The URL can be used to link to this page

2000-04-21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 21, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN NORMAN HIMES JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE CHARLES MC NULTY MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT MC NALLY PAUL HAYES CHARLES ABBATE ALLAN BRYANT CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2000 TYPE II WR-1A CEA KIM & BRUCE HANSON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE PILOT KNOB ROAD (33 HANNEFORD ROAD) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 114 SQ. FT. STAKE DOCK AND SEEKS SIDE SETBACK RELIEF. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/12/2000 TAX MAP NO. 19-1-7 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60 BRUCE HANSON, PRESENT MR. STONE-Just read Mr. Hanson’s transmittal letter. MR. MC NULTY-Do his cover letter? Okay. This is a letter addressed to Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, from Kim and Bruce Hanson, “We respectfully request one and a half feet relief from the 20 foot set back required from a new dock to the extended property line, based on the following criteria: The property is a summer camp with lake frontage and originally had a single crib dock with 0 feet setback on one side. The camp and dock fell into total disrepair from years of neglect and lack of maintenance. In our efforts to rehabilitate the camp so it can again be enjoyed as originally intended, a dock building permit will be required. the set back relief requested is negligible, and the location of the new dock provides adequate set back on both sides (where as the old dock had no set back on one side). Reasonable attempts to acquire three feet of lake frontage from the neighboring property owners were declined. Thank you for your time and consideration of our application. Yours Truly, Kim & Bruce Hanson 33 Hanneford Road Queensbury, NY 12804” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-2000, Kim & Bruce Hanson, Meeting Date: April 21, 2000 “Project Location: Pilot Knob Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 114 square foot stake dock and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 1.5 feet of relief from both 20 foot minimum side setback requirements of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize a residential dock. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited, as the parcel in question is just 40 feet wide at the shore. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 1.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirements may be interpreted as minimal. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be attributed to the pre-existing lot configuration. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 42-1999 res. – 6/16/99 deck Building Permit 99-176 issued 6/22/99 deck Building Permit 2000-130 – pending dock Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed dock is of modest proportion, centered on the property requiring minimal relief from the ordinance. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-I cannot find a sheet from the County. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. STONE-But it shows that the County did approve that? MR. BROWN-Right. Yes, there’s a master sheet there some place. MR. STONE-Yes. I’ve got the master sheet. Sir? MR. HANSON-Bruce Hanson, 33 Hanneford Road. MR. STONE-Anything else you want to say about your application? I’m very disturbed that it was back in June that we granted you the last variance. It seems like yesterday. That always disturbs me. MR. HANSON-It’s good to see you again, too. Basically what happened is the previous property owner was aged and fell ill, and was unable to maintain both the dock and the property, and so therefore it fell into disrepair, and we’re now hoping to rebuild it as it originally was, a summer camp with a dock. MR. STONE-Any questions from any members of the Board? You do say what’s there is going to be taken out completely? MR. HANSON-Yes. MR. STONE-You’re splitting the difference, basically, on your property? MR. HANSON-Right. We’re improving the position of the dock from what the original one was, over to the side of the lot. MR. STONE-No questions? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes. There’s a couple of pieces of correspondence. One is a note written on the bottom of the notice of the public hearing that says “I have no objection to the proposed stake dock if it is located exactly in the center of his lake front. David W. Hopper” MR. HANSON-That would be Hopper, on the north side. MR. STONE-On the north side? MR. HANSON-Yes. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Okay, and then we have a letter addressed to Charles McNulty, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals, from Judith and John Shafer, “We are writing as nearby property owners to strongly support the request by Kim and Bruce Hanson to install a 114 sq. ft. stake dock on their 40+ feet of Lake George frontage. We share the dock with John A. Beals just two properties to the south on Warner Bay. When we purchased our property in 1979, I took, and still have, photographs of our children on our dock looking to the northwest and these photos show the posts from a dock on the Hanson frontage. We also have earlier newspaper photos also showing the dock on the property then owned by Bill Allen, and possibly his predecessor. The point of these photos is that there has been a dock on that frontage for at least 40 years, although due to his failing health in later years Bill did not maintain the dock. The remains of this dock are still evident at the northerly end of the Hanson’s frontage and I understand he wants to replace it at the midpoint. Logic would suggest that would not only benefit him but the abutting property owners on both sides with no negative consequences. This would be particularly true if the present Order on Consent by the Lake George Park Commission on Mr. Moise just to the south is enforced and/or implemented. While I support the variance, it is not clear to me why a property owner who has clear evidence of a dock being in existence for decades would be subject to a Town setback regulation that was put in force subsequently. I would think the concept of grandfathering of the dock would be clearly applicable in this case. The fact that he wants to move it dramatically increases the setback to the north. In conclusion, I strongly support the Hanson request for a dock mid-point in their frontage. Very Truly Yours, John H. and Judith A. Shafer” P.S. We aren’t able to attend the hearing and were surprised to see it scheduled on a Friday night during the holiest of week of Easter and Passover.” MR. STONE-Let me just comment on that last one. I know a lot of you wonder why we’re here. We needed three meetings this month. We couldn’t meet on Wednesday, and I couldn’t meet next Friday. So we’re meeting this Friday. So, I apologize. I should have apologized at the beginning, but hopefully we will not be here too long. I’ll close the public hearing. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions, comments to the applicant? All right. Norman, what do you think? MR. HIMES-I’m in favor of the application, no questions asked. I think it’s very reasonable and every effort to minimize the impact on zoning requirements is being made, and it’s got the support of his neighbors. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I agree. I don’t think there’s any other alternative. If the man’s going to have a dock, he’s got to put it where he’s proposing. It’s the best compromise that he can make. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think it’s going to improve the setbacks from other docks, and give you more room, too. So it’s a good idea. MR. STONE-I agree with my fellow Board members. Just to answer the question, because the dock is being taken down, it requires the variance, because there just isn’t enough room to put it, but having said that, I think positioning in the middle of the lot is as good as you can do, and there’s no reason, since there’s always been a dock, it’s been evidenced. There should be a dock there. So having said that, I will ask for a motion to approve the application. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2000 KIM & BRUCE HANSON, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Pilot Knob Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 114 square foot stake dock, and seeks setback relief. Applicant requests one and a half feet of relief from the proposed 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Shoreline and Waterfront regulations, 179-60. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize a residential dock. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. The parcel in question is just 40 feet wide at the shoreline. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? One and a half feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal. Effects on the neighborhood and community, minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Is the difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing lot configuration, and the fact that the dock that was there previously is falling apart, and needs to be replaced. Minimal impact may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed dock is of modest proportions, centered on the property with minimal relief from the Ordinance. Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. MR. HANSON-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2000 TYPE II HC-15 MICHAEL & MARY GIELLA OWNER: CHARLES & ELLEN KENNY 3327 ROUTE 9, BETWEEN DEXTER SHOE AND THE DOLL HOUSE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18 HOLE MINIATURE GOLF COURSE WITH PARKING AND SUPPORT BUILDING; AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. CROSS REF. SPR 26-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/12/2000 TAX MAP NO. 34-1-9 LOT SIZE: 2 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-28 JON LAPPER & DENNIS DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-This one we do have a Warren County Planning Board review form. “Project Name: Giella, Michael & Mary Owner: Michael and Mary Giella ID Number: QBY-AV-31-2000 County Project #: Apr00-30 Current Zoning: HC-15 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of an 18 hole miniature golf course with parking and 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) support building and seeks relief from setback requirements and the Travel Corridor Overlay zone. Site Location: 3327 Route 9, between Dexter Shoe and Doll House Tax Map Number: 34-1-9 Staff Notes: This project has also been referred to the County Planning Board for site plan review (agenda item Apr00-30A, site plans are included with that agenda item). The proposed project infringes fairly substantially on the travel corridor overlay and could impact traffic on Route 9 by generating additional turning traffic only 200’ north of the intersection with Route 149 and in an area with a substantial amount of turning traffic. Staff recommends discussion in conjunction with agenda item Apr00-30A. Local actions to date (if any): Public Hearing scheduled for April 21, 2000 County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action Taken. A vote was taken with four Board members in favor. No action due to an inability of the Board to come to a majority vote.” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2000, Michael & Mary Giella, Meeting Date: April 21, 2000 “Project Location: 3327 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a miniature golf course and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant simultaneously requests 40 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement of the HC-1A zone, § 179-23 and 65 feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay zone requirement, § 179-28. Further, the applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the HC-1A zone. 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 operate the desired project in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests may be interpreted as substantial, however, given the actual field separation between the proposed use and the drive lanes of Route 9, the relief could be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there appears to be a compliant location available. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sign permit 2000-3475 pending Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The visual impact of the project may be lessened by the significant separation from the drive lanes of Route 9. The portions of this project requiring setback relief are made up of miniature golf course holes and associated features. Consideration may be given to the size and location of the associated golf course amenities; lumberjacks, sawmills, artificial trees, lighting, etc. within the relief area. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. Brown, since the County took no action, are we, can we pass this with four votes? MR. BROWN-I think so, yes. MR. STONE-I just wanted to get it on the record. I thought we could. Okay. Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Dennis Dickinson, Licensed Land Surveyor. To start with, I’m here filling in for Howard Krantz who is in Italy tonight, lucky for him. I have an agency form that was done after the fact, naming me. So I’m here on the record. I’ll give it to Craig. MR. STONE-Just put it in the file, that’s all. MR. LAPPER-To begin with, the application requests relief for three area variances, and we’re here only asking for two. What’s happened in the interim is that it was discovered that there was a 1940 deed in the abstract that deeded from the County to a prior property owner the land between the pavement and the highway, and what was determined originally to be the front property line. So what that means is that, instead of a 65 foot variance, which would have just been only 10 feet out of the 75 feet in the Travel Corridor Overlay, there’s actually between 10 and 15 feet, just because the parcel’s on a different angle than the road, and the only thing that’s requested is a between 10 and 15 foot of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay, and we have a new survey that Dennis did, that Dennis will talk about, that shows that the property line goes to the road. Mr. Krantz sent a letter in to the Planning Staff on April 17 where he referenced this, and I have a copy of a deed th from the County to Jerry Mead and French Mountain Holding Corporation dated 1940, which was a predecessor in title which verifies this. This is just out of an abstract. So that eliminates the 50 foot setback in the front as being an issue, because more than 50 feet is owned, or will be owned by the property owner, the applicant, after the purchase of the property, and what we’re talking about from the road now is just 10 to 15 feet, which makes it a lot simpler. MR. STONE-Is it 10 or is it 15? It’s on an angle. MR. LAPPER-It’s on an angle. So the worst. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. STONE-But what’s the maximum relief we have to give, 15? MR. LAPPER-Yes, but it’s not 15 over the whole lane, but you’re correct. That’s 15. What Craig mentioned in his Staff Notes, that that wasn’t a big visual impact to begin with. We’re still proposing it to be put in the same place. It’s just a question of who owns the land, and the fact that it’s 60 feet from the roadway should be sufficient. The Giellas who are here tonight, behind us, and are here available to answer any questions the Board might have, also mentioned to me this evening that they compared it to the miniature golf course, Pirate’s Cove, also on Route 9, also in a Highway Commercial zone, a few miles south, and that’s, the golf course there is approximately 25 feet from pavement, and here it’s 60 feet. So just by comparison, not really a visual impact. Then if we talk about the need for the Travel Corridor Overlay zone, that was always envisioned so that if some day the County or the State comes in and widens that road, that you wouldn’t have a building that would have to be taken down and the taking would be expensive. Here, in the unlikely event that all of the 75 feet were needed, it’s really no big deal to turn it into a 16 hole golf course, although nobody would want that, but it’s still not like taking down a building, in terms of what the cost would be. So that addresses that issue. The reason for the variance, the reason why the golf course can’t simply be moved 15 feet back, has to do with the topography of the site. It starts to go up an embankment toward the Northway in the back, and there’s not flat land to put in a septic system. At this point, I’d like to ask Dennis to just walk you through the site plan, and explain that, just show you what we’re talking about. MR. DICKINSON-As Jon said, my name’s Dennis Dickinson. I’m an engineer and the surveyor on this project. Let me address the first issue on the front setback. This is Route 9, as you can see here, on the right side of the map. Our original survey came down to this orange line that you can see some distance from the road, some of you can see. This is the bounds of the Old Military Road, and if you drive over there, you’ll see that there’s still kind of the remnants of the road here, and it’s all the way down through all these lots, and it’s abandoned. It hasn’t been used, but that was the boundary line, and then after we did our survey and everybody was up and running and doing the design and everything, we got a call from the Title Company that they found a deed, a Quit Claim Deed, to a parcel they thought was in front of our property. So we did the research. We found out, yes, indeed, they do have title to the piece in the front. The description of it is from this Old Military Road line, to the edge of the pavement. I don’t know where this description came from 1940. I was a little reluctant to run it up to the edge of the pavement, but it still relieved a considerable amount of our request for the variance in the front. This golf course that we have now, shown down here, this is the golf course. This was my original line, and this is the actual road, and the actual property line. This is 65 feet, exactly, everywhere. So we’re asking for 10 feet. MR. STONE-What’s the width of the right-of-way, and how far does it go, the actual right-of-way, 50, well, I don’t know if it’s, at least 50 feet, or 49 and a half feet. Where is the center of the road and how far does it go toward the, to the west? I mean, it’s a State highway. It obviously is, I assume a legal State highway, which, therefore, is at least three rods wide. MR. DICKINSON-Yes. Let me just back up and see if I can answer that question. What they did was they owned the Old Military Road here, orange line. In the 40’s, they came through and they widened it out and they got a line over here some place. I’ll tell you the truth, I’m not sure how far, it’s significantly wide. Then in 1940, they gave this back to us, if you will. So they’ve set their own line on this side right here. This line is about 30 feet from the middle of the road. So you’ve got 55 or 60, it’s 55 or 60 feet anyway. MR. STONE-Is this a County road or State Road? MR. DICKINSON-State Road. It’s definitely a State road. Yes. MR. STONE-So the State gave them, not the County. MR. DICKINSON-The State. Actually, the Quit Claim Deed is from the County and from the State, and I’m not sure why, and I’m not sure, at some point in time, the County might have been the owner in title to Old Military Road, and then when the State improved Route 9, they might have taken over. So when they Quit Claimed the deed, they might have done both, just to be cautious. So that’s the variance in the front. We’re asking for a 10 foot relief from the property line as we have it set up. Okay. MR. STONE-Wait a minute. I heard 15 from Mr. Lapper. MR. DICKINSON-No, it’s 10. I let Jon go. I figured I could straighten it out. It’s definitely. MR. STONE-A maximum of 10. MR. DICKINSON-A maximum of 10. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DICKINSON-And if you look on the course, and you look on one of these maps of mine, where the course is shown, there are two points there that are closest to the road, and they’re both 65. So we’re asking you for a 10 foot relief in the front. Now, I didn’t move it back for two reasons. One, we kind of backed into this thing, we had this all done when this problem arose. A lot of work. The other factor is, and this is more important, this is our engineering drawing of the site plan, and the issue here is, here’s our buffer. Here’s the course. Here’s our little support building. It’s 20 by 30. Here is our septic system here. Okay, plus, 50% as required by the Department of Health. If you look on the maps, you can see these lottings here. This is a hill that goes right up in the back. So can we move it back? Yes. Would it make it more difficult? Definitely. Now, I’d have to try to figure out something to do with this septic system, and I really like it here, because it’s one of the places where we have enough separation distance to the ground water table. Okay. That’s the front setback issue. MR. STONE-That’s part of the front setback. MR. DICKINSON-The Travel Corridor. MR. STONE-The Travel Corridor Overlay. MR. LAPPER-We’re no longer asking for the setback relief from the 50 foot front setback. Because we have more than 50 feet. MR. STONE-So what is the 10 feet we’re talking? Is that this Travel Corridor Overlay we’re talking about? MR. DICKINSON-Travel Corridor. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DICKINSON-Okay. Is everybody all set? All right. The second one, what we did. MR. STONE-Why are you assuming the TCO goes away, just because you own land down there? I heard you say minimum risk, but nevertheless it’s there. MR. LAPPER-The 75 foot rule still applies. We’re now asking for 10 foot relief. The property owners will now own 65 feet. What’s proposed for the improvements, the nearest improvement will be 65 feet. MR. STONE-Yes, but they’re owning land in the TCO. MR. LAPPER-No. Yes, in the Travel Corridor Overlay, but they’re. MR. STONE-The Overlay applies, regardless of who owns the property. MR. LAPPER-But the Overlay would have started at the property line. Because the Overlay district runs from the edge of the State’s right-of-way, and the State’s right-of-way, because of the discovery of this deed, has just moved 65 feet away. It would have been that that Overlay would have started 60 feet in from the pavement. MR. STONE-That may or may not be the case. I mean, I can see where they could own the land, and the fact that the State sold them the land, there may be an indentation there, but the pavement out here, and the road right-of-way still is going to have an overlay associated with it, regardless of whether they own the land or not. MR. BROWN-Right. I think the setback relief that goes away that they referenced is the underlying zoning, the Highway Commercial 50 foot setback. MR. STONE-That I understand. MR. BROWN-Okay. That goes away. MR. STONE-That goes away. You’re not even asking for that, but you’re asking for the TCO, which makes no difference who owns the property. MR. LAPPER-You’re assuming that the TCO runs from the edge of pavement, and, no, it runs from the property line. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. BROWN-It runs from the bounds of the highway, sure. MR. STONE-The boundary of the highway. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-And I understand, but bear with me. Just help me because I want to be sure. Just because, we have a highway here. We have a right-of-way which is at least three rods wide. MR. LAPPER-We thought the right-of-way was another 65 feet to the east from the edge of pavement. Dennis at first thought that when he did the plan. MR. STONE-I understand, okay. MR. LAPPER-And it turns out that that 65 feet is owned, will be owned by the applicants. MR. STONE-Okay, but the highway is still in place, and there is a Travel Corridor Overlay associated with the highway. MR. LAPPER-Which now runs from the edge of pavement. MR. STONE-Edge of pavement, okay. MR. LAPPER-Sixty-five feet from the edge of pavement. I’m sorry, 75 feet from the edge of pavement for the Travel Corridor Overlay, and what is proposed is going to be 65 feet from the edge of pavement. MR. BROWN-The Travel Corridor Overlay relief goes from 65 feet to 10 feet. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what I’m trying to, I can see the numbers. I just want to be sure that, if I’m being dense, I’ll be dense. That’s okay. MR. DICKINSON-When we did our original survey, we put the property line here. This is Old Military Road, and this is Route 9, and it was all owned, I thought, by the State. Then we found we had a deed to it. This property line that you’re measuring this Overlay from went from here to here. MR. LAPPER-If you hadn’t discovered the deed, it would have been 75 feet from that line. MR. DICKINSON-Would have been over here. So the Overlay went with it. The Overlay was from this property line and went from here out to here. We picked up 55 feet out here. We already had 10 feet. So we’re up to 65. We need 75. MR. STONE-Okay. Am I being dense on this thing? Okay. If I am, I am, but it seems to me that the highway is here. I don’t care who owns the land up to the highway. MR. LAPPER-You do care. It’s not the edge of pavement. It’s where the highway property line. MR. STONE-Right. MR. LAPPER-And the highway property line Dennis mistakenly thought was. MR. STONE-So you’re saying that, in a sense, the highway bulges in? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MR. STONE-Compared to the properties to the north and the south, maybe. MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STONE-Well, yes. You don’t know whether the other people own that or not. MR. LAPPER-We don’t know the property to the north or south. MR. STONE-So there is a bulge, at least as far as this property goes. MR. DICKINSON-No, that’s not true. Actually, the deed we have is for two parcels. Why we got title to the second parcel I’m not sure, but the second parcel is to the north of us, and then from that parcel up, we have surveys done by other surveyors that show this exact same phenomenon. So, no, 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) once you get to this part, I don’t know what happens down here. This is Dexter Shoe. I’m not sure what happens down there, but once you get to our parcel, from here, all the way up until it comes back out on Route 9, all these properties have this exact same thing in front of them. The property has been released back to the property owners. For Old Military Road, that’s what they were doing. They were giving it back. MR. STONE-I just want to know where the TCO starts, on the road. Forget who owns the property. MR. BROWN-The edge of the right-of –way. MR. STONE-The edge of the right-of -way. It’s 75 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. MR. BROWN-Right, correct. MR. STONE-What I’m hearing, I don’t know where that edge of the right-of-way is. MR. DICKINSON-It’s right here. MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s 75 feet back from there. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. DICKINSON-Right. MR. STONE-And you’re building how close? MR. DICKINSON-We only have 65. MR. LAPPER-The edge of the right-of-way. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s the point I’m talking about. The fact that they own the property, it’s still. MR. LAPPER-It’s not the right-of-way anymore. When this application was submitted, it was wrong as to where the edge of the right-of-way was. MR. STONE-I understand that part. It just seems to me that the fact that who owns it. MR. LAPPER-It makes all the difference, under this Code, who owns it. It’s no longer part of the. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll bow to that. Keep going. MR. DICKINSON-Okay. Two, you have a little zipper in your Ordinance that says you need 50 feet of side line setback with no sideline being less than 20. What we did in our proposal is we put our access road on this side, hoping it would have a less effect on the single resident that’s here, as opposed to Dexter Shoe over here. Driveway I have at 17 to 18 feet, depending on whether you’re talking about the curbs or not. We have a request to increase that to 20. I also had my stormwater things over here squeezed in between the road and the course. So what happened is, we have 37 feet or 38 feet, 37 or 38, and over here on the other side, we have the compliment of that 13 or 12 feet. So we have a total of 50, just like the Ordinance says. The only thing is, we fudged it over to the commercial side a little bit. The official numbers are 37 and 13. On one of your applications you read in, somebody said 38 and 12, but the official numbers are 37 and 13. The fact of the matter is it’s 50 feet total. We do meet the 50 feet. We don’t meet the minimum 20. So that’s the second variance that we’ve asked for. MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STONE-Any questions of the Board? MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s your total topographic relief from the top down to Route 9? MR. DICKINSON-We have this support building here is at 147. It’s a random topo. It’s at 147. It drops down to 110. So, we’ve got like 37. What happens is, from this point where I have the septic, it rises right up, it goes up to 160 something, yes. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. STONE-Where is the first, how close is the developed property going to be, where the first landscaping for the hole is concerned? MR. DICKINSON-To the road? 65 feet. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DICKINSON-That’s the one we need 75, we’ve got 65. MR. STONE-Sixty-five from the present road that is there now? MR. DICKINSON-Yes. MR. HIMES-The only alternative you might have, you say back where the hill is, would be to cut into it and remove and level it, and that would give you. MR. LAPPER-That could be done, but it’s just a practical difficulty. MR. DICKINSON-I’m not sure I can do that, Norm. We weren’t intending to do any development on it. We didn’t do any test pits on it. Sometimes their hills are there for a reason, other than just extra dirt. There may be bedrock under it. So to answer your question, if it’s just dirt, yes. If it’s not, and I don’t know the answer. MR. UNDERWOOD-How far is the back off of (lost words). MR. DICKINSON-We’re quite a ways there, but this is the Northway property line. We’re about 100 feet from it. This portion of it is the drainage area. We’re going to use that for our retention, and actually, this drainage goes to the Northway, and then from here, it goes down to Route 9. We’ve got about 100 feet in there, it will be a buffer. MR. STONE-I just looked at this map, and I apologize for my denseness. You’re 75 feet was from what you thought was the right-of-way. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re still talking 75 from the right-of-way, except it’s in a different place than you thought it was. Okay. I have no problem with that. Okay. Any other questions of the applicant before I open the public hearing? MR. HIMES-There’s just one. You probably looked into the access exit and access to the course. That particular place is most of the time pretty congested, as far as traffic backing up from the light and so on, and I don’t know if the third lane starts shortly after the light there, goes by. The property coming from south to north probably would have a great difficulty getting across that left hand lane to get into your place, and coming out, would they be turning left and right? How would they get across the traffic? MR. LAPPER-Norm, that’s the reason for placing the driveway on the north side of the site, because it’s farthest from the intersection. So in terms of that second variance, to put the driveway in that location aides the traffic movements on Route 9. That’s the best place to put it on this site. MR. HIMES-That would really be a planning. MR. LAPPER-That is a planning issue. MR. STONE-Definitely. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-So the parking, every car that uses, every person that uses that course will drive in that northerly driveway and park in the back? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. No further questions? I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of the application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PEGGY CHROSTOWSKI 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-I have a question. Peggy Chrostowski, and I’m on the north side of the property. When we bought the property. We were given to understand that we did not own the front from the wall to the road. We had the right to use it, but it belonged to the State, but they did give you the right to use it, but we never got any deed or any papers that said otherwise. MR. STONE-Okay. What I’m hearing is that the title company found this, the fact that it was owned by the adjacent property, and I can only suggest you ought to look into that fact and find out whether you own it or not. MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-That’s why I thought maybe Dennis could advise me as to what to do to get some information on it. MR. STONE-Can you help, or should she go to a lawyer? MR. LAPPER-I have a, we can read into the record, a letter that accompanies the deed that came from Howard Krantz, that the title company found. MR. STONE-Okay, and that applies to her property? MR. LAPPER-I would assume, I mean, I don’t know the answer, but I would assume that it probably applies to a number of properties on that side of the road. MR. STONE-So it’s a matter of doing some research and finding out. We can read that in when we get done with the public hearing. Okay. MRS. CHROSTOWSKI-My only other question was, the building out back has to have a septic system. There is a well there on the property, which I’m sure they know where that is, but I also have a well on the back part of my property, and I want to be sure that I have good water. Other than that, I have no complaints. Thank you. MR. STONE-So noted. We’ll ask the question when we’re done. Unless you want to answer her comment now. Is the septic going to interfere with any well there? MR. DICKINSON-There are two wells at issue here. Our well is down close to the road. It’s quite removed from the septic. Peggy’s well is a little closer, but it’s well over 100 feet from the. MR. STONE-It is over 100, and the Code calls for 100 feet. MR. DICKINSON-One hundred feet minimum. We’ve met that. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody wishing to speak opposed to the application? Opposed to the application? Any correspondence? Read that letter in, just so it’s in the record. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I don’t find any other correspondence. This is a letter from Howard Krantz, addressed to Chris Round, “Regarding Mike and Mary Giella’s pending application for Area Variances, enclosed please find a revised, certified survey prepared by D.L. Dickinson Associates dated 4/13/00. As you can see from the enclosed survey, especially when compared to Mr. Dickinson’s prior survey, Mr. Dickinson has concluded that a 1940 deed conveyed a strip of land along the west side of NYS Route 9, and will be conveyed to my clients. The strip of land measures 55.63 feet on the north, and 49.48 feet on the south. By the addition of this parcel, Mr. and Mrs. Giella would not seem to need a front setback variance and the extent of the corridor overlay variance has been greatly reduced. As I will be on vacation next week, Jon Lapper of the Bartlett firm will be in attendance in representation of my clients on Friday evening, April 21. Thank you for your kind cooperation and consideration. Very truly yours, Howard I. Krantz” MR. STONE-No other correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t find any other correspondence. MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-The Giellas would not mind that the Assessor is made aware of the fact that more property is owned than they thought may be on the tax records? It all goes together. MR. LAPPER-No question. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? Well, let’s talk about it. Chuck, what do you think? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’ve changed my attitude about it, learning about the extra property. Because I wasn’t too happy about the degree of relief they required on the front, but given the extra 60 feet, I don’t think I have a problem with it. It’s going to be set back from the road, a fair amount. They’ve got the access road in the best possible location for that property. I’d have no problem with it. MR. STONE-All right. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-My only question would be on the egress and ingress into. I think at certain times of the year, especially the time of year that it’s going to be used, you’re going to in grid lock a lot of the time there, so possibly they ought to consider just have a right turn only coming out of there during the time it’s open, on weekends or something. I don’t know if you can swing it both ways, but I think it’s going to be difficult to get across to the northbound lane. MR. LAPPER-That’ll pretty much be DOT’s call, just because it’s their road and that application is pending. So we’ll see what they say. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I think it’s more a safety issue than a concern with the actual lot. now that it’s only 10 feet relief back from the road, it makes a lot of sense, rather than move it up the hill, where you septic is going to be. I makes more sense to leave it that way. MR. STONE-Just a quick question. How high are the attractions going to be closest to Route 9? Are they going to be sitting there hitting people in the eye? MICHAEL GIELLA MR. GIELLA-Closest to Route 9 would be two holes, and a small pond with a very low fountain on it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. GIELLA-A lot of shrubbery, greenery. MR. STONE-There won’t be a waterfall, like there is down the road, that close? MR. GIELLA-There will be a waterfall, but the waterfall will be set back quite far. MR. STONE-Okay. That was a concern that I had, that I didn’t express before. Is it going to be such an attention gatherer that people are going to be distracted there at all? Again, that’s Planning Board and I recognize all that. Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Well, the side setback is a matter, I think previous to the explanations tonight, didn’t pay too much to the side setbacks because the front was so impressive that, again, the low profile of the thing and the aspects of, as could be done if the Travel Overlay needed to be used, the aspect if anything had to be done on the side for one reason or another in the future, same logic, I suppose. So I kind of don’t really have any objection. The traffic will be great. Whether that’s a Planning Board matter, or what not, I think you’ll have a lot of difficulty there at certain times. MR. STONE-Which is one of the reasons that we bring it up. It does not get into our call, but it is something that, it’s in the record, and they will see it, and that’s their job to look at all of those kinds of things. I basically agree. I was concerned, as Chuck was, with the amount of relief. You’ve certainly made some of that go away, and I apologize, again, for looking at a line that you put on the thing as being the line, and that’s the problem that I have with it. I think as far as the side setback goes, I think it’s a good compromise. Obviously, you want traffic as far away from the intersection as possible. Therefore, you need as much room as you can on that side, while leaving some buffer on the south side. The only question I have now, looking at Staff Notes, are we talking seven feet of relief on the one side? Seven, not ten. MR. BROWN-I scaled from the drawing. I’m sure he’s done some other calculations there. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying it’s going to be 13 feet, which requires 7 feet of relief on the south side? MR. DICKINSON-Correct. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. STONE-Okay. I just want to make sure that when we make the motion, that we have that correct, and it’s 10 feet maximum relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay. MR. DICKINSON-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Having said that, I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2000 MICHAEL & MARY GIELLA, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 3327 State Route 9. The applicant proposes construction of a miniature golf course and seeks setback relief. Specifically, the applicant is requesting 10 feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay Zone requirement, Section 179-28, and is also requesting 7 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Highway Commercial One Acre zone. In considering this, we’ve considered the benefit to the applicant, which would be that the applicant will be allowed to construct and operate the desired project in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives could include reconfiguration to a compliant location, but relocating the project to the rear of the lot any amount may create additional problems with the location of the septic system. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The cumulative relief of 10 feet in the front and 7 feet on the side, I think, could be classified as probably minimal. The effects on the neighborhood or the community, given the small amount of relief required, probably there will be minimal effects on the neighborhood. The difficulty can be interpreted as self-created. However, the nature of the project and the configuration of the lot, I think, contributes some to the situation. For these reasons, I move that we grant this Area Variance. Regarding the side setback, the applicant is meeting the required cumulative 50 feet of side setback relief. However, he’s requesting seven feet of relief from the minimum twenty feet for each side. Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. MR. STONE-Just for the record, I want it known that, while I apologize for having only four members tonight, we would have had a fifth who was available, except that he has a conflict of interest with the attorney for the next three applications and decided he has to recuse himself on those three, so he might as well stay home for all five, which is probably a sound decision. AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2000 TYPE II WR-1A CEA ROBERT HUGHES CLAIR HENSLER OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE 160 AND 125 MANNIS ROAD, GLEN LAKE NORTH FROM BLIND ROCK RD. BEAR LEFT AT FORK, SITE IS ON RIGHT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,392 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM HEIGHT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 40-1-42 & 43 LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES, 0.60 ACRES SECTION 179-16 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2000, Robert Hughes Clair Hensler, Meeting Date: April 21, 2000 “Project Location: 125 & 160 Mannis Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 4400 square foot single family dwelling and seeks height and setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum side setback requirement and 10 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirement of the WR- 1A zone, § 179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration and relocation to both a compliant location and height. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet of relief from the 25 foot setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate and 10 feet of relief from the 28 foot height requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there appears to be a compliant location available. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 8-1999 res. – extended 12/ /99 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) Second principal dwelling on one lot. AV 109-1989 res. – 9/27/89 Shoreline setback relief for SFD denied Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While this lot is unique, with regards to the topography, with additional site work it appears that there may be sufficient area for compliant construction of a home, garage and septic area. It does not appear that a stringent application of the ordinance would preclude a reasonable use of the property. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. O’Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant, and with me is Clair Hensler, one of the applicants, and I believe me is Dr. Rob Hughes, the other co-applicant, and also at the table is Jim Miller who has done the extensive landscaping and helped as the consultant with the design here, to be able to present to you the package that has been put together. I’d like to have Jim walk through what he has proposed first, and then get back to some background, and talk specifically as to some of the qualifications of this for the variance that’s requested. MR. STONE-Could I ask, before you start, Mr. O’Connor, the double address. Are these two lots? MR. O'CONNOR-The lots have been combined. There were two 100 foot lots that were owned by the same parties, and they have been combined. A form has been filed with the Town asking them to combine them in the future. MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s just got one address then, in other words? MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not sure. Most of the places on Glen Lake have more than one address, Mr. Stone. MR. STONE-All your work. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve tried to find out my address on Glen Lake more than once. CLAIR HENSLER MS. HENSLER-Actually, it’s funny. There weren’t two separate addresses. There was actually no 911 Code at that facility, prior to I think probably a year and a half ago. When I talked to the Town, got in touch with 911, they went up, they numbered it, and because at that time they were two separate lots, they numbered them separately. Probably for 911 purposes they will have to be separate, because I believe each house would have its own number. MR. STONE-But you’ve got an odd number and an even number, which is kind of unusual, to be on the same side of the road. MS. HENSLER-I think it was Dave Hatin that went up and assigned the 911, but the numbers were very confusing. So, I don’t know. MR. STONE-I’m sorry to digress, but I just wanted to clarify that. MR. O'CONNOR-Jim, do you want to take this. MR. MILLER-Thank you. I’m Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. I’d like to start the first plan, the reason we’re here for these variances is directly related to topography of the site, and I’d like to review that first, without showing the proposed work on it, to show it a little more clearly. The lot, being a double lot, is about 250 feet wide, and about 200 feet from the lake to Mannis Road. There’s a driveway, an access driveway right-of-way that serves several of the properties along the lake that runs across the front, the front of the property. The existing stone cabin, which is going to remain as a guest house, is, on the lake side, and right now access to that cabin is by that access road, and parking’s in this area and you come in. Because of the topography and the ridge that runs across, it’s not accessed by Mannis Road. Also there’s an existing septic system for this cabin which is in this area adjacent to the cabin and we’d like to eliminate as part of this project and tie it into the new system. The topography, as you can see, I’ve highlighted, the red lines indicate the 10 foot contours, and at one point this was a ridge that came across, and it starts to come down just off of our property to the east, and in the past there’s been some substantial excavation in here, and basically there’s a saddle that’s been created in here, and earth’s been removed from this ridge. The elevation change goes from about 402 feet on Mannis Road up to a high point of 450, and then back down to the lake which is at about 398. So we have about a 50 foot ridge that runs across this property, and even though we have a substantial 1.2 acre site, a large portion of this is essentially unusable because of the topography. Another thing, the existing residence to the east, the Wards, they access, you know, from Mannis Road further down where the ridge isn’t as high, and this is their garage that sits right 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) here. This garage is actually built right into the hill, so the back of the garage is like a retaining wall, and their home is off the survey. It’s down in this area, but we’ve proposed, and part of the reason we’ve got such a large plan is we had to go to a 10 scale, just because of the level of detail to work this plan out. Part of the proposal is to try to develop a good driveway access and a septic system on this site, on the Mannis Road side, and in developing the plans what we’ve tried to do is the main access to the site is going to be heading westerly. We want to sweep the driveway around as much as we can to try to get up as high on the site as possible, and we have about a 12 and a half percent driveway, and by creating a longer length of the driveway, it gets us up at a higher level on the site. The other thing we’re trying to accomplish is inside the curve of that driveway, where it would be filling somewhat near the road here, but creating a level area in native soil where we can accommodate the new septic system. Now this septic system will not only serve the new residents, but also will put a new septic tank and a new line to that tank to eliminate the old septic system that’s essentially too close to the lake. Now what happens, because of this high hill that we have, in order to try and create enough of this usable area for the septic and driveway, we actually had to grade the hill back a bit. We’re somewhat limited. There’s a power pole at the top here, where power lines feed the camps to the west. So we essentially have to grade this hill somewhat, but in order to give us adequate septic and a fairly usable driveway, what we’ve proposed is locating the garage similar to what the Wards have done next door, essentially building that garage right into that slope, so that we can, we don’t have to excavate, but we can build the garage into the slope so it serves as like a retaining wall, and then all that area that you see cross hatched, but now it’s grassed, that would all be re-planted with pines and hemlocks and allowed to go back to a wooded condition. The same thing on the left, where we would grade that slope there. All that hatched area would essentially be re- planted and allowed to go back to the wooded condition. The main house actually is within the building setback. So that the setback relief we’re asking for is only at the garage, and it’s consistent with, the Ward’s garage is about 12 feet off the property line, and we’re asking for 15. The other part of the variance is also driven by the site planning. What’s happened, the second thing we wanted to do with the stone cabin is to try to eliminate the access from the lower level, so the driveway would come up and into the new garage. We actually have an area that’s paved here that would allow it to serve as a back up and turn around at the primary residence, but it also gives us an access to the cabin. So if some guests were here, they could park in this area and enter the cabin from this driveway without going and parking by the lake. In the planning and design of this, in the configuration of the residence has become sort of a square shape to accommodate the driveway and the septic system and plus to meet the lake setback, and we have a residence that’s approximately 40 feet across, and because of that width being driven by the site plan, that’s what’s creating the height of the roof, to span that 40 feet, is why we’re above the 28 foot height allowance, and in looking at the elevation, we tried to provide a sketch here that would make some sense. There’s a couple of areas. On the lake side, there’s a porch that’s about 10 by 20, which is this area that extends out. The house is a two story house. We’re accessing on the lower story with a full basement, full unfinished basement, and what we’re proposing at this porch area is 20 foot height, or 20 foot wide porch, is to have that area opened up toward the lake, so we’d have access, this sketch shows, from the lake level up to that area. This sketch was an earlier sketch. It shows like a garage door. That won’t be there. There’ll just be probably two sliding doors in there. That garage door won’t be there. This section is tucked underneath the porch, and then there’ll be retaining walls that’ll extend down, sloping down with the grade, down to meet grade. So the only area where that’s exposed is looking straight at it on that 20 foot width. The grade to the side will slope back up and all that will be landscaped, and as you can see, these are stairs that take you around to the side of the residence and up to the main level. The other thing with that 36 foot height on that section of it, that’s a worst case, when measured exactly from the grade to the very peak. One of the things, because we’re here for a height variance, we looked at some different designs, and what our clients come up with was go with a hip roof rather than a gable roof, so that the roof is pitching back, so we don’t have the gable end exposed. So if we measured from the ground to the roof line, right here in the front, that’s the 28 feet. So the only area that’s exposed above is the roof area, if it’s measured from the bottom. If you measure it from the side slopes, we’d actually meet that 28 feet. As far as the main house, we take the grade from the side elevation to the very top. One of the things, that cupola that’s on the top, by going to a hip roof, that’s not there, to be whimsical, going to a hip roof, an essentially square house like this, there’s no opportunity to really vent the attic space. So actually that cupola I think adds like two to three feet, if the roof line had been extended, but that’s there to provide adequate ventilation, so we could vent the house, vent the attic. The 38 feet is measured from the ground at the side to the very peak of that cupola, and the other thing we tried to point out in this sketch, as I said, this is being constructed in sort of a little hollow, and you can see this is going to be the finished grades to the side, as you look at it from the lake. You can see, here’s the garage, and where the grade, and we’re filling up onto the garage, and then this mound continues up, and the same thing, you look at this hill behind the stone cabin, the grade comes up here. We have some retaining walls, but the grade of that hill continues up. So even though we’re measuring right at the building height right adjacent to the building, when looking at it relative to the topography of that ridge on each side of us, the trees and the hills to the side are substantially higher than the residents. With that, I’ll give it back to Mike. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. O'CONNOR-A couple of things I’d point out on the sketches that we’ve got up here, and I wasn’t that clear when I first saw them, is, and I think Jim hit on it. This is not the actual, there will be two sliding doors, glass door units down in this unit here. This is not the area that we’re talking about the height variance. We’re talking about the height variance, the measurement from the soil here to what would be the top of the cupola. This does come into compliance. If you notice the grade goes back up on each side of this, and if you take it from this edge down, it complies, and as it goes back up, it actually climbs faster on the side slopes than the actual roof climbs up. The other thing, it looks like these are windows on the top. They are not windows. They are actually vents. There is no living space or occupancy above the second floor. That’s all attic, and that’s a ventilation system for that. Probably to give you another idea of what they’re trying to build in, and part of it is they were told that because this was recently filled, and I think you read off prior history three different applications that have been before the Board. One was in 1989, and that was by the prior owner. It was not by the present owner, and they wanted to build a house closer to the lake, I believe, than what was then permitted, and when they were doing that, they had excavated the area down to this level, and they filled it back in because it was unstable, or the Town required them to fill back in because it was unstable and there was a lot of retaining walls and everything else that were put in. One set of retaining walls failed. They’ve now got a second set of retaining walls. We’d be replacing those when we finish our grading with even a better slope than what’s presently there, but we’ve been told that we’ve got to excavate back down to there to put our foundation in and put our house in because of the recent filling. If you pass this along, this will give you, this will give you an idea of what, if you will, the native soil on the site looks like with that prior excavation, and I also have a map, area photo. It just gives you an idea. This is what this site looked like some time ago, when they did the excavation. The other point that Jim makes that I would go back to is that we’re talking about a height variance only. The size of the building, it’s a larger than normal house that’s counting both floors, when you get into your square footage, that we’re talking about, but it is a building that still is less than what is allowed on that site. We’re talking about having 70 to 80%, we’ve got apparently two calculations in our application, as far as permeable area when we’re finished. In this zone, you’re permitted to have coverage up to 65%, or 35% non-permable. We don’t even approach that. So what we’re really talking about is not the size of the house. We’re talking about the height of the house, because of the topographical features of the site. If you go to the site itself, and again, just to make an impression that this is in a bowl, and I think that’s one of the reasons it’s so unique. The outer difference, or the height difference with the easterly boundary, and the actual top of the finish of the house is five feet. I think we have the top elevation at 453 feet, when it sits in the center of the house with the cupola, and on this side here, it would be 448 feet, or is 448 feet. If you come over to this side, I’m sorry, I’ve got them reversed. When you go over this side over here, it’s 434 feet. It would be a difference between 18 feet and the top of our house. If you were standing on the Ward’s property and you were looking over, or if you were standing beyond the Ward’s property on Mr. Underwood’s property, and looking toward us, you would see 18 feet of building above that property line, and if you were on this side, you would only see the five feet. This side over here is owned by the Hughes family, and I think their house is quite a ways away from the top of the bank, in any event. So the only exposure that you’re talking about is the exposure toward the lake, and you have that exposure mitigated, I think, by the natural topographical features that you’re going to have afterwards, by the landscaping that’s presently there, and by the extensive landscaping that they’ve shown on the plans, and that they’re willing to commit, as part of the building program. Now Clair did have somebody go out with a digitized camera and take a photo of the site, and then superimpose the photo of the house to scale on that site, and I think that’s probably the most telling of