Loading...
2000-06-28 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY PAUL HAYES NORMAN HIMES CHARLES ABBATE JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT MC NALLY ALLAN BRYANT CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2000 TYPE II SR-20 SAMUEL K. COMBS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 44 AUTUMN LANE, SHERMAN PINES APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 25 FT. DIAMETER SWIMMING POOL AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 121-15-11 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION: 179-19, 179-67 SAMUEL & DAPHNE COMBS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2000, Samuel K. Combs, Meeting Date: June 28, 2000 “Project Location: 44 Autumn Lane, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 25 ft diameter above ground pool. Relief Required: Applicant requests 1 foot of relief from the 10 foot minimum side setback requirement and 19 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory Structures and Uses regulations; §179-67. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired pool in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller pool and relocation to a more compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: One foot of relief from the 10 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal, however, 19 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be partially attributed to the lot size and home placement. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-298 pool pending BP 94-640 11/15/94 Single family dwelling Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The common area behind this property may help soften impacts this project may have on other residential properties. Much of the difficulty may be attributed to the size and configuration of the lots within this subdivision. Most of these 10,000 sf lots with reasonable homes meeting setback requirements may require setback relief for pools. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-County? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see anything. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Combs. Would you identify yourselves, and anything you want to say? MR. COMBS-I’m Samuel Combs, owner, 44 Autumn Lane, Queensbury. It says 25 foot pool. It’s actually a 24 foot round pool. MR. STONE-How about decking or anything? MR. COMBS-The deck is there. 1 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. STONE-I mean, any extra around the pool? MR. COMBS-No. MR. STONE-It’s just going to be a pool, and obviously a way to get in. MR. COMBS-Well, a small deck. There’s an existing deck that doesn’t encircle the whole pool. MR. STONE-On what side is it going to be? MR. COMBS-It’s going to be on the inside of the property line. MR. STONE-There’s a deck on the house. MR. COMBS-Yes, there’s a deck on the house, and there’s a deck there for the pool as well. MR. STONE-There is? I missed, okay. Any questions of the applicant so far? Okay. Let me open t the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I did not see any correspondence, no. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions? MR. HIMES-Just one here. On the drawing, the pool, how far is it going to be from the house? It’s supposed to be 10 feet, isn’t it? MRS. COMBS-Well, my name is Daphne Combs, and I’m Sam’s wife. I put that it was going to be nine feet from the house, but when they measured it, it was 10, but I did 9 just to be safe, because on the little diagram that they gave me of a 24 foot pool went over the line a little bit. MR. HIMES-That would be another problem. MRS. COMBS-I think it will end up being 10, but just to be safe, I didn’t want to. MR. HIMES-Okay. Have you ever thought about a smaller pool? MRS. COMBS-Well, we’ve bought the pool already from someone that we got a really good deal on it. MR. STONE-I can only say that, that’s not our problem. MRS. COMBS-I know that. MR. STONE-I will just state it for the record. MRS. COMBS-Well, that’s where we are. MR. STONE-Ten feet from the house is required, and you’re saying it’s 10 feet. You didn’t interpret it. MR. BROWN-Well, if the applicant’s going to state that it’s 10 feet, and you don’t give him relief from that, it’ll have to be 10 feet. MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. All right. Any other questions? All right. Hearing none, let’s talk about it. Chuck, what do you think? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, in summary, I don’t think I’ve got a problem with it. It bothers me some that we keep getting requests for pools from this neighborhood, but as Staff notes indicated, I think it’s generic to the way the neighborhood’s been laid out, and it’s a case that either all the plots in this neighborhood are not allowed to have pools, or we’re going to have to give variances. I don’t 2 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) see where this particular one is going to impact the neighbors. There is the common area behind, which gives an extra buffer. So allowing for all of that, I have no problem with it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. I know in this area, since we’ve had a lot of pool requests for variances, not a lot but a few, it’s come to light that the Homeowner’s Association, I guess, makes comments on pools and their acceptability or not. I was just curious if the applicant had gotten anything from the Homeowners Association? MR. STONE-We’ve heard nothing. MR. BROWN-There was nothing submitted with the application. MR. STONE-Right, one way or the other. MR. BROWN-Right, so I was just curious. MR. STONE-Have you talked to the Homeowners Association? MR. COMBS-Yes, there’s no restrictions on pools. MRS. COMBS-There was originally. There’s not anymore. MR. COMBS-They’ve changed that since. MRS. COMBS-Last year that got changed. MR. STONE-That was voted unanimously? MR. COMBS-Yes. There’s several pools in the neighborhood already. MR. STONE-I know there’s several pools. Okay. Fine. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. If you look over at Peachtree Lane, it looks like there’s a couple that have already been done that are kind of real close to the line, with a fence right there, and, I mean, it’s the only way to do it. I think it relates back to Schermerhorn and the original Planned Unit Development plans. They should have had longer lots. I don’t have a problem with it. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-I feel the same as what’s been voiced. The only concern I have is that there is the Ordinance, the zoning lots require setbacks which, in this case, nine feet, ten, but nineteen from twenty, being also back in the corner, so it’s like, the buffer is a softening characteristic, but this is the corner where it’s also close to the property. So, that concerns me a little. A smaller pool, I don’t know what dimensions they make these pools in, 20, 15, what have you, I think would be called for, given the space limitations that you do have. So I hate to say no, from the aspect of, you know, I don’t have a pool, but I always wanted one, but. MRS. COMBS-From the people on the side where we would only have nine feet, we just actually saw them before we had dinner, and they don’t have a problem with it at all. MR. HIMES-Nine feet at least looks like an effort, but a smaller pool would be all right on the side. So I’m going to hear what some of the other members have to say. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-If this were the first application in this area, I would have second thoughts, but in the interest of fairness, since there are other folks in the area who have pools, it would be in the best interest and fairness, standard of fairness, that this application be approved. MR. URRICO-You said the pool’s actually 24 feet? MRS. COMBS-Yes. MR. URRICO-So the setback is 10, not 9, as indicated. 3 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MRS. COMBS-Well, on the side I’m pretty sure it’s going to be nine. They measured it and they thought it was going to be 10 from each side, but I put nine, just, you know, to be safe. I will make sure it’s 10 from the house. MR. URRICO-Well, it looks tight on paper, and it looks tight there, too, but. MRS. COMBS-Well, my brother came. We did the transit. We measured it out perfectly. MR. URRICO-I think I would be in favor of it. I think it doesn’t take away from the character of the neighborhood. There seem to be other pools there, and the cat’s out of the bag already. MRS. COMBS-Thanks. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think there’s some good points that have been made already by the Board members. Certainly in this circumstance, the fact that the common area is back there and can’t be built on, it actually acts as a buffer. I mean, the thing that strikes you quickly is 19 feet of 20 feet, but that 19 feet is from the buffer zone, which in reality creates a bigger buffer than that in my mind, even though there were clearly people using the buffer zone for permanent structures up and down that street there. As I visited it, it appeared to me very much a family neighborhood, and family neighborhoods have pools, as long as I can remember, and I think Chuck makes a good point that there’s a fairness issue here, too. I mean, clearly, we don’t want to have too many applications for relief on a topic or in an area, but, you know, what do we say, you can’t have it because you’re like third or fourth? That really wouldn’t be fair, I don’t think. So I don’t think the effects on the neighborhood or community are really negative here either. So I’m in favor, cumulatively. MR. STONE-Well, to get to the point quickly, I will reluctantly vote yes. Why is it reluctant? One, the fact that you have the pool is almost, in a sense, like building something and then coming in for a variance, and we don’t particularly care for that, but, that’s mitigated by the fact that we have heard nothing negative from the neighbors. We certainly haven’t heard anything positive either, but we haven’t heard anything negative from the neighbors, particularly those on the other side of the buffer zone that aren’t in Sherman Pines. I mean, we haven’t heard from them. Nobody has shown up, and they had to be notified. So, just by their absence, we have to think that they have no problem with it. The only thing that I would ask, and I would ask when we make the motion, ten feet from the house is the more important number, because of the buffer area that Mr. Hayes talks about. I would like you to be willing to accept a condition that the 10 foot from the house be measured accurately and that number be the controlling number, and then as you site the pool, to minimize or maximize the rear setback. If it can be one and a half or two feet, rather than one, because I don’t know, you show one or two on the drawing. MRS. COMBS-I think one. MR. STONE-I can’t tell if that’s a one or a two. I guess it’s a one. I don’t know if you measured it with a 25 foot pool or a 24 foot pool. All I’m saying is try to maximize that, but maintain the 10 feet from the house as a given. Having said that, I’ll call for a motion. MOTION TO APPPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2000 SAMUEL K. COMBS, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 44 Autumn Lane. The applicant proposes the construction of a 25 foot diameter above ground pool and has requested one foot of relief from the 10 foot minimum side setback, and 19 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory Structures and Uses regulations. In considering this variance, we need to consider the benefit to the applicant, which is that the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired pool in the desired location. Feasible alternatives may include a smaller pool and relocation to a more compliant location, but as the applicant has pointed out, switching to the other side of the house introduces problems with slope and proximity to septic system. Three, is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? One foot of relief from the ten foot requirement of the side setback is minimal. Nineteen feet of relief from the twenty foot requirement for the rear setback is certainly substantial on the face of it, but in mitigation, there is the common area behind this development that provides more than adequate buffer to adjacent parcels. So, in sum total, I would say that the general effect is, at the most moderate, certainly not substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I think probably minimal to moderate effects can be anticipated as a result of this variance, and considering whether the difficulty is self-created, we need to take into consideration that at least part of the problem can be attributed to the lot size and configuration of the home placement in this development. I move that we approve this variance, with the stipulations that the applicant be sure that the pool is a minimum of 10 feet from the house, and makes as much effort as possible to minimize the other setbacks from the side and the rear, maximize the setbacks. 