Loading...
1999-11-17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN DANIEL STEC CHARLES ABBOTT ROBERT MC NALLY LEWIS STONE PAUL HAYES MEMBERS ABSENT CHARLES MC NULTY CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. THOMAS-The first thing, we want to welcome a new Zoning Board of Appeals member, Charles Abbate. I don’t have any background on him, but he’s here for the term from November 1, 1999 through December 31, 2004, with no chance for parole. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 96-1999 TYPE II WR-1A, CEA HOWLAND CONSTRUCTION OWNER: STEVEN & CATHIE SCHONWETTER LAST HOUSE ON HOLIDAY POINT, OFF CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 2 SHED DORMERS; AND A 30 SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH AND SEEKS SHORELINE SETBACK RELIEF AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SPR # 58-99 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-24.1 LOT SIZE: 0.20 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 DEAN HOWLAND, PRESENT MR. STEC-And I have from the County, recommendation was a default recommendation of approval. “Project Name: Howland Construction Owner: Steven & Cathie Schonwetter ID #: QBY AV 96-1999 County Project #: November 99-35 Current Zoning: Waterfront 1 Acre The applicant proposes to construct two shed dormers and remove 22 feet of existing building to add 30 square feet of covered porch. The shoreline relief and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure are requested by the applicant. Site Location: Last house on Holiday Point off Cleverdale Road Staff Notes: A copy of the applicant’s drawing is included with the summaries. As it may be seen on the drawing, the applicant is proposing a minor modification to existing structure. Staff does not believe there’s any significant impact on County resources since there is no further encroachment on the lake and the degree of modification to this structure is minimal. County Planning Board Recommendation: Default recommendation of approval due to lack of quorum at meeting.” Signed Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 96-1999, Howland Construction, Meeting Date: November 17, 1999 “Project Location: Holiday Point, off Seelye Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes interior alterations and the addition of a 30 sf covered porch and seeks shoreline setback relief as well as relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 32 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Additionally, the applicant is requesting relief for the expansion of a non- conforming structure per § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would gain a sheltered entry porch. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. Virtually any development on this parcel would require some form of relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 32 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, however the proposal is for a 30 sf porch. 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, however, the pre- existing nature of the lot may contribute to the difficulty. Parcel History (construction/site 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) plan/variance, etc.): SPR 16-99 Expansion of a non conforming structure in a CEA no action AV 22-99 Shoreline setbacks, FAR Exp. of N/C structure tabled 7/21/99 Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Previous variance applications for this parcel included a large carport addition as well as additional second story floor area. This proposal includes a 30 square foot covered entry porch and an overall decrease in the floor area ratio. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-That does it. Mr. Howland. MR. HOWLAND-As you know, we’ve been here before, and we’ve cut the project back again. The last time we were here, we had a shed that we were trying to ask you for to put on the west side of the building, which we’ve eliminated, decided to leave the pre-existing shed where it is right now, and we’ve cut back the carport, and we’re just asking for the porch. The dormers, if you recall last time, I did ask the question, there was no motion on it or anything, if that was anything that you were against, and no one seemed to be against that at the time. So we’re just asking for a covered entry porch, and it’s about the minimal size I can make it to have them stand under. If there’s any questions, I have larger prints here if anybody would like to see them. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Howland? MR. STONE-Just one question. That thing you’re going to take out, that thing to the south? What is that? I know you told us the last time. MR. HOWLAND-There’s an oil tank in there, and I’m not sure if it’s just. MR. STONE-So the oil tank is partly in the house and partly outside of the house? MR. HOWLAND-No. The oil tank is in that shed. MR. STONE-Then it’s very narrow. I didn’t realize that. Okay. MR. HOWLAND-And what else is there I don’t know. I’ve never opened it up. MR. THOMAS-Afraid to? MR. HOWLAND-Yes, it might be. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARY ELLEN MERRIGAN MRS. MERRIGAN-My name is Mary Ellen Merrigan. I live on Seelye Road in Cleverdale, and I’ve been to these meetings before. This is the first time I’ve ever spoken in favor of a project because I’m very concerned about my neighborhood, and I’ve taken the time to come here and oppose things that I thought were a problem. I’ve looked at their plans, and I think it’s an asset to the neighborhood, and I’ve seen the other homes that Dean has built in our neighborhood, and they’re terrific. So I don’t have any problem with it. I don’t think that it creates any difficulties for the neighbors. So I would greatly support it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? JIM MERRIGAN DR. MERRIGAN-My name is Jim Merrigan, and I also live on Seelye Road with my wife Mary Ellen, and I would just like to say that I know that house very well and have also come to these meetings and spoken against projects that I thought were inappropriate and irresponsible, and I would just like to say that I’ve looked at these plans, and I think it would actually enhance the property and the home, and I support it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you, Dr. Merrigan. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. STEC-Yes. I have a fax from Richard O’Keefe, dated November 17, 1999. “Dear Mr. Thomas: I am the owner of 10 Holiday Point Drive. I am writing this letter in lieu of my appearing at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on November 17, 1999. I’m in favor of the application for a variance by my neighbors Steven & Cathie Schonwetter. I urge the Board to consider it favorably. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Richard J. O’Keefe” And that’s all of the correspondence. MR. THOMAS-That’s all of the correspondence. All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Mr. Howland? All right. If not, we’ll talk about it. We’ll start with Lew. MR. STONE-They call me the Lake Czar, but in this particular case, I wish the house weren’t there. I don’t mean this personally. I wish it weren’t that close to the lake, but having the fact that it is, and what you’re trying to do to the house, to me, is certainly an asset to the house, and I think it will enhance the property without hurting the lake and without even hurting the appearance from the lake of the shore, because I think it’s an attractive thing that you’re doing. I think the dormers which were not on the agenda here, but I think the dormers will make it a nicer house, and certainly a stoop to get in, and to be protected as you try to unlock the door and all that sort of stuff I think is a very positive thing, and certainly if we consider the things that we have to consider, the benefit to the applicant, in this case, far outweighs the detriment to the community, and I’m certainly in favor of it. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with Lew. I think in this case, considering the overall plans that are involved here, I think it will a benefit to the neighborhood and the other camps in the area. If I lived there, I would certainly be happy about the ideas set forth here. I visited the property tonight, and the wind was blowing and certainly with the climate we live in, a covered porch might be a necessity, if anything. So I think the relief is minimal, and I think the benefit to the applicant, in this case, outweighs any negative, if there is any at all. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree. The relief is not substantial relative to the Ordinance. The effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal, particularly in view of the fact they’ve scaled back their project, compared to what it was last time. I’m in favor of the proposal tonight. MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I have no comment. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with the rest of the Board, and I applaud the applicant for sticking with it and not giving up. This is a much better proposal. It’s an easy proposal, relative to the other lake proposals we commonly see, and the benefit far outweighs any effect on the lake and any effects would be minimal, and relief just isn’t substantial anyway. So I’m in favor. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. I don’t think there’s really any substantial relief being asked here, compared to what the applicant had started out to ask for earlier in the year. It’s like Jaime said, you need to have a covered entrance to the house in the climate we live in. So I don’t have any problem with it, either. Having said that, I will ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 96-1999 HOWLAND CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Holiday Point off Seelye Road. The applicant proposes interior alterations and the addition of a 30 square foot covered porch, and seeks shoreline setback relief, as well as relief from the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Specifically, the applicant requests 32 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Additionally, the applicant is requesting relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, per Section 179-79. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be able to construct the porch as depicted. Feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives are limited, based on the nature and position of the house on the lot to where any covered porch or addition would need relief. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that 32 feet of relief from a 50 foot requirement is substantial in this case, but it is only for a 30 square foot porch, which is not substantial, in my opinion. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that the construction of the porch and the additional work on the house will have a positive impact on the neighborhood, and is the difficulty self-created? I don’t believe that it is, based on the fact of how the house is situated on the lot. I think that any addition 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) or any porch would need some relief. So, cumulatively, I think that the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I move for its approval. Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNulty MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. STONE-The only thing I would ask, Mr. Howland, is that we put a moose crossing sign up, on the property a little further to the north. That is one big statute, on the Mahoney property. MR. HOWLAND-All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 97-1999 TYPE II WR-3A CEA GEORGE W. & GAIL T. GORE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE FITZGERALD ROAD, END OF APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 42-1- 1.3 LOT SIZE: 4.7 ACRES SECTION 179-16 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STEC-And nothing from the County. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 97-1999, George W. & Gail T. Gore, Meeting Date: November 17, 1999 “Project Location: Fitzgerald Road, end of Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling and seeks relief from the maximum height requirement. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6.8 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-3A 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 the desired house in the preferred configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguring the structure to meet the height limitation. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 6.8 feet of relief from the 28 foot height requirement may be interpreted as moderate. (25%) 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, as there appears to be feasible alternatives. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP99-633 single family dwelling – pending Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the proposed structure may not present a significant visual impact from the lake, the appearance of a 34.8 foot tall structure in a residential area may present a substantial visual impact on residents, using the private drive directly “below” the proposed construction. A proposal depicting a compliant structure, with no walk out basement, was presented in the original building permit application. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-Mr. O’Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and I’m representing the applicants, and with me tonight is George Gore who is one of the applicants. Basically, what we have is a very straightforward type application. We’re asking for relief from the shoreline height requirement for this house, and we’re asking for relief from 28 feet to 34 feet 8 inches. If we were building this house in Twicwood or if we were building it anyplace else, we would not be asking for this relief. We would not be required to ask for this relief. The house, as it’s been proposed, is a standard type house for this type quality of house. What they are looking for is a 10 foot ceiling on the first floor and a 9 foot ceiling on the second floor, and that, in part, contributes to the height requirement that we’re looking for, but really what contributes to it is the lot itself. If you’ve been out there, and I know that you all have been out there and taken a look at it, because we’re building on a slope, where we have chosen to build this house, there aren’t a lot of choices without incurring a lot of additional expense and wasting a lot of effort. If we were to dig the house down in, we then create a significant drainage problem where the sloping will come back in, and where we’re going to be below most of the grade behind the house. We’re trying to build so that we’re at a plateau as the grade comes to the house, not down in and sunk in. If we don’t build down in, and we try and build the garage at the level that the driveway would come in naturally, the garage floor would probably be about just below the second floor level of the house, 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) and not be on a walk in basis to the first floor. The other alternative is bringing in an enormous amount of fill, and building up the front of the lot, and back filling against the same house, and then having only exposed two feet of basement, and therefore then complying with the requirements. That would prevent us from having a walkout basement, which is one of the features of the house that we would really like to have, and all this considered, there’s very little impact. I’ve talked to Staff a little bit today. Staff had one comment, to me, as to whether or not we had a deed, and I think you had a problem once before not having a deed. We have two deeds to the property. They were recorded. I haven’t gotten them back from the County Clerk’s Office yet, that were recorded November 10, 1999. If you look at the deeds, they both, because there was an outstanding interest in the property, we’ve been at this for quite a while. The first deed was dated August 25, 1999. That’s when we thought we were going to close, and we didn’t close until November, when we actually recorded the deeds. I’ll submit those to Staff, for your files. That’s nothing more than a meets and bounds description. We did get an estimate from an excavator who is going to do the excavation for the house, and if we were going to try and sink this house down in, and back fill, we would end up with an additional expense of $9840, in addition to the normal excavation expenses for the foundation, and if we did sink it in to the ground, so that we, or we brought fill into the front, is the $9840 expense. If we dug into the hill, in addition to having the problems with the garage floor not being level with the first floor of the house, we would have $7860 of additional expense because of the drainage problems that we would create, and the culverts that we would have to install, trying to avoid them, although in this excavator’s opinion, it probably then would always be subject to a wet basement, because of the amount of hill that drains down into this, and I’ll submit those to you, also. If you go back to when the height requirement was discussed, and first adopted, for lakeshore property, I think most of you will recall that a lot of the discussion was there were two goals that were going to be maintained, if you could. One, you didn’t want to block the view of anybody back land. You didn’t want to have large structures out on the lakeshore edge, blocking whatever view you might have from behind. You also did not want to create a wall of houses from the lake looking in. What we propose does neither of those. If you take a look at our site, and we gave you a small copy of the map. We’ve got a larger copy of it. This lot is 4.7 acres. The house, as we’ve placed it on the lot, is here. Access is from Fitzgerald Road, and it will go to a private driveway at the end of Fitzgerald Road, go up onto the lot, and then over to the house. This house will not be visible above the tree lines behind the house. The hill goes up substantially behind it. So it’s not going to be sticking out, and if you take a look at the change in grade coming down, there’s a change of grade to the private driveway that goes down that services the houses that are along the lake. There’s probably about a 10 foot differential there, and if you go from that level down to the lake, there’s probably about another 20 feet. If you stood down on the shore of the lake and looked up at that house, you may see part of the top of it, but