular height issue stands on its own, differently from the others, in that there is a valid storage issue involved, for starters, and number two, there is no impact on any of the neighbors, as far as the Waterfront residential zoning of the lot. So with that said, I’m in favor of approving. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. STONE-Well, I’m not quite in agreement with my fellow Board members, but I would like to throw out a suggestion. Storage is important. The applicant is proposing a garage of 576 square feet. Nine hundred square foot is allowed. Why can’t we put it within the 16 foot, make it 900 foot, and apportion part of it off for storage? This way we don’t get into the height thing. We don’t have to grant a variance for the height. You’re allowed 900. That gives you, looking for 960, you’d get 900 without a problem. It would make me feel a lot better, because if we don’t have to grant a variance, I always feel better than if we do have to grant one. I also look at the definition of a garage, and this is what we’re talking about, as an accessory building used primarily to shelter no more than three automobiles. The storage is additional, but there’s plenty of room to make a storage area on the 900 square foot floor area. MR. THOMAS-I have a question on that though. Will that start impeding the green space on that lot? MR. STONE-It’s a big lot, isn’t it? MR. ALBRECHT-Yes, because it’s two lots, but that’s the idea. MR. STONE-You’ve got all this area here. MR. ALBRECHT-Also to gain some privacy behind the garage. I mean, she’s thinking of maybe a pool down the road, and she would like it to go behind the garage. MR. STONE-So you widen it out. MR. ALBRECHT-Well, I’m just saying, it gives her some privacy in the back corner. MR. STONE-You’d get more if you widened the front of the garage and put the pool behind the garage. You’d get more buffer. It’s just a suggestion. I've said what I thought. MR. THOMAS-You’ve got to watch that septic system. MR. STONE-Well, I don’t think we’re talking incursion on the septic system. MR. THOMAS-Well, the distance from the wells, both hers and the neighbor’s, there’s very limited space where that field can go. MR. ALBRECHT-It’s very limited. It can only go in one spot. MR. THOMAS-I think everything has to go from there. MR. STONE-If you widen this, if you go out to here on this driveway area that exists now, you’re probably going to be fine, and get the 900 this way. This way we get rid of the height, because the less relief we grant that way, based upon what we’ve heard tonight, the better off we are, but obviously there’s enough vote to do it without it, but that’s what I feel. MR. THOMAS-Well, your input is important. MR. STONE-I realize it is. I wouldn’t have made it if I didn’t. MR. ALBRECHT-Aesthetically, it is important to the owner that she has a gambrel roof garage, for whatever reason. So, your point well taken. MR. STONE-She can have that at 16 feet. You mean the peaked roof? MR. THOMAS-No, a gambrel roof. MR. ALBRECHT-Gambrel, the barn style roof. MR. STONE-Well, how high does that have to be, if you don’t have a second story? MR. ALBRECHT-Well, you’re not going to gain the storage in the second story, if you maintain the 16 feet. MR. STONE-No, but you get the storage from around the cars. As I say, it’s a suggestion. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. The style of the gambrel roof, it would really become a gable roof, then, a standard garage roof, if you will. MR. STEC-You make that wider, you’re going to have a harder time fitting that gambrel on. MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. It’s really not very attractive to make it larger. Then it becomes too massive of a structure, and I wouldn’t be in favor of that, aesthetically. MR. STONE-As I say, I’m not totally happy with 21, but you don’t need my vote. So it doesn’t make any difference. If we want to go that way, we go. MR. THOMAS-I don’t see a problem with the way the applicant has submitted. I think that it, you know, it’s a good plan, and the river, I do believe, is way below the level of this lot. MR. ALBRECHT-It is. MR. THOMAS-So you’re not going to have a view from the river being obstructed, or a view from the river to the land being obstructed, as much as if this land were level with the river. It sits on a not well traveled road, and I really don’t see any problem with it because the applicant does need storage, since she doesn’t have a basement in the house. Whereas, in the other applications, storage wasn’t the question. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-1999 HILLTOP CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 75 Palmer Drive. The applicant has proposed construction of a detached garage addition and a small addition to the residence. Specifically, the applicant has requested five feet of relief from the sixteen- foot maximum height requirement of the Waterfront One Acre zone, Section 179-16. Also, the applicant is requesting five feet of front setback relief from the minimum 30 for the proposed residential addition. Additionally, an accessory structure may not be located closer than 10 feet to another, and we grant two feet of relief from the 10-foot minimum separation requirement. The benefit to the applicant is that the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired size and style detached garage for vehicle storage, as well as some additional living space. While feasible alternatives were identified by Mr. Stone, specifically that a compliant garage could be constructed, we felt that the relief was minimal and the benefit to the applicant to design and build the desired style garage overweighed this feasible alternative, which we recognize, and also that the effects on the neighborhood would be minimal, in that no one complained and we can foresee no visual impacts for any of the neighbors with the construction of the garage, and the difficulty I suppose you could say is self-created, in that a feasible alternative exists, but the benefit to the applicant outweighs any negative impacts on the community, and the relief is minimal, and with that, I move that we approve the variance request. I condition this that no Certificate of Occupancy should be issued until the new septic system is installed. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. THOMAS-There’s a thing here in the Staff notes, the last sentence. MR. STEC- I condition this that no Certificate of Occupancy should be issued until the new septic system is installed. MR. THOMAS-Any problem with that? MR. ALBRECHT-No problem MR. THOMAS-Okay. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. ALBRECHT-Thanks, fellas. MR. THOMAS-You’re quite welcome. We’ve got two sets of minutes. We tried to do them last week, but we couldn’t. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/99) MR. STONE-We couldn’t do them because some people weren’t here. CORRECTION OF MINUTES May 26, 1999: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 26, 1999 MINUTES, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stec ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham June 16, 1999: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 16, 1999 MINUTES, Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-Okay. That takes care of the notes. Does anybody have anything else for the good of the Board? If not, I’ll make a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 44