4 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) Duly adopted this 28 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally MR. STONE-Okay. That’s it. Come in and get whatever you need. MRS. COMBS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2000 TYPE II SR-20 THOMAS A. & SHARON L. KING OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 34 AUTUMN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF AN ABOVE GROUND POOL. SEEKS RELIEF FROM SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 121-15-8 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION 179-19, 179-67 THOMAS & SHARON KING, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-2000, Thomas A. & Sharon L. King, Meeting Date: June 28, 2000, “Project Location: 34 Autumn Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 20 foot diameter above ground pool. Relief Required: Applicant requests 2 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum side setback requirement and 13.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory Structures and Uses regulations, §179-67. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired pool in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation to a more compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 2 feet of relief from the 10 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal while 13.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be partially attributed to the placement of the home on the lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 94-277 6/13/94 Single family dwelling Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The common area behind this property may help soften impacts this project may have on other residential properties. Much of the difficulty may be attributed to the size and configuration of the lots within this subdivision. Most of these 10,000 sf lots with reasonable homes meeting setback requirements may require setback relief for pools. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-And certainly no County. MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Mr. and Mrs. King, anything you want to tell us? MR. KING-Yes. My name is Thomas King, I’m the owner, 34 Autumn. We just moved into the neighborhood. As you know, it’s a residential neighborhood, many young families, children, and we want to give our kids a pool, so we can watch them, basically, have them home, know where they’re at. The lot sizes are small, that’s true, and there could be issues with the sides, your neighbors, but we’re very aware of that, and we will do everything we can so there’s no problems with the neighbors. MR. STONE-Have you bought your pool? MR. KING-We have paid for it. It has not yet arrived. It’s not paid for, actually, no, we have not. MRS. KING-We’ve put a deposit on it. I’m the wife. MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. KING-That’s all I have. MR. STONE-Any questions of the applicant? All right. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? 5 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAPHNE COMBS MRS. COMBS-As the residents of 44 Autumn Lane, we don’t mind if they have a pool. FRED BLANCHARD MR. BLANCHARD-My name is Fred Blanchard. I live at 36 Autumn Lane, and we’re all for pools, too, but the only thing I was concerned about was how close they’re going to be to the line, because we have a big dog back there, and if a ball or something went flying out of the pool and one of the kids, you know, just wasn’t thinking and went over there, we just don’t want him to get bit. That’s the only thing that we’re concerned about. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Would you comment on your neighbor’s concern? MR. KING-My only comment is so long as their dog is on a chain, which he always is, there’ll be no problems. Our children are very intelligent. They like their dog, the big dog especially, and they’ll be careful. MRS. KING-There’s a fence, too. MR. KING-And there would be, it’s going to be a fence up anyway. MR. STONE-He’s concerned and you’re concerned. So, hopefully, the joint concern will take care of it, but I hate to disillusion you about intelligent children. All our children are intelligent, and they all do stupid things. It has nothing to do with whether they’re intelligent or not. So, what he’s saying, be careful, please, and obviously you want to be careful. Okay. Any other questions or comments of the Kings? Okay. Let’s quickly talk about it. Jim, we’ll start with you. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we can use the same reasoning we used on the previous application, and the only thing is this one fits a little bit better. So there’ll be a little bit better setback. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-My sentiments. I still have the same concerns that I had with the last application. That’s all I have to say. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, it would be pretty difficult to present an argument, in view of the fact that we approved your next door neighbors, and the only concern that I would have would be the fact that there is a large dog. I have a dog, myself, on a chain. He is never allowed to run loose, and I would just merely say that you’d have to use an awful lot of caution with that. So I have no problems with it. MR. URRICO-I concur. It’s a nice little neighborhood you have there. I think the pool fits in. My only concern would be for friends coming over, visiting your kids. Sometimes they’re not as aware of the dog being next door. That’s all I would be concerned about, but I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think it’s all been said, so I’m in favor, for the same reasons I was in favor of the prior application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Basically ditto. It’s basically the same kind of application as the previous one. I feel the same way. 6 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I certainly don’t disagree with what most of my fellow Board members said, and I’m not concerned by your neighbor’s comment, but he at least is on record. He wants you to recognize that he has a dog, and while he will hopefully abide by the laws and regulations of the Town of Queensbury, you, as parents, have to remember that he’s legal with his dog. You’re legal with your pool. You’ve just got to be very careful. That’s all. Having said that, I’ll call for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2000 THOMAS A. & SHARON L. KING, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 34 Autumn Lane. The applicant proposes construction of a 20 foot diameter above ground pool. Relief required, Mr. and Mrs. King request two feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum side setback requirement and 13.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory Structures and Uses regulations Section 179-67. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired pool in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, well, alternatives might certainly include a smaller pool, but at the present time, I have no problems, or perhaps even relocation, but I’m satisfied with the location and the size of the pool at this time. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Two feet of relief from the 10 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal, while 13.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. Effects on the neighborhood and the community, moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, and is the difficulty self-created? Again, the difficulty may be partially attributed to placement of the home on the lot, and the fact that these basically are 10,000 square foot lots. Parcel History, single family dwelling, June 13, 1994. On balance, even though the relief may be substantial, based upon the configuration of the lots and other considerations of other pools that are on lots, I think that this relief is not unreasonable. Based upon that, I propose that this Area Variance be approved. Duly adopted this 28 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally MR. STONE-So we’ll have two pools being built very close to each other. MRS. KING-Thanks so much. MR. STONE-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2000 TYPE II SR-1A KATHY LEE NAATZ OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE OFF CORINTH ROAD, PROPERTY IS BEHIND 658 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF AN 864 SQ. FT. MODULAR HOME AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 125-2-22.2 LOT SIZE: 3.3 ACRES SECTION 179-19, 179-70 KATHY NAATZ, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-2000, Kathy Lee Naatz, Meeting Date: June 28, 2000 “Project Location: Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 17.56 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirement per §179-70, Frontage on public streets. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to utilize the existing lot configuration for the construction of a new single family dwelling. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include acquisition of additional lands. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 17.56 feet of relief from the 40 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be attributed to the pre-existing lot configuration. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-333 Single family dwelling pending Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The property in question is a pre-existing 3.3 acre parcel within a Suburban Residential one acre zone, SR-1A and should not present any adverse effects on adjoining parcels. Consideration may be given to the adequacy of the proposed drive to allow emergency access to the property. SEQR Status: Type II” 7 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. STONE-Anything from the County? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Okay. Ms. Naatz? MS. NAATZ-My name is Kathy Naatz, 658 Corinth Road in Queensbury. I’ve owned this land for, well, the 10 acres I’ve had for about 30 years. This parcel I’ve only had since maybe, what I did is I traded with Bedford Close, the back of my land for this land, and I’ve got 10 acres there, and it’s just sitting there, and I just want to put a house on it. It’s not being used, and I just want to put my house on it. It’s beautiful out there. MR. STONE-Yes. Let me ask Staff a question. How far back does 40 feet road frontage have to extend? MR. BROWN-What’s the question? Forty feet road frontage is 40 feet along the road. MR. STONE-And how far does that? MR. HAYES-So it could be like “Y” shaped. MR. STONE-I’m talking about being “Y” shaped. I mean, I know her position, but. MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. STONE-It could be “Y”. It could be 40 feet with an angle like this. MR. HAYES-That’s a “Y”. MR. BROWN-Or even a radius, yes. Forty feet is, technically, forty feet, yes. MR. STONE-It doesn’t have any depth whatsoever? MR. BROWN-If you’re going to create a new lot, there’s a certain average lot width you have to maintain. So it’s difficult to make up if you have 40 feet at the end and you end up with two or three hundred feet at the other end for width. So, in this case, it’s a pre-existing lot, and if you’re thinking what I think you’re thinking. MR. STONE-Yes, but even if you took 40 and 198, it comes out to be pretty wide. MR. BROWN-Okay. It’s an existing lot. MR. STONE-I know. I say I know your position. I mean, you stated it in your application, but, well, let’s hear what everybody else says before we get down to that. Any questions of the applicant? MR. HIMES-Hi, Ms. Naatz. We met earlier this week, and I talked with Ms. Naatz about the property, and I was, there’s a 10 acre parcel behind your other lot, and adjacent to the three acre lot that you’re speaking of. MS. NAATZ-No, actually it’s combined. The lot that I want to build on is a 3.3. The rest of it is on the side of it, right next to it. It’s connecting. MR. HIMES-Does that lot go, it doesn’t go all the way back to Luzerne Road, does it? MS. NAATZ-It goes out to the Bedford Close. I’m surrounded by Bedford Close on three sides, well, actually two and a half. MR. HIMES-There’s no access from another road to the back of your lot? MS. NAATZ-Actually, there’s a buffer zone there, so, no, I don’t have access to that. I asked for a buffer zone along there, to protect me, to keep people off my property when I gave them that land, we traded. MR. HIMES-Yes. I guess the question would be natural as to what the future might be of the ten acre parcel and the adequacy of a 20 foot driveway, should there be additional residences in there some day. MS. NAATZ-I really can’t answer that honestly, because I don’t know what the future will bring. I don’t know. I could leave here tonight and tomorrow I could get killed, you know. 8 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. HIMES-Certainly. MR. STONE-The land to the north, technically, I’m looking at the aerial. I would think it more to the east, toward Glens Falls. I recognize the road curves there. Is that your mother’s land, to the immediate? MS. NAATZ-My mother’s land is out on the Corinth Road, right in front. MR. STONE-Right, and where else does it go? I see a dotted line here. I don’t see. MS. NAATZ-You see the parcel, and then in front, toward the Glens Falls is my other parcel of land, right next to it, connecting. MR. STONE-Okay. You own the six acres back. MR. MC NULTY-That makes her total ten. MS. NAATZ-Right. My mother’s land is here, and then right out on the other side of Bedford Close is mine. MR. STONE-I was looking at this one, not the other one. Okay, and so your other lot is totally landlocked. MS. NAATZ-Yes. Well, I connect it with mine. They will always be connected, as far as I’m concerned, if I live there. Let’s say, I’ll put it that way, because I love my land. MR. STONE-Okay, but the only way, to paraphrase the question that you were asked, if you wanted to, well, that’s not a developable lot without a variance, because it is has no. MR. BROWN-You’d have to re-visit the same issue. MR. STONE-We’d have to re-visit the same issue, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-She has a 15 foot right of way on the other side of her mother’s lot. MR. STONE-A 15 foot, that little thing there? MR. UNDERWOOD-This thing right here. MS. NAATZ-I’ve also had that for 32 years. MR. HAYES-I see, you’re right. MR. STONE-Well, we’d have to re-visit it again. MR. HAYES-It’s a case by case basis. MR. BROWN-And that’s a right of way. That’s not ownership. That doesn’t constitute frontage. MR. STONE-It doesn’t constitute frontage? Okay. MR. ABBATE-I see. All right. MS. NAATZ-Right, but that was done way before the zoning ever started. MR. STONE-Sure. I understand, but nevertheless, if you did anything, you’d have to conform. Anybody else have any questions? Any concerns? MR. ABBATE-Well, I guess a concern and a question. Emergency access to the property. Is there adequate emergency access to the property based upon the plans that were submitted, for emergency vehicles? MS. NAATZ-I don’t see why 20 feet isn’t plenty for emergency, because actually the house is going to be brought in, and it’s much bigger than a fire truck. MR. ABBATE-Well, I was thinking in terms of winter time, snow banks, you know, unless of course you have the entire driveway plowed all the time, but it’s your opinion that there is sufficient emergency access to your property? 9 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MS. NAATZ-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And of course, these are pre-existing lots, am I correct? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes. That’s fine. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Any other comments? I had a question. The telephone pole. The hydrant, I think, is in front of your mother’s property. MS. NAATZ-Yes. MR. STONE-There’s a telephone pole just west of that, is that in this area? MS. NAATZ-I have talked to NiMo about that. They apparently are going to move that. I’m not really sure exactly. Apparently they don’t need, they won’t need that there. I’m not really sure how they’re going to. MR. STONE-You say they are going to move it, or they’re not? MS. NAATZ-I think they are going to move it. I’m not really positive. My electrician was working on that. So I’m not really sure how they ended up with it. It was all straightened out. MR. STONE-But where it is is in your proposed driveway? MS. NAATZ-No. It’s next to it. MR. STONE-It’s next to it? Okay. I couldn’t tell, obviously. MS. NAATZ-Right, no, it’s next to it. It wouldn’t be in my way. MR. BROWN-Does it show on the survey? MR. STONE-No. The hydrant shows and one across the street shows, unless it’s on this one. It doesn’t look like it does. MR. BROWN-It would be on the new one if it’s on any of them. MR. STONE-No, it’s on the new one. There’s one on the other side of the road. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, can I go back? I don’t know why this is bugging me. Don’t ask me why it’s bugging me. Emergency access to the property, for some reason, it’s bothering me. Have you checked this out with the fire department and police department, whether they, is it their professional opinion that there is emergency access there? MS. NAATZ-No, I haven’t. MR. ABBATE-Do you think it would be a good idea to check with them, to ensure that they believe they can have access in the event of emergency? Would you be willing to do that? MS. NAATZ-If it was an emergency, they could go right through my mother’s land. MR. ABBATE-I know. It’s just me. I just have a problem with it. MS. NAATZ-Well, the thing is if they’re going to bring the house in on a great big truck, I mean, if they can get through and go on, into the driveway in, then a fire truck can get in there just as well. MR. ABBATE-See, I think what I, this is my opinion. Certainly do whatever you wish, you’re a big girl, but I think what I would have done, had I come before here, is said, listen, I spoke to Fire Chief in such and such a fire department. I spoke to the Sheriff’s Department, and they indicated to me that they have no problems with emergency access, and I would have felt a heck of a lot better about it, but it’s your opinion that there is sufficient access for emergency vehicles, summer and winter? MS. NAATZ-I can talk to the Sheriff’s Department, I’m sure. MR. ABBATE-As long as it’s on the record. Thank you very much. 10 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. STONE-The only thing I would say, in defense of Ms. Naatz, that we have some roads by use I the Town of Queensbury that are less than 22 feet wide. MR. ABBATE-I know. You’re right. This is true. MR. STONE-Any other comments? Questions? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM CASOLARO MR. CASOLARO-My name is Jim Casolaro, 6 McCrea Road in Queensbury. My property does border Ms. Naatz’s toward the west, and the President of Bedford Close couldn’t be here tonight, but I did pick up a letter that he just wanted us to read on behalf of the Association, not negative, more of just a concern. “Dear Zoning Board Members: The Bedford Close Neighborhood Association is concerned regarding the proposed variance. As the Board is no doubt aware, the property in question is situated in the middle of Bedford Close. While the land is not part of the original Northern Homes Subdivision, it is situated in such a manner that the development of the land could have a negative impact upon a large section of our neighborhood. This is not to say that the placement of a single modular home on the land would cause such an undue problem. However, if this placement was to lead to further development with the same type of housing, this would be very disturbing. All who attended our homeowners association meeting on Tuesday, June 20, share th the same feeling. I will be on vacation on June 28 when the public hearing is set to take place. th Other members of the association will attend and express our concerns. I appreciate the difficulty of having to weigh the interest of the owner in legitimately developing his land, with the interests of the surrounding homeowners. I would emphasize, however, how important we view the sensible development of this parcel. Dan Stewart, Association President” And we just wanted to submit that. MR. STONE-Sure. Any other, anybody else wishing to speak, opposed or in favor? RACHELLE LA FOND MRS. LA FOND-My name is Rachelle La Fond. I live at 2 Founders Way. I live just across the street from the 50 foot buffer, on the back of her 6.68 acres. I’m concerned, as a homeowner, that if there’s ever any eventual development of like homes in that area, that they would be within site of my home. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We have one letter addressed, to whom it may concern, from Cheryl M. Haverinen, at 27 Honey Hollow Rd., “I have no objection to Kathy Naatz’s request to have the requirements for the minimum road frontage lifted. I am a resident of Bedford Close and I share our entire back property line with Ms. Naatz’s property. She has been our neighbor for over 10 years. She has been a most considerate neighbor and during this decade I have learned how much she appreciates the beauty of her land and the privacy it provides her. Therefore, I completely trust her judgement in adding this 864 sq. ft. house to her property and support the variance she requests to build the driveway. Thank you. I regret that I could not be there for the meeting. Cheryl M. Haverinen 27 Honey Hollow Rd.” MR. STONE-All right. Any others? MR. MC NULTY-That’s all. MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-I have just one question. The trade of the land with the development, I mean, how did that go? You traded with the Bedford Close development. MS. NAATZ-How did that go? MR. HAYES-Yes. MS. NAATZ-The lady you just spoke to, she’s on the land that I gave to Bedford Close. See, what they wanted is they wanted a right of way, and I told them no, that I would trade land with them, 11 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) plus I wanted an extra acre in back of my mother’s, so that way we could be left alone. Well, it didn’t work that way. I’ve had nothing but trouble from Bedford Close, ever since they started development. I’ve had kids with motorcycles spooking my horses, almost hurt my niece. I had my horse out and I had my niece on a horse, and the motorcycle came through and I’ve told them 10,000 times, stay off my property. I’ve put Posted signs up. They tear my Posted signs down. Snowmobiles, kids with guns. It’s been a circus trying to keep people off my property. MR. HAYES-And how long have you owned this 3.3 acres? MS. NAATZ-I’ve owned that for about 13 years, when Starburst first started developing. When I bought the land, I knew, I was only 18 when I bought the land, and I knew that some day they would develop around me. That’s a chance you take when you build a house or, you know, you buy the property. That’s just the chance you take. You don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. As far as Bedford Close goes, I’m outraged. I am furious to think that, I didn’t buy the land for them. I bought that land for me. What I do with that land is my business. I’m sorry, but if I can’t build a house on my own property that I’ve owned for 32 years, since I was 18 years old, then I don’t want it. Even though I love that land as much as I do, I will sell it, and my mother will sell hers, and we’ll do what we want. We’ll take the house off there or we’ll tear the house down, or whatever, and we’ll sell the whole darn lot. MR. STONE-We’re not going to get into a neighborhood dispute. What you’re here for is one thing. You have a lot which has access to the road of about 22. some feet, and Town Ordinance calls for 40 feet. If you want to develop this land, that is something for the future. This has nothing to do with what we’re doing here. If you were to develop this land, if it were to be subdivided, then you’d have to go to the Planning Board, and you’d have to go to subdivision and all of that. So, this is for everybody, I’m saying that this is not the issue here. The issue is, can we permit a lot to be built on that has 22.44 feet of road frontage? And that’s why I asked the question before, and I didn’t realize that there was a controversy here. I mean, we could, you could get one foot of land, I guess you could get one foot of land wide, deep from her mother, and extended it out 18 feet. I mean, technically, you could do that, and you’d have 40 feet, and there would be no question, it wouldn’t even need a variance. Having said that, you’ve asked for a variance, and we will consider the variance, since you apparently are not willing to ask or to buy, I don’t even want to get into gifting, you don’t want to try to buy 18 feet by 1 foot from your mother, to make your road frontage legal. You could do that. Having said that, any other comments from anybody else before we talk about it? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Is it too late to speak? MR. STONE-I will re-open the public hearing, for the purpose of additional comment. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED PETE GREEN MR. GREEN-My name is Pete Green. I live at 11 Founders Way. If I understood the Board, 15 feet of the 17 feet that she has as a right of way is not really road frontage? MR. HAYES-No. That’s on her second parcel. MR. GREEN-That’s on her second. MR. STONE-That’s on her second parcel. She owns a panhandle, a corridor of approximately 22 by 44, 22.44 by 200, as I read this drawing. MR. GREEN-I think I echo the voice of the other people that were here. No one would object to one home going in, but what’s the future going to bring? Do they have to come back before the Board before any more of that half can be developed? MR. STONE-Two Boards. MR. GREEN-I don’t think anyone would be objecting to one home going in. MR. STONE-And that’s all Ms. Naatz is talking about at this particular time. MR. GREEN-Is it true that they have to be one home on an acre lot in that area? MR. STONE-Yes, that is also true. MR. HAYES-There’s a number of regulations. 12 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. STONE-A number of regulations, to subdivide this thing, I mean, the most homes that you could put on this lot, under current zoning, is 3.3. Correct, Craig? Three. MR. BROWN-Well, right now it’s one lot. You can put one house on it, unless you go through subdivision. MR. STONE-Yes. If you go subdivision, the most you could do, under current zoning, without a change, or a variance, is three. MR. BROWN-I think that’s a simplification of the process, but, yes, that’s a potential. MR. GREEN-Thank you. MR. STONE-It could be more, obviously, if you. MR. BROWN-It could be a lot less, too. MR. STONE-And right now you’re saying that you’re going to put your house on there and that’s the only plans you have to do? Is that what I heard you say? MS. NAATZ-At this time. MR. STONE-At this time, okay, and there’s a process. I’ll close the public hearing, excuse me. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-At this time, that’s all you’re asking, and you’d have to go through, as we said, a totally different, or more involved process if you did anything else. All right. Having said that, any other questions? Norman, how about we start with you. MR. HIMES-Thank you. I feel that to pursue the acquisition of the land, or some kind of an exchange such as the Chairman described earlier, it would make, it would actually remove the problem that we’re talking about right now. I wish they would reconsider and take that approach, and that would satisfy the requirements, which, you have to look down the road, it would appear that we should have known better, and should you dispose of the property, it could be developed. So why would you not take the approach of getting a little bit more that would satisfy the requirement, as described by Craig and Mr. Stone. In that case, I’d go along with it, but presently I have a hard time agreeing. That’s all I have. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Well, I have to echo the sentiments of my colleague here. It would seem to me it would be a simple matter to acquire just additional land to keep the waters calm. That’s my approach. At the present time, quite frankly, up until the last minute, I’m not even sure where I stand on this issue. That’s it, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I share the same concerns, more so from the road that it attaches to, because that road is becoming highly traveled. In the winter, when the snow banks pile up and the cars are heading to West Mountain, I can see a problem exiting from that property. If there’s some way that you can widening that strip, make it easier to pass through, it might make this process a lot easier. I’m going to reserve final thoughts on it. MS. NAATZ-Can I say something here? MR. STONE-Go ahead. MS. NAATZ-Twenty feet is quite a bit of frontage. I mean, it’s big enough for, what, three cars, actually four. MR. STONE-Parking spaces in Queensbury are nine feet, right? MR. BROWN-Nine by twenty. MR. STONE-Nine by twenty. So we’re talking nine feet wide is what we consider a parking space. So it’s a little over two parking spaces, if you think about it that way. 13 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MS. NAATZ-Right. Fire engines go by the house all the time. I have friends that are firemen, and they have no problem getting in and out. The furniture that I’m going to have, I’ve got big trucks coming in, and now, and they don’t have any problem. I don’t see where a fire truck, I really don’t see where a fire truck is going to make any difference. MR. STONE-Help me. I saw a grass strip. I didn’t see trucks going in and out. MR. HAYES-It’s a modular house she’s saying. MR. STONE-I know that you’re going to have. MS. NAATZ-Right. MR. STONE-You haven’t had trucks going in and out? MS. NAATZ-No, but there will be. MR. STONE-Okay. MS. NAATZ-When the construction is going on. MR. STONE-I thought I saw just plain grass with no tracks. You’re not running trucks in there now. MS. NAATZ-No. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I guess I’m going to disagree, in this case, with my fellow Board members. I think we’re getting off track, based on the fact that this is a pre-existing lot, which means it’s a legal lot at this particular point. The only question is, by allowing the applicant to use what amounts to a legal lot by grandfather, does the road frontage that’s there represent an adequate entry point to a “T” shaped lot? I think in this particular case, we’re only putting an 890 square foot house on a 3.3 acre lot, which is tremendously generous. I mean, that’s a very low impact use of the property, in my mind. I think some of the neighbors have pointed that out, that if, it’s in fact, one house, they’d consider it that, and that’s their concern. So in my mind, fire and emergency vehicles are certainly important, but we are talking about one house, one single family house, that’s 846 square feet, in this particular case, and a 20 foot driveway is bigger than some of the roads that were used by use in Queensbury to this day now. So I think for an applicant to have owned the property for as long as they have, I think, in this particular circumstance, and not be able to build a single family house on a parcel of this size represents, I think that’s overly harsh, in my opinion, and I think, as far as examining the test, I think that necessarily requiring an applicant to go out and buy property from a neighbor, which, under our laws and stuff, is not necessarily compelled on the person that you’re buying it from, I think is, that’s too far, as far as a feasible alternative. I think it’s a good idea to suggest it, and have you pursue it, but to have that be necessarily the solution is too far, because your neighbor doesn’t have to agree to sell you property. In this case it’s your mother, but she doesn’t have to agree, I mean, if she doesn’t want to. So I guess in this particular circumstance the test, in the cumulative sense, falls in favor of the applicant. I don’t think it’s a self-created difficulty. It’s a pre-existing lot. So I’m in favor of the application. MS. NAATZ-Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m in favor. There’s a couple of things that trip me that way. One, some of the things that Jaime was just saying. Technically, it looks like the applicant could go out and buy a one foot deep strip of property, and qualify it and not have to come in for a variance, and instead of using that trick, she has come in honestly and asked for a variance. The other factor is, as we’ve had these situations before, I’ve thought about why the requirement for a 40 foot wide strip on a Town road, and it strikes me that maybe there’s about three reasons. One would be to control the number of individual driveways that might be entering on the road, and in this case, we aren’t adding that much. Emergency vehicle access certainly is a consideration, but I think all the emergency vehicles anywhere around here are no more than eight feet wide. I don’t know of any that are over sized for width. Eight feet’s the normal standard for trucks, and certainly a driveway, even if she doesn’t pave the full 22 feet for the right of way, is going to be more than adequate to get a fire truck or an ambulance in there, and the only other thing I can see, why there would be a requirement for 40 feet minimum, is to avoid a whole bunch of houses on extremely narrow lots, and we certainly aren’t accomplishing that here. So I don’t see any conflict with the general intent of the 40 foot. It’s a big piece of land. It’s been pointed out it’s a low impact use of that land at this point. Any other use is 14 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) going to have to be back in before Boards. So I’m not concerned about future. I have no problem with it. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we need to focus on what the plan is here, not on what might happen in the future. I, myself, have a 15 foot right of way that’s over 300 feet long, and there’s no problem plowing it out. You’ve just got to get chugging in the winter time to make sure you make it all the way in. So, I don’t have a problem with it. MR. STONE-I feel pretty much the same way as the last three gentlemen. We’ve done it before. We have allowed 40 feet. I think Mr. McNulty put it quite well why we have 40 feet. In this particular case, as Mr. Hayes says, we have one lot, 3.3 acres. You’re asking to put a very small domicile, residence on this lot. Twenty-two feet is a fairly wide driveway. It’s not 40 feet, but it’s a fairly wide driveway, and as I say, I gave you the opportunity to use a trick, and you don’t want to use a trick, and I understand that totally. I mean, we could make it 40 feet. We may want to address that at some point in the future. We really ought to know what 40 feet means, because if 40 feet means 18 feet, a foot wide, and then 22 feet or whatever it is, we should think about that, but that’s not the issue here, but as I say, we’ve done it before, and I think some points have been made. It is a pre- existing lot. Certainly the benefit to you is you can put a house on it, on some land that you love. The detriment to the community really is very minimal when you think about it. I mean, it’s not 40 feet. That’s really about the only detriment. The concern that has been expressed by some of your neighbors is a valid concern for the future, but it does not really effect this particular variance. Having said that, I’ll call for a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2000 KATHY LEE NAATZ, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Corinth Road. The applicant proposes construction of an 864 square foot single family dwelling. Specifically, the applicant is requesting 17.56 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage requirements per Section 179-70, Frontage on Public Streets. Benefit to the applicant, the benefit is the applicant would be permitted to construct the home as she desires on property she currently owns. Feasible alternatives, I believe feasible alternatives are limited, based on the pre-existing nature of the lot. Additional land could be acquired, but it’s not possible at this particular moment, or not contemplated. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that the 17.56 feet of relief is moderate, in this particular circumstance. It’s less than a 50% variance. The effects on the neighborhood or community? I believe that there are very minimal effects on the neighborhood or community. The applicant proposes construction, as I’ve already said, of one single family house on a 3.3 acre parcel. I believe it’s a very minimal or low intensity usage of the property. Is the difficulty self-created? I don’t believe that it is. I believe that it’s more attributable to the pre-existing configuration of this lot, which only has 22.44 feet of road frontage. Therefore, I think the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I move for its approval. Duly adopted this 28 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally MR. STONE-There you go. MS. NAATZ-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2000 TYPE II HC-1A BOATS BY GEORGE OWNER: GEORGE R. PENSEL 18 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 78 SQ. FT. DECK AND 42 SQ. FT. RAMP. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/14/2000 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-37.2 LOT SIZE: 1.13 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-79 GARY ZIBRO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; GEORGE PENSEL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2000, Boats by George, Meeting Date: June 28, 2000 “Project Location: 18 State Route 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 15 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) construction of a 78 sf deck and a 42 sf ramp. Relief Required: Applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the HC-1A zone, §179-23. Also, the applicant requests 16 feet of relief from the 75 foot setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, §179-28. Further, the applicant requests relief from §179-79 for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the required second access in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocating the ramp/stairs toward the center of the property. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 20 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as extreme. 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, however, a portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing location of the building on the site and the institution of the TCO. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-312 commercial interior alteration issued 5/22/00 Sign Permit 99-3431 issued 11/2/99 Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Consistency with the County recommendation would be suggested; removal if the property changed ownership. The NYS UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE requires the proposed second access. The proposed construction should not present difficulties in the future, should further expansion of Rte. 149 be contemplated. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 14, 2000 Project Name: Boats By George Owner: George R. Pensel ID Number: QBY-AV-55-2000 County Project#: Jun00-21 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 78 sq. ft. deck and a 42 sq. ft. ramp. Relief is requested from side yard setback requirements and for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Site Location: 18 State Route 149 Tax Map No.: 36-1-37.2 Staff Notes: The existing non- conforming structure to which the applicant proposes to add a deck and ramp is already only 7’6” from the western property line and the proposal would reduce that setback to zero (see attached site development data sheet and site plan). Staff is concerned about the extremity of the setback deficiency in this already crowded area just east of the intersection of State Routes 9 and 149. Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with condition that the proposed stairs be moved and the deck brought back to 7.5’ from the lot line if the second lot is sold.” Signed, Terry Ross, 6/15/00. MR. STONE-Gentlemen? MR. ZIBRO-My name’s Gary Zibro. MR. PENSEL-I’m George Pensel. I’m the owner of the property. MR. ZIBRO-Again, under the County Recommendation, George is the current owner of both existing lots. He owns both parcels right next to each other. So we’re basically asking for relief from himself, if that’s a possible question here. MR. STONE-Well, I’ll ask the question that I asked of Mr. Pensel the other day, just get the answer on the record. Why doesn’t he combine the lots? MR. ZIBRO-It’s financial hardship. There’s a substantial mortgage on the piece of property, and therefore I can’t combine the two properties at this time until I combine the mortgage with one lender. So that’s the reason. MR. STONE-And the seven and a half foot number that the County came up with is because the building is seven and a half foot from the line at the moment? MR. ZIBRO-Exactly. MR. PENSEL-Yes. It’s a building that I purchased in 1982, and came to the Zoning Board to put about a 30 foot addition forward, back in 1983, and that was what created the seven and a half foot setback on that property. Actually, it was about the same. The original building. MR. ZIBRO-It was eight foot before. MR. STONE-Yes. Any questions of the applicant, comments? MR. HAYES-What exactly is the Code that is compelling the? Fire code? I mean, why does he have to build the ramp, or whatever? 16 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. ZIBRO-A couple of reasons, fire code for one, second access. Feasibility, his adjoining lot is elevated. So it makes it much more practical sense to come out to that elevation. It’s his second story deck that we’re doing here. MR. STONE-Okay. Is the second story used now? MR. ZIBRO-It was offices, and we are remodeling those offices. MR. STONE-Okay, and that’s where you need the second access for the upstairs, the second floor? MR. PENSEL-Yes. MR. STONE-And rather than go just down the inside stairs, you want to be able to go out on the deck and go to this other lot. MR. ZIBRO-We need both. MR. STONE-You need both. MR. ZIBRO-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ZIBRO-We have already installed new conforming stairs to the structure. MR. HAYES-That’s Code now, is two? MR. ZIBRO-Two accesses, yes. MR. BROWN-Apparently that’s the New York State Building Code. MR. ZIBRO-Two fire egresses. Actually, we’ll have three, because we’ll have two doors out in front, and we’ve actually improved the fire egress out the back of his own building because of this project. MR. STONE-Any other questions, comments that the Board wishes to make, before I open the public hearing? Hearing none, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions of the applicant? Anything else you want to add before we talk about it? All right, Chuck, let’s talk about it, Mr. Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Well, on the basis of what I’ve heard and what I’ve read here, that the fire code demand at least two egresses, is that correct, what I heard? MR. ZIBRO-Yes. MR. ABBATE-You currently have three? MR. PENSEL-We have one. MR. ABBATE-You have one. MR. ZIBRO-We currently have two, okay. What we have approval for is 13 feet of a 26 foot deck, okay, and what we’d like to do is put on the other 13 feet of the 26 foot deck and bring us to the seven and a half foot setback, and then create a nice gradual access to his elevated lot where he currently stores his boats for sale. Okay. MR. STONE-Will that be, you can walk under that? That’ll be sort of a bridge from the second floor deck to the lot? 17 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. ZIBRO-You can’t walk underneath that, no. You can walk underneath it to access his downstairs offices, and his shop. MR. STONE-No, but between that seven and a half foot area, between the building and the property line, what is that going to look like? MR. ZIBRO-The only place you can walk underneath that would be to access the meter for the power company, which we did upgrade the electrical service also. MR. STONE-Well, it’s going to be like a bridge, though, from the second story of the deck, right? MR. ZIBRO-Yes. MR. STONE-Over the land. MR. PENSEL-It’s going to be like a set of stairs down. MR. ZIBRO-Well, we can go either way. We can either graduate it down, or we can keep it gradual to reach the higher elevation of the property. MR. STONE-Now you’ve confused me. Here’s the building. MR. HAYES-You’re looking at it from 149, right? MR. STONE-Yes, I’m looking at it from 149. MR. ZIBRO-It’s going to go to your right. MR. STONE-It’s going to go to the right, but the deck is going to go all the way to the property line? MR. ZIBRO-Yes. MR. BROWN-The deck is going to the edge of the building, and the access to the deck is going to be either a ramp or steps down to the property line. MR. ZIBRO-Depending on what you guys will allow us to do. MR. HAYES-That’s going to pitch wider than the actual overhang of the deck, then, the steps, by definition, because you’re going to the property line, versus the edge of the building. MR. ZIBRO-The deck is only the width of the building. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. HAYES-That’s still seven and a half feet away from the property line. MR. ZIBRO-Right. MR. STONE-But if you put steps in, then how are people going to get up to? MR. ZIBRO-If we have to put steps in, if we go down with steps, then you have to go back up with additional steps to get to his elevated lot. That’s why we would like to slope it. MR. STONE-That’s why I assumed you had a ramp going over there. MR. ZIBRO-That is why. It just doesn’t make sense, as far as that aspect goes. MR. STONE-Well, what was presented to the County? MR. ZIBRO-The same proposal. MR. STONE-Well, I’m hearing two, which one? MR. ZIBRO-The ramp. MR. STONE-When I said walking underneath, I meant that it’s not going to be a solid structure all the way to the ground. I don’t say that you’re going to have people walking under there, but. 18 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. ZIBRO-No. There’ll be a post at about seven, six, eight foot from the property line, and then that will carry the expanse of the ramp, which will carry the other eight feet. MR. PENSEL-See, the other ramp, the other way that’s already approved is to put the people right down in the center of my driveway, or my parking area, as opposed to getting where we really want them, over to that other area. MR. ABBATE-In either case now, I want to convince myself, in either case now, the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code demands the proposed second access. Am I correct on that, Staff? MR. BROWN-Based on the renovations they did upstairs to the offices, yes. MR. ABBATE-Based on the renovation that they’ve already completed upstairs. MR. BROWN-That they’re in the process of completing. They’re required to have another means of egress from those offices, yes, and they can only provide one through the building. So they need another one through the front. MR. STONE-They could put one off the deck. They could go straight down from the second story deck into the parking lot, right toward 149, give or take. That’s what they could do. MR. ZIBRO-Actually, by putting this ramp out, would give us less encroachment on the 75 foot corridor, which we’ve already been approved for to go further than that with a set of stairs. We just have a side setback difficulty and we own both lots. It’s not feasible to combine them at this time, and we’re basically looking for a variance with what the County also recommends, that if something happens drastic to George or whatever, where the property does have to sell, then that access to the neighboring lot would be removed. MR. STONE-And you’re willing to stipulate that? MR. ZIBRO-Yes, we’re definitely willing to stipulate that. MR. ABBATE-As part of the stipulation, you wouldn’t have any problem with that this evening? MR. ZIBRO-None whatsoever. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Okay. So are you yes or no? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I think as long as that stipulation is added on, that for the property, that if it changes hands, it will revert back to the original width of that building, then I would not have a problem with it. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, it’s not quite a negative setback, but it’s close. Zero is close, but it’s a unique circumstance, for sure, and the benefit to the applicant is very clear. I mean, it’s a working site. It’s a commercial load site. Based on where the building stands now and the feasible alternatives I believe are limited, and I think the applicant has presented, in this case, even though it kind of creates a setback, a greater setback problem, as far as the side property line, I think this is the best alternative. Clearly, it’s already been put on the record that he’s compelled to do something. So he’s not just doing it for his own sake. So I believe he’s investigated feasible alternatives pretty effectively here. The relief is certainly substantial. Twenty feet of a twenty foot requirement, that’s the full Monty, in this particular case. I believe that there won’t be any real negative effects on the neighborhood or community. I believe the 149 corridor, particularly this section, is highly commercialized. This is a very functional and ongoing business, and the applicant certainly has his own self-interest in maintaining as good a piece as he can, in this particular circumstance. So I guess for the reasons that are all combined, I think it’s a, the pre-existing location of the building is really what’s driving this application, and I think the test falls in favor of the applicant. MR. STONE-Chuck? 19 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. MC NULTY-I think most of it’s been said. It strikes me that the solution proposed is a very reasonable solution. It makes a lot of sense. It gives better and safer access to the extra lot, and I have no problem with it. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Obviously the ramp makes more sense than a set of stairs, going up down, up down, that’s going to get old. So it makes sense to me. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Well, I feel the application is a good one. I see no reason not to approve it. MR. STONE-I certainly concur with my fellow Board members. The only thing I might ask, and I understand the reluctance and the reason behind not combining these lots at the moment. Would you consider agreeing to combining, at your earliest possible convenience, when this financial situation is taken care of, hopefully you’ll have good business? MR. PENSEL-Yes. That’s definitely planned. In fact, there has been more activity, relative to my property and approvals. I have an acre and a half site that I have approval to go ahead and create as a 30,000 square foot storage area. Once that application is complete, then further applications to develop this property will be coming to the Board and we’ll be refinancing and doing a much larger financial picture later on. So I have full intentions of combining the two parcels. MR. STONE-You’re on record. We won’t have to put it in the motion, because we’re granting a variance, and you’ve already stipulated the other way, and the other thing will take care of itself. Having said that, do I hear a motion, please? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2000 BOATS BY GEORGE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 18 State Route 149. The applicant proposes construction of a 78 square foot deck and 42 square foot ramp, and relief required, the applicant is requesting 20 foot of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirements of the HC-1A zone, Section 179-23. Also, the applicant requests 16 feet of relief from the 75 foot setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, Section 179-28. Additionally, the applicant requests relief from Section 179-79 for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant will be permitted to construct the required second access in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, the feasible alternatives may be relocating the ramp stairs toward the center of the property. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Twenty feet of relief from the twenty foot requirement may be interpreted as extreme. However, based on the unique pre-existing location, configuration of the lot, this has been offset. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, and we did not hear any objections to this construction. Is this difficulty self-created? Well, the difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. However, a portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing location of the building on a site in an institution of the TCO. The applicant has agreed to the stipulation of combining at the earliest possible time the two existing sites. Another stipulation is that, in the event that the applicant desires to sell the property, the deck between, which is 7.5, as you indicated, between both lots will be removed. Part of the second stipulation of the Travel Corridor Overlay applies to the entire construction. I propose a motion to approve Area Variance No. 55-2000. Duly adopted this 28 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-I have a question of Craig, who is not here at the moment, and I’ll ask it. The deck that’s been approved, is that in the TCO also, the Travel Corridor Overlay? MR. ZIBRO-Yes. MR. HAYES-It has to be, by definition. MR. STONE-Did you get a variance for that? MR. ZIBRO-No, we got a building permit because we were only dealing with the side setback issue, and at the time, what they had told us, okay, was that it’s a 50 foot front setback, okay, but that it’s in the Travel Corridor, but the construction on 149 in that area has already been completed, okay. MR. STONE-I understand, but you’re within 75, and you still need a variance. MR. ZIBRO-We were within 75. 20 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. STONE-And you should have had a variance. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to hold in abeyance my motion until we get a clearance of this thing. MR. STONE-Well, you hold the motion. I just want to get that answered when Craig comes back. MR. HAYES-If that’s not going to be any closer than 16 feet, then we’ve already given that relief. In fact, that’s going parallel, right, so it’s not going closer to the Travel Corridor Overlay. MR. ZIBRO-Exactly. MR. STONE-If we give it for the part that’s before us, but the part that they’ve already got a building permit for, we have not given. MR. ABBATE-Doesn’t have a variance. MR. STONE-A variance. MR. ABBATE-That’s a good point. MR. HAYES-If we give 16 foot of relief from the 75 foot corridor overlay, if they don’t ever go closer than 49 feet, or 59 feet, then we don’t need any more relief than that, right? MR. ZIBRO-That’s exactly right. MR. HAYES-If it’s running parallel like this, the deck is running like this. MR. STONE-It’s an extension of it. If this thing if this new area is less than 75 feet, then so is this, and we never gave a variance for that. MR. HAYES-You didn’t give a Travel Corridor Overlay variance for the? MR. STONE-This he did, for the new section, but not for the old one, and it’s not in the application. MR. ABBATE-Right. In other words, there should have been a variance approval prior to this application. MR. HAYES-For the old part of it? MR. STONE-Well, it’s still new. MR. ZIBRO-It’s still new. We were issued a permit for half the deck. So now we’re asking, you want to know why? Because we were just looking for a side setback variance, okay, but included in the variance also is a six foot setback. MR. STONE-I understand that, and I’m only saying before the building permit was issued for that, Staff should have said you need a variance. MR. ZIBRO-Technically, yes. MR. STONE-That’s the question I want to ask Staff, and I think he’s gone for the night. The problem is, if we need it, it hasn’t been advertised, and we can’t just include it. I mean, that would be the easy way, just say this also extends to the rest. MR. HAYES-They advertised for Travel Corridor Overlay zone relief, I mean, it was advertised, basically, right, for this parcel? MR. PENSEL-It was. That’s right. MR. ZIBRO-It is advertised in a general sense right here. MR. STONE-This may be the whole thing. It may very well be. How wide is this deck? MR. ZIBRO-Six foot. MR. STONE-Wide across the building. 21 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. ZIBRO-Twenty-six feet. MR. STONE-Twenty-six by six? MR. ZIBRO-Yes. MR. STONE-Well, that’s not 78, is it? That’s 156. So it’s not included in that part, at least. MR. ZIBRO-Because we only needed, but it was presented to me that all we needed was relief for the side setback. MR. STONE-What you need is, because you have to go out 20 feet from the property line, even though the building is there. MR. ZIBRO-Even though the building is there, we had to go back 20 feet, so I can only build half my deck. I had to put the. MR. HAYES-We advertised for corridor relief. They’ve got constructive notice that that’s at issue here tonight. MR. STONE-It may very well be, but I just want Craig to answer that question. MR. ABBATE-It’s not specific to the ramp, though. MR. URRICO-Yes, it says 75 foot setback. MR. ABBATE-Setback from the Travel Corridor Overlay, but it doesn’t address the ramp. MR. HAYES-To any construction point. MR. ABBATE-Which means he requires a variance. MR. STONE-It may well be. It’s a technicality, but I’m saying that the building permit shouldn’t have been issued. Mr. Brown, we have a question. MR. HAYES-Is that deck going to be closer to 149 than? MR. ZIBRO-Than what we’re asking for the relief for? No. MR. STONE-Craig, the question that we have, a building permit has been issued for the section of deck that is more than 20 feet off the property line. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Was there relief sought from the Travel Corridor Overlay? MR. BROWN-No, there wasn’t. I just noticed that reading the notes tonight. If you want to consider it as part of the relief. MR. STONE-Can we? That’s the question we’re? MR. BROWN-It wasn’t advertised. I don’t think you’re going to get any public comment about it. MR. HAYES-There was no advertisement for Travel Corridor Overlay relief? MR. BROWN-I think there was. MR. STONE-There was, but it didn’t include the whole deck. MR. BROWN-This description is for a specific size deck. I don’t see a problem putting it together. MR. HAYES-What’s the precedent on that, Mike, as far as, it’s not a material difference? MICHAEL O’CONNOR MR. O’CONNOR-Somebody’s got to raise it. MR. STONE-Someone’s got to raise it. 22 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. BROWN-Yes. I don’t think you’re going to get any argument, that you’ve considered it as part of your. MR. STONE-I just want to be sure. All right. So let’s make the motion that as far as the Travel Corridor Overlay, this applies to the whole new construction. Just add that to your motion, to the entire deck, or whatever length it is. MR. BROWN-That was misidentified. MR. ABBATE-Okay. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally MR. ZIBRO-Thank you very much. MR. PENSEL-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. STONE-The thing that people don’t always understand is that we have to know from what we are giving relief, and sometimes people will say, well, why are you arguing over a half inch, or something, because we need to know. AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2000 TYPE II WR-3A CEA JANE N. BARTON AND OTHERS 52 NOLAN CAMP ROAD, OFF HALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE AN EXISTING 340 SQ. FT. GARAGE WITH A 720 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AND HEIGHT RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 42-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 5.2 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT, JANE BARTON, PRES. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-2000, Jane N. Barton, Meeting Date: June 28, 2000 “Project Location: 52 Nolan Camp Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing 338 sf garage and construction of a 720 sf garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 13 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement and 6.5 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-3A zone, §179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to create a large storage building on the property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller structure both in square footage and height. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 13 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate, while the 6.5 feet of relief from the 16 foot height requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, (41%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed two story, 720 sf garage has only one garage door. It appears as though the same amount of vehicle storage could be achieved with a much smaller building. Is the camp a year round dwelling? Will the second floor of the garage be used as living space? While this new construction is not considered expansion of a non-conforming structure, referral to the Planning Board may be considered. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Question of Staff, before we let you go, is this 3A or 1A? MR. BROWN-Yes, 3A, but the agenda does say 1A. It’s zoned 3A. MR. STONE-It is zoned 3A. Okay. We ought to make that correction. MR. BROWN-It’s just a typo in the agenda. MR. STONE-No, it’s in the Staff Notes. MR. BROWN-Is it in the Staff Notes? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. 23 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. STONE-Okay. So, Mr. O’Connor, go ahead. 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 Jane Nolan, one of the six families that own the property that we have before you this evening. I think the essence of this application, you can look at on Staff comments, that what is proposed here is going to have minimum effects on the neighborhood or the community as a result of the action that we ask. The property, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, is in an WR-3A zone, and that’s why, I’ll address the two requested variances separately. The first is a request for a variance of 13 feet from the 75 foot shoreline setback, and then we have a height request also. It’s only in the WR-3A zone that we have the 75 foot setback. I’ll show you a portion of the map of the area. The property in question is this property right here. These are all the camps. You went in by Mozals, and in by Gore’s and what not. All of these properties, and I think probably 90% of the lake enjoy a 50 foot setback. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-I think this was made WR-3A because the back of the property is so steep, and the idea was to have less development on the hill, and that’s why they did the three acre. The three acre density issues really are before you, but as a side effect of the three acre density is they get charged with a further setback from the lake, which is actually contrary to having of the preservation of the land, because it’s steep. They make you go back into the property further, and creating more scarring, because you’re actually going to go back into the land. Just past that, this is a better configuration. The general area of the map, or general area of the survey is a combination of different tax map parcels. It’s really trying to locate the parcel. If you look at the site plan itself that we submitted to you, you will see the five acre parcel that the Nolan family owns. What they’re simply trying to do is replace a garage that has become obsolete and needs to be taken down, on the very west end of their property. They’ve asked for 13 foot relief from the 75 foot setback because the further they go back from the lake, the more excavation that they have to do into the bank. This accommodates very well minimum excavation into the bank, excavation that won’t cause continuing erosion, won’t cause scarring. If you go along the lake and you’re out on the lake, and you look behind the Mozal property, you look behind the Zack property and a couple of those other properties, you will see that we have a continuing problem there, where when those places were built, they were built back into the hill, and there’s just no way of keeping the bank from continually falling down. If you got into this property and you actually looked at the old garage there, I’m told that at one time you could walk around that garage, and what has happened there, even the little minimum excavation into that bank, that bank has fallen down by erosion into the garage itself. So if we move it closer to the lake, we’re just going to have to go, or move it further from the lake, we’re just going to go further into the hill. I think there’s more impact if we go into the hill than there is if we leave it. If you take a look at the site, right in front of the old garage, there are probably three or four trees that will come down, and then there is an open area, and then there is a whole new set of trees on the bank, or on the lake side of the bank. None of those trees will be touched in any manner, and I was out on the lake last weekend and tried to get an idea of the site from the lake. You can’t. I went up there today to actually walk it, to make sure that I knew what I was talking about, but if you’re out on the lake and you’re looking up, you hardly see the old garage. The old garage faces the lake the same as this garage is going to face the lake. It has about maybe 18 feet in height, and this one here is 22.5. The difference of 4.5 feet isn’t going to make a great deal of difference. They’re going to use an earthen tone color on it, something similar to the color of my jacket, by coincidence. It will not be visible from the lake. If you go to the west, it’s not visible from any property. If you go to the east, it’s not visible from any property. This is one of the nicest properties on the lake, as far as being isolated and not impacting upon a neighbor. MR. STONE-It’s another world. MR. O'CONNOR-You wouldn’t want to go in there fast late at night. They might not find you for a while. You’d be going very slow during the day time. So, basically I think there is justification