you won’t see the first floor. You won’t see the basement area, or the exposed basement area. You won’t see the first floor, and you may see above that. There’s substantial trees in front of that which they intend to maintain. They have not clear cut the lot in the area that they’re doing this, and if you stand on the road, you probably still are not going to see anything until you look at the top part of the first floor. Because of the change in the grade. There’s a bank there that you’ve got to look up over, and that’s not, you’re just not going to see it. Impact, I don’t know of any impact at all that this is going to have. The houses over in this area. MR. HAYES-How far away from the lake is the front of the house? MR. O'CONNOR-The front of the house is 225 feet from the nearest corner of lake frontage. MR. STONE-And that’s the only lake frontage that property has, is that 90 feet? MR. O'CONNOR-Ninety-one feet, yes, and in actuality, when they staked it out, if you saw the blue stakes, they actually moved it back four feet from what we had measured out on this as to where it was going to be. So I think we said 225 on the map that we submitted. It should be 229 feet. When they looked at this lot, they had other considerations. They talked about building on the top of the hill. In fact, you will see that they cleared on the top of the hill, and actually thought about building up there. That would be much more visible, and they decided not to do that, try to put it down in, try to have it background into the hill, instead of having a large house on the top of the land where it’s flatter. They also talked about whether or not they would try to use and actually shoe horn something in down by their frontage, and maybe relocate that private driveway, which would, again, be more visible. I think what they’ve tried to do is compromise as much as possible, and still maintain the quality of house that they want, and the impact, I just don’t know of an impact. There’s nobody behind this property. This is part of the Michaels Group, which is over here on Bay Road, and this is their common area in the back. That’s a large hill on the top, large bank. I don’t even know if they have access, well, they could walk to it, but there’s no vehicle access through there. MR. STONE-That abuts Surrey Field? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. This is Surrey Field right here, this is Surrey Field. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) MR. HAYES-And that’s committed by deed to be like forever? MR. O'CONNOR-I think it is. MR. STONE-That’s the variance we granted was to make sure that was that way, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-The nearest house is probably the Gardner house, which is down in here, but if you stand where that house is, you can’t see but the roof of the Gardner house. MR. STONE-That’s an easement, Mike, that the three or four people at the end of that driveway have, a permanent easement? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a permanent deeded right-of-way, 12 feet wide. Bob Nolan owned all this land, and what he did is he sold off the lake frontage in 50 foot lots. Some of them have been combined into bigger than 50 foot lots. Chris Mozal is out here. You’ve seen her property. She’s down in here some place, and that’s, these people have this right-of-way through here. It’s a private road, though, all these roads. My place is right, I come in this driveway right here, come across this corner, and my home is right in here. Floyd’s house, this is Floyd Rourke’s house, is to the front of his lot here. I don’t know if Floyd can actually even see this house, or will see the house when it’s built. My son has this property under contract, and he also has the piece that would square off here under contract. MR. HAYES-I take it that the O’Connors don’t object, then. MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t object to it. MR. STONE-Were you going to make a statement? MR. O'CONNOR-I could make that statement for the record, if you want. My son is going to build, probably, at the top of the hill, before you go down. MR. STONE-Where is the exit from the basement on this thing? Is that that straight line there? It looks as if you’re coming out here, but boy, it looks pretty low. MR. O'CONNOR-Right here. There will be a built up area at the center of the house that will have a retaining wall on both sides of the entrance, and these are two open doors, the two doors coming out of the basement. MR. STONE-And that’s the right side of the lower elevation. MR. O'CONNOR-This is the lakeside. MR. STONE-Yes, but I mean, that’s the same as the right side, the thing below there. MR. O'CONNOR-This is right here. MR. STONE-It’s right there, yes. It just looks low, from that drawing. MR. O'CONNOR-And we’ve had the discussion before, when you actually get into talking about the height. The height we’re talking about is not the front porch part, not the part that’s most visible. We’re talking about this height, and that’s if you drop a plumb bob, here. Go back five feet, and you’re probably in compliance, because of the topographical. You could draw a line across there like that, and you probably could have a surveyor engineer it. Maybe if you put a dormer type flat roof on there you’d be in compliance anyway, but I think it would take a lot away, architecturally. MR. STONE-You weren’t suggesting that. MR. O'CONNOR-No, I’m not suggesting that. It’s actually a very unique lot, in that it offers us the opportunity to say, yes, we’re asking for a variance, but there really is no impact, based upon the topographical features of the lot. As I said, and Staff made a comment that we submitted for a building plan a house that would comply. We took the same house plans, and we showed that we’re going to fill in the basement. We have talked, with weather and everything else, not knowing what we were doing, we might start actual putting in foundations, and then we said, no, we won’t do that. We’re better off waiting. We don’t want somebody to think that we’re presuming something or trying to get ahead of you. So we’ve awaited that. We have not acted on that building permit. MR. STONE-The front of this house is facing northwest, I gather? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) MR. STONE-It’s facing, well, toward the piece of shoreline that Mr. Gore owns. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. This map probably shows it better, and I’ll pass this map around to you, because this has the north arrow. I don’t think your map has the north arrow. MR. STONE-No, it doesn’t. MR. O'CONNOR-It doesn’t have the north arrow on it. This is the lake right here. I’m told that the lake level, sea level, is like 398 feet. The back of the ridge is like 490 feet. We’re going to fit into that ridge. You’re not going to see it at all. These houses right in here can’t even see over this. There’s a hill. This is like a hill that goes back into a flat area. If you were up there, you saw the blue staking, and you saw where the power lines that came across the lot. It’s near the lake, but not on the lake. MR. STONE-I think that’s its saving grace, if there is any, that it isn’t on the lake. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if the intent was to go that far back, or the intent was. MR. STONE-You mean with the waterfront zoning? MR. O'CONNOR-With the height requirement, in all honesty. We’re not out between two 50 foot lots. We’re not building on top of somebody. I mean, it’s 4.7 acres. That’s got to be the biggest residential lot on that side of the lake, and I can almost, maybe Dr. Kim’s, down at the beginning of Mannis and Fitzgerald Road, might be close to that, but I mean, there’s no other lot that compares to that. So the idea is you will save us a great deal of cost in construction by allowing us to do this. We can build this house, if we want to jerry man the fill on the front of the house, and have the same height requirements, or we can dig it in and maybe have a drainage problem in the back, and if you drove up on to the land, you’ll see what we’re trying to do is get a garage at that level that you drive in, and not have a driveway that goes up and then goes down in. MR. STONE-It would be helpful to have elevation lines on this drawing. I mean, we looked at it, I mean, I looked at it, but. MR. O'CONNOR-Nobody has done topographical. I tried to find out, on the prior surveys, if there was a topographical survey, and part of the idea of having a walkout basement is that, I know you don’t get into personal circumstances, but Mrs. Gore’s father has lived with him the last 10 years, and when he is there, when he’s well, they want to have a place where he can have a little bit of privacy and walk out without going back up through the whole house, and they lived in Bedford Close, and if you take a look at the house that they had in Bedford Close, the quality of what they do, this will be an addition to the neighborhood, well landscaped, and not an impact. MR. STONE-This will be a year round home, obviously. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Is there going to be any tree cutting on the property? GEORGE GORE MR. GORE-We’ll take down a few trees, but as minimum as possible. MR. MC NALLY-In the direction of the lake, do you have any particular plans? MR. GORE-Obviously, we’d like to take down the amounts allowed us, so that we could get a little better view of the lake, but as little as possible. MR. O'CONNOR-He could probably build a dock, or try to build a dock on there, have a walk dow there. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? All right. I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS MOZAL MRS. MOZAL-My name is Chris Mozal. Mike mentioned my presence in the back row. This is both in favor and a concern along with it. I think the house, this is the first I’ve seen the plans. It 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) looks beautiful. I’ve met Mr. Gore. He’s been very cooperative in dealing with my husband Rich and I. We own the adjacent property which borders his on top of the ridge, and that’s my concern. When he talked about the first chosen site to build, trees were cut down that were on our property. I’ve spoken to Mr. Gore previous to the meeting, and he’s said that the area is cleaned up, but tomorrow I’d like to walk up there and make sure it is, with his permission, and if not, I do have concern that what he’s cut down I’d like him to clean, because there’s quite a mess up there, was. So, I’m in favor of the application. MR. THOMAS-All right. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. STEC-Yes. I have a fax dated November 15, 1999, from Robert S. Wilson. “Dear Mr. Thomas: I have received notice of the variance request for George and Gail T. Gore to build a house on Fitzgerald Road. They are seeking relief from the existing height restrictions. I cannot attend the meeting, but I did want to voice my opposition to granting the variance. Respectfully, Robert S. Wilson, 75 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury, NY.” MR. THOMAS-And that’s it? MR. STEC-That’s it. MR. STONE-Could you tell us where that is? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not on that map. Wilson is over here. MR. STONE-Okay, and you’re in here, you’re saying. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m right there, and my son is right there, and probably going to build a house between Wilson and this house, or he’s going to build something, it’ll be a beach area down there. Wilson can’t see this house. He can’t see the lot. He comes in off this little driveway. It used to be Clear’s house. As to the trees that were mentioned, George has had some discussions with his excavator, and there apparently was a problem, and it was cleaned up three weeks ago. The top of that hill where we’re talking about, people can’t get to unless they go up through George’s property. If you tried to walk up from the lake side of the lots that have access up there, you’d have a real tough time, but we will assure you and have no problem assuring you, or even taking a condition, that that is taken care of. MR. GORE-I’ll drive you up, Chris, any time. MR. STONE-I’m curious just why trees were cut way back up in the northeast corner of the lot, if the house was never even contemplated for being that high? MR. GORE-That was contemplated. MR. STONE-Way up in the corner? MR. O'CONNOR-The house was contemplated. MR. STONE-In the northeast corner. Okay. I missed that. I’m sorry. MR. GORE-Better judgment, after we got up there and saw the severity of the slope, coming down from that plateau, it would be impossible in the wintertime. Absolutely impossible. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. GORE-So unfortunately we had already cleared that. MR. STONE-I’ve got you. MR. GORE-But Chris is more than welcome to go up there, and I’d be glad to go up there with you, Chris, and discuss any problems, if there are any. MR. THOMAS-All right. So I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant, or for Mr. O’Connor? All right. It’s time to talk about it. Jaime? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) MR. HAYES-Well, I believe that implicit in the Waterfront height requirement zoning is the idea, as Mr. O’Connor pointed out, to reduce or eliminate people building camps or permanent homes that block the view of their neighbors, or people from visualization from the lake, seeing these, a wall of housing that was too high and disportionate to the environment that we live in, or we like to live in, but in this particular case, I think the house itself is 229 feet back from the lake, and in my mind, that would eliminate a great deal of those concerns, if not totally, in this particular circumstance. The lot itself is 4.7 acres, which is a substantial piece of property. This house, in no way, is an oversized too tall house on a too small lot. In fact, anyone that would purchase a lot of this size is most probably going to be looking to build a house of significant size. I would be if I had spent the money for this lot. Part of the reason we’re even entertaining this relief for 34.8 feet is because it’s in a Waterfront Residential zone. As I thumb through the Code book with Bob, other zoning districts allowed houses to be up to 40 feet high, right in Queensbury. So, again, it’s not a stretch in my mind at all, versus the other requirements in our Town, and finally, we’ve dealt with this exact circumstance on Glen Lake because of the pitch, so often associated with the lakeshore, where, at a certain point in the house, even ones that are, plans that are well done, we end up with a circumstance where some kind of height requirement is exceeded, and the applicant’s are looking for minimal relief to construct a house that looks like it goes with the land, as does these plans. So, in the cumulative sense, I think that the applicant’s desire to have a dry basement, have a driveway come in where it would logically come in, in my mind, into a house, makes for this being the most logical alternative to bringing in fill or digging a foundation in to the ground where they don’t want to. So, I guess in my mind, the 6.8 feet of relief, 229 feet back from the lake, is not substantial, and I believe that there will be no real effects on the neighborhood or community, in the cumulative sense. So I don’t have a problem with the application. I’m in favor. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Well, with the exception of my concern about trees, I agree with Jaime, and I trust Mr. O’Connor and Mr. Gore to do a good job, when it comes to building a house without taking down that many trees. So I’d be in favor of the proposal. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-No comment. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with what I’ve heard from the rest of the Board. I think that 4.7 acres is a very large lot, especially for lakefront. We’re 225 feet from the lake. We were just talking about a corner of the top of the house because of the pitch. We’ve seen this before, and I’ve mentioned it before, but I think it’s worth mentioning again. I think with the new look that we’re taking at the Zoning Ordinance, it might be worthwhile to graduate the height requirements as a function of the distance from the lakefront. Clearly, six or seven feet of relief from something that’s only 50 feet of the lake is one thing. That’s quite different from something that might be 2 or 300 feet from the lake, but yet be in the same zone. So I would suggest that we may want to look at putting something like that into the Code because we see this often. It’s usually just a corner of the house, and it’s due to the topography, and I share Bob’s concern about cutting down trees. Although it’s impossible to say we’ll only take five or we’ll only take ten, so we’ll have to rely on the applicant’s judgment, and their word. I don’t think there’s any way you could write it in to say, don’t cut down any trees, or just cut down three trees or whatever. So I’m willing to go on faith there, but as far as the benefit to the applicant and the weight of the five tests, I don’t have a problem granting this variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Common sense says that this is not a waterfront property in the true sense. We’re not, this house is not going to be on the lake. It’s very far distant from the lake, 229 feet has been said. It’s on the other side of what will be a permanent easement, a permanent right-of-way for the neighbors on the other side. Yes, it’s six feet of relief from twenty-eight feet, but I think as Jaime has correctly said, if this were in a normal neighborhood, it would be well under the 40 foot requirement, and just because it happens to be in the waterfront zone doesn’t mean that this house should automatically be rejected. I’m in favor of it. I do listen to Mr. Stec, and I think it is something that the zoning steering committee should look at, should the waterfront zone go back this far. I think it’s absolutely something we should look at. In this particular case, it is so far back from the lake, and with the lay of the land, I have no problem with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I think everything has been said that needs to be said. Bob brought up the point about maintaining the tree cover in front of the building, and Dan said to take it on Mr. O’Connor or Mr. Gore’s good faith. One thing I had concern with was runoff on the property, but this has to go before the Planning Board because it’s in a CEA, and I think they will address that. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) MR. BROWN-He’s not required to go to the Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-He’s not? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not a nonconforming lot. It’s very unusual to have a lot that conforms. MR. THOMAS-That’s why I’m so confused. MR. STONE-It’s usually .47 or less. MR. THOMAS-But it’s the runoff onto the other lots. Runoff would be a concern of mine, but I think that’ll take care of, and as long as it doesn’t encroach on other people’s properties, and the only other thing was just what Mrs. Mozal said about the trees that were accidentally cut on her property, that the debris would be cleaned up and taken care of and hopefully other trees replaced that were cut down. So I have no problem with this. The height, as everybody has said, is really due to the slope of the land, and hopefully Councilman Elect Stec will take care of that. MR. STEC-I’ll do what I can, for the people of the Town. MR. THOMAS-All right. So, having said that, I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 97-1999 GEORGE W. & GAIL T. GORE, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Fitzgerald Road. The applicant proposes the construction of a single family dwelling and seeks relief from the maximum height requirement. Specifically, the applicant asks for 6.8 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-3A zone, that is Section 179-16 of the Zoning Code. The benefit to the applicant is that they would be permitted to construct the desired home the preferred configuration, allowing them access from their basement to ground level, and also providing privacy for an elderly parent to live in the portion of the home. Feasible alternatives would include reconfiguring the structure to meet the height limitation, back filling or removing fill from the back, and in either case, that would be at some expense. In my opinion, the relief is not substantial to the Ordinance. 6.8 feet of relief from the 28 foot height requirement is minimal, given the fact that this property is located as many feet as it is proposed from the Glen Lake shoreline. In addition, the existence of a ridge to the rear and the existence of substantial tree cover makes the impact on the neighborhood minimal, in my opinion, and the relief is not self-created, and for all these reasons, I move the approval of this variance. Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNulty MR. THOMAS-All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 98-1999 TYPE II SR-1A MHP OVERLAY PENNY BRADLEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE OFF WARREN LANE (NOT PART OF CONVERSE MH PARK) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A PARCEL AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 121-6-17 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION 179-19, 179-70 PENNY BRADLEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 98-1999, Penny Bradley, Meeting Date: November 17, 1999 “Project Location: Warren Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling and seeks relief dwelling and seeks relief from the minimum road frontage requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement per § 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 a single family dwelling or market the property with the availability to build. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include acquisition of additional lands. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) 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 to the pre-existing nature 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. Apparently, the adjoining land owners choose not to entertain an offer for the acquisition of additional lands. This lot is of similar size and configuration of nearby lots and may be provided a deeded right of way over the other lands of the applicant. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mrs. Bradley. MRS. BRADLEY-I’m Penny Bradley. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything you want to tell us about it? MRS. BRADLEY-I really don’t have anything to add. I’m just asking for the right to have access to my back piece of property. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Across that right of way there, there’s the lands of Clarence and Geneva Palmer. Do they have a house there now, directly across from you? MRS. BRADLEY-I’m not really sure. I mean, I own the front piece and then the lot directly behind it connects. I’m not really familiar with who owns. MR. STONE-I went out there, and I have to admit I couldn’t find. MRS. BRADLEY-I own the house, actually the mobile home, on the corner of April Lane and Warren Lane. It’s got a garage on the side. MR. STONE-Okay. Down at the end of the road, no April’s up further. MRS. BRADLEY-Right. I’m right there on the corner. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. BRADLEY-Directly behind that is my vacant lot. It’s connecting. You would think it was all one piece. MR. STONE-Is this the right map? Where’s April? MRS. BRADLEY-As you turn on to Warren, it’s the first left. MR. THOMAS-The one with the utility easement through it, or the utility line? MR. BROWN-The utility line, dirt drive. MR. STONE-That’s April Lane? MR. BROWN-That’s a private drive to the Converse Mobile Home Park. MR. STONE-Okay, and your lands are of Nancy Wood as it says? MR. BROWN-No, the two Liapes lots. MRS. BRADLEY-Liapes. MR. MC NALLY-Are they separate lots right now? MRS. BRADLEY-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And did you submit this map? MRS. BRADLEY-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-What is this map from? Do you have the large copy of it? MRS. BRADLEY-Actually, I don’t know if I did submit that. MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s a photocopy of the Converse Mobile Home Park. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) MRS. BRADLEY-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-It’s a subdivision map. It’s got an easement at the top. It says emergency access easement for Lot Two. Where does that come from? MR. BROWN-It’s part of the subdivision. MR. MC NALLY-So they use April Lane as an emergency access? MR. BROWN-It’s their property, yes. MR. STONE-Which one of these names is Penny Bradley? MRS. BRADLEY-They are my properties. They were previously my mother’s and fathers, but they have been mine. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying the lands of Nicholas Liapes? MRS. BRADLEY-They’re both mine, Nicholas and Carol in the front, and the one directly behind it, Nicholas, and I’m asking for. MR. STONE-So that’s the lot you’re asking for. MRS. BRADLEY-The back lot. I’m asking for access to it from Warren Lane, across my piece of property. MR. MC NALLY-On this drawing, you show a driveway across your lot, going to the back. Is that your proposal? MRS. BRADLEY-Right. That’s my lot. That’s what I want. I just want to make a driveway to have access to the back lot. MR. MC NALLY-And do you plan on dedicating an easement for that, by deed? MRS. BRADLEY-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And do you have any dimensions for that road? MR. STONE-Twenty feet wide it says here. No, I’m sorry, that’s just. MRS. BRADLEY-Whatever’s required of me. MR. MC NALLY-Well, frontage is required. Short of that, the question is what you intend to do, really. You have no idea? MRS. BRADLEY-I really don’t, I’m sorry. I’m all new at this. All I know is I need access to that. It’s landlocked. MR. STONE-What is April Lane? It’s a private? MR. BROWN-A private right-of-way. It’s property maintained and owned by the Mobile Home Park, Converse. MR. STONE-And they won’t give an easement to? MR. BROWN-Evidently, they won’t. MR. STONE-They won’t give you an easement to get to your own? MRS. BRADLEY-Evidently, not. MR. STEC-She has a right-of-way by use though, right? MR. THOMAS-No, because that lot’s landlocked. There’s nothing on it now. MR. MC NALLY-That land behind you, are you planning on selling it? MRS. BRADLEY-Yes. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) MR. MC NALLY-Have you got a buyer? MRS. BRADLEY-No, no. I’m in no hurry to do that. I just want to make sure that whomever I sell it to doesn’t have future problems with access to the property. MR. STONE-How big is your front lot? MRS. BRADLEY-Just about the same size as the back lot. MR. STONE-Well, I understand, but how big? How wide is that? Do we have a dimension? 125. MR. THOMAS-125. MR. STONE-125, I see that. MR. THOMAS-By 150. MR. STONE-By 150. MRS. BRADLEY-So I have sufficient land to do this. MR. HAYES-This is a pre-existing lot, Craig, then, basically. MR. STONE-What is this area? That’s north. MR. MC NALLY-There’s a 25 foot WI something, is that another road on the opposite side of the lot, or right-of-way? MR. BROWN-Yes, it’s probably an access road inside the Mobile Home Park. MR. MC NALLY-So that’s the Mobile Home Park abutting it, right? MR. BROWN-Actually, I think in a mobile home park all the lots are required to be a minimum of 45 feet from (lost words). That’s probably a setback. MR. STONE-This is SR-1A. This is what it says in the thing. MR. STEC-SR-1A? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-So this is a substandard lot, a pre-existing, nonconforming. Okay. I mean nothing by these questions. MRS. BRADLEY-I’m so glad, because I have no answers. MR. STONE-I mean, I’m not, I’m just asking. All right, so she couldn’t, since these are pre-existing, nonconforming, she couldn’t make the lot smaller, by taking part of that land for the back lot. MR. MC NALLY-I looked high and low for that pink sheet, to try and see where the notice was from the Building Department was. MRS. BRADLEY-It was on the tree. MR. MC NALLY-Was it? There is no house there? MRS. BRADLEY-No, it is a wooded lot. MR. MC NALLY-You plan on building one. Right. The one you’ve drawn here is just illustrative? MRS. BRADLEY-Just to show what could be put there, and that there’s sufficient land to do so. MR. HAYES-And you said you inherited this land? MRS. BRADLEY-Yes. MR. HAYES-You didn’t purchase it and speculate it? MRS. BRADLEY-No. This was given to me by my father. I did grow up there, but. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) 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? Is there any correspondence? MR. STEC-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-Could you tell us what effort you made to buy land or talk to the Mobile Home Park about getting access across their property? MRS. BRADLEY-I haven’t spoken to them. I do not know them. I was told that, years ago, my father had had a problem with trying to use access on their road. So I really didn’t see any reason to pursue this. MR. STONE-Do they actively use that right of way, or no? They go around, at the end of Warren? MRS. BRADLEY-I don’t understand. MR. STONE-Do people drive up this right of way? MR. MC NALLY-On April. MRS. BRADLEY-On April, I assume so. There are homes back there. They have to get there somehow. MR. MC NALLY-You’re living there, right? MRS. BRADLEY-No, I’m not living in my front piece. That is vacant right now. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-The Palmer lands, Craig, they’re in the same situation, or do they front on Burch? Okay. Yes. They probably do. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions? MR. MC NALLY-No. MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lets talk about it, then. Bob, you’re up first. MR. MC NALLY-I think this is a very unique circumstance, in that you’ve got two existing lots, and one of them’s landlocked. The fact that they were two lots owned by the same owner, such as life. I don’t think I have a problem with the application, but I’d like to see a lot more specifics about what kind of easement, right-of-way, widths and things like that that you’re going to give, because whoever’s going to buy that back lot has to have that right-of-way cast in stone before I approve a variance that would allow you to have that circumstance. It can’t be something that, a few years from now, suddenly is cut off or anything. MRS. BRADLEY-Right. So what you need to know, then, specifically is the length and the width. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, and where it’s going to be. MRS. BRADLEY-Okay. MR. BROWN-I think a reasonable condition, in order to approve this, would be prior to issuing any building permits, that (lost words). 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) MR. MC NALLY-My only concern is we did that with Double A Provisions. We had a provision of contingency, and they were going to have that deed, and that deed was filed, and they built that building, and there was no deed. MR. BROWN-That was, the building permit was issued prematurely. MR. MC NALLY-I know. I don’t want to see that happen again. That’s the problem. By requiring them to have a little bit of planning before they come to us, is it working, or should we not even bother? MR. THOMAS-Well, we don’t want to see another Double A Provision again. We talked about that last time. We said we weren’t going to let this happen again. MR. MC NALLY-Not that we don’t trust you, but accidents happen. MRS. BRADLEY-Right, but why would anybody look at something if they didn’t have access to it? MR. MC NALLY-Well, what happened with Double A Provisions is we gave them access. We did the special provisions for them, and then they built the building, and after the fact, they said, well, we didn’t have the deed, but we already built the building. Please let us get away with it. So, I don’t know how it would happen, to tell you the truth. MRS. BRADLEY-But, I mean, if somebody came to you and said, I want to build a house on this lot, wouldn’t you ask them, show me where the access is? MR. MC NALLY-Isn’t that what we’re doing tonight? MRS. BRADLEY-But I mean, if somebody bought that lot, say, and said I want to build, I’m in front of you now, now I want to build on this lot that I’ve just purchased, and you’re saying to me, how do you get to that lot? Wouldn’t you have to have that deed in front of you showing access on that front piece? MR. MC NALLY-If we give them this variance, they don’t need the frontage. They’ve got whatever, a variance, but when they come to a building permit, are you going to stop them? MR. BROWN-Typically what happens, when a building permit is submitted, we go back out and search and see if there’s been any approvals granted, variances, site plan, subdivision. This would come up that there was a variance granted. We’d see a condition that requires them to submit a deed for a right-of-way, and before we issue a building permit, if it’s a condition of the approval, it wouldn’t be issued, processed, until that was done. MR. STONE-Why couldn’t the deed to the property be modified at this time, and filed, that says there is, on the one lot there is a right-of-way, and on the back lot, there is a deeded right-of-way? MR. MC NALLY-Yes, you don’t need to build in order to have a right-of-way. MRS. BRADLEY-Right. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-If somebody came to build on it, they’d have to come back to us, then, to get the variance, right? MR. BROWN-Right. MR. HAYES-If there’s a deeded right-of-way, it would still be noncompliant. MR. BROWN-Right. I think what Lew wants to do, he wants to see the deed updated to show the right-of-way before it gets approval, rather than as a condition of approval. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. STEC-Well, you’re saying they’re equivalent because you would catch that. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, before a building, you want it done anyway. Because if you get an easement, you can take it back again. Once the property is sold. MR. BROWN-I would hope before somebody submits a building permit, they would secure a right- of-way. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) MR. STONE-But the deeded right-of-way does not reduce the size of the front lot, technically. It’s merely the right to go over that nonconforming, pre-existing lot. MR. HAYES-That’s right. MR. BROWN-And in this case, it would be a shared driveway with the front lot. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Right, and are there any special requirements we should have, as far as length or width? I mean, is there something we need from the Town, that should be a certain dimension wide? MR. HAYES-What is it for emergency vehicles, generally, that they won’t require. MR. BROWN-Typically, it’s a 12 to 15 foot wide driveway. I don’t think a 50 foot right-of-way, which is required for a subdivision road, is warranted here. MR. STONE-This is an existing lot. Would this be subject to site plan, like the one we just had, where Planning Board went against what we said, the lot on Fifth Street, next to Maria’s property? MR. BROWN-That was subdivision. MR. STONE-That was subdivision. MR. MC NALLY-They actually owned that, but you’d be happy with a contingent approval, in that it would be carefully checked when the building permit is issued, so we don’t have to worry about it. Then I’d be in favor of it 15 foot wide, along that property line, adjacent to April Lane, or what is known as April Lane. MR. THOMAS-All right. Chuck, do you want to jump in on this one? MR. ABBATE-No comment. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You’re going to have to jump in some time. All right. Dan? MR. STEC-I agree with Bob. I’m comfortable with placing a condition on granting the variance, that would prevent a building permit being granted until a deeded right of way is produced, and 15 feet I think you said, I’m comfortable with that, too. I don’t think that there’s any impact on the neighborhood or community, and I don’t think that the difficulty is self-created. It’s a pre-existing condition. Forty feet of relief from forty feet, by definition, that would be substantial, but that, we’ve seen that before. If you’re landlocked, you’re landlocked, and I’m comfortable with pre-conditioning the building permit with a deeded right-of-way. So I’m in favor of the application with that pre- condition. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-A question before I say anything. These two lots have separate tax numbers, separate tax bills? MRS. BRADLEY-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay, because there’s nothing on here that says that. Having said that, obviously you have a piece of property back there. It was subdivided at one time. It was agreed to at one time. It is a pre-existing, nonconforming. Certainly, if you are willing, and we will condition the variance on the basis that you do grant a deeded right of way to the future owner of this property, I don’t really have a problem. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-We’ve dealt with these problems before, pre-existing, nonconforming lots, and I think all we can really do is what is the next best thing, and obviously, something has to be done with this lot in the future. Also, the fact that you inherited the property, versus bought it on speculation and then asking us to increase the value, you’re not asking that. You’ve inherited the property. You’ve inherited the condition. So I think this is the minimal relief that we can grant, and taking into account that it is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. So I’d be in favor. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. There’s not much you can say about this lot. It pre-existed. She needs access to it. The only way she can do it is either, A, get a 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) right-of-way from Converse trailer park, Mobile Home Park, or, B, get a deeded right-of-way across the piece of land, which the applicant now owns. I think probably B is the applicant’s best option. So I have no problem with that. Along with the pre-condition that a deeded right-of-way does appear before a building permit is issued for that lot. All right. Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 98-1999 PENNY BRADLEY, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Stec: Warren Lane, behind a lot which fronts on Warren Lane, and also fronts on Private Right of Way called April Lane. The applicant seeks relief from the minimum road frontage requirement in order to reach this landlocked parcel, which sits behind her house, which fronts on Warren Lane. The applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement, per 179-70, Frontage on Public Roads. In granting this application, we consider the benefit to the applicant, in that the applicant would be permitted to construct a single family dwelling, or more importantly at this point, to market the product, with the availability to build. Feasible alternatives may include acquisition of additional lands, or the acquiring of a right-of-way, access on the private right of way April Lane, from the Converse Trailer Park. This, however, the applicant states, there seems to be some long term animosity between the owners of the Converse Park and the applicant. Obviously, granting 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot requirement is substantial, but in this particular case, the relief is going to be granted by way of a deeded right-of-way over the applicant’s property which fronts on Warren Lane. This deeded right-of-way will probably be 15 feet in width, along April Lane, and will be made a part of both deeds, the front and the back property. It is upon this condition that this variance will be granted. The effects on the neighborhood or community, minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Actually, it’ll be minimum effect because the private right-of-way is already there, and all this variance is doing is allowing the future owner of this property access to it, with reasonable ease. The difficulty is not truly self-created, in that the land was inherited. The owner of the property is merely trying to make best use of her inheritance by having the potential to sell this property, if the correct buyer comes along. On the basis of all this, certainly the benefit to the applicant far outweighs the detriment to the community, and I move that Area Variance No. 98-1999 be granted. As part of the condition of granting this variance, the deeded right-of-way must be on file at the County prior to the granting of any building permit. Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNulty MR. THOMAS-There you go. You’re all set. MRS. BRADLEY-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IS REQUESTING A RE-HEARING ON THE NOTICE OF APPEAL NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5-99 VOTE TO RE-HEAR IRENE PATNODE LEO BRUCE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: CRONIN ROAD, TAX ID: 59-3-10 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IS APPEALING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION. ZBA MUST VOTE ON RE-HEARING THE APPEAL. BRUCE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Chairman, I have to abstain because of a potential conflict. MR. THOMAS-Yes, sir, you may abstain, you may be excused. MR. STEC-I have a memorandum to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Chris Round, Zoning Administrator, dated November 2, 1999, Notice of Appeal No. 5-99, Patnode and Bruce, “I’m requesting a re-hearing of the appeal of my determination (Appeal No. 5-99) brought by Patnode and Bruce (represented by Bruce Carr). My determination was (and is) that the keeping of horses is not allowed in the SFR-1A zone. Rehearing of appeals is explicitly provided for in Town Law Section 267(a). A unanimous vote by the Board is required to rehear the appeal. I am requesting you vote to rehear this issue due to the far reaching impacts of the ZBA’s decision. I am presenting a limited amount of information regarding my reasoning on this issue for your consideration. I will present additional information if you do indeed choose to rehear. A. Zoning Ordinance Allows Uses in 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) Other Zones The Town Zoning Ordinance identifies agricultural uses as allowed uses with site plan review in select zones throughout the Town. The LC-10A, LC-42A, RR-3A, RR-5A, SR-1A, SR-20, SR-15, zones allow agricultural use and farms and the RC-15, RC-3A allows for riding academy/livery stable. B. Use is contrary to purpose of zone. The SFR zone purpose indicates: “Single Family Residential Zones are established residential neighborhoods where the character is strictly single family detached residence on standardized lots. This character will be strictly reinforced and preserved through SFR zones” (underline for emphasis). The Agricultural use is a conflict with both the purpose of the zone and the permitted and allowed uses. C. Use Variance is the Appropriate Mechanism for Relief The property in question may be capable of supporting agricultural use. A Use Variance is the appropriate process to evaluate the hardship imposed by the Zoning Ordinance on a single property. A change in zone is an alternate method to achieve the applicant’s desired outcome. An interpretation that the agricultural use is an allowed use in the SFR zone has broad impacts. Consider the variety of housing in Queensbury and some of the SFR zoned areas. Because of this interpretation, is the agricultural use now allowed in all other zones given the SFR zone’s designation as the “strictest” zone? Please consider a rehearing of your decision.” And it’s initialed “CR”, Chris Round. MR. THOMAS-All right, and the letter that Chris sent to Mr. Carr. MR. STEC-Okay. Town of Queensbury, letter to Mr. Bruce G. Carr, Esq., Glens Falls, NY, “Dear Mr. Carr: I am requesting that the Zoning Board of Appeals reconsider Appeal No. 5-99 regarding the Patnode and Bruce property. The decision regarded allowable uses in the SFR-1A zone, specifically horses/agricultural uses. The Zoning Board of Appeals is authorized by NYS law to rehear decisions. I am requesting the ZBA vote on the rehearing on November 17, 1999 and if favorably received a public hearing on the appeal will be scheduled for December. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Christopher J. Round Executive Director Zoning Administrator” MR. THOMAS-All right. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 5-99, Irene Patnode & Leo Bruce, Meeting Date: November 17, 1999 “Project Location: Cronin Road Description: Zoning Administrator is appealing the Zoning Board of Appeals decision of October 27, 1999. Information requested: The appellant seeks a vote from the Board on whether or not to re-hear the original appeal. Staff comments: A November 2, 1999 memo from the Zoning Administrator (enclosed) outlines the basis for the appeal. A unanimous vote is necessary to rehear the appeal.” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Round had his little say, so I’ll have to ask Mr. Carr if he has anything he wants to say. MR. BROWN-I don’t think it’s been advertised as a public hearing. MR. THOMAS-It hasn’t been advertised? MR. CARR-But I was invited to attend. He alerted me to the time. MR. STONE-As I understand, we need, the way we are constituted right now, five votes to say we will listen to the arguments again, in December. We are doing absolutely nothing except saying yes or no on listening to it again. MR. THOMAS-All right. We’ll do this. MR. STEC-I’ll rehear it, and if it goes to January, I’m sure the next Board will rehear it. MR. STONE-I’m willing to rehear it. I’ve looked, again, at the property, and I think it’s worthwhile. Since there is a concern on the part of the person responsible for the zoning in our Town, I would honor his request to look at it again. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree exactly with Lew. I think that this is Chris’ job, and I do want to hear his arguments, and Mr. Carr’s as well, at that particular time. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Indulge me, since I’m a new member here. You indicated that there had to be a five vote. Unless I’m reading this wrong it says a majority of the whole number shall constitute a 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) quorum, and not less than a majority of the whole number may perform and exercise such power. That would mean four out of seven. MR. HAYES-This is a specific. MR. STONE-This is a rehearing. MR. ABBATE-That provision doesn’t apply to this? MR. STONE-No, it doesn’t apply to this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m for rehearing it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CARR-Mr. Chairman, may I address this Board? I mean, Mr. Round, although he’s not here again tonight, did present evidence to you, in his memorandum. I think it’s only fair that we be allowed to address this Board on this issue. MR. THOMAS-I don’t see why not, because Chris pitched an argument, and I think Mr. Carr, representing the person that the appeal was for, who is exactly concerned with this. I don’t have a problem with Mr. Carr saying something. I don’t think it’s going to change anything, but. MR. STONE-Well, you haven’t said how you’re voting. MR. THOMAS-Since it is last on the agenda. MR. CARR-Thank you. I will keep it brief. My name is Bruce Carr, Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth. As you know I am the attorney for Miss Patnode and Mr. Bruce. I’ve done some research on this particular issue, and I’m surprised Chris isn’t here tonight, if he feels this is such an important issue for the Town. He wasn’t here the night when we sat here for an hour and a half discussing every aspect of this issue. I mean, to your credit, this Board went through the entire Ordinance and came up with a unanimous decision, as to how they interpreted the Ordinance, in favor of Mr. Bruce and Miss Patnode. There’s no new evidence. There’s no new zoning sections to look at. To make us go through that again, okay, when we have spent the time, appeared here twice, answered every question. The Town Planning Department has been represented. They were represented at that meeting, and the Board made what I considered to be a well thought out determination unanimously. I mean, I do not understand what putting Miss Patnode and Mr. Bruce through the expense of another hearing, when there is no new information, not one piece of new information. I think that would be an abuse of discretion, and I really don’t think it’s necessary in this circumstance. That’s all I wanted to say, and I thank you for allowing me a brief statement. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lets try this one more time. Yes or no? MR. STEC-Those are my only two choices? Your point is well taken, but I think that the implications, Townwide, are important enough where I think it would be a detriment to the Town to not at least hear our Zoning Administrator, although I agree with you that he perhaps would have been wise to attend this evening, or the other evening. Your point is well taken, but putting the Town’s interest first, I think it’s important to hear what he has to say, although I wish it would have been at the Board’s convenience, and not his. So I’ll hear it again. MR. STONE-I’ll hear it again. I have no problem with him not being here tonight. I think his statement stands for itself. When we have these various appeals, and this is the third or fourth in the recent time. This is a little different, but it’s a very narrow issue we’re talking about. I hear your point. It’s a good one, that no new information, but there is a concern, on the part of the man responsible on an every day, day in and day out basis, for making sure that the zoning code of Queensbury is followed. He’s only asking us to come together to do it again. I know you won’t be here. We’ll be here. MR. CARR-I’ll be here. MR. STONE-I know you’ll be here. I didn’t mean that, but I’m willing to listen again, and quite frankly, I can tell you historically we did this once before with an applicant, and we voted unanimously to hear her again, and we voted unanimously again to turn it down the next time she showed up, because nothing new had been happening, but she was of a mind that she wanted to hear it be heard again, and we said fine. I think this is a case, I think we can do no less for the Zoning Administrator to at least hear it again. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) MR. HAYES-Well, certainly the double jeopardy argument weighs heavily on my mind, as well, in this particular circumstance, but I think in this case I agree with Lew and Dan, and I think that the implications are such that a focused rehearing could be a benefit to all that are involved, and like Lew said, it does not even mean, necessarily, that the vote won’t come out in your favor at that time, but the implications are very broad, toward the Code, and I’d like to hear as much information as possible for that reason. So I’m in favor of a rehearing. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m in favor of the rehearing, mainly because I’m a new member, Number One, and I’ve read the facts of this case, based upon the minutes of the meeting, and I think we owe a professional courtesy to the Zoning Administrator, who represents the Town, to be heard, and I’m in strong position to rehear this case. MR. THOMAS-Why wasn’t he here the first time? MR. STONE-The book speaks for itself. That’s his interpretation. I think he would probably say that. MR. THOMAS-What? MR. STONE-The code book, in his mind, the Code was strong enough. Now, he miscalculated our interpretations. As Mr. Carr says, we did a lot of soul searching around it. We did a lot of talking around it, but the written word, the zoning code, he, in his mind, thought it wasn’t flawed. We thought it was flawed. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. STONE-And that is something that hopefully will be addressed in the new, the zoning steering committee will address, because we have a number of issues that we’re looking at there, and I think it’s one of the things we’ll look at, but I don’t think that, certainly it’s not going to happen before we make another decision on this thing. So Mr. Bruce is not at risk from a new zoning code appearing immediately between now and December or January. So I think we owe it to Chris. He obviously misjudged where we were going, but I wouldn’t, I’m still willing to hear it again. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll say yes to rehear it. I’m not wild about it. I’m not thrilled about it. I think that Mr. Round’s letter that he had sent, dated November 2, and he said that Part A there, nd that the Town identifies agricultural uses as allowed uses for site plan review in the SR-1A zone and the SR-20 zone, which is a 20,000 square foot zone, which is half an acre, and the SR-15 zone which is, what, a third of an acre. We’re talking a one acre zone. MR. STONE-As he points out, Paragraph B under 179-20, which is a very, is probably the strongest worded thing in this whole zoning code, this character will be strictly reinforced. So I’m sure his interpretation was, that’s what the words say, how can you do this. So he miscalculated. MR. THOMAS-Well, how many Single Family Residential neighborhoods do we have where all the lots are one acre? MR. STONE-We have 10,000, 20,000 and one acre. MR. THOMAS-How many neighborhoods have one acre lots? MR. STONE-None. MR. THOMAS-Not many. That was the big thing, too, that we talked about last week, that Mr. Bruce has 11 acres back in there. MR. CARR-Twenty-two. MR. THOMAS-Or 22 acres. He could have 11 horses. MR. STONE-Yes, something like that. MR. THOMAS-And that makes this lot unique. MR. BROWN-Yes, but I don’t think you want to get caught up and confuse site plan issues with interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. I think that’s kind of what happened last time. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/99) MR. STONE-It’s possible. MR. THOMAS-It could be. All right. MOTION TO RE-HEAR NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5-99 IRENE PATNODE LEO BRUCE, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: At the December 15, 1999 ZBA meeting, and that Appeal No. 5-99, as requested by the Zoning Administrator, be first on the agenda, on the first meeting in December. Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 1999, by the following vote: th MR. THOMAS-When’s the first meeting in December? MR. STONE-It’s the 15. th MR. BROWN-The 15. th MR. THOMAS-It’s the 15? Because the second one would be the 22, so we’re going to go 15, thndth 16 probably next month. th MR. BROWN-If we have two. MR. THOMAS-If we have two, but on the 15 is no problem for you, being first on the agenda on th the 15? th MR. CARR-That would be fine. We would appreciate that. MR. THOMAS-All right. That’s where you’re going to be. MR. CARR-Thank you very much. AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally MR. THOMAS-I’m not thrilled. All right. MR. STONE-I move we adjourn. MR. THOMAS-I’ll second the motion. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 21