Loading...
2000-08-23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY NORMAN HIMES CHARLES ABBATE ALLAN BRYANT ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE ROBERT MC NALLY MEMBERS ABSENT PAUL HAYES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-Before we get started this evening, there are two Sign Variances on the agenda tonight. I will exercise the Chairman’s prerogative to table both of these, since we do not have an effective Sign Ordinance in the Town of Queensbury at the present time. It was voted on and approved on Monday night by the Town Board. It was expedited down to Albany today, but as of this time, we do not have confirmation that it was filed. Therefore, we have nothing to grant relief from. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 52-2000 RENALD DEVINE/CONTRACT VENDEE & SIGN VARIANCE NO. 66-2000 MIKE TARTAGLIONE/NEW YORK CITY DOGS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Tabled until the first meeting in September. Duly adopted this 23 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-That takes care of those two. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5-2000 BARBARA & CARMEN PALLOZZI APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DECISION TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMIT FILE NO. 2000-316, TINA BRIDGE, AND IS SEEKING A CLARIFICATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. BARBARA & CARMEN PALLOZZI, PRESENT MR. STONE-Do you want to read the tabling motion. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. “The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Notice of Appeal No. 5-2000 Barbara & Carmen Pallozzi Meeting Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 TABLED Motion to Table Notice of Appeal No. 5-2000, Barbara and Carmen Pallozzi, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: In order that the Board be given all of the material that has been referred to in this application hearing, so that we can better understand what it is you are absolutely appealing. They have up to 62 days to come back on this appeal. Duly adopted this 21 st day of June, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally” MR. STONE-Mrs. Pallozzi, we’ll read in the first two pages of your letter. Obviously, you can talk about the material you attached to it. Why don’t you read this letter of July 7. th MR. MC NULTY-Okay. A letter addressed to Lewis Stone, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, from Barbara J. Pallozzi, it’s dated July 7, 2000 “Dear Mr. Stone: This responds to your request at 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) the June 21 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Two statements made by the Board merit comment. First, relating to the subdivisions of Lot 109-3-12.12, you asked “why we care….” We care because our land was also subdivided, without our knowledge and without our consent. Secondly, the gentleman seated to your right stated that these situations “come before us all the time”. We are aware of that. However, these subdivisions did not come before you. (1) Subdivision of 109-3-21- 12. You are being asked to look at the subdivision of this lot (now three sites) and to make a determination on future subdivisions. (2) Parking You are being asked to determine how many parking areas can exist on Lot 109-3-22. Specifically, how many parking areas can exist in the front yard, the side yard and the rear yard of that lot, as well as how many parking area(s) can exist on parcel two of Lot 109-3-22. Additionally, you are being asked to determine the yard/setback requirements of these parking areas from my property line. (3) Road Access You are being asked to determine the requirements for road access to Lot 109-3-22 (parcel 2), 109-3-23 (parcel 2) and 109-3- 21-12, as it currently exists as well as how it may exist at any future date, together with setbacks from buildings, accessory structures, etc. (4) Building Permit A building permit was issued for an interior alteration for living space. The “living space” is being used as a garage and the documents submitted with the building permit application clearly establish the alteration will close all access to the “living” area of 342 Ridge Road. Since the area is not and will not be used for the purposes for which the building permit was issued, it must be revoked. The zoning ordinance only allows one garage. This structure already has two garages. Therefore, the structure does not conform to the ordinance. However, since the garage on the northern portion of the property was constructed without a building permit and it is served by a driveway for which no permit was ever issued, it is an illegal structure, rather than a non-conforming structure. Additionally, can this “living space” be used for automobile repairs for vehicles not resident on the property? If so, the hours of operation, etc. (5) Yard Requirements In addition to the setback questions previously stated, you are being asked the yard requirements and setback distances for tree stumps, construction debris, garbage, etc. Pursuant to your request, enclosed are six additional copies of this letter, together with its attachments and an index of same. Very truly yours, Barbara J. Pallozzi” MR. STONE-Mrs. Pallozzi, let me just state for the record, that as far as I am concerned, as the Chairman of this Board, there’s only one issue on the table tonight. The subdivision is not, a decision was never made on this by the Zoning Administrator. Parking, there was no determination made by the Zoning Administrator, nor was road access ever considered by the Zoning Administrator. Our power is to hear appeals to decisions made by the Zoning Administrator. Therefore, the only thing that is on the table is the building permit that was issued, building permit 2000-316. So, you have a perfect right to appeal his decision, the granting of that building permit, and we will listen to your arguments as far as that decision is concerned. So, if you’d state your name for the record. MRS. PALLOZZI-Barbara Pallozzi, 240 Ridge. Well, first of all, Mr. Round’s letter does make reference to the subdivisions and says it does not violate your Zoning Ordinance, and he also told me that it could be done again. On the other issues, I specifically asked him that, when I had the meeting with him on Good Friday, and I will concede that he did not respond to those in writing, but as I told Mr. Bryant this evening, a friend of mine used to work for the Town of Queensbury in the Planning Department, and she said when you present something to a Zoning Administrator and if he does not get back to you in writing, it is considered an omission and you have the right to appeal the omission. So that’s why I did it that way. If you want me to do it again, then I’ll do it again. MR. STONE-You have a right to appeal omissions. That is correct, but since these omissions happened in 1988. MRS. PALLOZZI-No. We’re talking about the parking and you have the right to make a determination on all of that, and another subdivision I just found out about at the end of March, and that one did not occur back then, but anyway. MR. STONE-We have nothing to, I mean, we can listen to what you have to say. If you want to proceed with this, proceed with this on the basis of an omission, then we have to get a statement from the Zoning Administrator, as far as that is concerned. MR. STONE-I mean, the statement that he wrote back in April indicates that, he wrote on June 19, th and he says this did not happen, and these were a long time ago. MRS. PALLOZZI-He said what did not happen? MR. STONE-These were not a subdivision. You keep calling them a subdivision. All we know, in looking at the record, as I looked at it, was there was a giving for a fee or a part of a piece of land. I fail to see, in your argument that you wrote, where there was a subdivision of your property. MRS. PALLOZZI-Because they took my property with it. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. STONE-They couldn’t take your property with it. That’s a totally different, if, in fact, they did, that is not for us to determine. That is out of our purview. MRS. PALLOZZI-That’s why when you said the last time it was a boundary line agreement. It’s not a boundary line agreement if not all parties agree to it. So you do not consider taking a parcel of land and subdividing it into parcels, lots or sites a subdivision? Because your Zoning Ordinance specifically defines a subdivision into two or more particular parcels, lots, sites, separate ownership. All of that occurred, and is occurring, and he said it could continue to occur, and I don’t understand how that can happen. MR. STONE-There are non buildable lots in there, behind there. They have no access to public streets. I mean, it’s a very confused issue. There’s no question about that, but our only, the only thing that we have to do here is to determine the validity, if you will, of the Zoning Administrator’s action. MRS. PALLOZZI-So you’re saying those parcels have no access to streets? MR. STONE-The back ones. Jump in, guys, any time you want, if you find anything you want to add to this thing. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think I understand the issue generally. MR. STONE-I don’t, either. MR. MC NALLY-Maybe you should explain the circumstances. MR. ABBATE-I don’t, either. I’ll be honest with you. MR. MC NALLY-And then present your case, and if we have questions, we can answer it. We’re getting ahead of ourselves. MRS. PALLOZZI-I’m saying that my 12 foot driveway is totally and woefully inadequate to provide access to all of those lots. It’s also dangerous. MR. STONE-And why is your driveway the access point for these lots? MRS. PALLOZZI-It was a right of way originally for that one lot. We had a dispute as to what it meant. There was a determination on it. It was my position that it was a driveway easement that was rejected. It has created quite a problem because now the individuals in the parcel to the north of me only have a very, very limited, defined space. They’ve got approximately between 12 and 13 feet to access that garage on the south side of the house. MR. STONE-And why are they empowered to use your driveway? MRS. PALLOZZI-Because there was a right of way from a long time ago. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t understand. Let me ask some questions. MRS. PALLOZZI-Sure. MR. MC NALLY-All right. You’ve submitted a lot of papers, but I don’t see how they tie in together. The map shows a 16 foot right of way. MRS. PALLOZZI-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-And that right of way, if you’re facing Ridge, is on the right side, or right boundary of your property? MRS. PALLOZZI-It’s on the northern portion of my property, runs from Ridge Road east toward. MR. STONE-Here’s Ridge. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So that’s the right of way there? MR. STONE-Yes, I guess. MR. MC NALLY-That’s a 16 foot right of way? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and then Mrs. Connors, at some time, had a problem with conveying that little lot behind her property. How does that fit in? MRS. PALLOZZI-She subdivided the property, after she was unable to sell her house, after the new Zoning and Subdivision Regulations went into effect. You’re not going to undo that. I understand you’re not going to undo that. MR. MC NALLY-Well, I’m not even sure what you’re asking yet, but on this map, I see a Connors at Lot 702-408. Is this her property here? This says Connors there, and this is your property here. MRS. PALLOZZI-I guess I don’t know where you’re getting the numbers, 22 was originally Connors. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t know what that one is. It’s 702-408. MRS. PALLOZZI-That’s the page and book references. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So this looks like her lot there. MRS. PALLOZZI-Right. MR. MC NALLY-This is your property next to the right of way. MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And then, when you say subdivide, what do you mean subdivide? MRS. PALLOZZI-She owns this. MR. MC NALLY-She owned the rear lot to that. Okay, and then what did she do, she sold this lot, the rear lot? MR. STONE-Okay. I understood it to be that she sold this, including this by mistake. MR. MC NALLY-Tell me what happened, because I don’t know. MRS. PALLOZZI-She sold the whole parcel. MR. MC NALLY-That big one behind her. MR. STONE-The landlocked parcel behind the homes on Ridge she sold? MRS. PALLOZZI-Right. Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. That is not a subdivision. I mean, as I understand it. She divided the land. Subdivision implies approved building lots, at least it does to me. MR. MC NALLY-Now who is using the right of way that you object to using it? MRS. PALLOZZI-The three lots in the back, plus the other two main parcels. I’m just saying, once you start doing all of this, you’ve got to look at what you’re doing here. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, I agree with you. MRS. PALLOZZI-Because it’s a little cumbersome. It’s a little crowded, and it’s very dangerous. MR. STONE-Well, how many people are using your driveway? MRS. PALLOZZI-Lot 22. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have depictions of who these people are? Here’s a tax map, for instance. Lot 22 is Bridge? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-All right. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MRS. PALLOZZI-You mean you want to see like the number of cars that are there? MR. STONE-I’m just curious. Who is, I mean, is Celeste using it? Is Demming using it? MRS. PALLOZZI-No, Demming and Celeste do not get along. MR. STONE-Well, your driveway that you say is an easement, it’s between lots 22.1 and 22. Do you agree? MRS. PALLOZZI-Between, what were the numbers again? MR. STONE-You’re 21.1. I’m sorry, I said it wrong. You’re right, 21.1 and 22. MRS. PALLOZZI-Right. MR. STONE-That’s the road. Is anybody besides Bridge and your family using that driveway? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes, the place is packed. MR. STONE-What property owners? Which house? MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, right now currently Bridge, and Bridge is also using, Celeste is allowing him to use the other property like for dumping and that. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, but in that rear lot, 21.12, is there any house on that property? MRS. PALLOZZI-No. MR. MC NALLY-So no one from that property is actually driving down your right of way? MRS. PALLOZZI-Are people using that property to drive? Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, but there’s no one actually living there and then using their driveway to get in and out? MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, the way that 21.12 is situated right now, there’s nothing left on there except some accessory structures. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So now you’re objecting, then, to decisions made by the Administrator that somehow increase the use of your right of way? MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, Mr. Round, well, they were never presented to him for a decision. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. He talked about subdivision and things like that? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes, and he said it could continue to be subdivided, and that’s what got me really concerned. MR. MC NALLY-And the one subdivision you talked about was the sale of that rear lot, where Connors retained the portion that had the pool? MRS. PALLOZZI-Right. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and do they have a written easement? Did Connors have a written easement that allowed them to use your right of way? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and did the Celeste property also have an easement? MRS. PALLOZZI-No, not until he took title to 12. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So Bridges gave the Celeste property owners permission to use their driveway? Is that what you’re telling me? MRS. PALLOZZI-No, when the subdivided and split, whatever word you want to use, they took it that way. MR. STONE-Who pays taxes on this property? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MRS. PALLOZZI-I do. MR. STONE-And yet it’s used by other people because there’s a long standing easement? MRS. PALLOZZI-Correct. There’s also a maintenance order on it, but I can’t get anybody to maintain it either. MR. MC NALLY-To contribute towards it. I don’t understand how the subdivision comes into play with their use of your lot. I can see how the pool enclosure was kept by Mrs. Connors, and the rest sold. All right, but how does that result in an increased use of your lot? MRS. PALLOZZI-Because now it’s being used, all those areas are being used for parking. MR. MC NALLY-For who, for Bridges? MRS. PALLOZZI-And whoever else is there. MR. MC NALLY-In the Bridges’ home. MRS. PALLOZZI-And in sometimes Celeste’s. MR. STONE-So they’re parking cars back on 21.12? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes, and the 22. MR. STONE-And 22 and 23. MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes, and when I asked Mr. Round, when I met with him, I wanted to know how far back from the line these cars had to be. MR. MC NALLY-For parking. MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. I think I’m entitled to a little bit more than two inches. MR. MC NALLY-You understand, though, that there is no residential setback for parking, per se. MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, the Ordinance says that parking areas are subject to the same conditions as a garage, and garages are an accessory use and have to be set back. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, but that’s the setbacks for structures, isn’t it, Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. MRS. PALLOZZI-But your Ordinance does state, subject to the same conditions as a garage. So I guess that’s probably maybe one of the things that would be before you for a determination. MR. STONE-Are you saying there are cars parked on the driveway that are not yours? MRS. PALLOZZI-They are parking in the driveway. I have a court order that says they cannot park anywhere, anywhere on my property. MR. STONE-Okay. Have you gone back to the court? MRS. PALLOZZI-We’ve been back and forth a few times. I mean, I’m not going to go to court every other day, because that’s what I would have to do right now. MR. STONE-But you’re talking about a court decision, a court order. It’s not, we can’t enforce a court order. MRS. PALLOZZI-I understand that, but you can’t do anything that’s going to compound the problem either, because then there’s a liability problem on your part. MR. STONE-Well, you’re assuming that we have any jurisdiction at all. MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Pallozzi, it’s very confusing for me. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MRS. PALLOZZI-I understand. MR. ABBATE-Could you help me, please. MRS. PALLOZZI-I’ll try. MR. ABBATE-You’re indicating that there is a right of way between your lot and the Bridge’ lot. We’ll keep it simple. Is that correct? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So we’ve solved that. You’re indicating that in that right of way, a number of folks are using that to park, to come through and park their automobiles? MRS. PALLOZZI-The right of way was originally for the benefit of 22 and then 12. Now 12 is not in three parcels, and Mr. Round has said that this can continue to happen. MR. ABBATE-All right. So the Bridges and the Pallozzi’s have the right of way to use that little driveway. MRS. PALLOZZI-When you own the fee, you can never have a right of way. When a person owns the land, they cannot have a right of way over your own land. MR. ABBATE-Are you indicating that Bridge does not have a right of way? MRS. PALLOZZI-No. I didn’t say that. I’m saying you said I have a right of way. I don’t have a right of way, because I’m the land owner. MR. ABBATE-All right. We’ll clear it up. You’re the land owner, so obviously you have an inherent provision to drive through there, but the Bridges have a right of way, correct? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, my next question is this. Who else is using that right of way besides the Bridge family? MRS. PALLOZZI-Bridge, and Celeste is allowing Bridge to use to go back onto 21.12. MR. ABBATE-Bridge is allowing Celeste to use the right of way. MRS. PALLOZZI-No, no, no. Celeste is allowing Bridge to use the 21.12 that Bridge does not own. MR. STONE-Is this active parking? Is this junk yard parking? What kind of parking? I mean, the thing that disturbs me about what you’ve said here, and I am disturbed by something you said, not your actions, but you’re saying this space is being used for automobile repairs. MRS. PALLOZZI-I saw a lot of people come there, and they’re fixing cars at all hours. Yes. MR. STONE-Is this a business? MRS. PALLOZZI-He sells auto parts for a living. MR. STONE-Does he sell it from this property? MRS. PALLOZZI-No, not to my knowledge, but, I mean, it’s, you know, 10, 11, 12 o’clock at night. You don’t want headlights in your house or listen to it, plus the music blaring and all that other stuff, plus the vehicles don’t even fit in the garage. MR. STONE-Craig, do we have an knowledge that an illegal business is being operated on this property? MR. BROWN-Not to my knowledge. That’s the first I’ve heard of that. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Pallozzi, two other simple questions, please. I think this is cleared up a little bit for me here. That lot on 3-21.12 which is owned by Celeste is being used for parking, correct? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. ABBATE-Okay. How many cars are parked there? MRS. PALLOZZI-It depends on the day. MR. ABBATE-Well, give me some numbers. Do you want to go through Monday to Sunday? Give me numbers by the day, if it depends on the day. MRS. PALLOZZI-There have been times where I’ve seen almost 20 cars back there. MR. ABBATE-Twenty cars in one day? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Parked on lot 3-21-12, which is Celeste’s, that lot? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. He hasn’t done it in a while, but yes. MR. ABBATE-Well, there could have been a family party, a picnic. MRS. PALLOZZI-All right. Fine. MR. ABBATE-Twenty cars in one day. MR. MC NALLY-Now, you’re objecting to Mr. Brown’s decision to issue a building permit? MRS. PALLOZZI-Did you issue the building permit? MR. BROWN-No, Mr. Round. MR. STONE-Mr. Round. MR. MC NALLY-Craig Brown did, right? MR. STONE-Chris. MR. MC NALLY-Chris, excuse me. I’m sorry, and this building permit was for interior modifications at the house I understand? MRS. PALLOZZI-The inspection report for the Town of Queensbury says it was an interior alteration to create living space. MR. MC NALLY-All right. MRS. PALLOZZI-But it was really an enlargement, alteration of a garage. MR. MC NALLY-All right, and how was it an enlargement? MRS. PALLOZZI-They took a room away from the house and added it to the garage. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-Is this, not being familiar with building permits, what do they call for, Craig? What do you ask for when you get a building permit? MR. BROWN-This building permit was issued for residential interior alterations. That’s a type of building permit you would get. MR. MC NALLY-Did they say that they were going to convert living space to garage space? MR. BROWN-I don’t think it says that in the application. One of the office personnel had, they try and describe what the permit’s for, so that everybody knows who reviews it, and they had made that notation on there, that it says interior alterations to create living space. I don’t have the application in front of me. I can find it right here. MRS. PALLOZZI-I do have the application, and it says accessory structure garage is specifically crossed off in the application. MR. MC NALLY-You said it said to restructure garage? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MRS. PALLOZZI-No. I said the application for the building permit, on the right hand side for garages, whether attached, detached, it’s under accessory uses, for a garage it’s specifically X’d out on that permit. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-How many buildings are on Bridge’s property, right now, detached, separate buildings? I’m just trying to get to a point. MRS. PALLOZZI-One. He has a house. MR. STONE-He has a house. MRS. PALLOZZI-Right. MR. STONE-And what else is there? MRS. PALLOZZI-A house. MR. STONE-Well, there’s only one building? MRS. PALLOZZI-Everything’s attached. MR. STONE-Well, you say the structure has two garages. MRS. PALLOZZI-It does. MR. STONE-Is this a double garage? MRS. PALLOZZI-No, there’s one on each side. MR. STONE-Okay. There’s one on each side. MRS. PALLOZZI-Right. MR. STONE-Okay, that’s what I’m trying to get to. MRS. PALLOZZI-My objection to this alteration is for the use to which it is being put, because he does not have the physical space to get there. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re saying that the second garage was created by interior alterations? Is that what you’re saying? MRS. PALLOZZI-No, no, no. There’s a garage on the north side of the house and there’s a garage on the south side of the house. MR. STONE-And they’ve been there for how? MRS. PALLOZZI-The garage on the south side probably since the beginning. Who knows? The garage on the north side of the house was constructed without a permit in the 1970’s. MR. STONE-Prior to the zoning. MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, Queensbury’s had zoning since ’68. MR. MC NALLY-Not limiting garage size. That’s what I understand the Code was, theoretically. Today we wouldn’t pass it, but in the 70’s, it didn’t limit the number or size. MR. STONE-It’s a nonconforming, pre-existing use. There are two garages. That’s a given. We can’t do anything about that. Now, this alteration, what did that do, as far as you know? Did it expand one of these garages? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-We don’t have a colored copied. This is a drawing of his garage? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. I’m not so sure I agree with the numbers on the sizes, but. MR. MC NALLY-But it generally just depicts the garage, regardless of the numbers. I understand he got rid of the room, or the wall with the mud room? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes, and added it to the garage, right. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. PALLOZZI-He’s bringing 30 feet up and trying to get in, and he’s only got a 13 foot entitlement, at that area. So it’s resulting in trespass on my property. MR. STONE-But you’re saying the whole driveway is not part of the easement? MRS. PALLOZZI-That’s correct. He has a 16 foot right of way measured from the property line. There’s about five feet of grass, and then as you get off towards the garage, the right of way goes to the north. As you’re headed east, the driveway goes to the north. So, at the entrance, that driveway that’s in front of the south garage, because I own about three feet of that little driveway. He’s got about 13 feet of my driveway to use, and between the length of the truck and the trailer that he has on it, he needs at least 30 feet. He also can’t get in and out of there, because there’s no modification to access to that garage. So it’s double decked. Everything you bring you’re towing, and he has to come to a stop somewhere, and he can’t do that in my driveway. I have a court order that says he can’t. MR. STONE-What does he bring in? The thing that sits in front of the house, behind the trees? MRS. PALLOZZI-He can’t park in my driveway. He cannot maneuver this, okay. MR. STONE-Where is, this is the house next door. This is the Bridge’s, right? MRS. PALLOZZI-Right. MR. STONE-Now, where is the 16 foot right of way, easement? MR. MC NALLY-It’s right over here, on that side of the garage. MRS. PALLOZZI-As you go up my driveway. MR. STONE-Right, and this is going up the driveway, isn’t it? MRS. PALLOZZI-No, no, no. His house faces Ridge. This garage faces south. MR. STONE-I understand. Well, that’s your driveway, and I’m just wondering how wide, where does your property, where is the easement, as far as that driveway is concerned? MRS. PALLOZZI-It’s the 16 most northern feet of my property. So, if I have 10 feet of grass there, then the six feet of driveway, irrespective of the width of the driveway. MR. STONE-That’s fine. That’s okay. MR. MC NALLY-So this is the garage opening right there? MR. STONE-That’s the garage opening, yes. MR. MC NALLY-Right on Bridge’s property. MRS. PALLOZZI-No, no, you’re looking at the back of the house. MR. STONE-No, we’re not. MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes, you are. Yes, okay. MR. MC NALLY-They come in this way and turn in. MR. STONE-And you’re saying 16 feet of this is the easement. MRS. PALLOZZI-Right. Do you need to see it on a map? MR. STONE-If you’ve got it. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MRS. PALLOZZI-I have a map. MR. STONE-That would be helpful. MRS. PALLOZZI-You see where the driveway, you see the line here? Okay. So this part of the driveway, which doesn’t really show, because all of this is paved now. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re paved right up to the house? MRS. PALLOZZI-There’s a porch and a side lot, and other stuff. So he’s coming up and coming over here, which he cannot do. MR. STONE-You maintain, and the courts have agreed with you, that he can use this part, but he cannot encroach on your property this way? MRS. PALLOZZI-That’s correct. MR. STONE-And you will maintain that he has to, in trying to get in and out of this driveway, or does? MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, tell me how. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, you can’t back in something. You can’t bring a big trailer in. MRS. PALLOZZI-Right, you know, there’s only one opening there. MR. STONE-So for him to use that garage, he has to go on your property? MRS. PALLOZZI-It’s difficult enough to just get a car in and out, within that, you know, 16 feet is 80% of a car length, and you get a truck, and then you add a trailer or something else onto it, and then, you know, I’ve got to listen to it run for 20, 30 minutes at a pop. MR. MC NALLY-The right of way, does that go all the way back, as shown on this map, and does he have? MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, not for him. MR. MC NALLY-Well, that’s my question. Who has the right to use that right of way? MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, regrettably, if you keep continuing to subdivide this, or allow it to happen, it could be one heck of a nightmare. MR. STONE-Well, there is a protection about building back there. I mean, that’s a given. That has to go, it’s either got to be a variance through us, or it’s got to go to the Planning Board to put a subdivision in there. So I mean, Craig, am I right, this is not an official subdivision. There isn’t prior approval to build back there, on 21.12? MR. BROWN-Prior approval to build back there? MR. STONE-There is no subdivision that says those are buildable lots? MR. BROWN-Well, I think this is, it’s a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. Is it a buildable lot? Yes. He’s going to have to come and get a variance for no road frontage, but it’s an existing lot that would. MR. STONE-There are some checks and balances? MR. BROWN-Sure. MRS. PALLOZZI-How could it be pre-existing when there was frontage required when it was created? MR. BROWN-When was it created? MRS. PALLOZZI-1974. MR. BROWN-The original lot, it was created as a landlocked parcel in 1974? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. MR. PALLOZZI-That’s correct. MR. BROWN-Well, I mean, that’s history. That was the decision that was made at the time, whether they brought it in for review or not. We have to deal with the way it is right now. MR. STONE-But there are some checks and balances that you, they’re not going to be able to build on this thing without going through this Board, and probably the Planning Board. So you’re protected from that standpoint. MRS. PALLOZZI-The lots already have structures. The building permit for the one structure on the Celeste parcel, the building permit actually had a question on there, was the property subdivided after October 1, 1988? If yes, Planning Board approval required. No Planning Board action, no Zoning action, nothing. MR. STONE-And what kind of building is there? MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, it’s called a storage shed, but it’s an addition to a garage. MR. STONE-Okay, but it’s a pre-existing building. It was there prior to ’88. MRS. PALLOZZI-No. The building? No, the building permits were issued afterwards. The building permits were issued afterwards. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. PALLOZZI-That one was 1996. MR. MC NALLY-All right. What lot are you talking about that has a storage building and was built after the subdivision law went into effect, and was constructed without a variance or approval, by the zoning map numbers? Again, you’ve got a lot of lots here. Is that 21.12 that you’re referring to? MRS. PALLOZZI-It was part of 21.12, well, it was 21.12 when it happened, when it was built, and then the 21.12 was, again, subdivided. Like, the structure was built in 1993. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MRS. PALLOZZI-I believe it was 1993, on 12. MR. MC NALLY-On 12. Okay. MRS. PALLOZZI-And then 12, after that, was again subdivided, so that now you see, like after the first subdivision it was 1.93 acres, and now I believe it’s like 1.75. It took approximately 8,000 square feet off of 12. MR. STONE-That’s Bridge’s property? MRS. PALLOZZI-No, that’s Celeste’s property. MR. STONE-The pool was on Celeste’s property? MRS. PALLOZZI-No, well, they both have pools. MR. STONE-But the pool you were referring to earlier was on the Bridge property? MRS. PALLOZZI-I didn’t bring up the pool. I think it was one of the gentlemen on the Board. MR. MC NALLY-I did. MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. Okay. That was on 12, the pool was on 12. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Am I to take it that you’re claiming the Celeste parcel was shorter at one time, and like Connors, they added a little bit of 21.12 to the rear of their lot? MRS. PALLOZZI-That happened in 1996. MR. MC NALLY-That’s what you’re saying. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. MC NULTY-They’re saying originally 21.12 came like that. That’s an additional piece that was cut out of this lot, and added to that property.. MR. STONE-I’m glad you understand that, because I didn’t understand. MR. BROWN-Well, if you look on the original submission. MRS. PALLOZZI-I gave it to you three times. MR. STONE-I know you did. We get so many things. MR. MC NULTY-This sequence here shows the way it originally was. Then you’ve got one piece that was added, chopped out of this and added to this property. Then you’ve got another piece that was chopped out of it, and added to the next property. So it was a transfer. In our terms it wasn’t a subdivision, but I can see what she’s saying, is they chopped that lot up. MR. STONE-They chopped the lot up, right, and sold pieces. MR. MC NULTY-And then the use of those pieces created the problem. MR. MC NALLY-There’s still three lots. There were three lots before. MR. STONE-Yes, no new lots were created. The Celeste property, 23 and 22, were enlarged, at the expense of 21.12. Would you agree with that? MRS. PALLOZZI-I say it’s a separate parcel or site. MR. STONE-Well, for tax purposes, they’re not. 23 extends, if you look at. MRS. PALLOZZI-I see how it’s handled on the tax map. MR. STONE-I mean, this is how it is on the tax maps, right? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. So, in other words, these two parcels were merely enlarged, by the owners acquiring land from 21.12. The question that really is still before us, when we get down to it, is still, was this building permit, the question is, is the building permit being violated, and it’s not even, was it wrongly issued. I mean, one could argue that the building permit was issued for what it was, an alteration of building space. What actually happened, according to you, and we have not been inside the house, so we don’t know that. What seems to have happened is that the alteration of living space was actually a reduction of living space and an expansion of garage space. MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, that’s what I put on the original Freedom of Information request that I did back in March. MR. STONE-Okay, but that becomes, to me, an enforcement issue, I think. I mean, you’ve brought something to the attention, Craig, am I wrong? She has now brought to your attention that in her opinion, in her observation, the building permit was not followed. MR. BROWN-Right, and I think she made that assertion to the Zoning Administrator, and I guess didn’t get the satisfaction she was looking for, and that’s the reason for the appeal. MR. STONE-But his, and what did he say, exactly? He said it was issued correctly? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-And it probably, I don’t want to pre-judge it, but it seems to me that maybe it was, but was used improperly. MR. BROWN-Well, the application, the building permit application that was filled out was filled out requesting residential interior alteration. That’s what the application, that’s how the applicant filled out the application. That’s the way it was granted, and it was clear, by the way the plans were submitted, as to what was going to happen. Everybody knew that the mud room was going to be removed in favor of an enlarged garage. That was common knowledge as the permit was issued. So there was no, we’re going to make more living space and once we get the permit, let’s change it and make garage space. That wasn’t the way it happened. It was always known that the garage was going to be increased. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. STONE-And that was, as far as the Zoning Administrator’s decision is concerned, a correct building permit? MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. STONE-With the knowledge of the total application? MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. STONE-In other words, not just the words that were used. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-And the application is obviously the total package. MR. BROWN-The maps, the drawings, specifications, they’re all part of the part of the application. They all get reviewed prior to the issuance. MR. STONE-Okay. So it seems to us that it seems that what we have to decide is, in fact, the decision of the Zoning Administrator to issue this building permit based upon the facts presented by the application, a correct one. Do you see any more than that, to this? MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, I see that garage is specifically crossed off on the application. MR. STONE-It didn’t say it was making a garage. It was putting space on the back of it. That could be argued. I don’t want to get into that argument, but that could be argued that way. In other words, if I’m listening to our Staff, the application is comprised of a piece of paper, and all of the material that’s given. When you look at this whole thing, one could come to the conclusion that what they did was what they asked to do, and you may disagree with that. That’s okay, but that’s what we have to decide, was this permit issued correctly? MR. BRYANT-Well, I think what Mrs. Pallozzi is saying, if you look at the informational sheet, the application for the permit, it says that they’re going to relocate a wall to create living space, and I don’t know who wrote this. Is that part of their application? MR. BROWN-No. That’s an interoffice form, a checklist that we use, and that was done by someone in the Building Department Staff who doesn’t make those determinations. They try and do the best they can to describe what the permit is for, so the next person in line who’s reviewing it has an understanding of what the permit’s for. In this case, it doesn’t say that on the application, the original building permit application. It’s just interior alteration. MR. STONE-And the drawing that shows the mud room being eliminated was part of that application? MR. BROWN-Yes, absolutely. I have the file here if you’d like to see it. MR. STONE-Any other questions on the part of anybody? Anything more you want to say about this, until I open the public hearing? MRS. PALLOZZI-I think it’s all been said, and said plenty when I was at the Board of Assessment Review hearing, too. MR. URRICO-I guess I have a question. I’m still not sure when the part about the garage was X’d out, and whether the original permit was issued with that crossed out, or was that crossed out afterwards? MR. BROWN-No, I would guess that it was crossed out at the time the application was made. MR. BRYANT-If I were looking at an application like that, and the garage portion was crossed out, and it said interior renovations, I would assume, then, that the garage would be altered, since he’s got a garage on the other side of the house, that the garage would be altered like a sunroom or a family room or something like that. That would be my assumption. I mean, it’s clear on the drawings that they’re taking out the wall and they’re making the garage bigger. MR. BROWN-Right. I mean, I can speculate as to how this application was filled out, and if you have the building permit in front of you, you can see the top was filled out, in one hand writing by the applicant. The middle of the application was filled out, and that’s handwriting by Sue from the Building Department office. Typically, she’ll help people fill out an application. It can be difficult or cumbersome sometimes for people to do it in a timely manner. So she’ll go through it with the 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) applicant there, what are you doing, we’ll check this, mark this, fill this box in. Are you building a new garage? No, I’m not building a new garage, cross that part off. Are you building an addition? No, it’s all interior work. So that’s, I wasn’t there, but I would guess that’s probably why those portions were crossed off. The drawing basically speaks for the work that’s going to be done. MR. BRYANT-Was this application an after the fact application? Was the construction already started? MR. BROWN-I think so. I don’t know the history. MRS. PALLOZZI-I made a Freedom of Information request in March for a copy of the building permit because I knew it didn’t exist. Okay. MR. ABBATE-You made an application because you knew it didn’t exist? MRS. PALLOZZI-I knew he didn’t have a building permit. I told him he needed a building permit, and I guess since you typed your stuff here, I won’t tell you what he said to me, but you can guess. MR. BRYANT-Let me ask you a question. Since the structure itself is nonconforming, having the two garages doesn’t meet setback requirements, wouldn’t that come before the Board before the permit were issued or no? MR. BROWN-No. There’s no exterior construction. So it’s not an expansion of the building. MR. STONE-I mean, as I look at this form, it says nature of proposed work, that’s the first box that I’d get to if I were filling out a building permit, and it says, new building, additions to building, alterations to building, and it gives me two choices, a residence or commercial. Obviously, clearly have to circle residence. It’s an alteration to a residence. Agreed? It’s not a commercial building, it’s a residence. MRS. PALLOZZI-Okay. MR. STONE-I mean, I’m not saying it was used for living, but it’s a residence. All right, the other work, it’s interior. Then it says, accessory buildings, detached garage. That’s what’s crossed out. That’s what you’re saying is crossed out. MRS. PALLOZZI-It’s pretty clear, a garage is an accessory building, and the building permit says either attached or detached. There’s no question. MR. STONE-But they’re not, well, I mean, I can see where it could be called a residence, and I can see that the form is here. It says, here’s what I’m going to do. Here’s original garage, and I’m going to take this out, and that’s at least clear to me. Any other questions you want to ask before I open the public hearing to see what anybody else wants to say? Do you have anything else you want to add at this point? MRS. PALLOZZI-No, I think it’s all been said. MR. STONE-We haven’t made a decision. MRS. PALLOZZI-I understand that. MR. STONE-Please don’t. MR. PALLOZZI-So you’re not going to address the other issues, then? MRS. PALLOZZI-No, we’ll handle that at another time, then. MR. STONE-I made a decision not to address the other issues because they go back before the Zoning Code under which we operate, and plus the fact that I hear your concern. You’re concerned about building, subdividing, further subdividing into building lots back there. That can’t happen without a number of reviews happening. I mean, what has happened, in my judgment, and I think that I speak for the Board in this case, these were not subdivisions when these other two, the two lots to the north of you were expanded. They were merely acquisition of land to make them larger lots. They weren’t divided. There weren’t going to be two houses on those. There was going to be one house on a larger lot. MR. PALLOZZI-So you’re saying they were lot line adjustments? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. STONE-They’re lot line adjustments. They bought more property from the man who owned the adjoining land, and as I say, if, in fact, on 21.12, if building is desired, because it has no road frontage, it’s going to have to come to get a variance, and it’s going to have to come to Planning Board. So there’s plenty of place to fight this in the future. MRS. PALLOZZI-Except the structure is on those other lots, when it was 21.12, without frontage, that didn’t go to a Planning Board and didn’t go to a Zoning Board MR. STONE-That was, again, prior to the current Code that has required road frontage, 40 foot required road frontage. MRS. PALLOZZI-It used to be 30, in the old Code. All right. MR. STONE-Well, let me open the public hearing. Anybody who agrees with Mrs. Pallozzi, in terms of her appeal, that this building permit, I guess I’m going to say was issued wrongly, anybody wishing to support Mrs. Pallozzi? Anybody wishing to speak in opposition to her appeal? Anybody who says that the building permit was, in fact, issued correctly, or anything else you want to say? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see any correspondence. MR. STONE-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Are there any further questions? MR. HIMES-This may be a technical question. That right of way, or easement, as someone mentioned, who has the rights to it, just the Bridges, or does that go right up past? MR. STONE-Apparently 21.12, the Celeste’s for the back lot. Isn’t that what it says? MR. HIMES-The easement? MR. STONE-The easement goes all the way back to 21.12? MRS. PALLOZZI-It runs the entire southern boundary of that, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So, in other words, if the owner of 21.12 wants to go back there with a motor vehicle, they can go on that right of way? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. MR. STONE-The courts have so agreed and all that. MRS. PALLOZZI-Well, they haven’t agreed that it could be split up all like this. MR. STONE-All right. I won’t argue that, but it is a right of way, it is an easement to go from Ridge Road to the back of 21.12? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. MR. STONE-Do you agree with that? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HIMES-All right. Then in connection with some future, say, application to come to the Planning Board or what not, or a subdivision, then would be made more valid by the existence of that easement or what? MR. PALLOZZI-No, because it’s only a 16 foot wide drive. It would create a hazard, because that opens up our property, too. So we could drive along that. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. STONE-But that’s one of the things I’m talking about. MR. HIMES-That gives more foundation to what you’ve said, the access that’s very unlikely that that’s going to be subdivided. MR. MC NALLY-Unless we give a variance. MR. STONE-Unless we give a variance, and there’s got to be very good reason to give a variance. MR. HIMES-Okay, thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Bob, let’s start with you. MR. MC NALLY-All right. I think that the Pallozzi’s have some legitimate concerns regarding overuse of their right of way easement. We have a couple of issues before us, and the first one is whether the building permit was issued properly, and I can see that there are Staff notes that could be interpreted as being something that the Bridges inserted on their application and did not comply with, in other words, that they planned to increase their living space, but I think the proof here tonight demonstrated that that handwriting and that bit of information was from the Staff, and that the Bridges, when they applied for the building permit, made it clear to Staff that they were going to remove a wall from their mud room and make that mud room part of the garage. So, from my perspective, the permit was properly issued, and it did not require any special variance from this Board, because there was no change in the exterior of the building which would have expanded an existing nonconforming use or otherwise required a variance. I understand concern, if Lot 21.12 is further subdivided, because if it is subdivided or if a house is put up there, or at least they try to file a building permit to put one there, you’re going to have to deal with the issue of road frontage, which it has none now, but that’s an issue for the future. So I don’t see, currently, that that’s an issue before the Board. With respect to the expansion of the Celeste and the Bridge property, going backwards, if I look at the Zoning Code, under the definition of Subdivision, it’s clear that a subdivision does not apply to conveyances of small amounts of land to correct a boundary of a lot so long as the conveyance does not create additional lots. So what happened is the Bridges and the Celeste’s purchased some land at the rear and expanded their existing lots. We had three lots before. We have three lots now. So in my opinion this is not a subdivision that, again, would effect this building permit. Now, it’s, you say, to correct a boundary. I know, as a practical matter, we’ve always recognized that anything which neighbors agree to affect their boundary jointly is a boundary adjustment. So, as a practical matter, that’s the way we’ve looked at it, as far as I can tell, and that’s what I think. So, I would be in favor, on this limited basis, of affirming the Zoning Administrator’s decision, saying he did it right. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I wish I could disagree with Bob, but I have to agree. I think on the narrow issue that we’re looking at, of whether or not this building permit was issued properly, I have to agree that I think it was. At the same time, I can understand your problem and your frustration, and even though there may never be a building back there, if, as they’ve started to do, the owners of that lot in the back continue to sell pieces off, and then encourage the owners to access the rear of their properties by using the right of way instead of going over their own property, it’s going to just make an additional nightmare for the Pallozzi’s, but unfortunately, that’s not the issue that’s before the Board. So, I guess you’re going to end up probably having to pursue that problem through some other avenue. To make it short, I’d be inclined to support the Zoning Administrator’s decision. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I think the Pallozzi’s have some legitimate concerns that have been pointed out before me. I think there might be some enforcement issues. There might be some future zoning issues as well, but those concerns are not something that we can rule on. Those are not what we’re being asked to do here, and I think on the issue of the building permit, I think we have to support the Zoning Administrator’s decision on this, and I agree with my fellow Board members. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I, too, agree with all that’s been said here by the other Board members. It appears that the building permit might have made a bad situation a little worse, but in connection with the environment under which building permits are processed, there was no zoning application at the time, nothing can be done about that, from our standpoint. I tend to agree that the building permit, as issued, was valid, and I support the move taken. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. ABBATE-I also believe that Mrs. Pallozzi has some legitimate complaints, and I suspect that if our positions were reversed, I’d be up here saying the same thing, but in the final analysis, I would have to support the decision of the Zoning Administrator in this. I wish I could reverse it, but unfortunately, I can’t. Thank you. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I too, agree, but there was one thing that you brought out in your letter that wasn’t really discussed here, and that was the issue of the automobile repairs that are going on in the newly renovated garage, and I think that’s an issue for enforcement, rather than this Board, but that’s a legitimate concern, when property, particularly when it states in the Code that a garage cannot be used for commercial purposes, and if that garage is, in fact, being used for commercial purposes, that is a legitimate issue. As far as the issuance of the permit, I think they did exactly what they said they were going to do, and again, the permit was one of these permits that was applied for after the fact. The work was completed, and so be it, but I think the enforcement issue is an avenue that you should pursue. If, in fact, they are parking cars in the back, in order to repair them in some kind of commercial enterprise, that’s a legitimate concern, and if it were next door to my house, I would be concerned. MR. STONE-Thank you. Obviously, I feel the same way about this. I think you have a great deal of reason for concern. Unfortunately, we are not in the position to provide you, obviously, the relief you would like to get. I mean, in this particular case, the building permit application, and that’s the thing that we have to keep in mind, the building permit file is reasonably truthful, in terms of what was asked for and what was done, and therefore, I certainly would agree with the Zoning Administrator that it was correctly issued. However, I encourage you, and I understand your concern, and as you know, I have heard your concern previously on a different Board. This is, obviously, an enforcement issue, and we rely, the Town of Queensbury relies on people to tell our officials if they think something is being done illegally, and it is up to the Town to do something about it, which may be ignoring it, but nevertheless, you have an obligation, we all have an obligation, to point out things that we think are wrong, and I would encourage you to do that. I would also encourage you, since you have a court order, you’ve got to go back, I mean, I know it’s an expense, and I know that it’s time and trouble and all those sort of things, and no one wants to live in an antagonistic situation, but you’ve been told, they’ve been told, what, in fact, they can do on that right of way, and I think they have to be continually reminded about that, it would seem to me. I think, as Allan said, if it was next to his house, he would be very upset, and we understand that you’re very upset, but having said that, I think that the building permit, which is the only question that I think is before us, was properly issued. Having said that, I’ll call for a motion. MOTION TO DENY NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5-2000 BARBARA & CARMEN PALLOZZI, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: For the reasons stated this evening. Duly adopted this 23 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-There you go. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2000 TYPE II ERWIN GUAY OWNER: SAME AGENT: DONALD DEAN ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION: 42 STEPHANIE LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A DETACHED GARAGE AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE SR- 20 REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 126-3-23 LOT SIZE: 0.39 ACRES SECTION: 179-19, 179-67 CLARE GUAY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 69-2000, Erwin Guay, Meeting Date: August 23, 2000 “Project Location: 42 Stephanie Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) construction of a 528 sf detached garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 2 feet of relief from the 30 minimum rear setback requirement of the R-3 zone. Also, the applicant is requesting 7 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum separation distance for accessory structures per, §179-67. 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 garage in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the garage to a compliant location as there appears to be ample area to do so. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 2 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal, while 7 feet of relief from the 10 requirement 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.): AV81-93 res. 9/15/93 fence along southerly property line BP 91-549 issued 8/2/91 single family dwelling Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. There appears to be ample area available to the applicant for compliance, however, the proposal appears to be attempting to use the existing drive. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Any County? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t believe that there’s any County. MR. STONE-Before you start, for anybody who’s come in late for the two Sign Variances, we’ve tabled both of those. Obviously, no one’s here. We’ll keep going. Introduce yourself and tell us what you want. MRS. GUAY-My name is Clare Guay. My husband and I both own 42 Stephanie Lane. One of the main reasons that we asked for this variance, not only was because of the driveway. It’s because my husband has a heart condition. We also have an 87 year old mother-in-law, my mother-in-law, living with us who walks very unsteadily, and the idea of the garage placement was that we could walk directly into the garage. I am also totally disabled on my right side, and this was the reasoning, because the garage door would have come right to the sidewalk coming off the porch. That was our main reason. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions? MR. BRYANT-Is that the sidewalk going in to the front of the house? Is that where you’re talking about? MRS. GUAY-The sidewalk, you come off the porch and you go right straight in front of the house? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MRS. GUAY-Yes. The way it was set up is the side door of the garage would line up with that sidewalk. MR. MC NALLY-Why can’t you build an attached garage? MR. BRYANT-That’s a good question. MRS. GUAY-Cost. MR. MC NALLY-What’s the difference? MRS. GUAY-We were told that it would cost us about $3,000 more to build an attached garage. MR. MC NALLY-Did they explain what the problem would be? MRS. GUAY-They said you have to put down frost, I don’t know, frost posts and another wall, and another, yes, there was a big expense to it. MR. ABBATE-I think it’s a requirement, am I write, Craig, on that? MR. BROWN-Yes, any addition to a living space or a house that’s got a foundation on it has to have footings below frost. Freestanding wouldn’t require that. MR. MC NALLY-People build garages with footings above the frost line? MR. BROWN-Just monolithic concrete pour, yes, without a frost wall, yes. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. STONE-Keep in mind, I mean, I just want to caution you as you hear us, a variance lasts forever. In other words, if we grant you the relief that you’re seeking, there’s no time limit on it. We can’t say, tear the garage down for the next owner. We can’t compel the next owner to tear it down. So if we granted you the garage three feet from the house, it’s going to be three feet from the house forever. MRS. GUAY-Right. MR. STONE-As long as that house is there. MRS. GUAY-Right. MR. STONE-So that’s always a concern that we have to consider when we look at a variance. In other words, it’s not something temporary. MRS. GUAY-Is that a bad thing? MR. STONE-Well, it may be bad for you, is what I’m saying. In other words, you’re asking for seven foot of relief from, in terms of where you want to put the garage, and if you build it, if we allow you that, then it’s going to be there forever. MRS. GUAY-Right. MR. STONE-And it goes against, in other words, a variance goes against our zoning. It becomes an aberration, if you will, and we recognize that when we grant variances, but it’s something that just may come into our thinking. I’m just cautioning you, in terms of as you listen to us. That may or may not come into play, but I want you to know that. That’s all. Because, I mean, I hear the reason that you’re doing it, and that is a temporal reason, with your mother, and I don’t want to be morbid about it, but that is a temporal reason. MRS. GUAY-And myself and my husband, he’s got heart disease. MR. STONE-And yourself. MR. HIMES-Just a couple of things. One is in the Staff notes here it refers to the R-3 zone, and I just noticed that on the agenda it’s SR-20. I can’t read this map very well, just for the record, it looks like SR-20 on the map. MR. BROWN-Yes. For the record, the setbacks that would govern any building on this lot are the setbacks that were in place at the time the subdivision was approved, and that was in the early 80’s, and the R-3 zoning regulations were in force at that time. So any subsequent building on the lot is subject to those setback requirements, not the current setback requirements. MR. HIMES-So it’s not an SR-20 zone? MR. BROWN-No, it’s subject to the R-3, whatever’s in the Staff notes. MR. HIMES-All right. In connection with a garage that has a breezeway, is that called an attached or a detached? MR. BROWN-That’s attached. MR. HIMES-Attached. So still all that foundation business applies. MR. BROWN-That’s a question that the Building Department would probably interpret differently. If there’s structural support between the two, they may want a footing or a frost wall for a portion of it. I can’t answer that question. MR. HIMES-Are you going to have a breezeway? MRS. GUAY-There’s no way to enter the house from that side. I mean, the bedroom’s on that end of the house. Unfortunately, the way they built the house, there’s a bedroom on that end and there’s a bedroom on the other end. MR. MC NALLY-As I see the map that you’ve enclosed, the garage is actually being built in front of the existing home by a few feet? MRS. GUAY-It’s going to come out just a little bit in front of, well, the porch comes out. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. MC NALLY-But equal with the porch is what I thought it would be. MRS. GUAY-Well, actually it’s a 22 depth garage, not 24. I hope he put that in there. MR. MC NALLY-There were stakes in the ground. That’s where the corners are? MRS. GUAY-Yes. They have to be changed. They were put in previous to, we were going to do a 24 by 24, and then we just waited on that. Actually, it’s going to come back a little bit. It’s going to come back a foot, or we can leave it even with the porch, and spend so much, whatever, and it’ll bring that even farther up front, away from whatever. MR. STONE-Yes, that was one of the notes that I made. I would have loved to have seen a better drawing than this very small. MRS. GUAY-I didn’t draw it. I’m sorry. My builder did. MR. STONE-It would have been more helpful, to me anyway. MRS. GUAY-You didn’t see the property? MR. STONE-I’ve seen the property. MRS. GUAY-We do take a nice, it’s a nice property, good care of that property. MR. STONE-Let me ask you a question, looking the property, and I will include Staff in this question. There’s a shed on the back of the property. Let me ask the question differently. Is the fence on the eastern side, blue fence? MRS. GUAY-Yes. MR. STONE-Is that on the property line? MRS. GUAY-I assume it is. MR. STONE-Okay. Because it seems to me that the shed is right on the property line, and it’s not supposed to be. MRS. GUAY-Well, that was there when we bought the house. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. GUAY-We bought the house three years ago. MR. STONE-Are you aware of that? Did you happen to see that, Craig? MR. BROWN-I didn’t. MR. STONE-I mean, that has nothing to do with this, but that always troubles me. MRS. GUAY-Unless there was, between neighbors, you know. MR. STONE-Well, it’s supposed to be five feet off the line. MRS. GUAY-I think it is five feet. You don’t think so? MR. STONE-It didn’t look it to me. It looked like it was right at the end of the fence. MRS. GUAY-No, no. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MRS. GUAY-If you want, we’ll tear it down. MR. BRYANT-I just want to clarify, the reason you’re building the garage a little bit forward of the house is because you expect to use the side door to get onto your porch and then in the house? MRS. GUAY-Right. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. BRYANT-Okay. MRS. GUAY-It makes it less cumbersome, especially in the winter time. MR. BRYANT-I would think in the winter time, the way the pitch of the garage is designed, which is opposite, that you’re going to have a three foot space, and even though the door is forward of the house, you’re going to have an accumulation of snow, and that’s going to be a pretty nasty area, and that’s, you know, under those conditions, I don’t know that I’d even use a side door. It would be more appropriate to use the overhead door. MRS. GUAY-Well, it’s possible. I mean, we can do that. We’d have to set it back. The only thing is it’s the walking. You see where the driveway is, and that driveway was added on to. Apparently, they were going to build a garage and ran into a problem. Maybe the same one. We would have to cut down a major tree, which was planted, that shades the side of the house. We have no, really not much of any foliage in the front. We’re trying to grow it. MR. BRYANT-See, from my view, from an aesthetic standpoint, and from a functional standpoint, especially in the winter, an attached garage with the same slope as your house, the roof in your house, would be more practical. You’d come in and out of the front door, right onto the sidewalk, right upstairs, and you don’t have, you know, that little area is going to accumulate snow. Three feet is not a lot of area, and everything that comes off the garage roof is going to go in that area. MRS. GUAY-I do understand that. MR. STONE-Now, you’re going to have a door in the corner, the side of the garage closest to the street there? MRS. GUAY-We planned on it, yes. MR. STONE-I mean, I couldn’t tell that from the drawing. MRS. GUAY-We also going to, that sidewalk and then a little sidewalk out, another piece of sidewalk out to the driveway. So there would be shrubbery in there also. MR. STONE-Does anybody else have any questions before I open the public hearing? MR. URRICO-Why was the three feet decided upon, as opposed to maybe four feet or five feet, or six feet? MR. MC NALLY-Or ten feet. MRS. GUAY-Well, I guess when he first called on the building permit, somebody in the office told him three feet. So this is what we had planned on. Ten feet away is just making it that much farther for anybody to walk. At times, I don’t walk well at all, and for my mother-in-law, well, she’s 87, but she might live to be 100. She walks, she has very bad knees, with a cane. MR. STONE-Does she drive? MRS. GUAY-She does not drive, no. MR. STONE-She doesn’t drive, obviously. MRS. GUAY-We were looking, because we are retiring in a couple of years, at convenience, as to walking that many more feet, especially in the winter time with the ice. Last year the ice build up on that driveway, it was incredible. If we go that far over, we have that much more ice to go through. MR. MC NALLY-But we’re talking a difference of seven feet additional walking. If it’s such a big concern, wouldn’t it warrant spending the extra money and perhaps attaching it to the existing structure? MRS. GUAY-Not when you’re getting ready to retire. MR. MC NALLY-Really? Okay. MRS. GUAY-Do you understand what I’m saying? MR. STONE-We understand what you’re saying. We don’t necessarily, I think, agree, but we understand. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MRS. GUAY-If we go that far, okay, if we go that far, we have to cut a tree down. We’re also going down a dip. The ground doesn’t go down like. MR. BRYANT-By the same token, you talk about expense, and. MRS. GUAY-And we’re still going to have to add more blacktop. MR. BRYANT-You talk about expense, and you said that putting an attached garage would only cost $3,000 more. MRS. GUAY-He said $3,000 or so. MR. BRYANT-Or so, and you’re going from a 24 foot to a 22 foot garage, right? MRS. GUAY-It’s 24 foot across, 22 foot deep. MR. BRYANT-So you’ve got to be saving a grand or so for that. MRS. GUAY-We had to. MR. STONE-All right. Any other questions? I’ll open the public hearing. We’ve still got another crack at it. Let me open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application, in favor of the application? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Now we’re right back where we were. Any other further questions? All right. Hearing none, let’s talk about it. Chuck, you’re up. MR. MC NULTY-I don’t know what to think. On the one hand, I’m inclined to approve, because I can understand the reasons, and I can understand the concern about not wanting to spend extra money to attach the garage. At the same time, I think the concerns have been expressed about the roof pitch on the garage, and accumulation of snow are valid concerns. It could be a nightmare for the current owners. It could be a nightmare for future owners, if the garage is this close, because snow coming off that roof is probably going to pile up wall to wall. MRS. GUAY-Could I ask you a question? MR. MC NULTY-Sure. MRS. GUAY-If we decided to change the pitch of the roof around, does he have to go through a whole change, you know, petitioning? MR. STONE-Not as far as we’re concerned. We’re only concerned with distances, and height, if you wanted to go too high. Our concern, this Board’s concern is with distances. MRS. GUAY-Distances, but he’s talking about the pitch of the roof. MR. STONE-Well, that’s part of his thinking, to help you or not help you. MRS. GUAY-I understand what he’s saying. The snow also comes off, you know, and you’ve got to get away from the garage in the front. Either way, you’re looking at moving snow. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, either way you’re going to have a problem, because if you turned the pitch the other way. MRS. GUAY-We thought, aesthetically, it would look nicer, actually. MR. MC NULTY-You’re probably right. It’s probably, from the views, going to look nicer that way. MRS. GUAY-There are several houses on the street that have had garages attached that do not look as well as they should. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. MC NULTY-I guess I’m going to say I’m on the fence, and I would like to hear some of the reasoning from some of the other Board members, for whichever way they’re going before I make a final decision. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I think the zoning regulations can’t put property owners in a straight jacket. However, I don’t think we can always approve a plan because it sounds like a good idea. It sounds like a good idea from a personal standpoint. From a design standpoint, it doesn’t look like a good idea to me. I think three feet, in the way the roof is pitched, this is going to be a bigger problem down the road than it’s going to solve, and I’d like to see it either become an attachment to the house, which would eliminate the problem of people getting around, or conform to the regulations which are (lost words). MRS. GUAY-There’s no way, if we attached it to the house, we couldn’t enter the garage from the house. There’s no way. MR. URRICO-I just see the snow accumulating in this alleyway being more of a problem than the extra footage that would be needed. MR. STONE-Well, you could attach it and move it forward the way you want to, and still have a side door, in the short walk. MRS. GUAY-I understand, but like I said, we are on a limited budget. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think the issue of where the snow is going to fall is a burden that the applicant is willing to accept. I think the distance between the house is really what you guys should focus on. You could use that for reasoning, I suppose, but it’s something they’re willing to accept, to shovel the snow and chip the ice. MR. STONE-I understand, but we’re stating where we’re coming from and if it figures into our feeling, then we should state it. It doesn’t necessarily. MRS. GUAY-What if we were to move it five feet, instead of ten feet? That’s two feet more. That’s going to give a bigger area between the house and the garage. MR. STONE-Well, we hear that. Let’s just hear what the rest of the Board has to say first. Roy, do you have anything else? I think I heard you say you’d like it attached or 10 feet. MR. URRICO-Or some compromise with that. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I don’t have any problem with the two feet relief, as far as the rear is concerned, but I, and again, I can appreciate the position and your mother-in-law’s, however, I think the 10 feet is just not that much more. I mean, an inch is as good as a mile might be said by some, but in terms of the reasons there are for the 10 feet, and our expectation to enforce it, I don’t think that, in this particular case, that I can agree that we should cut it from the 10 feet. There’s room there to put it there. That’s one of our primary considerations. So that’s my feeling. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Well, I think it was said earlier, I don’t think we should place property owners in a straight jacket. There have been some compelling reasons given by Mrs. Guay this evening, in terms of a limited physical ability on several parties. Our aesthetic values may differ with hers. If snow is going to accumulate and we approve it, so be it. It’s her responsibility, and I don’t think a decision should be based upon where the snow is going to accumulate. Mrs. Guay, I think I’d stay with your plan. I don’t have a problem with it. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I don’t have a problem with the two feet of relief for the setback. I do have a problem, I know the snow removal is not our concern, but I think the distance of the garage to the house, a three foot distance is going to exacerbate that whole snow situation. I would prefer to see it either attached or 10 feet away. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-If you look at the five factors that we have to, in considering an Area Variance, then benefit to the applicant, they certainly should be allowed to construct a garage that would allow her mother-in-law and herself to use the location that they have selected. The second factor we look at are feasible alternatives, however, and there’s no question but that there are feasible alternatives available to the applicant in this case, and that can include relocation of the garage to a compliant location, which be a minimum of 10 feet from the house, or it would be the construction of a garage adjacent to the house, in other words, attached to it. The relief, with respect to the rear setback, that is the two feet of relief from the thirty foot requirement, is minimal. I don’t have a problem with that, as the other Board members did, but seven feet of relief from the ten foot separation requirement is moderate. It’s a 70% change, and as our Town Board decided that accessory structures should be at least 10 feet apart, whether it’s for snow or access, or for other reasons, I don’t see any compelling reason before us to contradict what the Town Board had decided. The effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t see that this is a deciding factor, though I think we have, as a Board, historically not approved accessory structures in garages that are closer than 10 feet from the main building. So, by essentially making an exception in this case, we are having an effect Town wide, in the sense that we’re making an exception for you where we’ve never done before, or at least, or at least seldom done so. I think the last factor to look at is whether or not the difficulty is self-created, and with all due respect, it is self-created. I understand the personal health reasons of your mother-in-law, but there are compliant locations available to the applicant, and therefore, I’d be against the seven feet of relief. I’d be in favor of the two feet of relief from the thirty foot setback. MR. STONE-I think Mr. McNally said exactly what I would have said, taking the factors that we’re supposed to consider, and it’s a balancing test. I mean, this is our job to sit here and look at these five factors and determine how they weigh in our minds, and as a number of Board members have said, the two feet doesn’t trouble me at all. That’s not going to have any impact at all, particularly since we didn’t hear anybody, that the back neighbor had any concern about that, but the concern about the amount of relief for an accessory structure, when, as Mr. McNally says, we have basically, I can’t remember ever giving it. We may certainly have, but I don’t think we’ve ever given relief from that 10 feet. I’m not even sure we’ve ever been asked to give that kind of thing, because it’s something that is fairly a common sense rule. You don’t want a garage too close to the house, unless it’s part of the house. It’s an either or situation, and as I look at my numbers here, it says to me that at least four of us are not willing to grant a variance on the seven feet, and we all seem to be willing to grant the two feet. Now, you can, we can vote it down. In other words, it’s a package deal. We would have to say, we’ll give you two feet of relief, but we won’t give you the seven, or you can go home and discuss it with your husband, and you have an agent here or something who, I guess was designing it or something. MRS. GUAY-No. He’s a joke. MR. STONE-We could table it and let you do some things with it. MRS. GUAY-We’ve been trying to build this garage since April, believe it or not. I have trusses sitting in my garage. Talk about trying to take the water off them so we don’t have a pool for mosquitoes. MR. STONE-Well, I mean, I can’t tell how some of the others are going to vote, but I think four of us are not going to give you the seven feet of relief. MR. MC NALLY-What he’s saying is we can deny you tonight. MR. STONE-We can deny you, and that would be the end of it. MR. MC NALLY-Or you could come back and modify your plan. Because if four vote against you, that’s the decision. MR. STONE-If we deny it, but on the other hand, if you came back and wanted, it has to be substantially different. MRS. GUAY-The thing that we want to do is, we have this tree. MR. STONE-I understand. I saw the tree, and I’m very concerned about trees, but I’m also very concerned about putting a garage too close to a house. MRS. GUAY-But if I had two feet, even two feet less, say eight feet away from the house. MR. STONE-Well, would you be willing to ask us to consider eight feet? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MRS. GUAY-Yes. It’s two feet. I just don’t want to cut the tree down. MR. STONE-All right. Let’s just go through this again, on the basis of two and eight. Let me start again with Chuck. MR. MC NULTY-I think I could go along with eight. After listening to the other Board members, I’m inclined to agree that the 10 feet was put there for a reason. We don’t know all the reasons. Some of them may have been aesthetic. Some of it may have been the safety of having a building that’s got a gasoline powered vehicle a safe distance from the house, but two feet of relief from 10 feet doesn’t strike me as being very substantial, and I could go along with that, especially considering the fact that it would save cutting down a big tree. I think that’s a fair trade. MR. STONE-Roy, what about two and eight for you? MR. URRICO-Eight feet would do it for me. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-No, I’m sorry, I think I’ll stick with the 10. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I have no problems with eight feet. MR. STONE-You had no problems before. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I’m going to stick with what I said originally. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-With all due respect, again, we’re splitting hairs. Two feet, three feet, seven feet. I was at the property. I saw the tree. I can understand your concerns, but I think it should be 10 feet or attached. MR. STONE-Okay. I appreciate your willingness to change it, but I think, too, in many respects we have, we’ve given relief for two, and I’m sure you could come to meeting after meeting, and you’ll se that we’ll give a slight relief, but in this particular case, I think, as a number of my Board members have said, it’s attached or it’s 10 feet, because there are very good reasons. So, having said that, let me call for a motion. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2000 ERWIN GUAY, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by 42 Stephanie Lane. The applicant proposes construction of a 528 square foot detached garage. Relief required, applicant requests two feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the R-3 zone. Also, the applicant is requesting seven feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum separation distance for accessory structures, per 179-67. During the course of our discussions here, the applicant suggested two feet of relief, in lieu of seven, however, this did not dissuade the majority of the Board on the decision to decline the application. The benefit to the applicant would have been to construct the desired garage in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, there is ample room on the property to locate the structure at the required distance of 10 feet, or the structure could be made part of the dwelling as an attached garage, which would eliminate the need for this variance at all. The effect on the neighborhood or community, minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of the action, if it was done as requested. MRS. GUAY-You said the effects on the neighborhood. MR. HIMES-Yes, that’s one of the criteria that we have. MRS. GUAY-Could you tell me what those would be? MR. HIMES-Well, there aren’t any. We don’t see. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MRS. GUAY-That there would be any. MR. HIMES-Yes. That that area of our process doesn’t enter into the decision one way or the other in this particular case. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, as there appears to be a compliant location available to the applicant. MRS. GUAY-We’ll just have to spend a few thousand dollars more that we don’t have to add to a driveway that’s going to look like a parking lot. MR. STONE-Does everybody understand the motion? MR. BRYANT-I want to comment. Since the Board generally was in favor of the two feet relief from the setback, don’t you think that that should be part of the motion, because if Mrs. Guay is going to build a garage that’s attached, she’ll still need that setback relief. MRS. GUAY-We can’t afford it. So it’s not even in the. MR. STONE-It should be a compliant location. That could be just addressed again. MR. BRYANT-Why would she have to come through it again? We collectively agreed to the two foot setback. MR. STONE-Well, we could put in there that we, we’re not going to separate it. We can merely say that the two feet is acceptable to the Board. MR. MC NALLY-Well, if we deny her that two feet of relief from the rear setback, and she comes back, asking for it again, are we going to say that it was already denied once? MR. BROWN-Well, I think what you could do, and it’s an option for the applicant to consider, she could agree to move the garage 10 feet from the house, and get relief, the two feet of relief from the rear setback, and I’m assuming, that sounded like you guys would approve that. MR. BRYANT-Exactly. MR. BROWN-If that’s what she’s willing to do. I’m not familiar, exactly, with where the tree is, or if the tree would have to come down, or if it could go right up against it. MR. STONE-Well, we could approve it on the basis of two and ten, and if she doesn’t choose to build. MR. BROWN-I don’t think that’s been discussed yet. You talked about eight from the house and two feet of relief from the rear. MR. STONE-I understand that, but I’m saying we could just grant the two feet on the condition that the garage be 10 feet from the house. MR. BRYANT-In a compliant location. MR. STONE-In a compliant location. It doesn’t help you. MR. ABBATE-Do you understand the question? You’d have to agree that, you’d have to basically make the statement saying, yes, I will go for the two and ten feet. MRS. GUAY-Well, it’s the only way we’re going to get a garage. Obviously, I’d have to agree. MR. ABBATE-No, no, but that statement has to come from you, you’d be willing to do this, this, and then we would consider it. MR. STONE-Are you willing for us to consider an application for merely two feet of relief from the rear property line? MRS. GUAY-We’re farther than that. MR. STONE-No, a relief of two feet. You’re 28 feet from the property line. In other words, your application would be, only reflect that you want two feet of relief from the rear property line. MRS. GUAY-Right, but I can’t go back that far. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. STONE-No, no, not two feet next to it. Two feet of relief, which means 28 feet from the property line. MR. MC NULTY-See, you’re supposed to be 30 feet from the rear property line. MRS. GUAY-I see. MR. STONE-And that would be the only thing, because that’s all you’re asking for, which means. MRS. GUAY-That was kind of one of the reasons why we moved it up. MR. STONE-I understand that, but, in other words, that Board is willing to say that if you built this house in a compliant location, which is either attached or a minimum of 10 feet, we would allow two feet of relief from the rear setback, which makes it 28 feet, and then you can make your decision, in terms of what you want to do. I mean, the majority of the Board is not willing to grant any relief from the 10 foot minimum setback. MRS. GUAY-All right. I might not have any lawn for a while. That might not be very good. It would make a mess of the neighborhood. MR. STONE-All right. So why don’t we re-do the motion. We’ll grant two feet of relief, and we’ll leave the other part alone. Do you want to do it again? I’m sorry. MR. HIMES-Okay. Starting over? MR. STONE-Yes, start over. MR. HIMES-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2000 ERWIN GUAY, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 42 Stephanie Lane. As amended. The applicant proposes construction of a 528 square foot detached garage. Applicant requests two feet of relief from the thirty foot minimum rear setback requirement of the R-3 zone. Initially, the applicant was requesting seven feet of relief from the ten foot separation distance for accessory structures per Section 179-67, but subsequently agreed to the ten foot requirement. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired garage in a compliant location. The feasible alternatives, in connection with the amended application, there may need to be no alternatives applied, other than if a decision was made to make it an attached garage, which it appears that they do not wish to do. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Two feet of relief from the thirty foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal. The amended application is such that there is no need for consideration of any other relief. Effects on the neighborhood or community, minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, that being the two foot rear setback variance. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, as there appears to be a compliant location available to the applicant. Duly adopted this 23 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Craig, you understand what we did? MR. BROWN-Yes, I do. MR. STONE-I know, you understand what we did. MRS. GUAY-I know. MR. STONE-You’re not happy, and we know that. MRS. GUAY-Do you know anybody that does fairly good blacktop work for a reasonable price. I’m going to have like half a yard of blacktop. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2000 PAUL & JUDY CUSHING OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA LOCATION: 280 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ADDITION TO SOIUTH EAST CORNER OF EXISTING TWO CAR GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO RELIEF. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 64-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 13-3-23 LOT SIZE: 0.39 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 PAUL CUSHING, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 70-2000, Paul & Judy Cushing, Meeting Date: August 23, 2000 “Project Location: 280 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 215 sf addition to an existing 2 car garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 1.5 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, §179-16. Also, the applicant requests relief from the floor area ratio requirements, of the same zone, to increase the floor area on the property to a 22.6% total. Further, since the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements, nor will the proposed addition, relief for the expansion of a non conforming structure, per §179-79 is requested. 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 office space separate from the residence. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration and relocation to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 1.5 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal. Likewise, a 22.6% FAR total could be interpreted as minimal. The 215 sf addition is allowable, as the 480 sf garage could be enlarged by 240 sf (50%). 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 sufficient area for a compliant addition. 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 applicant wishes to establish a home based office in which to operate as an architect/designer/planner. While a professional office is not an allowable use within the WR-1A zone, if only the applicant occupies the proposed office, with no employees, clients, customers, signs or display that will indicate, from the exterior, that the use is other than residential, the use appears to be allowable, subject to Board interpretation and/or condition. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-County? MR. MC NULTY-I didn’t see any County. MR. STONE-Okay. Go. MR. CUSHING-Mr. Chairman, Paul Cushing, 280 Cleverdale Road. I am a practicing architect, and have been in the Town of Queensbury since 1970. I am now sneaking up on the advanced age. I have no employees and do not contemplate having any employees for the rest of my professional career. My business volume, obviously, has been reduced. I am doing a lot of residential work. I’m doing some small commercial work. Between telephones, fax lines, e-mail, computer situations, and the Internet, I have very little contact, in my office, with contractors, with clients, with salesmen or anybody else, other than myself. If I have work to do, I would be in the office. If I do not have work to do, I would be in the garden helping my wife with her garden, which she would dearly love to have me do. This is a relatively small addition to the garage. The reason I attached it to the garage is that I feel that it is aesthetically more pleasing. As I am probably the only one in the room that is, by law, an expert in aesthetics, I think that that’s enough said about that. With regard to other perhaps location within the site, one is mentioned in the application, relative to the existing fuel oil tank. I do not know where the line goes from the tank, but I do know where it enters the house. It comes along the south line of the property, beyond the line indicated on the site plan that shows from the septic tank and the pump tank to the distribution box. In order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance setbacks of 30 feet from the Cleverdale Road and 12 foot from the side setback because of the 60 foot lot configuration, the building would be placed right in the middle of the path. Aesthetically, that’s not an acceptable position, as far as I’m concerned. By moving it further toward the lake, would impinge on re-doing the entire septic system for our house, and that is not, as far as I’m concerned, a practical alternative. I’d be happy to entertain any questions that you gentlemen might have relative to this project, and see if I can answer them to your satisfaction. MR. HIMES-Sir, I just wanted to confirm one element. This is going to be your only office? MR. CUSHING-This is going to be my only one. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. HIMES-Yes, I thought so, from what you said, but I just wanted to be sure. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Cushing, I am intrigued at such an innovative idea. I also have a computer room, but I sure as hell wish I had a bath right with it, because I restrict myself to this computer room, and basically, like you, I require some kind of privacy at times, and I would just love to jump in the tub or a Jacuzzi and still work on my computer. MR. CUSHING-Well, I do have those in our house, and my wife might let me use her computer, but I would much prefer to operate on my own. MR. STONE-That’s the house part you’re talking about? MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. How close is the house to the south, to the property line? As I was driving up, it looked as if it were, it’s not on the plan. MR. CUSHING-Yes, it is, 63 feet. MR. STONE-No, the house next to you. MR. CUSHING-Next to me, which side, north or south? MR. STONE-South. MR. CUSHING-He is about four to five feet. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what I would have guessed. Very close, yes. MR. CUSHING-The only benefit is that their house and our house are not in the same position, relative to the road or the lake. So, consequently, we’re not looking in each other’s windows. MR. STONE-The concern that I had though is that because of the location of that house, and the fact that you want to put this building in here, I’m seeing in my mind, obviously I don’t have the talent that you do, to visualize it quite as well, but I see a very crowded, crowded pieces of property, in terms of these two lots. I mean, it’s like there’s not going to be an awful lot of space because his garage, of course, is right on your line, just about. So it becomes a very crowded thing, and I, too, am worried about aesthetics, and the only thing that I have to do, as far as this Board is concerned, in being concerned about aesthetics, is look at things like floor area ratio, and we have been particularly concerned about exceeding the floor area ratio in our Waterfront zones, and I don’t know, I haven’t done the calculations to get this down to 22%. I don’t know how small this addition, how much less this addition would have to be. Do you have it? MR. CUSHING-No, I did not figure that. MR. STONE-Craig, did you ever figure that? MR. CUSHING-It would probably be something in the order of almost cutting it in half. MR. STONE-As I say, I didn’t bother to. MR. BROWN-I think existing is 21%. MR. STONE-Existing is 21. So 1.6 is equal to 215. Yes, that’s probably about half. That’s a good estimate. MR. CUSHING-I did do the exercise, beforehand, about the compliant setbacks. MR. STONE-Have you got something? MR. CUSHING-Yes, but that’s not what I. MR. STONE-You don’t want that. I know. I’m just curious what it would be, that was all, because it’s a concern of mine, that I’m expressing. MR. CUSHING-Here is the garage. Here is the garden. Here is the path in the road. Here is the parking pad. My neighbor’s garage is right there. My neighbor’s house is somewhere right in there. There’s my garage. There’s my parking pad, (lost words) garden. We’re proposing to put it in this 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) area. To get 30 feet back here, and 12 foot there, I’m blocking this office. If I go back any further, as you can see, I’m into my sewage disposal field, and that whole operation. MR. STONE-I, personally, am not concerned with the 30 feet. I think that, but I’m just concerned because we have been, I think, particularly zealous in guarding the 22%. We’ve had a number of, obviously, requests these days for huge homes, as you know better than I. Any other thoughts for Mr. Cushing? Any other questions, before I open the public hearing? Having said that, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed to this application? Obviously, we’re all waiting for the next one. Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions of Mr. Cushing? Everybody understands what the application is, I assume? Okay. Let’s talk about it. Roy, we’ll start with you. MR. URRICO-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cushing, you seem like you’ve made a great effort to present a compelling argument on your behalf, and I believe you’ve done a good job, as far I’m concerned, and I would be in favor of it. Thank you. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I feel the same as just stated. You’re very close to kind of a busy marina kind of operation. So, certainly, if anyone was to think there would be any traffic increase because of clients coming and going, I don’t think it would compare with what’s generated by the activities there. I forgot the name of the place. MR. CUSHING-The Mooring Post. MR. HIMES-Yes, right next to you there. I think, overall, the modest increase in the floor area ratio is something I feel, as the Chairman does. On the other hand, I feel, in this particular case, that the modest amount to be varied from what’s required is acceptable, in my opinion. So I would tend to support the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Well, I agree with Roy and Norman, my two colleagues here. I think you have submitted compelling information, and based upon the fact you indicated that you intend to operate your one man operation, I don’t have a problem with that, and I would be willing to support your application. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I understand what the Chairman, and I agree somewhat with what he says about the floor area ratio. However, looking at the property, and looking at the plan, I would have to be in favor of it. From an aesthetic standpoint, probably you’re right, Mr. Cushing, you do have good taste. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree with the other Board members. In this case, the amount of relief requested is minimal, and I guess Cleverdale Road is not quite yet like Rockhurst, and this is not going to make it like that, to any large degree. MR. CUSHING-And the moving of the Post Office alleviated a tremendous amount. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree. I think the applicant has probably picked the best location for something like this, and it certainly isn’t a large addition. I do have fears it’s going to add a little bit to the crowded atmosphere of the area. I also have some concerns about operating a business from that location. I think it’s going to be difficult to say that clients will never stop and see him. On the 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) other hand, I suspect probably, in truth, there won’t be a huge amount of traffic generated by that kind of activity. So I guess I can reluctantly go along with it. MR. STONE-I basically concur with everybody else. I am concerned, we are concerned, I think as Mr. McNally says, we’re concerned with what happens on the lake. Certainly Rockhurst is a prime example, and we’ve done things, and sometimes haven’t done things that we probably shouldn’t have done, or have done, one way or the other. The home occupation doesn’t bother me, because I, obviously, you are going to be doing your work there, and if one person happens to stop by to look over your shoulder and say, why didn’t you do this or why didn’t you do that for me, I don’t think it’s going to make a tremendous difference. As I say, I am concerned with the crowdedness of the lot, and that’s why we put the 22% zone in, and I probably have said just the opposite on other occasions. It’s very small overage. I recognize that, and if we’re talking a 215 foot addition, and to get down to that thing we’ve got to take out 100 feet, we’re really not talking an awful lot. So, having said that, I would go along with this variance request. Having said that, I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2000 PAUL & JUDY CUSHING, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 280 Cleverdale Road. The applicant proposes a 215 square foot addition to an existing two car garage. The applicant requests 1.5 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Also, the applicant requests relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the same zone, to increase the floor area on the property to a 22.6% total. Further, since the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements, nor will the proposed addition, relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, per Section 179-79, is requested. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize office space, as he indicated, which will be separate from the residence. Feasible alternatives, the feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration, relocation to a compliant location, but based upon the information submitted to us by Mr. Cushing, I believe his original plans are acceptable. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 1.5 feet of relief from a 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal. Likewise, a 22.6% FAR total could be interpreted as minimal. The 215 square foot addition is allowable, as the 480 square foot garage could be enlarged by 240 square feet, which represents 50%. The effects on the neighborhood or community, minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, as there appears to be sufficient area for a compliant addition. However, based upon the plans submitted by the applicant, I think it’s acceptable. I wish also to condition any approval based upon a home occupation, in accordance with current Ordinances in the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 23 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-There you go. MR. CUSHING-Thank you, gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2000 TYPE II WALT HAMMER OWNER: SAME AGENT: WILLIAM WEGMAN ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 55 PALMER DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SECOND STORY ADDITION (30’ X 37’), A DINING ROOM ADDITION (12’ X 15’) AND SEPTIC SYSTEM UPGRADE AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF 50%. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 144-1-22, 23 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES, 0.29 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-2000, Walt Hammer, Meeting Date: August 23, 2000 “Project Location: 55 Palmer Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1110 sf second story addition as well as a 180 sf first floor addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 16 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement and 14.25 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, §179-16. Further, relief for the expansion, in excess of 50%, of a non-conforming structure is requested per §179-79. The 1650 sf residence could be enlarged by 835 sf without relief, however 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) the proposed 1230 sf of additional living space represents a 75% expansion. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to substantially enlarge the existing home. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a single story addition to the rear of the home. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The cumulative requests 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, as there appears to be feasible alternatives available. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable. Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the applicant could expand to the rear of the home and eliminate the requests for setback relief, relief for the expansion of a non- conforming structure would still be necessary. Please see the enclosed corrected FAR worksheet. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 9, 2000 Project Name: Hammer, Walt Owner: Walt Hammer ID Number: QBY-AV-71-2000 County Project#: Aug00-23 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a second story addition (30’ x 37’), a dining room addition (12’ x 15’) and a new septic field and 1250 gallon tank, and seeks setback relief as well as relief for expansion of a non-conforming structure in excess of 50%. Site Location: 55 Palmer Avenue. Big Bay Road to the end which becomes Palmer Drive, Parcel abuts the Hudson River. Tax Map Number(s): 144-1-22 144-1-23 Staff Notes: The application materials provided by the Town do not indicate the number f bedrooms and bathrooms proposed for the entire dwelling with the proposed additions, making it difficult to assess whether the proposed new septic system is adequate. It also does not appear that the proposed dining addition is indicated on the attached site plan. If the dining addition does not encroach into the setbacks more than the existing building, the proposed action does not exacerbate existing setback deficiencies. According to the Town code enforcement officer, the applicant is in the process of consolidating two adjacent parcels. If this is not done, the applicant will need a variance for exceeding the maximum allowable floor area ratio. Staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been set for August 23, 2000. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Terri Ross, 8/10/00. MR. STONE-Go, sir. MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I’m the architect for the project. I’ve been hired by Mr. Hammer. MR. STONE-Do you have, other than hand sketched drawings? MR. HALL-Yes, I have some drawings. I apologize. I was hired after this information was submitted to the Board. I’ve been hired by Mr. Hammer, and I was contacted by Mr. Wegman, who was here. I apologize. He had to run down to the emergency room. He’s got something going on with one of his eyes. I do have updated and revised drawings. Craig has a copy of these, I believe, the floor plan drawings there were updated? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. HALL-And Dave Hatin, the code enforcement officer, has a copy of these as well. MR. STONE-Tell us what you want us to hear. MR. HALL-Basically, the existing house has a small porch off the back, and the two parcels that are in question are in the process of being combined. I believe you have the paperwork. MR. BROWN-I think the consolidation has been done. I think the form’s in the file. MR. HALL-They are in the process of being combined into one parcel. So the floor area ratio is not going to be exceeded. The existing septic field comes out the back to who knows how big of a tank. We believe it’s about 300 gallons, and then the existing tile field comes out into this parcel out here, as indicated in green, and the relief. MR. STONE-You say 300 gallons. How many bathrooms are in this house? MR. HALL-There’s currently one bathroom existing. We plan on adding another bathroom. The existing overall footprint of the house will not change, with the exception of a 12 by 15 dining room addition on the first floor, which will come out the back of the house, and we are also asking for relief for a front stoop off of a front door, that probably does not show up on your plans, but I can show you on the. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. STONE-Well, does that make the relief more? MR. HALL-Slightly. MR. STONE-All right. So instead of 16 feet, it’s? MR. HALL-It would be 20. MR. STONE-It would be 20. Okay. MR. HALL-What we’d like to do is, currently the front door to the main entry of the house comes in under the small carport, and to add the second floor to the house, we have to add a stairwell, and that stairwell will be added in that room. So it would be more convenient to the house to relocate that front door, to move it so that it’s at the bottom of the stair. So that moving things in and out of the house is accomplished without having to go around the corner to go up a stair. That would create the need for the porch in the front. Because that porch would be underneath the eave line, we’d like to put a small roof over it, just to prevent water, snow, whatever, from falling down directly in front of the door. MR. MC NALLY-You’re going closer to the road? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So you’ve got 14 feet 3 inches now. MR. HALL-There’s 14 feet 3 inches now. We would propose 9 foot, 4 inches. That’s to the property line. The actual distance out to the road is in the neighborhood of 30 feet, out to Palmer Drive. I’ve got a couple of pictures here. MR. MC NALLY-But this is measured to the property line? MR. HALL-That is measured to the property line. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. We were at the property. MR. HALL-We had a survey that was completed by VanDusen and Steves. I got it this morning. So, these are literally hot off the press. The five foot five inch setback is on this side of the house. It’s on the north side of the house, and that would not change. All we’re doing is going right straight up with a second floor from there. The second floor does not come all the way to the end of the house. The second floor stops right at the end of where the shed garage area is. MR. MC NALLY-How far is the garage on the west side of the house? MR. HALL-Seven foot six. MR. MC NALLY-No, no, on the other side, on the west side? MR. STONE-Call it the north side. MR. HALL-This is just backwards from what you’d think it would be. North is up here. MR. MC NALLY-I see the arrow pointing that way. That’s why I think of that as west, but that’s okay. MR. HALL-Yes, I do, too. MR. MC NALLY-How far is the garage on the other lot? MR. HALL-Over here? MR. MC NALLY-That’s right, from the line. That’s right at the line. MR. HALL-Basically two feet. MR. MC NALLY-Two feet from the line? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. STONE-And that’s not the neighbor’s property? 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. HALL-No, that is a separate piece of property, and the septic that we would change, the current well is closer than 50 feet to the septic tank, which the health requirements are 50 feet. We would move, we would install a new 1250 gallon septic tank, and out in the back there would be 50 feet from the well. Because it’s going to be farther out from the house, it’s going to be deeper. We would install an effluent pump, and we would pump the effluent from the tank up to the leach field. I had the survey crew out in the field today to locate the adjoining property owner’s well. Due to the weather, they weren’t able to locate the adjoining property owner’s well. We will get those, and we will be, the new proposed leach field will be a minimum of 100 feet from the wells. That’s a State requirement. MR. STONE-That lot is .46 acres, the whole? MR. HALL-The whole piece. MR. STONE-The whole combined, okay. I just wanted to be sure. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-How high is the building going up? MR. HALL-We’re adding one story, total height is going to be 26 feet, 8 inches. I’ve got some elevations here, if that would help. MR. STONE-The are the panels going to be on top of the new house? MR. HALL-They’re proposing it to be up on top of the new house. In my heart, I don’t think that that will wind up happening. MR. STONE-That would require a variance, though, because they’re above 28. MR. HALL-If the panels go above 28, yes. MR. STONE-Do we have an Ordinance for solar panels? MR. BROWN-No, I don’t know how that would be addressed. I mean, chimneys don’t count. Solar panels. I don’t know. I’ve never had that question asked. MR. STONE-That’s why we always come, every night. MR. MC NALLY-The elevation we have now shows a height of only 24 feet 6 inches. Your new drawings indicate a taller building now. Is that what you’re saying? MR. HALL-That is correct. The drawings that Mr. Wegman provided did not take into account any thickness for a second floor. When we got into the structure, and got into measuring the structure, we found that what he thought was a bearing partition was, in fact, not a bearing partition that goes down the center of the house. The framing runs just opposite on the first floor of what you would expect. You would expect that the main floor framing would run east/west, with a bearing being down the center. It does not. There are two carrying beams that run east/west, and the floor joists run north/south, which is just opposite of what you would expect, and there is a wall on the first floor that runs right down the middle of the house, which, if you walk in and look at it, you’d say, well, that’s a bearing wall. It turns out that actually it’s not. It’s just a dividing wall. What we intend to do is to clear (lost word) the structure with 16 inch deep TJI floor joists, which are pre- manufactured floor joists. MR. MC NALLY-Well, who’s Mr. Wegman? MR. HALL-Mr. Wegman is a contractor. MR. MC NALLY-Builder. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. HALL-Yes. He submitted the paperwork with the application. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. STONE-All right. Now, I’m looking at that picture, the garage, the bottom. Is that going to be filled in, that sunroom porch and the garage, which is now indented. Are they going to all come out to be? MR. HALL-Yes, there will be a door installed there now. Mr. Hammer put up the plastic that’s over there. That apparently was used to park a car. It was just an open carport, and there will be a garage door installed there. So when a car goes to park in there it’s secured, and because we will be moving the front door, this area will be available to pull the garage door out. Right now it sits back 12 feet. MR. STONE-Yes, something like that. MR. MC NALLY-Again, I don’t have the benefit of your new drawings, at least in front of me, but this drawing seems to show a bow window in the front. MR. HALL-On the second floor. MR. MC NALLY-And that is part of the front setback relief you’ve requested, or is that even beyond the nine feet? MR. HALL-No, that would be inside. That’s this portion right here, and that’ll only stick out two feet. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and that’s within the nine feet, four inches from the line that you’re talking about? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. STONE-So nothing you’re going to do is going to alleviate the closeness of the house to the property on either side? MR. HALL-No. MR. STONE-I knew that answer, but I wanted to get it on the record. MR. HALL-Yes. The second floor addition will be the southern side of the second floor will be 27 feet from the property line, but the existing garage, or the existing carport area is seven and a half from the southerly property line. Obviously, we don’t want to try and build over the top of the garage. There was some mention from the Warren County notes I believe, was it, about not having the floor plan and the number of bedrooms on the second floor? There will be four bedrooms on the second floor, with a full bath, one full bath. So there will be two full bathrooms, and a total of five bedrooms in the house. MR. STONE-And how big is this septic tank going to be? MR. HALL-1250 gallons. MR. STONE-Twelve fifty, I’m sorry, I heard three hundred. MR. HALL-The existing is 300. That is woefully in adequate. MR. ABBATE-Then you’re moving that away, and you’re going to have enough to pump? MR. HALL-A minimum of 50 feet from the existing well. MR. ABBATE-And that will be 1250? MR. HALL-And that will be a 1250 gallon tank. MR. ABBATE-Versus the 300 that’s currently there. MR. HALL-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. HIMES-As you stand facing the house, that little garage on the left, is that part of this? MR. HALL-No, that is not part of this property. MR. HIMES-Okay. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. HALL-The little yellow garage? No, that is not part of his property. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. STONE-Craig, do you have any idea when that garage was built? MR. BROWN-No clue. MR. HALL-I believe they said it was in the mid 80’s possibly. MR. MC NALLY-Is this the yellow one? MR. HALL-The little yellow garage. MR. MC NALLY-There was a structure behind that, a cabin that was taken down some, a few years ago. So it had been existing for some time. MR. HALL-Yes. I believe at one point somebody tried to build a house back there, and they were told that the lot was too small to put a house on. MR. MC NALLY-They needed to get a variance. MR. HALL-Yes, right, and they decided, well, we’ll just put a garage up. MR. STONE-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? Do you have anything else you want to add before I do? MR. HALL-No, these people have been sitting here long enough. MR. STONE-All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD DALEY MR. DALEY-Richard Daley. I live at 41 Palmer Drive, and I’d just like, on behalf of Mr. Hammer, that in the past there’s been variances needed for other buildings. Mr. Barody built a home two houses up from mine, which was very nice, and about, I don’t know, maybe four or five years ago, Mr. Gross, who lives two houses over from where Mr. Hammer lives, also bought a small place and renovated it and built a real nice home there, and I have no reason to doubt that Mr. Hammer’s will be, maybe not quite as elegant as these two homes, but certainly nice. So I’d just like to go on record as saying that I believe that. MR. STONE-You’re house is on the bend? MR. DALEY-No, mine is down, I live between them. I live at 41 Palmer Drive. Mr. Barody, he lives two houses west of me, and Mr. Hammer’s is two houses east of me. MR. STONE-When I come off of Big Bay and I come around the bend. MR. DALEY-On Palmer Drive, I’m the seventh place in. MR. STONE-So you’re to the, further up the river? MR. DALEY-I’m two buildings beyond Mr. Hammer’s, up river. MR. STONE-Up river. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s clear. MR. DALEY-And I just want to go on record as saying that I believe that if the variance is granted that the place will be built, you know, will just add value to the neighborhood. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? DICK WILLETTE 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. WILLETTE-My name is Dick Willette, and I live at 57 Palmer Drive, which is right next door to Walt Hammer, and I understand why he wants to build up and add a dining room because he has his daughter and son-in-law and two kids with him, and the house is small to begin with. They’re all small down there. They all started out as camps originally, and that’s why you may see a wall or any of the floors going the wrong way or something like that, and that’s why you have 300 gallon septic tanks, and so on, and I think an addition would be a big help to him, as far room and space and so forth for the son-in-law and the daughter and the kids and so on and so forth, and I have no problems at all with them building it. MR. STONE-You’re the lot next to the lot with the yellow garage on it? MR. WILLETTE-I am one house from his, going down river. MR. STONE-Down river. You’re 57. That’s right, they were 41. I’ve got it. MR. MC NALLY-You’re right next to the carport there? MR. WILLETTE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Next house over? MR. WILLETTE-Yes. MR. STONE-You’re the immediate neighbor to that, down river. MR. WILLETTE-Yes, the little blue house down there, that’s me. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re the one who’s impacted by the garages, if you will, his garages? MR. WILLETTE-Yes. The only problem I’m going to have is I’ve got a big house on one side and a big house on the other side, and I’m the little one in the middle, but other than that, there’s no problems. No problems at all. MR. STONE-Okay. Good. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor, in favor? Anyone opposed? JOE GROSS MR. GROSS-My name’s Joe Gross. I live at 61 Palmer Drive. We’re two doors before, down river. MR. STONE-Down river, okay. You’re next to the gentleman who just spoke? MR. GROSS-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. GROSS-Yes, as was stated, we did get a small relief of our side setback, to build our home. There were only a couple of little concerns I had, with such a relief going, you know, you already have the sides. I mean, building it up so high, would that be setting a precedent for that small lot with the garage? If you were to grant a variance to that, and they want to build a home there, might it be setting a precedence that they would be able to build another house right next to that, tall? And it seems like it would make more sense to, with so much land in the back, to go further back. That’s one of the concerns, because it’s so tight for everybody down through there. Again, very little impact on me, because it’s beyond me, but that’s my opinion, that’s all. Will it be nice, I’m sure it would be. The other is there’s been different concerns through the neighborhood at different times, and I’ve asked for setback variance reliefs for my garage to go further back on the property. At the time, I didn’t own the property. You know all the property behind my home, where I have the large driveway coming into the back? I didn’t own that property. It was just vacant woods, and I asked for a variance to go back five foot from the line, and I was denied that because it was a pretty substantial relief request, and so I built within the rules, and I went 20 by 20, or whatever the rules were to come off the line. Consequently, after the fact, we were fortunate enough to buy that piece of property, and had I known that, wouldn’t it be nice to have that garage further back. We regret we have it so close to our home. So, I followed the rules, and it seems like there’s a lot of room to follow the rules there. So, that’s really all I have to say. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak against this application? Against? Any correspondence? 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have I think three pieces of correspondence. The first one dated August 21, it’s from Patricia and Thomas Yole. MR. MC NALLY-He’s the one that owns the yellow garage. MR. STONE-He owns the garage. MR. MC NULTY-“We will be unable to attend the public meeting on August 23 to address this subject as we will be out of the State. Therefore, we would like to let you know that we are in favor of granting the variance to Walt Hammer to do all that is necessary to build the addition on his present home. Sincerely, Patricia B. Yole Thomas R. Yole” And we have a record of a telephone conversation Maria took in the Planning Office, from an Eleric Gifford, he’s very much opposed, too much building already in area, no longer quiet, and we have another note from Mr. and Mrs. Eleric Gifford, 47 Palmer Drive, “I regret we cannot make the Wednesday, August 23, 2000 public hearing meeting as we have had prior commitments for some time. We are opposed to granting the reliefs requested to the 55 Palmer Drive residence. We are the up river neighbor at 47 Palmer Drive. We have gone through great expense to put up a privacy fence to maintain our privacy and a 2 story addition would eliminate that privacy. Please bear in mind, there is a building lot between 55 Palmer Drive and our home, 47 Palmer Drive, which you will see that 55 Palmer Drive has been built on the line on both sides and virtually has no way of getting any equipment or vehicles to the back of their property. We are also concerned, that if you give them an inch, they will take a mile. As you can see, they have put a plexi-glassed addition on the side of their garage and an extensive retaining wall on the river without a building permit for either one. We feel by making this house that much bigger, you are enabling larger families to move in and this is a small lot to accommodate a large family. As you can see, other homes on the street are cramped for space and it makes it very difficult for anyone to maintain their privacy. Granting Walter Hammer the variance requested, we would find very troublesome, and if you review the records, he has been cited various times by the fire marshal for burning smelly garbage in his back yard and with a larger home, with more people living there, we have a major concern that he will be burning more household garbage each evening in his backyard burning pit. More people generate more garbage. As you can imagine, the smell is disgusting. Furthermore, this has been a very uncooperative neighbor over the past years, and if you would grant him anything that would supercede the regulations currently in effect, would be appalling, in lieu of the fact that Walter Hammer has complained to the Town of Queensbury for something as petty as me working on a friend’s lawn mower, stating that I am running a business out of my garage. Every time the Town official has come out, they have found the complaint to be unfounded and that should give you an example of why we need our privacy to maintain our retirement years in peace. Larger families are going to mean more year round traffic on Palmer Drive. You can see that Palmer Drive cannot sustain any more traffic than it has now. I hope in reviewing all the facts that you will deny this relief and variance request. Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. Eleric Gifford 47 Palmer Drive Queensbury, NY 12804” And that’s all the correspondence. MR. STONE-That’s it? Thank you. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Mr. Hall, anything that you heard that you’d like to talk about? MR. HALL-As far as trying to go deeper into the lot, I think that what people were looking at was the existing lot before the two were combined, saying that the lot was small, and I’ll agree that this lot was small. With the two combined, there’s ample room, but if we try and move back, and build to the back, there’s two large maple trees that are going to go away. This is an open field, and if we try and move it back, we’re going to lose any place to put the septic field. The tile field, really the only place for it is in that back lot. MR. STONE-When you say move back, you mean demolish what’s in front? MR. HALL-No, no, I say move back, put the addition to the rear. MR. STONE-Just put the addition on the back? MR. HALL-Right, leave the one story house and expand to the rear of the lot. We’d just lose any place to put a tile field. MR. MC NALLY-It’s kind of deceptive, though, to say that, you know, by adding that rear lot, you’ll no longer have a problem with congestion. That rear lot, it may have a septic field underground, but the construction and everything else is still on that front lot. MR. HALL-But we have to be a minimum, the State has a minimum. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. MC NALLY-Yes, floor area ratio and what not, I understand that. MR. HALL-Setback from the tile field. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. HALL-It has to be, there’s a minimum setback from a tile field to a structure. MR. MC NALLY-Right. MR. HALL-That has to be maintained, and we’d be hard pressed to get that in. As far as the height restriction for the lot next to it, we’re below the allowed, the allowed is 28 feet, in our WR-1A. We’re 26, 8. The solar panels. MR. STONE-Well, we might just condition that. MR. HALL-The solar panels have to be below the 28 feet? We’d be willing to live with that condition, or we may be able to get rid of them altogether. It was something that Mr. Hammer added several years ago, and it’s a secondary means of heat. He uses it to heat some water, and the second panel heats some air that’s distributed through the house. Frankly, I’m trying to figure out how to get the air redistributed in the house anyway. Outside of that, the front setback is really the only other question. The side setbacks are already there. On the roof, those are the solar panels. Having not measured them and not gotten up on the roof, I’m just showing them there. MR. STONE-Well, of course, they could be flat on the roof. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. STONE-Right now they’re at an angle. MR. HALL-Right now they’re at an angle, to pick up, well, he’s got them facing relatively due south. They don’t really face due south. MR. STONE-Okay, and as a good architect and having your client looking over your shoulder to put them in, wanted them in, you put them on the drawing. I can understand that. MR. HALL-And I’ll come up here and let you tell me you don’t want them, and then I’ll take them off. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s it? Any other questions of Mr. Hall? Any questions anybody? Okay. So what we’re talking about, before we get into a discussion, we’re talking 20.8 feet of relief requested from the front setback, which is a further encroachment of approximately six feet five inches from where the house currently sits, and we’re talking relief of 14.2 feet relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback. Because of the up river side, okay. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. STONE-Because we’re building in there. Okay. MR. HALL-We’re adding the second floor on an existing non-conforming. MR. MC NALLY-And it’s an expansion beyond 50%. MR. STONE-Right, but it still doesn’t exceed the 22%, with the combined lot. You’re saying those lots have? MR. BROWN-That’s my understanding. Was there a consolidation form in the file? MR. MC NULTY-There is a consolidation form. MR. BROWN-The lots have been consolidated. MR. STONE-They’ve been consolidated. So we’re at the 14%, whatever that was. Okay. Let’s talk about it then. Norman, let’s start with you. MR. HIMES-Thank you. I wish there was some way we could reduce the relief in the front somehow. As far as the rest of it is concerned, I think dressing up that structure would be a big improvement. I think I’m favorable toward the rest of it, but I’m still kind of concerned about going 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) out in front, although I must say that I don’t think that I would vote against the application because of it, but I’ll wait and hear what the other Board members have to say. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-You are Mr. Rucinski representing Mr. Walt Hammer, correct? MR. HALL-I am Mr. Hall. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Hall, okay, I just wanted to make sure I got that right. This is going to be a substantial improvement, as far as I’m concerned. Based upon what I’ve heard this evening, including those folks who are in favor of your project and the correspondence and those who were opposed to it, my position is that I will vote in favor of this application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m generally in favor, but I’ve got to say, I’m kind of on the fence. The encroachment in the front, I mean, there are a lot of houses in Queensbury without a stoop. I agree that it would be a tremendous improvement to the existing building, and quite frankly it’s been years since I’ve been down that street, and I was amazed at some of the sizes of some of the houses, especially at the very beginning of Palmer, and I think this house would be then consistent with a majority of the houses on the block, but I am concerned about some of the comments, particularly the privacy issue of the next door neighbor who has a fence, you know, that goes from here to China, and some of the other concerns that were raised, but overall, I’m in favor of it, if you get rid of the stoop. MR. MC NALLY-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-There’s no question that this house needs to be improved. It’s in a general run down condition. It’s a small home, and I can see how, if it wasn’t a camp, it was next to two, what would have been a camp, only year round home. I believe I could be in favor of some improvements done to this property, but I think the relief requested is very substantial. This house, as it currently exists, does not comply with the front setback already, and the application seeks to not improve on that, but actually reduce that front setback even more. Basically asking for something like 66% of relief. In addition, I can understand how a person owning a home that’s a camp or a small home that once was a camp, would like to plop down a four bedroom, almost 4,000 square foot house, on a lot that was originally intended for a camp, but this is a pretty large house, and the amount of relief requested on the adjacent side of five feet is a fair amount right there. MR. HALL-Even though that’s an existing condition? MR. MC NALLY-What you do is you worsen that condition, and you expand the nonconformity by going up. I can’t fix the five feet as it currently exists, but perhaps a more modest improvement, or perhaps a re-thought improvement might be able to alleviate some of the congestion on one side or the other, as a matter of concessions, and I know you’re not building on your neighbor’s down river side, but that’s tight there, too, and I’m not sure that something couldn’t be done to perhaps open things up a bit and allow a little bit more elbow room between your neighbors, as I think the Town Zoning Ordinance requires. It requires some setbacks so that the homes are a distance apart from one another. Alternatives are feasible. I think that there are alternatives, such as a reduced expansion, that there are alternatives such as expansion in the rear, and that there are alternatives such as, perhaps even moving the structure. That may not quite be as feasible. The effects on the neighborhood or community, in my opinion, are moderate. I have no doubt, I have no doubt in my mind that whatever structure that is put up there would be nice, as you propose to do it, but these are congested, small lots, and to allow an oversized property to be placed in a congested lot, in a congested neighborhood, is not something that I would necessarily favor. In a sense, it’s self-created, in my opinion, since this is a choice that the applicants have made, in order to expand their home, electing to come forward, encroaching upon the road even more, electing to go up and expanding to the point they encroach upon their neighbors on at least one side, when they could have, perhaps, lessened this impact, reduced that impact, by choosing some other alternative or going to the rear. I’m not in favor of it, at least as proposed. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically echo Bob. I like the presentation of the house. I agree that something like this would improve the house, but I would really like to see a bigger lot. I wish they could have been able to buy the lot next to them and move the house over to the middle. MR. HALL-I think they actually sold that lot. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. WILLETTE-They didn’t own that lot. MR. HALL-They didn’t? MR. MC NULTY-But given the size of the house, and I don’t like the closeness to the road and the river, and the front setback, I certainly don’t like intruding into it any more than what is. I agree that, you know, generally, I think it’s the nature of the houses in that area that they’re all about the same distance from the road. So they’re already all of them into the front setback, but I guess my total impression is it’s too much house for the lot. I can understand the reasons for wanting that size house with an expanding family, but I think at some point you have to say, it’s too big for the lot, and the answer is, sell where you are and buy somewhere else, if you’ve got to have that number of people. I understand the proposal for extending out the back, and yet I wouldn’t be real keen on a sprawling one floor place, either. I think what’s proposed for the need that’s been stated is probably one of the better proposals, but sum total, because of the size of the house and the mass and the crowding of the neighborhood, I’d be opposed. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’d just like clarification on one point. Are we still considering the expansion of 75% of the relief? MR. STONE-Yes, that’s part of it, yes. Everything that’s in the relief, the only change on the Staff notes, it would be 20 feet 8 inches of relief, 20.67 feet of relief. Go ahead. MR. URRICO-I agree with Bob and Chuck. I think the cumulative effect of this is a substantial relief that’s being requested. We’re talking about 66% or so relief from the front setback, 75% about, side setback, and taking a nonconforming, pre-existing structure and making it more nonconforming, and, to me, the reason it’s nonconforming is because, at the time the rules were set, it existed, and now the rules have changed. You’re proposing to change the building, and the rules are stated, and I think I spoke earlier about not letting the rules be a straight jacket, but I also believe that if the rules are allowed to be bent then there’s no reason to have the zoning code, and I think this is too much here. I think there needs to be some compromise, and I would be against it as currently proposed. MR. STONE-Before I speak, I have a question that just dawned on me, the addition in the back, how big is that? MR. HALL-Twelve feet deep, 15 feet wide. MR. STONE-So it’s 180? MR. HALL-Correct. MR. STONE-So 180 of, so the rest of the house is being, brings it down to less than 75%, well, I’m just thinking in terms of going up. I mean, you are proposing going out somewhat, so that, it helps my thinking. I won’t go any further. MR. HALL-Okay, if it helps you out, Lew. MR. STONE-I don’t quite agree with the no voters totally. I do, however, I am concerned by the front setback. MR. HALL-Okay. MR. STONE-One because I looked at that property today, without benefit of that, and I see on your drawing you’re going to have not just an entrance stoop which is two steps up and walk into the house. There’s going to be a roof on it, as I see, plus the bay window, and quite frankly, that bothers me more than the second story. I mean, the house is nonconforming, in terms of both side properties. There’s no question about that, and, yes, it’s being exacerbated slightly by going up on the up river side, but that doesn’t bother me much. I’m just bothered by the fact that I didn’t really have the benefit of knowing what the front of the house was going to look like when I went out and looked at it today. MR. HALL-I apologize for that. Let me make this proposal. Would it be favorable to the Board, or more favorable to the Board, if the front stoop were eliminated, and the bay window were eliminated? MR. STONE-It certainly would help me. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. HALL-Those are two things that, the owner would like those. They would make their life that much easier, but I believe they could get by without them. Now, the one question I have is, if we leave the door there, and just put a set of steps out, does that encroach on the setback? MR. STONE-Yes. The steps do count for setback, but it’s, visually, much less. MR. HALL-So if I take the roof away from it, you’d be more comfortable with it? MR. STONE-I would be more comfortable. I can’t speak for the rest of the Board. My concern, I mean, I hear what Bob and I hear what Chuck and Roy have said. They think it’s too massive. I’m not sure that it’s too massive. I just don’t like the fact that it’s that close to the road, because that increases the massiveness, if you will, for those passing by. The comment made by one of the neighbors about privacy, a lot and a half away, isn’t that important to me because you have many neighborhoods where you have mixed bungalows and colonials, and it happens all the time. So that doesn’t bother me very much. I would like to see some concession, myself. As I say, I don’t know what that does for other people, but you still may, I mean, I’m looking at the votes, and we’ve, it’s right on the edge of turning the whole thing down. MR. HALL-Right, we’re borderline. So, in an effort to get this approved by this Board, I need to know, you know, I’d be more than happy to agree that we’ll leave the footprint just as it is. We’ll take away the bay window. We’ll take away the stoop on the front. Would that satisfy this Board? As far as reduction of the size, I can’t do a whole lot. I mean, I’ve got to sit on top of the structure that’s there. I can’t sit on half of the structure. MR. STONE-Well, then let me just ask some of the people who are willing to grant the variance. Does that help anybody? MR. ABBATE-I have no problems with that. MR. STONE-You had no problems before. MR. ABBATE-Before, that’s correct. MR. STONE-I’ve got it down. MR. BRYANT-When you say you’re going to stick to the footprint, what does that do to the addition in the back, the dining room? Are you going to still have that? MR. HALL-The addition in the back of the dining room, that would stay. We’re not asking for any relief, setback wise, there. MR. STONE-Only in terms of size. That’s why I asked the size there. MR. HIMES-In connection with that garage that’s built up river, I think it’s a few inches over 10 feet from the house. MR. HALL-Probably actually a little closer than that. It’s a five foot setback from our structure to the property line, and it’s two feet from. MR. HIMES-I measured it roughly, and I thought it just barely made the 10 feet, because I thought it went with the property, when I was looking at it, to tell you the truth, and I was just wondering, but especially with the addition on the back of the dining room, though, it’s really going to be a tight squeeze if an emergency vehicle ever had to get around behind, especially when you look at what might happen to that lot that has the garage. I mean, maybe that garage would be torn down, but what else is going to, what kind of setback would we be dealing with then? Hopefully, whatever happens on that lot would resolve the problem that I’m concerned about, but with this addition going off, the dining room in the back, just a point, again, that adds a little negative in my mind, but really nothing on the plans, other than not putting on the dining room, has any impact on that. It’s just another factor that, we, you know, we’re looking at here. MR. HALL-Currently, there is a porch back there. All they’re really doing is enclosing that. MR. STONE-I mean, nothing that the applicant is talking about doing, except the front setback and the size, is anything different than it is now. I mean, your point is well taken, that if you had to get an emergency vehicle around the back. MR. BRYANT-The second floor doesn’t make any difference. MR. HALL-Right. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. STONE-It doesn’t make any difference. Well, does Mr. Hall’s comments help anybody? MR. MC NULTY-I doesn’t help me. Personally, I would rather see the house as it’s designed now, put in place, in spite of my negative vote, than to see the front stoop and the bay window taken off, because I think that’s going to change the appearance. I think it’s going to be more attractive with those features on, and I don’t like to get into second guessing an architect or a design. I think the thing that would help me more, though I’m not sure if that’s going to help me more, is if one of the stalls of that garage were off, so it wasn’t quite filling the lot so much, but I’m not sure what that does to your appearance, either, and like I say, I don’t want to get into design, but I think I’m going to stay negative. MR. STONE-I don’t want to put anybody on the spot, obviously, because that’s not the nature. You’ve stated your opinion. MR. HIMES-I’d kind of go along. My big objection was the front encroachment, and if that could be erased, then we don’t have a setback problem there, even though I agree with what Chuck said about the appearance that may not be good. MR. HALL-We could, you know, in place of the bay window, we could put a combination, a picture window with a couple of side lights or something. MR. STONE-Do you want to take this back to your client and think about it? We can table it. MR. HALL-I’m trying not to hold this up. The weather’s closing in on us. If the main sticking point is the massive size of the building, I can’t, I mean, my hands are tied there. That’s what they need. I can’t agree to say, yes, okay, lop off two bedrooms and have your kids sleep in the garage. MR. STONE-Do you think the concern about the sun porch, or whatever it is now, I mean, I’m not suggesting. MR. HALL-You mean the carport? MR. STONE-The carport. They’re going to use it as a garage, I think you said again. MR. HALL-There was a car parked in it, prior to them putting the fiber glass panels on it. Their son died not long ago. He formerly parked his car in there, and when he died, and they didn’t have the need to park the car in there, they closed it off. Would they be willing to tear that down? I would say no. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I’m not sure it would change my vote. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, why don’t we, if you’re willing to amend the front, so that the relief is a little less, and the massiveness is reduced, in spite of the fact, well, he’s the architect. He said he could do it. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. STONE-Let’s try a motion to approve, on that basis. MR. MC NALLY-You say massiveness. Taking off that front porch and that bay window is not going to take away from the floor area of that building, or its mass. MR. STONE-No, but it’s going to take away from the appearance. MR. MC NALLY-All it does it take a little bit off the front to lessen the front setback relief requested. MR. STONE-But also the feeling, if you drove up to the house, that it would reduce. MR. HALL-It’s not sticking out as far towards the road. Granted, it’s two feet, but, in reference to the size of the building, when you drive down Palmer, when you come around the first corner, there’s two or three buildings right there that are fairly good size, and then as you get beyond this, down toward the end of the road, there are some fairly large structures down there. MR. MC NALLY-They’ve got different lots. If you look at the tax map, you can see some of them are better placed on the lot, and a lot more set back from the sides. MR. HALL-I agree with you. I wish this were back 25 feet from the road. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. MC NALLY-You may be stuck with the footprint, all right, but that doesn’t mean what goes on the top of that footprint has to be as large as it is now. I’d be more inclined to start from scratch and think about this again, something a little bit more modest and suited to that lot and that neighborhood, but certainly more modern and attractive, would be something I’d be in favor of. I’d stick with Chuck, I think. MR. STONE-So that’s two definite noes, and, Roy, you were a no. MR. URRICO-I would say I’m still leaning in the negative direction, more than leaning. MR. STONE-Chuck Abbate, you’re a yes. Allan, you came out? MR. BRYANT-With the changes, I would go for it. MR. STONE-With the changes, you could go for it, and, Norman, you could go for those changes? All right, then I will ask for a motion to approve as amended, with the understanding that. MR. HALL-The front stoop will be eliminated, and the bay window would be eliminated. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-And just leave it the way it is originally, the 16 feet, because that’s what it is. MR. HALL-Correct. MR. STONE-Would it be 16 feet if we did that? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HALL-Yes, it would be the original that you have stated in your, yes, 16 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2000 WALT HAMMER, Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 55 Palmer Drive. Applicant proposes construction of an 1110 square foot second story addition, as well as a 180 square foot first floor addition. Applicant requests 16 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement, and 14.25 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Further relief for the expansion in excess of 50% of a nonconforming structure is requested per Section 179-79. The 1650 square foot residence should be enlarged by 835 square feet without relief. However, the proposed 1230 square foot of additional living space represents a 75% expansion. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to substantially enlarge the existing home. Feasible alternatives, I believe because of the location of the septic that there really aren’t many feasible alternatives. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The cumulative request may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There are moderate effects on the neighborhood that may be anticipated as a result of this action, but in view of a number of the houses in that neighborhood, it would be comparable to those houses. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Duly adopted this 23 day of August, 2000, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-So it’s approved four, three, with the changes that you agreed to. MR. HALL-Yes, thank you very much. MR. MC NALLY-Have a good night. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/23/00) MR. STONE-We’re adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 46