what you’re going to see when you’re all said and done. You have two concerns, and I got into a lot of discussion when we talked about height of buildings. Do you remember that in almost every residential zone in the Town of Queensbury, if you’re going to build a house, you’re entitled to build a house to 40 feet of height. The only place that you don’t have that ability, by our Code, which I think is unique to Queensbury. I don’t think even the other lake towns have that problem, or have that Code restriction, is when you’re in a lakeshore zone, and part of the reason for doing that was, or at least what was offered at public hearing, you didn’t want to block people’s views who were up stream or upland from you. If you take a look at that aerial view, you will see that there is no one behind this property, and there will be nobody behind this property. Immediately behind the property you have Mannis Road, and then you have what we call Mud Pond or, I’m not sure if that’s the official name of it or not, and a lot of that area is in a designated State wetland, and you won’t have somebody building back there, looking for an opportunity to have a view of the lake. So the only question that you have, as far as practical impact, or any effect at all upon anything is your view from the lake, and I think this is a fair representation of what the view will be from the lake, and I think a natural question, too, that you might have, and we’ve got plans, don’t we, that show the facia of the house, just in here? Okay. This floor is a 10 foot floor, and this floor is an 8 foot floor. There’s approximately 17 feet in here. The other difference between ground level and the 38 feet is about a foot and a half from grade to the first floor and the edge of floor structure, and you’ve got your floor structure here, and that’s the difference of 38 feet. I mean, it’s not out of the ordinary for somebody who is going to build a substantial home, to ask for 9, 10 foot ceilings, in fact sometime now days most of those houses are having 9, 10 foot ceilings, not only on the first floor but on the second floor, particularly, as I understand the design of this house, is an open design on the first floor, and the idea is to try and the idea is to try and keep it as open as 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) possible. So we’ve looked at, and I would say that Clair has looked at, different designs over the last two years with just about everybody that she could look at, or that she could consult with. If you remember, when we came in here, we, at that time, were going to build a house that was, a good part of it was underground, and we were going to back fill a good part of the site, and when we found out that the actual engineering was such that it’s almost impossible to do that, some people would build it, but nobody would design it. We had some contractors say, yes, I’ll build it for you, but we said, well, can you get us a set of plans for it, and they said, no, you get your own engineer that’s going to design this thing. We’re just going to build it according to somebody else’s specs. So we aren’t responsible for it, basically, and also, this fits in fairly well. There’s always a question of, and you have the exact question on your forms, as to how does it change the character of the neighborhood. This is Dr. Kim’s house, which is probably four or five to the east of this particular property. This is Dr. Petrosky’s house, which is in the neighborhood but a little further east. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d say it’s probably going to be about the same height as that, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Pretty much. MR. O'CONNOR-This is the house that Don Maynard built. This is Mary Ellen Kristensen’s house. I happen to know it’s in her name. So it’s all right to say that. We’re getting into doctor’s row. This is an older house. I believe it’s Ray Urb’s house, which is probably three to the east, and this house was probably built in the 1930’s or 40’s, and even at that house, you can see the type of structure, and height that people built to accommodate the topographical features. At that time, when that house was built, this range or this, what did you call this, ridge went all the way across. The ridge that came out went to where, I still call it Montgomery Ward’s shopping center, the corner of Route 9 and Quaker Road, when they filled it, that used to, you used to drive along Route 9 and all you would have is a guardrail, and they filled that whole thing in from, almost all the way over to Pineview Center. Most of it came out of this area. This is Floyd Rourke’s house, and that house was built in the 1920’s. It was re-done within the last, five years, that’s two from my home, which is down to the east of that, and again, you just take a look at the height. The height that we’re talking about is in character with the homes that are on the lake, as opposed to the Ordinance, which I’m not sure that I still agree with. Almost every house that has been built, I don’t have them all the way around the lake. This is a house just to the west of it. I call it the Bylsma house. I’m not sure who, it’s not Bylsma anymore. It’s somebody else, Vittengl, and these are other houses. These are all houses that are right in close proximity. I mean, Glen Lake is not that big. So what we’re talking about is I character and keeping with the neighborhood. It’s certainly not, if you look at the criteria for your variance, it’s not going to change the character of the neighborhood to the detriment of the neighborhood or other nearby properties. I think the question, can the benefit be achieved by some other method, and I you have questions on that, I’d go back to Jim or to Clair. I suppose, and we talked about, they have a first floor floor plan that they’re trying to achieve. They could, perhaps, excavate more of that hill, and if you’ve looked at the hill and you’re familiar with the property at all, part of the beauty of the property is the tree growth that’s on that hill, which is going to remain undisturbed to the west of the cabin and behind the, or to the west of the stone house, and behind the stone house, and they could build, perhaps, a sprawling type ranch, you know, flatten the site out, and build it, but I don’t know if that’s of any great benefit, and probably if you’re talking about preserving green space or preserving view from the lake, you would create less, or you’d have more of an aesthetic type problem if you did that, as opposed to what’s being proposed here with the well landscaped house. Is the relief substantial? I don’t know if it is, and I think that’s a close call, but even if it’s a close call, that doesn’t mean that you can’t grant the variance, considering all of the other elements, if we qualify on all of the other elements. Will it have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood? We don’t think it will. It really doesn’t have an impact on the neighborhood. On the particular site, it preserves the green space that’s behind the stone cabin. It allows us to go forward with the building project, which, in fact, takes the septic system that presently serves the stone cabin from within 100 feet of the lake and moves it back to a safe distance from the lake, and uses a modern system, as opposed to what was ever put in when that cabin was built, probably in the 1930’s, and was the difficulty self-created? I don’t think so. I think the difficulty was created because of the site. It’s self-created in the sense that we want to use the site, but the topographical features really dictate what we’re trying to do. That’s basically my comments. If you have questions, I’ll try and go back and answer them. MR. MILLER-I’d like to just add two things that I think I overlooked. One of the things was that photo that you look at, that’s showing the house imposed on the site, one thing you’ve got to remember in looking at that, that was glued on. So any of the vegetation that’s going to be remaining, all the vegetation on the shoreline here and any of the vegetation to the sides that’s there, plus any of the new landscaping that will be installed on the front doesn’t show on that. So you’re looking at basically, I think, from the point of view of just the size of it, and it stands out, it’s covering up any vegetation. The other thing is, we looked at, if we took a line 28 feet, to show how that hip helps mitigate the height, if you draw a line 28 feet up from the side of the ground, across 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) the top of that, what we end up having is an area of the roof that’s about 23 feet wide by about 31 feet deep. That’s the amount of area that’s actually above that 28 feet. Because of the hip roof design, it mitigates a lot of that height that you otherwise would have if you had a normal gable roof. MR. STONE-But are you showing, on this drawing, that the point of the house closest to the lake is 36 feet from ground? MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. That point is back. That’s up the hill. You’d have to go up the slope from the first roof. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s the question I’m asking. That point that’s over where those people are depicted on this thing? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. STONE-That is further back then the front of the building? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MILLER-That’s right. MR. STONE-Because I don’t have an elevation. MR. MILLER-That’s back here under the porch. It’s this line right here. MR. STONE-It’s under the porch. What’s over the porch? Is that porch covered? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe that’s what you’re looking at is the roof. You’re looking at the peak of the roof that covers that porch. MR. STONE-Yes. Isn’t that 36? MR. O'CONNOR-It is 35 or 36, but it’s five or six feet, it’s seven feet back up the slope, and if you take a look at the slope, how it inclines. Right here, at this point, that point right there is 28 feet. MR. STONE-That point is 28 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and that’s where you measure it to. MR. STONE-Well, as houses get more complex, that simple measurement that we thought we had for lakes is getting more difficult to understand, I agree. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it is, but as I understand it, you take a plum bob and drop it to the native soil, to the finished grade, and that complies, because I asked that when I saw the picture of it. The picture’s a flat picture. MR. STONE-Right. So this is far enough back that the edge of the roof at that point is 28 feet? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-And if this were a level lot, it would be not compliant. You would agree? If this were a total level lot, eventually, it would be too high. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, yes it would be. MR. STONE-That’s all. MR. O'CONNOR-And one other point, this was the actual color photo that was made before it was put into the computer. Okay. This is what we refer to as the stone cabin. The area behind the stone cabin with those trees are the areas that we’re talking about not disturbing, behind the cabin. Okay. We’re going to come up to the side of the cabin, up to the side of the cabin and the grading. The other point which I think probably if you compare both photos is the background to what we’re setting here, if you’re out on the lake and you’re on the back side of the lake, is going to be the trees that are on the other side of Mud Pond, or the area that has been filled in in front of Mud Pond. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) The east end of Mud Pond has been filled in. That’s property that’s owned by the Country Club. That property is probably 500 feet behind this, 1,000 feet behind this. MR. UNDERWOOD-The only problem I have with these pictures is none of those trees are there anymore. MR. O'CONNOR-Those pictures were taken. MR. UNDERWOOD-Prior to all those trees being cut down. All those big white pines are no longer there. MR. O'CONNOR-That picture was taken within, when? MR. MILLER-Some of those trees were lost in the storm, some of those big pines. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but others were cut down. MS. HENSLER-Just the ones that were immediately around the stone camp. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The biggest ones are all gone. MR. O'CONNOR-If there’s a question. ROBERT HUGHES DR. HUGHES-Robert Hughes. I think that’s a fair question, Jim, but I think the point is that the hurricane took down, of all those trees, the largest one was blown over by the hurricane. The second largest one would have been blown over by the hurricane, because there was no root structure on the lake side. That tree was suggested to be taken down by the engineers who took the trees. They said that the way that tree was sitting, without any north roots, the next serious storm would likely blow that tree onto the stone camp, and that’s exactly what would have happened, had not two large trees been taken down. MR. UNDERWOOD-I still find that a stretch of imagination, after they’ve been there over 100 + years. DR. HUGHES-Well, that’s the first hurricane we’ve had here in 100 years. MS. HENSLER-The one tree that was taken down in front of the camp, underneath was all rotted out, and there were chipmunks living underneath that. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me ask you which one you’re talking about. MR. UNDERWOOD-All these are gone, all these ones here. This is the one that blew down, but these three up here are gone. DR. HUGHES-Jim, they were diseased trees. We didn’t decide to take these trees down. That was done by an expert, he told us. MR. O'CONNOR-We can re-do this, if you have a question. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think you need to remove most of the vegetation down on the waterfront. MR. O'CONNOR-Some of that has been knocked out. I know that, but some of that also, if you take a look at this plan, is going to be replaced. That’s why some of this is on here. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t have a problem with your plans to embellish it, but at the same time, it was a well wooded area, and I think it complimented the camp that was there. To a degree, you’re taking away from that. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know how the house plan itself is going to affect that. I don’t think that effects it, but if you have a question of what we’ve presented, I’d be happy to have the photo re-done and re-presented to you, and I would submit those back to you. My point with the photo was that if you take a look from out on the lake, this house still sits underneath that tree ridge, which I think was part of the criteria and part of the consideration when the lake set this height restriction. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. UNDERWOOD-I would like to know, Craig, were there any, when that property was turned over to the Smiths, were there any covenants in involved with that? I don’t know if you were, you weren’t here then at that time? MR. BROWN-I would not be aware of that, restrictions on deeds. MR. STONE-We would not be aware of covenants. The Town doesn’t enforce covenants. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, prior to this parcel being distributed to the Smiths, when it was being developed before, it was excavated down much deeper. It had to be filled in because it kept caving in. So my only question would be, on the present diagram, you know, shows the cellar right down at lake level, and at the present time it’s not anywhere near lake level. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s not lake level. Jim, what’s the difference in elevation? MR. BROWN-Six or eight feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-How much of a hill are you talking there? MR. MILLER-From, the lowest level, the floor door is 407. So we’re 90 feet up from the lake. MR. STONE-Okay, but that brings a point that I was just looking at, looking at those same numbers, at the front of the deck, the front of the porch, it’s 406.8. So it only goes back less than a foot, until you get to the house proper. That’s what it says here. Is that correct? Am I reading your lines wrong? MR. MILLER-No, that’s right. It’s fairly flat under that porch, and then slopes down. MR. STONE-Right. So the eaves there directly at the front of the house is not the highest point in that particular area. It is, in fact, probably 35 feet from grade at that point. MR. O’CONNOR-All right, but you would measure that off to the side, as being the closest point of the natural topographical feature. That’s how we’ve done other houses. MR. STONE-Buildings, I’ll read from zoning diagram b, “the distance measured along a vertical plane from the highest point of the building or structure to finished grade, at any point adjacent to the building or structure”. That’s what the Code calls for. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’ll go back to probably five applications before this Board, and I don’t know that what I’ve. MR. STONE-We have been using that definition. MR. O'CONNOR-And I don’t know if we’ve been using it in the manner that you’re saying that we’re using it. We’ve measured off to the side at that point. MR. STONE-The only reason, and I agree. If the lot goes up the hill, we measure, I mean, you can have it the very back of the lot. MR. O'CONNOR-This lot does go up the hill. MR. STONE-Right, but according to this diagram, it is a level lot from the front of the porch to the main house. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s underneath the porch. MR. MILLER-That’s right. The confusion. MR. STONE-Yes, but that’s part how you measure. MR. O'CONNOR-No, you go to the outside. You would then be measuring to the bottom of the basement floor, and you don’t. MR. STONE-At that particular point it’s finished grade, however. MR. O'CONNOR-No. I don’t think so. MR. BROWN-It’s outside, right, exterior? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. O'CONNOR-No. If you dropped the apple and you saw how fast it hit the ground, it would hit in the center of the floor, in the center of the room in the basement. That’s not where you drop your plum bob. You take the plum bob equal to that point out to the side of the house and drop it there. MR. STONE-Or you take it to the front of the house. Because it’s level grade to the front. It doesn’t say on the side. This assumes, you’re assuming that this interprets only lots that go straight away from the front of the house to the back of the house, but here we’re talking the front of the house is on a level piece of ground. There is no hill at that particular point, where the house is built. MR. O'CONNOR-No, we’ve said that that is a finished grade in the front. MR. STONE-Right, that’s finished grade, and it’s finished grade at the main part of the house, which is probably higher. Don’t get me wrong. I’m talking what variance. MR. O'CONNOR-I understand what you’re saying to me. I raised that issue when I looked at the face of the thing and said, where did you measure what you were talking about, the 38 feet. MR. STONE-Remember, if we had a house going up a hill like this, and this house had a roof that slopes, a peaked roof that slopes to either side, we still go, even though the peak is inside the house, we go to that peak. MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. STONE-Yes. That’s what we’ve been doing. MR. O'CONNOR-No, it doesn’t, because the peak of the roof goes not to finished grade. You go to the point above finished grade. MR. STONE-But at the highest point along. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I’m just telling you how you’ve done. I won’t tell you the names of the ones you’ve done, but you’ve done five that way. MR. STONE-It got confusing, about two or three months ago we had an application, but I think we have agreed that it’s the highest point of the house at any point, but taken out to a two dimensional thing. Haven’t we done that, Craig? Isn’t that what we talked about? MR. BROWN-Well, no. At one point, a couple of applications ago I guess, we had this discussion. MR. STONE-Yes, we did. MR. BROWN-I was under the impression that we measured the way Mr. O’Connor’s describing. You’re certainly, you’re the Zoning Board of Appeals. You can interpret any way you want to. MR. STONE-That means I could put a house up that goes 100 feet up if I wanted to, if it was in the middle of the house, and that is not the intent of this Ordinance, not the intent at all. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you’ve got to tell us that. MR. STONE-I think this says that. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s not the way it’s been interpreted in the past. MR. STONE-I think it says that, though. I think we have. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I can show you five applications. MR. STONE-I can show you a number of homes that we’ve done on Lake George, that we’ve done one, anyway, he stepped the house up, but we measured the highest point of the house along finished grade, as if it were two dimensional. MR. O'CONNOR-Wayne Kellogg. MR. STONE-No, it’s not Kellogg. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Wayne Kellogg on Glen Lake has the typical peaked roof on the front. We got a two foot variance, and we all talked about the fact that the only thing we needed the variance for was just the peak of the nose of his roof because as the side, as it went back up the hill. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. STONE-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-We didn’t keep measuring that peak all the way from this base out here. MR. STONE-No, but we measured the peak everywhere up the hill, even though the peak is in the middle of the house, as you look at it. MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Then something’s wrong, because he’s got a second peak even behind that, when he got up to his second floor of living, which, if you measured that peak, you’re 45, 50 feet. MR. STONE-I can only tell you my interpretation. My interpretation has been that we make the house two dimensional and we go back up and take the highest point on those two dimensions, regardless of where that high point is. Otherwise, you could build, you could put a radio tower on the top of that building, that would be up, who knows. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve not done it that way. MR. STONE-I believe, Craig, we’ve done it that way. I know we’ve had discussions. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think we have. MR. STONE-And this may not be the place. We may have to discuss it separate. MR. O'CONNOR-As to, Jim, Mr. Underwood, your question of restrictions, I’m not sure. I have the title papers with me. In the prior conveyances, there were no restrictions put on, that I’m aware of, and I’ve got them here with me. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I just meant as far as re-excavating. I don’t know how much you’re planning on taking out, where it’s going to go. MR. O'CONNOR-The finished grade will be higher than it presently is, and I think we’ve tried to. MR. MILLER-I think the area where the house will sit will actually be excavated down to about six feet below what’s there, and then we would grade this hill to the side. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because it is kind of steep. MR. MILLER-Yes, and that’s why we’re putting retaining walls in, so retaining walls will come in and maintain as much of that slope along the lake as possible. All through here, this is all large hemlocks that provide a lot of privacy to the neighbors to the east, and we’re not effecting any of that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that going to have to be engineered for the (lost words) of all that water coming off the roof, onto the sides? MR. MILLER-Yes. That’s part of the reason the type of construction they’re using, all that below grade will all be poured concrete. MR. STONE-Let me ask you a procedural question, before we go any further, before I read this definition in. Craig, can we ask the Zoning Administrator to make a determination that we would ask to be appealed by somebody where we could discuss this building height, rather than do it at this particular application? Because as I read the definition of building height, the vertical distance measured from the lowest portion of the natural grade of the building site covered by the building or finished grade of cut required to accommodate the building to the highest point of the structure. That’s very clear to me, the highest point of the structure, not the highest point along the wall next to the grade. It’s the highest point of the structure. I would like the opportunity to discuss this and come up with a. MR. O'CONNOR-Aren’t there diagrams that also? MR. STONE-That’s what the diagram does, too. It says highest point of the building. MR. BROWN-It’s a poor diagram at best. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. STONE-Well, it’s a two dimensional diagram, which is the way I read the definition. MR. BROWN-I would agree with your interpretation. MR. STONE-You would agree? MR. BROWN-It’s to any point on the structure. If you were to, and I think Jim and I talked about this one time. If you were to take a 28 foot blanket, I guess, and put it on top of the final grade, anything that’s above that blanket needs height relief. MR. STONE-Correct, that’s all I. MR. BROWN-Not just the perimeter of the building, any part above that 28 foot blanket would need the height relief. MR. STONE-A plane parallel to the grade, it’s 28 feet or it requires a variance, if it gets above that 28 feet, a flat plane. MR. UNDERWOOD-So a walk out cellar is not considered to grade, on any on any building? MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s, the final grade would be outside of this. MR. STONE-That would be final grade at that particular point in time, but again, it’s at that point. It’s the vertical point. You can go up a hill, like they’re proposing, and the house will step up. So that if you measured from the front to the, it’s way more than 28 feet. That’s legal, as long as at any point. MR. O'CONNOR-I understand the difference of what you’re measuring to, and what I’m measuring to. I’m measuring to the eaves of the building, and you’re measuring to the center of the building. MR. STONE-And to the best of my knowledge, that’s the interpretation we’ve been doing. We had, recently we had one that we had a difference of opinion between Craig. MR. BROWN-But the way that you’ve been interpreting it is you take that measurement perpendicular, I guess, from the lake to the hill. You’d find that highest point and measure to the side. You wouldn’t measure toward the lake or toward the back. You’d measure I guess perpendicular to the slope you’d measure. You’d measure perpendicular to the slope. MR. STONE-Yes, you’d measure up the hill, but you’d be looking across the whole structure, at the top of this, as you said, a plane or blanket over here. MR. MC NULTY-That’s what it strikes me, you’re basically taking a cross section of the structure at the parallel to the lake shore, and any point on that, I think the blanket analogy is the best one. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s a good one. Is your presentation done? We can go on with the public hearing, if we may. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application, in favor of? Anybody wishing to speak opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD WARD MR. WARD-I’m Richard W I’m the neighbor to this property, and had the Town of Queensbury, a few years ago, not allowed this whole thing to happen, we wouldn’t be in this fiasco now. You let them come up and look and drive away again, let them go down almost to the water level. Now that these people want to improve the thing, you’re, as I take it, objecting to it. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. Are you speaking in opposition to this application? MR. WARD-No, I’m speaking in favor of it. It’s going to improve the whole looks of the place up there. I lived with that hole for a good many years, and now, just improving the septic system alone is a big plus, that probably there’s only a 50 gallon drum or something in there, for a septic tank, and I don’t see where height along that ridge roof is going to make much difference. It’s going to make an improvement, if anything, and as far as the trees coming down, the trees came down when the Flynns were mining it, and the Town of Queensbury allowed it to happen, and the last trees that came down, there was only one blown down, two or three cut down. All the trees were taken down by the Flynns from the mining. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. STONE-So you’re in favor of the application as it stands? That’s all I want to be sure. Okay. No problem. All right. Anybody else wishing to speak in opposition or in favor? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I find no correspondence. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions of the applicant? Let me just state for the record here, I can only speak for myself. I mean, I’m not opposed to this. When we grant variances, we have to know what we’re granting, and there seems to be some concern in terms of what the actual numbers, and where this thing is going to come out, in terms of the actual height versus all of the verticals, and that’s the thing that we have to know. We have to at least know the maximum that we’re talking about, at any particular point. All right. Any further questions? Let’s talk about it. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-My only other concern was where the septic is sited, because you do have a wetland, and I don’t know if you’re going to meet your minimum distance from that. MR. MILLER-We have a letter in the file that that wetland area that’s back there, it’s not a DEC wetland, which is what the setback is required from. MR. UNDERWOOD-It is a DEC wetland. MR. MILLER-It’s not on the DEC map. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s on your maps for the Town. MR. STONE-You’re talking this so called Mud Pond? MR. UNDERWOOD-Mud Pond extends back through. It is an upland floating bog back there. So it is a wetland. MR. O'CONNOR-The area behind this lot was filled in as part of that excavation business, when they did the corner. Mud Pond is a little bit to the west of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but just on the other side of the road, it is a wetland. MR. MILLER-We had DEC map this area, and it does not show it as wetland. It shows it further west, but it doesn’t show it across the road. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you look on the Town GIS maps, it’s right on there. MR. BROWN-It’s certainly something we could address and clarify in the building permit process. I wasn’t aware that it was that close. I though it was further to the west and south I guess. MR. STONE-Where is the 100 foot line for the wetlands? Do you have it? There is none at all there? Mud Pond is not a wetland? DR. HUGHES-There is a line on the survey that says the septic setback line, and this clearly meets that. MR. O'CONNOR-This application is going to be submitted for site plan review, and we will have to show septic separation and everything at that point. I misspoke when I said it was a DEC wetland. It’s wetland, GF 21, but GF 21 is actually to the west. It doesn’t go behind this property. There’s another finger of it that’s on the other side of Mannis Road, over by where Bob Mirtha lives. Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. So what else do you think about it? MR. MILLER-We’ve got the surveyor here who handled this. MATT STEVES MR. STEVES-My name is Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves Land Surveyors, and I will say that there is no question that the State wetland is to the west of this, and does not effect this property as far as setback requirements, and will certify to that. MR. UNDERWOOD-To the Army Corps, too? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. STEVES-Not to the Army Corps, sir. I told you to the New York State, because the Army Corps does not have any setback requirements. MR. UNDERWOOD-But if it’s identified as a wetland. MR. STEVES-If it’s identified as a wetland, they do not have any setback requirements, and I also certify to that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, but I’ll argue the point. MR. STEVES-Argue it all you would like. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s the difference between Federal and State wetland. There are no setbacks on Federal wetlands. I’ve run into that before. MR. STONE-So what do you think about the whole thing, Jim, so we know where we’re going. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know. I would like to have it looked at by maybe planning. Is planning going to look at it before we, not until after we vote, probably. MR. STONE-They don’t vote until we grant the variance, right. They don’t meet. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-We’re first. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m just a little bit concerned with the size on that particular lot, since it is combined with one that’s already there, too. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Well, the aspects that planning will have to take a look at are one thing. The rest of it, I think the topography presents some advantage in connection with this thing, the way it’s set in there. When I went up to look at it, this kind of a thing here and sloping down a little bit in the front that this thing nestled in pretty nicely. The fact that I guess the east side there’s a structure or two that appear to be pretty close to the line, of course that’s history, and what we’re doing now is yielding a little bit on the applicant’s side toward the side setbacks. I think they come back away from the lake, and again, I like the idea of the septic tank from the stone house being connected in the direction away from the lake, and I think, again, the discussion in terms of how the variance, for the record, in terms of height, what it really is perhaps should be clearly understood as to how it’s measured or how it should be measured. There seems to be some disagreement there, but in the end, from the standpoint of what you might say, in my opinion, the zoning is to protect, when you look at it, it sits down in. It’s a nice looking building. I tend to be favorable to the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Given the unique topography of the site, the way the house sits in the hollow, I think the only concern I have is the appearance from the lake, and allowing for the landscaping that’s proposed, and, as has been pointed out, the nature of the other homes in the general area, it strikes me this is going to basically fit in with what’s already there. If this were being built on level ground, I would have a real problem with it. With it being built where it is, I don’t have a problem with it. MR. STONE-Okay. One question before I state where I am. How far back is the structure? MR. O'CONNOR-Fifty feet, fifty feet and ten inches. MR. STONE-I know you’re not asking for a variance. I was just, because it doesn’t say on it. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m sorry, the porch is 50 feet, isn’t it? MR. MILLER-Yes. There’s a dashed line, right across here. You’ll see, so that the porch and the decks are all back, the closest point is the deck right there. I think it’s like 51. You see the line? MR. STONE-Yes, I see the line. Yes, I see. They’re all behind. That’s the 50 foot line? MR. MILLER-That’s it, yes. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. STONE-Good, because it wasn’t identified. This is obviously a unique piece of property, not necessarily man made unique piece of property, I mean, not that nature made it unique, but man made it unique, and that’s not the owner’s call here, obviously. They purchased a piece of land. They want to build a house on it. The only concern I have is, obviously I have a height concern as viewed from the lake, and I’d really like to know what variance we’re giving, and that’s what, the concern that I have, because obviously your interpretation is not the interpretation we’ve used, and is the number 38? Would you stand by this number to the top of the cupola as being the maximum height above finished grade? I mean, if that’s the case, then I could go along, and grant 10 feet of relief. I don’t like granting that much. I think it’s an awful lot, but I think we are dealing with a piece of property that is different, to say the least, and there’s no doubt, as the evidence provided by Counsel is very striking, in terms of the size of the houses on Glen Lake. Never having been on the lake, I’m not sure I want to be. MR. O'CONNOR-Every time somebody builds one, I get happier, even though mine’s much smaller. MR. STONE-You get happier? Really? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I do. MR. STONE-It’s interesting, because a lot of these, I don’t recall granting variances for that many houses, height variations. MR. O'CONNOR-The one thing nice about it, as Mr. Himes pointed out, every one is built with a modern, up to date septic system. MR. STONE-That’s very important. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s a great improvement. MR. STONE-I know Mr. Ward’s very concerned about that, and we all are. I think that’s one of the beauty’s of, the fact that these nonconforming structures have to be brought up to Code, septic code, sanitary code before anything happens. Having said that, I’m seeing three to a maybe. So I don’t know. Let’s try a motion. Who wants to? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2000 ROBERT HUGHES & CLAIR HENSLER, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 125 & 160 Mannis Road. The applicant is proposing the construction of a 4400 square foot single family dwelling and seeks height and setback relief. Specifically requests relief of 10 feet from the 25 foot minimum side setback, and 10 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. In considering the approval of this variance, we considered the benefit to the applicant, which would be the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred configuration. Feasible alternatives could include reconfiguration and relocation to a compliant location and height, but the site topography and situation I think argues for the project as proposed. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Ten feet of relief from the twenty-five foot setback requirement is generally moderate, but the way the garage that requires the 10 foot of relief is situated, the impact is going to be minimized because it will be set into the side of the hill. Ten feet of relief from the 28 foot height requirement also could normally be interpreted as moderate or possibly even substantial, but again, the topography of the site tends to mitigate the impact of that extra height. Effects on the neighborhood or community, moderate effects on the neighborhood could be anticipated from this action, but again, given the topography of the site, I think it probably is closer to minimal impact, and is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty probably is self-created because there are other things that could be done to make the project compliant, but again, the uniqueness of the site, I think, justifies the proposal as presented. For that reason, I move approval of this variance. Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: st MR. STONE-Question. Are you willing, if we condition this on the basis that there’s no impact on any wetlands, per statements made at this meeting, and that the septic system will be in conformity? MR. O'CONNOR-Here you’re getting into my philosophy a little bit, which is difficult for even me to understand sometimes. Okay. If we can’t comply with the wetlands, this office is going to require us to apply to the Town Board for a variance or for a permit. That’s the same thing, if we can’t comply with the building and construction code, we have to apply for a variance, but I think that goes to the State building and construction code. We understand that we will comply with all applicable ordinances, regulations, based upon what we’ve submitted, except for the height and for 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) the side line setback, and I have a problem when you stick extra conditions in. Why are you sticking that condition in, as opposed to all the other 100 regulations that we know that we have to comply with? MR. STONE-The only reason I’m thinking about sticking it in is to overcome any objection that fellow board members may have that were stated, when we talked about it. MR. O'CONNOR-I have no problem with stipulating that this is presented to you on the basis that that is not, the septic system as shown, is not within 100 feet of any State designated wetland. MR. STONE-Okay, including the leach field, you’re talking about? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, the leach field or septic system in total is not within 100 feet of any State designated wetland. MR. STONE-I understand what you’re saying. I’m just trying to help some of the concerns. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re going to go through site plan review. I don’t know if Mr. Underwood is of the mind that he’s not in favor of what we’ve presented today, I’d like to know, how do we make him in favor of it, and unfortunately, the way our system is set up, I can’t file an application or I can’t get a hearing before the Planning Board until I’ve gotten all my variances. MR. STONE-But unfortunately, we have four members tonight. So we all have to agree. That’s the only reason I’m trying to make this thing as palatable, if you will. MR. O'CONNOR-I appreciate what you’re saying. MR. MILLER-Mr. Stone, I had the same question. When I got involved in this, it had previously been surveyed, and I raised the same question about that wetland area, and I spoke to Matt Steves, the surveyor, and he showed me a letter from Alan Koechline from DEC saying it was not a wetland, and then I went and I looked at the quadrangle map that’s the DEC map that labels the wetlands, and it did not show the wetland in that area. It was further to the west. So we looked into that. I had the same exact concern, but it’s not a State wetland. It probably is a Corps wetland, but there’s no setback required from the Corps wetlands, only the State wetland. MR. STONE-Okay. Are there any other questions, thoughts about the motion? Do I hear a second? MR. HIMES-I second it. AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-That’s no action at the moment. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. STONE-So we’ll hear it again. Is that correct? MR. BROWN-Would you like to table it to a date for additional information and give them a list of what you want from them? MR. STONE-Well, I think we’ll table it, so that it can be heard by a full Board, which you’re certainly entitled to, and we apologize for that. MR. BROWN-And if you’re looking for additional information or confirmation of one thing or another, just give them clear direction as to what you want from them. MR. STONE-Do you want me to table it? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I don’t want to withdraw it. MR. STONE-No. I didn’t think you did. Okay. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2000 ROBERT HUGHES & CLAIR HENSLER, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: For consideration by a full Board, and also with additional information to confirm the whereabouts of any designated wetlands, as it relates to this particular property and its septic system. Duly adopted this 29 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2000 TYPE II SR-1A MICHAEL J. VASILIOU, INC. OWNER: WALTER AND OLGA HOWARD, ET. AL. SOUTH SIDE OF PEGGY ANN ROAD, 1,500 FT. FROM WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD, BORDERED ON THE WEST BY TYNESWOOD SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO.’S 121-1-2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 LOT SIZES: 17.17 ACRES SECTION 179-19 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2000, Michael J. Vasiliou, Inc., Meeting Date: April 21, 2000 “Project Location: Peggy Ann Road, East of Tyneswood Subdiv. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes creation of a 16 lot subdivision and seeks relief from the minimum lot sizing requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the 150 foot minimum lot width requirement of the SR-1A zone, § 179-19. Three of the sixteen lots, (lots 6, 8, 10) appear to meet the minimum average lot width. The remaining 13 lots require varying amounts of relief as follows: lots 1-4 and 12-16 --------- 12.50 feet lot 5--------15.60 feet lot 7-------23.00 feet lot 9------ 34.00 feet lot 11---------4.00 feet Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to create the desired number of lots, as designed. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration to create compliant lots. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative relief from the 150 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial; relief for 13 out of 16 lots. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the proposed neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Subdivision 21-1999 – pending Area Variance Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While each lot meets the minimum frontage requirement of 40 feet and the minimum acreage of one acre, only three lots meet the lot width requirement of the SR-1A zone. The purpose of all the Suburban Residential zones is to enhance, protect and provide for future residential development. To that end, the creation of a significant number of lots with lot widths less than 150 may be more suited for an SR-20 zone. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, again, I’m Michael O’Connor, from the firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant, Michael J. Vasiliou, Inc., and with me at the table is Mr. Vasiliou who is the principal of that firm, and also with me is Matt Steves, the principal in the surveying firm of Van Dusen & Steves. Basically, what we are simply trying to do is reconfigure the same number of lots that we would be able to do if we had a cookie cutter type subdivision. I think Staff’s a little bit amiss, or doesn’t necessarily understand what we’ve done or not done. We are not creating any additional lots by the configuration or by the lot width that we are asking for. If you took a look at the tax map for the area you would find that the lots we’re going to end up creating are much more substantial than most of the lots that we adjoin. There really is no impact on anyone with what we’ve requested, of a detrimental nature. It just makes a more orderly subdivision, as opposed to stretching the imagination and creating flag lots. We can do the 150 foot lot, but they’ve got some lots that would have flags or flag poles that go off them that just don’t make any sense, and we can show you that. We got into all this discussion because initially this subdivision was going to be a cluster subdivision, and then it got away from being a cluster subdivision, and I don’t know necessarily why or whatever. There was not going to be a homeowners association, one of the reason. You don’t have enough lots to support a homeowners association. So you wouldn’t have a separate area of open land or open space land, and we got away from that, and we’re going to show 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) you that we have created very substantial no cut zones on each lot, which, again, really minimizes the impact upon anybody. We’re creating, along the occupied line, if you will, a 75 foot no cut zone on our lots, and the people on the other side are entitled to go right up to the lot line. To give you an indication of what I was speaking of, each of these lots is an acre. The lots that are along the west of the property, and this is West Mountain Road out here, and this is Peggy Ann Road here. To the west of the property, most of the lots that are along side of us are 125 by 162, roughly 20,000 square feet, as opposed to 45,000 square feet, 44,000 square feet. There’s one lot in the corner, this lot here, that’s a larger size. This is also unique, and you have to understand a little bit about it. This is already a seven lot subdivision, and how it got created I have no idea. MR. STONE-What do you mean, the top? MR. O’CONNOR-No, the piece we’re subdividing. It doesn’t have a road. It doesn’t have anything, but it’s got seven different lots, and we’ve got probably 20 different land owners that we’re dealing with to get contracts from and what not, some of which have gone through family heir ship and everything else to try and put this piece together, which we have done, but this is the map that you’re talking about, and this is the piece that we’re talking about with there were like five or six one acre or two acre lots here, and then there’s a larger lot in the back. This is where our entrance will be on Peggy Ann Road. We’ve already had a Planning Board meeting, and at the Planning Board meeting, the neighbors were there, and I think we satisfied most of their concerns. There’s some people here that may speak or not speak, but at the Planning Board, we seemed to have satisfied most of the people. Matt, why don’t you just show for the record what we’re doing here. MR. STEVES-I’ll go through a little history on it. Again, my name is Matt Steves with Van Dusen & Steves. We appeared in front of the Planning Board at two different occasions. On the first occasion, we had 16 lots, comprising 100 to 110 foot in width, with land at the end that was proposed to be forever wild or dedicated to the Town, and that’s why we went underneath the cluster provision. At that time, we also submitted another plan that showed the lots at 110 feet, and just left the back as one big lot. It was incorporated in to one of the lots of the subdivision and not left for the Town, and we went through the scenario with the Planning Board, and you have to fall into three criteria, as you know, for what they would consider a cluster provision is that, are you creating or protecting any substantial slopes or steep areas or critical environmental areas, no. Would there be a substantial shortening of the road. We’ve looked at it, reviewed it with Staff and with the Planning Board, and, no, not really. So two out of three criteria, and then as far as, would the Town want a little piece back in here, behind this subdivision? No. In talking to the Board and polling the Board at the Planning Board level, 120 foot was more than adequate for, at the first meeting, to come back with 120 feet and width for the cluster, but we came back and said we’re going to abolish the cluster completely, because in our minds, as well as after dealing with the Staff, it’s not a large enough piece of property to have a substantial enough piece in the back to be of any value to the Town of Queensbury, and we realize that. So we went away from the cluster but increased the lots to 137 and a half which is about, like I say, 12 and a half feet wider, or 17 and a half feet wider, excuse me, than what the Planning Board had already looked at and agreed with, but in going to the Planning Board, there was some concerns with the neighbors about buffering, and we said that we had no problem, and that we were trying to create a nice community in this subdivision with this cul de sac. So we agreed to a 75 foot no clear zone on three sides of our subdivision, to the west, to the east, and to the south. To the lots that abut the lots that border on Peggy Ann Road, we included a 20 foot no cut zone on the side to buffer them a little bit more, and then between the lots, the 15 foot required setback for building would also be a 15 foot no cut zone. So this, as you can see in the shaded area, grades a substantial lot, green area around all this. As far as comparable lot sizes, as you look to the Land O’ Pines subdivision, immediately to the west of this, and you can see the lot numbers that I have depicted, the larger lots that are on this easterly portion of the Land O’ Pines are still substantially narrower than our lots and about 100 feet to the shallower. So as far as character of the neighborhood, we’re still considerably larger than any other lot that abuts us, except for the vacant parcels and the large parcel to the south, and going to this variance for the 12 and a half feet, and I also had a couple of other questions as far as the Staff, when they’re saying 25 and 30 foot of relief on some of these other lots. Now the Code reads, average lot width from the road to the back of the property, and I did this on my, on the Auto Cad and calculated it on a one foot increment all the way back, and I have 150 foot minimum, or average lot width on all these lots. Now, if you’re measuring at the building setback line, your Code does not say at the building setback line. It says the average lot width. MR. STONE-You’re talking on the ones on the circle? MR. STEVES-Right. MR. STONE-You’re acknowledging three conform, right? MR. STEVES-Right. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. STONE-Six, eight and ten conform to the average. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. STEVES-I’m just saying in their letter there’s a couple of things, and I ran into this before, and I understand why, but lots of times they measure that at the building setback. MR. BROWN-The property line. MR. STEVES-And so to go back to what a conventional subdivision would look like, in the SR-1 Acre zone, with 150 frontages, there are 16 lots that all have 150 frontage, all have 150 foot average lot width, but then you end up having to have, to get the one acre in size, the problem isn’t the room for 150 feet. It’s whether you widen these to 150, when they’re 317 feet deep, you end up way more than an acre. So in order to accomplish 16 lots of all one acre, you have to take some of the back lots and wrap them completely around the side, which does not make an appealing subdivision in my eyes. MR. STONE-Is that even legal? MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. MR. STONE-It is? MR. BROWN-Is it something the Planning Board would approve? No, probably not. MR. STEVES-We didn’t say we wanted to have it approved. We were showing you what it would look like. We agree. We agree that we don’t think that that’s anything, but by the Code, we have to show that we can accommodate a conventional subdivision, and, yes, we can. MR. STONE-Or you can use less lots than which you are entitled to. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, that is an option. MR. STEVES-But, no, I’m just talking about the Code, that I have to show that a conventional plan does work. I have to show you that I can get 16 lots conventionally, and, yes, I can. MR. O'CONNOR-The impact that we’re talking about is what’s the difference between a lot that’s 137 and a half feet wide, as opposed to 150 foot wide. Truthfully, that really, although we’ve all addressed the neighbors, particularly the neighbors to the west, that doesn’t impact them. Each of the lots that we have is still an acre. If anything it puts our house probably further away from them than if we had wider lots, because the lots are longer in order to qualify for the one acre business. So you get into your balancing duty, and that’s, what impact do we have? There is no significant impact. MR. STEVES-I think any moderate impact that might be, that would be by that reduction that there would be by that reduction in lot width would be more than mitigated by the no clear zones on either side. MR. STONE-What future impacts might it have? MR. STEVES-I can’t see any future impacts. MR. STONE-How about swimming pools? We’ve got a number of subdivisions where. MR. STEVES-These are required in the backyard. MR. STONE-I know. That’s what I mean, required in the backyard. MR. O'CONNOR-Take a look at the subdivision next door. These lots are wider than those lots. Most of those lots are 125 feet. MR. STEVES-You’re looking at a 317 foot deep lot, with a 75 foot no clear zone, and 50 on the sides. You still have 107 foot wide building envelope, and if you can’t put a building and a pool in a 107 foot width. MR. STONE-Put it vertically rather than horizontally, maybe. Nobody comes with those plans to want them vertically, or perpendicular to the road. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MIKE VASILIOU MR. VASILIOU-I’m Mike Vasiliou. Each lot, I believe, is over 200 feet deep in the clear zone. So that if someone wanted to put a pool there, they would have had to have had the right, if I may, to have cleared up to 200 feet anyway. So, it wouldn’t impact. There would still be 75 feet of trees at the back of the lot. MR. STONE-The only reason I bring it up is that we haven’t had a subdivision like this before us in quite a while, and yet we do get requests for variances for pools, and I appreciate your answer. I mean, you can certainly fit it in behind the house, perpendicular, if you want, it makes still a very nice pool. MR. STEVES-Or parallel. MR. STONE-It could be parallel with the right side. Is that it? MR. O'CONNOR-That’s it. MR. STONE-Any questions of the applicant before we open the public hearing? Okay. Hearing none, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application, in favor? Anybody opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MURIEL JACOBS MRS. JACOBS-I wouldn’t say I was opposed. My name is Muriel Jacobs. I live at 35 Peggy Ann Road, and Lot 121-1-64, which is right in front of Lot One. We are concerned just with our privacy, and I’m not saying I’m against it. I’m asking a question. I have a dog. The neighbors on my right, which are the Lawsons, and that would be, I don’t know what their number is, but they surround my lot, if you can tell. It’s that piece behind my house, you can see this one. Right here. That’s the Lawsons right here, and we’re here. Now, they have a dog, and if children come through, there could be a problem. So, I know the Lawsons have asked for a fence back there, and we’d like to also go along with the fence, covering this area. MR. STONE-Fence, you’re talking about a fence on the north side of Lot One, is that what you’re talking about? MRS. JACOBS-Yes, I guess it’s the north side. Trees will not keep out children running around. By the way, two days ago, a man and a woman and a little boy on a bicycle came through the woods and went through the driveway next to us. They got lost and they came right through, and they must have come through Sherman Avenue. There must be a path going through the woods there. Now I realize this will all be dug up, but we are concerned with our privacy. So I just wanted to make a note of that. MR. STONE-What I’m hearing, Mrs. Jacobs, you’re concerned with the fact that any subdivision would be built? MRS. JACOBS-If I had a choice, I would rather it not, frankly. MR. STONE-I understand. MRS. JACOBS-I don’t think I have a choice. MR. STONE-I understand that, and what you’re asking is beyond, basically, what we’re being asked to do here. We’re being asked to say whether these lot widths should be increased to the minimum standards. If we were to deny their request, subdivision will probably still get built, hopefully not with this, but it would still get build. MRS. JACOBS-See, we bought this house to retire, and it’s very quiet back there. We have the woods, and we have trees and we have birds, and it’s a very beautiful spot, right in the middle of Peggy Ann Road, and that’s the reason we bought it, and I hope that it’ll stay that way. That’s our concern. Thank you. MR. STONE-We do have a dog ordinance, don’t we? Dogs are supposed to be on leashes? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Anyone else wishing to speak for or against this application? Any correspondence? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions of the applicant, or any further statements the applicants want to make? MR. O'CONNOR-Just for your, I think what Mrs. Jacobs, Mrs. Jacobs lives in this parcel here. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Jacobs, you live here, and your neighbor comes around behind you. Okay. Let me address that. My understanding, when this fellow was at the Planning Board, was that if we, this line went straight across, this no cut zone here, and his property actually comes behind Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs’ property. He has a strip of property about 100 feet before, from our subdivision to their property line. He was satisfied if we angled, my understanding was if we angled our no cut zone and left the vegetation there, as we have done. I’m not sure if that’s, you know, we’re probably going to. MR. STONE-Define, if you will, what you mean by no cut zone, to get it on the record. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. The width that we show on the back line is 75 feet. It’s at an angle for Lot Number One. Along the northerly end of the property it’s 15 feet. No cut zone is that we will not cut any trees that are over four inches in diameter at chest height, and we will leave it in its natural status. MR. STONE-Mr. Vasiliou is saying three. MR. VASILIOU-I think three is what we put on the table, three inches at a four foot height. MR. STONE-You’ll cut nothing more than three feet. So it’s more restrictive than you’re making it. MR. VASILIOU-With the exclusion of dead trees or diseased trees, perhaps. MR. STONE-What’s the restriction going to be on the landowner after? MR. O'CONNOR-The same. This will be a restriction that will go on the plat. It will also go into the deed restrictions that we put on the subdivision. MR. STONE-The Town doesn’t enforce deed restrictions. MR. BROWN-It’s on the subdivision map. We can enforce it. MR. STONE-You can if it’s on the subdivision map? MR. BROWN-If it’s a condition of the approval, sure. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-It’s also not only a deed restriction. It’s also a filed restriction that the subdivision will be approved by the Planning Board. So it is on the plat that it be signed by the Chairman, that’s correct. So that it therefore becomes enforceable. MR. STONE-So it becomes Craig’s job to enforce. MR. O'CONNOR-It worked up in the Pines Section III. I think that’s the first place that they put it in. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. O'CONNOR-And they also put it in in Hudson Pointe, and I think they’re doing it in Indian Ridge. MR. BROWN-I’m not familiar with that one. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. STEVES-What happens with a deed restriction, if the Town doesn’t put any restriction on it, it’s filed as just a subdivision with no, and he’s showing no no cut zone, and then the neighbor says, well, I’m going to, the owner sells it with the restriction, then it’s not enforceable by the Town. MR. STONE-That’s why I’m asking the question. It will be enforceable by the Town? MR. STEVES-It will be enforceable by the Town, and by the people living in the subdivision. MR. STONE-And no trees larger than three inch diameter will be cut by the developer, or by anybody subsequent to that unless they’re diseased, obviously, or if they fall over, they can be removed. MR. HIMES-I have a question of Mr. Steves. You had mentioned you used an automatic software or what not to get the average width, which differs significantly from what we’ve got here, and then there was an exchange between you and Craig, and I didn’t get all that. MR. STEVES-Okay. I was just wondering if they only measured that at the building setback line, and not the entire width of the property, and he did say the property line. MR. STONE-No. The definition is the average along the side lines, and how you handle the little corners in the back I don’t, the trapezoids. MR. BROWN-For the majority of the lots, it’s relatively easy to see what the average lot width is. They’re rectangles. MR. STONE-Yes, I know. MR. BROWN-For the ones on the cul de sac, I used the, not as accurate as could be, I used the road frontage measurement. It’s not the actual width. It’s the length along a curb. It’s pretty close, and then the widest point in the back and just took the average two measurements. MR. STONE-Okay. What did you do on Lot Nine? MR. BROWN-Something similar. MR. STONE-And Lot Seven. Well, since you have three sides in the back, but I’m not arguing they’re not in conformity. MR. STEVES-And according to, Mr. Himes, I agree with your, it’s just a little discrepancy as far as maybe the way it was done, and I’m not saying his numbers are that far off. I’m just saying I asked him how he came up with it. I do it a little bit more intense. I can ask a computer, which is all in Auto CAD, to say, draw a line, one foot increments, all the way back, and average maybe 360 different lines, and what’s my average, and that’s the way I did it. MR. STONE-There’s got to be a prescribed method, it would seem. I know what the Code says the average. MR. O'CONNOR-You’re satisfied that we aren’t asking for in excess of 12.5 on any lot? MR. STEVES-I would say, no. MR. STONE-No, you’re asking for 34 on Lot Nine, it says. That’s one of the crazy shaped lots. MR. STEVES-I think a lot of that depends, because where you build it. It’s just like any Town Code when you say, like Craig’s saying 40 foot lot width is a requirement. I would ask as it’s stated on the. MR. STONE-And you’re happy with those numbers, Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments? All right. Let’s just go back very quickly and talk about it. Norrman? MR. HIMES-Well, I really don’t have anything critical, except that it appears that it may impact the Code. The other aspects, things that are done to the no cutting and so on, I think help that a lot. So I tend to be favorable. I’d like to hear some of the other staff’s comments. MR. STONE-Chuck? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. MC NULTY-Well, when I came in here tonight, I was pretty much set to be opposed to this, but having heard their no cut zones and the concessions that they’ve offered this way, I don’t think I I’ve got a problem with it. I think I’d approve. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. My only concern was going to be swimming pools, but it looks like it’s going to fit. So, I assume these houses are going to be bigger houses or, I don’t know what your plans, what you had in mind. MR. VASILIOU-We are talking with people, of course we can’t do any contracts or anything until we have the stuff in place. We’re talking to people that are talking about 3,000 foot houses, 2200 foot houses, in that neighborhood. We haven’t done any, we haven’t put anything in a deed restriction yet. We haven’t set that up. Primarily because we wanted to go through this process. MR. STONE-Are you talking colonials or? MR. VASILIOU-Colonials, and it won’t be a cookie cutter subdivision. They’ll all be custom homes, designed around a family’s needs. MR. UNDERWOOD-I just assumed they were going to include garages, there wasn’t going to be add on stuff later. MR. VASILIOU-They will be houses not unlike the Tyneswood subdivision. That’s what we think is going to be there, and all the interest that we’ve had is heading in that direction. MR. STEVES-I understand your question. What range are we looking at? Are we talking inspiration meadows, or are we talking Tyneswood, yes, that’s more the character of the neighborhood. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. VASILIOU-We have inquiries right now of three houses that are in excess of 3,000 feet. MR. STONE-And they recognize all of the setback requirements and all that sort of stuff? MR. VASILIOU-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. I was like Chuck when I first looked at it. I said it seems to me that this thing was designed to require a variance rather than trying to just get the maximum of conforming lots that you could get, but I am impressed by the no cut zones on all sides of each property. I think that’s a very impressive undertaking, and a very positive contribution to development in the Town of Queensbury, and, therefore, I have no problems with it, either. Having said that, we need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2000 MICHAEL J. VASILIOU, INC., Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: Peggy Ann Road, east of Tyneswood. The applicant’s proposing creation of a 16 lot subdivision and seeks relief from the minimum lot size requirements. Specifically, the applicant requests relief from the 150 foot minimum lot width requirement of the SR-1A zone, Section 179-19. It appears that three of the 16 lots, lot 6, 8, and 10, meet the minimum average lot width. The remaining 13 lots require varying amounts of relief, as follows: Lots One through Four and Twelve through Sixteen, twelve and a half feet; Lot Five, 15.6 feet; Lot Seven, twenty-three feet; Lot Nine, thirty-four feet; and Lot Eleven, four feet. Considering this, the criteria for granting this variance, the benefit to the applicant would be the applicant would be permitted to create the desired number of lots as designed for the subdivision. Feasible alternatives could include reconfiguring the subdivision to create compliant lots, but I think the added stipulations that the applicant has agreed to of no cut zones around the lots and on the rear mitigate the need to reconfigure. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Cumulative relief from the 150 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. It requires relief for l3 out of 16 lots, but again, the added stipulation of no cut zones for all of the lots I think substantially mitigates this. Effects on the neighborhood or community, with the no cut zones included, I believe there’ll be minimal effect on the neighborhood as a result of this action. Is the difficulty self-created? Yes, it can be considered self-created, but again the extra mitigation that the applicant has proposed I think justifies the request that’s being made. On balance we agree that this variance should be approved. Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. VASILIOU-Especially since it’s Friday, with Easter, Friday at 10 o’clock, we really appreciate it. MR. STONE-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2000 TYPE II WR-3A WR-1A GEORGE W. & GAIL T. GORE OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE END OF FITZGERALD ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DOCK. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE. TAX MAP NO. 42-1-1.3 LOT SIZE: 4.92 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-2000, George W. & Gail T. Gore, Meeting Date: April 21, 2000 “Project Location: Fitzgerald Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 264 square foot “T” shaped dock and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 41.2 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. The proposed dock crosses an extension of the property line. 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 a residential dock. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited, given the pre- existing property configuration. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 41.2 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the property line and shoreline configuration. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 97- 1999 – res. 11/17/99 height relief Building Permit 99-633 single family dwelling Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposal is for a modest dock, oriented toward the center of the bay, and should not limit either adjoining property owner from continuing their existing use of the shoreline. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Well, it’s nice to see you, Mr. O’Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and with me is George Gore, the applicant. I hope that we’ve progressed, maybe, from the more difficult to the less difficult to the simplest of the three that I’ve done tonight. the only thing that I’d really call to your attention is attached to my copy of the Staff Notes is their showing of what the tax map of the property in the area is. That probably better depicts the Bay than anything, and I remember years ago I had a discussion, I think it was with Tom McCormack, that the problem with this side line, no build zone or whatever you want to call it, is that it presumes that all lakes are flat, and it works where you have a nice straight stretch of lake frontage, but when you’re in a Bay, it doesn’t work, and there is another theory, and it is a theory that you use when you try to determine who has under water rights, and that is that you create a point of access, if you will, in the center of the Bay, and everybody takes a pie line to the center of the Bay, as opposed to a projection of the property line. We’ve talked about that, and maybe it’s something that the Town is going to look at. I hope they consider it, along with, you’ve got a question on how you measure height of buildings and things like that. It would make some of these things simpler, but other than that, if you went up and you stood at the property line, if you stood at the common property line with Gardner, which is to the west side of this, and you looked toward the northerly direction, or toward the easterly end, northeasterly end of Mr. and Mrs. Gore’s property, you would see that, even though we’re going out beyond what is an extension of that common property line, it really doesn’t interfere with the navigation from his existing dock, or his existing property. As part of the package that we have submitted, we also have submitted to you probably more than, we almost made it like a site plan. We have also submitted the actual topographical features of the lot, and the landscaping that is proposed. There is only one person that really is effected, and that’s the Gardners, which is on the west end of the property. You’re not closer to the extension of Zack’s property line. What we’re talking about is the extension of the Gardner’s property line. GEORGE GORE 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. GORE-We’re physically actually closer to Zack’s. MR. O'CONNOR-You’re physically closer to Zack’s, and that was to minimize or mitigate as much as possible the encroachment upon Gardner. Zack has been very much aware of everything that’s gone on. He supports what we’re doing. He’s written a letter saying that he has no problems with what we’re doing. The house that you approved, and you approved a height variance for that house, is further up site, upland, and what they’re going to do is establish a walkway down to the lake area, to utilize the lake. That’s it, unless somebody’s got questions. MR. STONE-I have a question in relation to the thing you just brought up. Is this house sited where it was when we granted the variance? I had the feeling it was further into the hill. Because I know we talked about the hill. I may be totally wrong. I’ve been wrong all night. MR. GORE-It might be three or four feet back farther away from the lake than the original. MR. STONE-Further from the lake? MR. GORE-Yes. MR. STONE-It looked closer to me from what I remembered. MR. GORE-I think what my contractor wanted to do was to put the back end, as you see the garage level. He wanted to move the house closer to the level of the garage, which is flatter, the farther back you go away from the lake. He moved that back about three or four feet from the original request. MR. STONE-I haven’t checked. I just remember we talked about the hill behind there, which was not going to bother anybody, and I thought it was going to be further into the hill, but that’s neither here nor there, it’s not our call. The trees, however, that were cut down, I know giving you a sight line to the lake, was that discussed when we talked about the positioning of the house? MR. O'CONNOR-We talked about it. MR. STONE-Because this map here says existing trees and arborvitae that you gave us here, and they’re not there anymore. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Which map do you have? MR. STONE-April 18, 2000, proposed landscaping for the Lands of. MR. O'CONNOR-I think what we’re saying is what is there, there are some trees in that area. MR. STONE-Not here. That’s wide open. MR. O'CONNOR-There are a few in that area. There are not as many as there were, and that’s where the septic system is. MR. STONE-No, here’s the septic tank over here. I mean, the leach field may be there, in front of the deck, between you and the lake. Yes, because I mean, I can understand why the trees are down, but I remember we talked about trees, and I didn’t think we. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s also a work in progress, and there is going to be a re-planting of trees, even on the bank, on that side, on the house side of the road, and it shows some in here, and this is the area that is where the trees were cut mostly. I think if you get off to an angle on this side here, there still are trees there. I don’t know, I don’t think this survey shows all existing trees. MR. STONE-Not when you get in front of the house. MR. O'CONNOR-Take a look at the whole lot. This would have you believe that there’s no trees on the lot. MR. STONE-No, no. I know there’s trees in the back, but I mean from the deck down to the lake it’s a wide open swath. MR. O'CONNOR-From the deck down to the lake they took down I think three healthy trees in the front of it. They opened up the trees that were all rotten, and they took those down. In fact, Zack, who has no ax to grind at all, said that in his letter to us. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. STONE-Okay. We’ll read that in. MR. O'CONNOR-And the contractor who was taking the trees down asked him to come look at them before he took them down. So that we wouldn’t have an issue. MR. GORE-Actually, I asked the contractor if he was going to take any down. My name’s George Gore. I had asked the contractor if he was going to take any trees down by the lake, knowing that it would be a concern for everyone, to, and I had spoken to Mr. Zack about it originally, that if he would be present when that would occur, because there was some finding originally by my excavator that those trees were dead and hollowed, and as you can read his letter, if you want to read it out loud, what he stated, but it’s in the letter. MR. STONE-Any questions about the dock? We haven’t talked about the dock at all? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the dock has to go where it is, just because of the configuration of the lot. It’s the only logical place to put it, but I would second the concern of the Chairman about the vegetation. Specifically, you need to have some kind of vegetative barrier between what’s been done and the lake, to keep the stuff from coming in. I assume you’re going to do something about, you know, I look on your plat and I see arborvitae, and this seems to be the thing, you know, you take down a 200 foot tree, and you put up a bush that’s going to grow eight feet high max, and those trees along the left periphery there of your dock seem to me that they could be planted with trees that are native to the lake. I would assume you could plant some white pines, birch trees, things like that, and you’ll get a little bit more of a peakaboo view, but I think it’s well below the site line of your house down there, and I think that what I would like to see going up the hill is a few trees maybe 20% planted back along the ridge, because I think the intent in the original plan was to have it be somewhat hidden, you know, rather than a complete clear cut view. I went and looked from the other side of the lake, and it’s an obvious straight shot between the house and the lake. There’s nothing in the site line, and I think a lot of that’s below your site line from the house, to. It will break it up a little bit, as it grows up, and I don’t think that’s a lot to ask, because it was forest. MR. GORE-Mr. Underwood, I had spoken to Craig about that concern, and we’re specifically going to put some trees, some hardwood trees, back on the slope, on the other side of the road, along with bushes and ground vegetation, but also trees down, as much as we can, since that slope is very severe, as you know, on the other side of the road, but we’re still going to be putting trees back in there, aside from bushes. MR. UNDERWOOD-I just think in the long term it will help you to preserve the bank. MR. GORE-That’s a concern of ours too, obviously, and we’ve hired a professional landscaper to come in and give us some plans and give us some ideas of what types of trees that we could plant in there, what types of vegetation, along with suggestions or recommendations. We’re speaking with Craig about those kinds of things at the same time, that we’re certainly going to undertake that. We’re also going to be putting some bush or a privacy, natural privacy bushes, trees between the Gardner’s space, maybe the first 20 feet from lake, or 20 or 25 feet from the lake back, spaced every so often of course, but to give them some privacy, and at the same time, we’ve going to be putting something up by the Zack’s bush or trees, and Pete and I have already talked about doing something mutually together and making that still private, but something that we’ll both approve. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. My only concern would be putting stuff in a line kind of suburbanizes the lake, and I think that you want to offset things just to keep it a little bit random. I think in the long term you’ll appreciate it more, too, as opposed to, linear stuff, to me, is more like you see in the suburbs. MR. GORE-That’s the CPA in me, and I appreciate your comments. MR. STONE-All those numbers in a row, in a line. Any other questions relating to the dock, before we open the public hearing? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed? Read that letter in. It’s not necessarily on point, the dock, but get it in the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a letter from Peter Zack, in regards to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, “I am writing this letter to describe the condition of and the number of trees that my neighbors, Mr. & Mrs. George Gore, removed from their property within thirty-five (35) feet of the lake frontage on Fitzgerald Road. I was present during the process of the tree removal and observed the removal of a total of eight (8) trees within a thirty-five (35) foot distance from the lake shore. I noted that approximately four or five of those trees were hollow (dead). The health, or lack of, was determined prior to the removal of the trees by the contractor (he had asked 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) me to inspect and count the trees, in case there was ever any questions). I would also note that Mr. Gore had described to me in detail, the extensive shrubbery and landscaping that he and his wife are undertaking to re-naturalize the area in question. I am extremely pleased to see the improvements that they are making to their property due to it being such an eyesore for many years (which was caused by others who used the area between the road and the lake to discard yard waste). In addition, I would state that I have no objections to the Gore’s being granted their request for relief from the setback requirements from adjacent property line for their dock. Very truly yours, Peter Zack” MR. STONE-Is there anything else in there? MR. MC NULTY-Nothing at all. MR. STONE-Is there anything from Mr. Gardner at all? Do you have a statement from Mr. Gardner? MR. GORE-I’ve never met the gentleman, to tell the truth. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We know that he’s talked to Peter Zack about the project, not Peter, that’s David Zack. MR. GORE-No, he did talk to Peter, as a matter of fact. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. There are two Zacks. Peter Zack is the one that lives next door. MR. GORE-Peter lives next door to me. MR. O'CONNOR-David lives two houses down. We talked to one of the Zack’s about the project. MR. HIMES-I talked to the Zack right adjacent to your property, and he was telling me at the time he thought this was a good thing all the way around, and he also mentioned the guy on the other side, who I guess lives out of State, and said that this guys knows what’s going on and has no objection. Now, that’s hearsay, but that’s what Zack told me. MR. O'CONNOR-I understood that, but I didn’t want to recite that. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do you want to rebut anything the public has said here? MR. O'CONNOR-I hope not. MR. STONE-Any other questions of the Board? Let’s just very quickly go through it. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I have no problem with this. I think the dock’s probably in the only proper location. It seems to be situated in such a way that it minimizes the impact on either neighbor, and I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would go along with that. I would just temper it with the fact that I don’t want to see linear trees around that lake. I want to see random, so it preserves, take a ride in your boat and look at the shoreline, just get an idea. It’s a step thing. You have bushes. You have trees, and I think if you do some combination of that, I’ll look at lot more, it’ll fit in better. MR. STONE-You get to do the motion. MR. HIMES-I’m in favor of it. I think, you know, as a comment that most of the matter of the variance is out in the water, which, someone might, a lot of people might be thinking that we’re listening to them and not thinking about (lost words) it really goes, as I understand it, most of it, or all of it, usually takes place in the water itself. So, I’m in favor. MR. STONE-As far as I’m concerned, this is a technical variance. It recognizes that you have property on the lake, you ought to be able to build a dock on the lake. You’re not really infringing or encroaching on anybody’s property, that they would say, plus the fact that nobody’s spoken up to say 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) they’re not in favor of it. The good thing, the second good thing about this thing is that we’ve had a chance to visit or re-visit the landscaping thing, which is something we don’t often get a chance to do, and if you agree, we’ll probably put something into the motion if, particularly when Mr. Underwood makes the motion. We’ll try anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-Is it related to the dock? MR. STONE-Well, part of it is related to the dock. MR. UNDERWOOD-I believe it is, because it’s your access to the dock. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think that part of the concern with living on the lake is preservation of the lake. Everyone has their own idea of what they want their yard to look like, but at the same time, you know, we have to think about what the shoreline protection is. MR. O'CONNOR-With due respect, my problem is definition, and Craig and I had this discussion even with our discussion once before, before this Board, as to what was said, what was meant, and whatever. I understand what you’re saying, but I think what you’re saying is use good judgement, and if that’s the extent of what you’re saying, then probably I don’t have an objection to it. MR. STONE-Well, the applicant is on record, in terms of our minutes, in saying some of the ideas that he’s going to do as far as property, and that’s there, and that can’t go away. This isn’t a court of law, obviously, but it is, you did say it in good faith, and we’ll accept it in good faith, and it’ll be in the minutes. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t have a problem with that. MR. GORE-And I’d like to add, too, if you don’t mind me calling you Jim, in our original discussions about my request for the height variance, I seem to recall the question with regard to the trees, and this is where I’m having a problem, because it’s come now back to haunt me about who thought too many trees is too many trees, or substantial amount of trees is a substantial amount of trees, and it’s not that I’m saying that what you’re saying isn’t correct, but as I said in that original variance meeting, I like trees, and I don’t want to clear cut my trees. I have 4.9 acres, and maybe I cut 50 trees down or 40 trees down in total, but as far as I was concerned, at that, for the definition that we were discussing on that night, I didn’t cut down a substantial amount of trees, but it seems that obviously maybe somebody feels a little different. So with regard to making the motion, I say this to you as a person who wants to better that piece of property who is going to ensure that I replant some greenery and some hardwoods, because, first of all I appreciate the fact that beauty is not just a home, and beauty is not just looking at the lake clear from my house, but it’s also seeing trees and natural vegetation, and I’d commit to that, and will ensure that anybody who is going to be living on that lake, or anybody who’s ever going to look from the lake again is going to be please with the job that we’re going to do there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Great. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim, do you want to make a motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2000 GEORGE W. & GAIL T. GORE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Fitzgerald Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 264 square foot “T” Shaped dock and seeks setback relief. The applicant requests 41.2 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirements of the Shoreline and Wetlands regulations, Section 179-60. The proposed dock crosses an extension of the property line. The criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: The benefit to the applicant would be that the applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize a residential dock. The feasible alternatives appear to be limited given the pre-existing property configuration. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 41.2 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. The effects on the neighborhood or community, minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be attributed to the property line and the shoreline configuration. The applicant basically proposes to build this dock, and it appears that this is the only position that the dock could possibly be built in. He recognizes the fact that he will need to do some substantial vegetative reconfiguration of the property after the building that has gone on it, and hopefully this will meet our standards. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: st MR. STONE-Can you live with that? MR. GORE-I hope it meets with your standards, too. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. Before you officially close your meeting, can I jump back two applications and just ask, on the Hughes application, would it make a difference if there was a stipulation or a condition in there that they not put the septic, that they abide by the required septic setback? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. My only consideration was that they make sure that it’s within the reg’s of the, the wetland reg’s. It is a wetland, and I’m sure I could get somebody to say it’s a wetland, but I would assume it’s got to be 100 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-No, okay. I’m not trying to make it a trick question, but would you say within the New York State DEC wetland setback regulations. See, Jim, there are no Federal wetland, I’ve got a project right now in Hartford. MR. UNDERWOOD-Then use the New York State reg’s. MR. STONE-That’s 100, right? That’s 100. MR. O'CONNOR-No, it’s 100 feet from a designated wetland. MR. STONE-From a designated wetland. MR. O'CONNOR-The Federal wetland is any puddle. The Federal wetland is almost any puddle now. They’re down to two tenths of a, they just changed the new Nationwide permits, and they’re down to two-tenths of an acre. That’s a wetland. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you’ve got to move it 20 feet, you’ve still got room to do it. MR. O'CONNOR-We know it’s not, we’re not 100 feet from the other side of Mannis Road. We know that, but we don’t think we have to be required. We’re not required to be that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, I would just go over and check, because I had a herpetologist here last week with the State wetlands, who does the surveys of wildlife, and he was over there collecting specimens, and I can go out and get this guy. He’s a Ph.D. MR. O'CONNOR-Jim, I’ve hired wetland people, and in Hartford, I’ve got a project over in Hartford where they’re going to site a mine. They’ve got a State designated wetland that’s not wet. The problem is it’s a wetland that goes for about a quarter of a mile, and it’s to the south of it, and I said, change your designation, and they said we can’t do that. We’ve got everybody doing wetlands down in Saratoga County, and until Saratoga County gets done with this 600 new wetlands that they found down there, it’s like trying to get Brian Fear to sign something right now. Everybody in the Health Department is over checking Ecoli. You cannot, right now, get anybody in the State, in our region, to do anything in wetlands. You cannot get anybody to do anything in the Health Department. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t have a problem with it as long as it’s set back from the wetlands, the maximum that it can be. MR. STONE-Well, beyond the minimum that it has to be. MR. UNDERWOOD-Beyond the minimum that it has to be. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. I don’t have a problem with that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think they would have a problem with it either. MR. O'CONNOR-Would you entertain that motion? 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MR. STONE-Can we re-visit that now? MR. O'CONNOR-Take the tabling motion of the floor and get it over with. MR. STONE-Would you have any problem with that, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Not at all. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-If you feel comfortable with that. You tabled it, and I don’t remember if there’s any public here that was under the impression that it may be re-visited again at another public hearing, or re-open the public hearing. If you feel comfortable. MR. STONE-The only person who spoke was in favor. MR. BROWN-Okay. If you feel comfortable doing that. MR. STONE-And there was nothing else. MR. BROWN-I just have a question for Jim. Did you have concerns over whether there was any restrictions put on the last variance, about the cutting and filling? Is that still a concern of yours? MR. UNDERWOOD-You may want to check with Jim Martin on that, because Jim was involved in that for a long time, but I know when the Art and Mariah Smith bought it, they got it for $2,000 with the stipulation that it be filled in. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, they also probably spent a lot of money filling it in. MR. UNDERWOOD-They spent a lot of money filling it in. MR. BROWN-Okay. I just wanted to make sure if you were comfortable with that. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, no, that was my only concern was that. MR. STONE-Are you willing to take your abstention off the table if we re-visit? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. STONE-All right. MOTION TO RESCIND TABLING MOTION AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2000 ROBERT HUGHES & CLAIR HENSLER, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Then I would call for a re-vote on the motion in connection with Area Variance No. 29-2000. MR. O'CONNOR-Adding a condition to the approval that the septic system to be constructed not be within 100 feet of a State designated wetland, of any State designated wetland. MR. STONE-All right. Who made the motion? MR. MC NULTY-I think I did. MR. STONE-Will you accept that? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll accept that. MR. STONE-All right. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2000 ROBERT HUGHES & CLAIR HENSLER, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 125 & 160 Mannis Road. The applicant is proposing the construction of a 4400 square foot single family dwelling and seeks height and setback relief. Specifically requests relief of 10 feet from the 25 foot minimum side setback, and 10 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. In considering the approval of this variance, we considered the benefit to the applicant, which would be the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred configuration. Feasible alternatives could include reconfiguration and relocation to a compliant location and height, but the site topography and situation I think argues for the project as proposed. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Ten feet of relief from the twenty-five foot setback requirement is generally moderate, but the way the garage that requires the 10 foot of relief is situated, the impact is going to be minimized because it will be set into the side of the hill. Ten feet of relief from the 28 foot height requirement also could normally be interpreted as moderate or possibly even substantial, but again, the topography of the site tends to mitigate the impact of that extra height. Effects on the neighborhood or community, moderate effects on the neighborhood could be anticipated from this action, but again, given the topography of the site, I think it probably is closer to minimal impact, and is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty probably is self-created because there are other things that could be done to make the project compliant, but again, the uniqueness of the site, I think, justifies the proposal as presented. For that reason, I move approval of this variance. That the septic system to be constructed not be within 100 feet of any State designated wetland. Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. Okay, and I thank you for the reconsideration. MR. UNDERWOOD-No problem. MR. GORE-Did you take a look at this map that we drew up with regards to some of the suggestions that we were looking at for? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. GORE-I mean, is substantial, within your definition, the number of trees? Because obviously, Jim, I want to get this correct. I don’t want to screw up and have to come back. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, not at all. I would just say, down on the waterfront, though, rather than arborvitae which is going to look like a hedge along that whole lakeshore there where you have that, I would rather see white pine, white birch. I mean, you can make a random sampling there, but not in a line either. MR. GORE-You’re talking about the line between Gardner? MR. UNDERWOOD-Between you and Gardners, yes. Just try to keep it more natural, as to what. MR. GORE-Yes, alternate them back and forth. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. GORE-Out this way. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you keep it less linear, it looks like it fits. I think that’s just a concern. MR. GORE-Okay. MR. STONE-Avoid the straight lines of man. Is that what you’re saying? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. When you do your trees on the hill, too, just go random. That doesn’t block your view there. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/21/00) On motion meeting was adjourned RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 42