for the setback requested from the lakeshore 75 foot. There’s no impact upon anything as far as visibility or something of that nature because of that. It makes a natural use of the topographical feature of the lot as itself. You get to the next issue, and I don’t mean to jump from one issue, if somebody still has a question on the setback from the lake. MR. STONE-No. This is within, this is more than 50 feet back. MR. O'CONNOR-This is 62 feet back. MR. STONE-Sixty-two, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And it’s 62 feet at one corner. The garage is actually kitty corner. I didn’t measure what it is at the other corner. So your maximum relief at one corner is 13 feet, and as you 24 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) get to the other end of the garage, it’s probably 10 feet. It’s not substantial in that nature. When you get to the height, if the saw the structure that’s on there, it’s an old, old camp, and there is no storage in the camp. It’s not a very secure building. In fact, it was broken in to apparently this winter or this spring, and they have six different families that own the property. They have four families that actively use the property, or all six use it, at different times, and the want to be able to have some on site storage for their own personal goods, that’s secure and is kind of modernized. There’s no intention of having any living quarters in this building and they’re trying to accommodate the site. You’ll see that they only put one garage door in. Part of the front bank will be filled back in after the garage is built, to accommodate the natural grading and disturb as little as they can of what’s on the site. The height difference is 22.5. That’s 6.5 difference in height. You can’t notice it. You’re not going to notice it. If they attach this garage to the house, which was the first part of the discussion I had with the applicant, was, why don’t you just attach it to the back of the house and then you’re not going to have a problem with your height. You can go up to 35 feet, the same area, same zone, and they said it just doesn’t fit everything. They’d rather have it off to the side, have it where they think that it would be an improvement to the neighborhood, an improvement to the lake to tear down the garage. If you take a look at the site, the peak is facing the lake. It’s only the peak that actually exceeds over the height, if you can see it, and you’ve got to be probably further out on the lake to see it. If you come in where normal boats travel past the property, because of the bank that sticks out in front of the property, you aren’t even going to see the garage. If you see anything, you’re going to see the very top of it. I mean, again, it’s something that has very little impact, and they’re just trying to build something that’s decent for storage. MR. STONE-You said something about 35 feet, Mr. O’Connor. MR. O’CONNOR-If you attached it to the house. MR. STONE-Not in that zone. MR. BROWN-Twenty-eight feet. MR. STONE-It’s still 28 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-If it’s attached to part of the house? MR. BROWN-You can go to the principal height is 28 feet, in the Waterfront zone. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, 28 feet. MR. STONE-That’s all, I just wanted to correct that, that’s all. MR. O'CONNOR-WR-1A, I think, is 35. MR. STONE-No, both 28. MR. O'CONNOR-No? Okay. I’m not going to argue it. We’ve done, not that it sets a precedent or something, others have done pretty much the same thing, without any significant impact on anybody, and I think it’s a balancing act, when you’re talking about dimensional variances, not Use Variances or Area Variances. That’s basically the pitch we’d make. We also placed the garage over where it is because the septic system is behind the camp. They want to try and keep as much open space as they can behind there. I asked about shifting it, flipping it around so it was 24 sideways, and the 30 feet would extend toward the camp, and then that would give them very little side yard, or mean they would have to clean more area to get the same equivalent side yards. The properties to the west of it, one property probably accesses itself once in a while along that right of way, but the Mozal property, which is adjoining it, I guess the Mozal property now adjoins it because they bought all the way around the other little camp that’s next to them. They access themselves. MR. STONE-That’s the end of the road, Mozals. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-On the other side, on your side. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, everybody has some right of way which is undefined, the 10 foot, 12 foot right of way. It used to run right along the lake. MR. STONE-That’s the road that goes by Jim’s house, and, Mr. Underwood’s house. MR. UNDERWOOD-Fitzgerald Extension, yes. 25 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it went from my driveway all the way down to Nolan’s, or this was Bob Nolan’s place in the beginning, but it went all the way down and connected to Hall Road at one time, but when they built all those camps that you see on the map that you have in front of you, they actually filled it in and put it behind them and never made a connection at the top elevation where Mozal is down to where the lake level is, and nobody ever challenged that, because everybody had a better road. MR. STONE-Except the Nolans. MR. O'CONNOR-You owned the property. MRS. BEEMAN-We’re used to it. MR. STONE-Any questions of the applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would just say on the height thing, if you did like I did on my garage to get my height down, I went with a four foot knee wall, and then I went up to the ceiling and we use it as living space. So it’s a doable thing, even if you change yours to living space eventually. I don’t know what your intentions are for the outer camp. MR. O'CONNOR-Why would you be required to do that? What impact do you have, of a negative manner, on anybody? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know. I just think keeping the heights down is reasonable, is a reasonable thing to do. MR. O'CONNOR-I think when you get into areas and you get into dimensions, you get into balancing, and if you don’t use the balancing test, you aren’t performing what you’re supposed to be doing. Tell me who this is going to impact, being four foot, or six foot five over that restriction? Basically, what they need is some second floor storage. Do you want them to build a bigger, longer building, have a bigger wall that faces out into the lake? I mean, you could reconfigure the building and get the same square footage of storage, but it doesn’t make any sense. It has no impact on anybody. I mean, there’s a practical reason for trying to make the building shorter, more compact, and have decent storage. MR. STONE-You’re, and you indicated a willingness to stipulate this will not be used for living quarters? MR. O'CONNOR-No. I said it’s not being used for living quarters now. If it were going to be used for living quarters, we would have to come in here and, it doesn’t qualify as living quarters, Lew. MR. STONE-I know. MR. O'CONNOR-By the Building Code, we couldn’t live in there. You can’t build a sleeping camp in Queensbury. MR. STONE-We know that. That doesn’t say they don’t exist, that’s all. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, yes, but I argue this all the time. I don’t mean to be confrontational, but why do you ask for stipulations when they’re not part of the application? We’re not asking for living quarters. MR. STONE-You said it. MR. O'CONNOR-I answered the question of Staff. Staff asked the question, do we intend to use it as living quarters. Right now, no, but if they wanted to use it for living quarters, they would have the option of applying and qualifying. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And that I’m willing to stipulate. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s all. That’s really what I’m saying. I’m not suggesting that there would be a devious attempt to put living quarters in there. MR. UNDERWOOD-My only other question would be, if you’re going to re-do the camp, at some point, that if you put the garage behind there, it’ll, the camp will have to go where it is, I guess. You won’t be able to set it back so that the road’s there and the garage is past it, further in. 26 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. O'CONNOR-If the camp were re-done, I think the septic system would have to be re-done, because of the aging of the septic system, and that would allow a complete reconfiguration of the lot, and I think actually this placement best preserves the options, because it puts it over to the west end. If you brought it back in toward the center, you’d be on that plateau, and you’d probably crowd where you’d have potentials for putting the camp. So it keeps the options open by sticking it over to the west. MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant before I open the public hearing? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions of the applicant? Then let’s talk about it. Roy, you’re first this time. MR. URRICO-I think all the issues have been addressed. I am satisfied that they made a reasonable effort to have this building comply with the surrounding area and make it a nice addition to the area. I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I think there’s two, you know, variances asked for, and I guess I’ll deal with them one at a time. The setback from the lake I think is adequate. I think that Counselor points out that it’s more a function of the zoning in this particular circumstance. Sixty-two feet is a good setback. It’s not a great one, but it’s certainly a good one, and it really goes more to the footprint of the existing building as it is now. The other requested variance, the height variance, I think that alternatives, like my colleague has stated, I think alternatives have been explored, and I think that, basically, six families is a lot of families to have, when using a camp, and the need has been demonstrated. The benefit to the applicant has been demonstrated, and that’s certainly part of what we’re supposed to consider in this circumstance. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that it’s moderate in this case. Certainly I’d like to see it lower than that, but I don’t think I’d like to see a bigger or longer building than is there now, or has been proposed. The one that’s proposed I know it’s longer than the other one, but I would like to see the minimal footprint there, and I think that, I walked the property, and I viewed as much of it as I could, and I think, based on the way that it’s tucked into that bank, and the fact that past the building, which I think would be to the west, there is a lot of screening, natural screening, there. I don’t think that the visual impact is going to be that significant really at all in this particular circumstance, and I think as far as effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that this is, I believe, a five acre parcel, and this proposed new garage is tucked as far to the west as possible, and I don’t think it’s going to effect the neighborhood or community in a significant way. I think it’s going to be pretty much a non factor. So, certainly, as far as the difficulty being self-created, it’s self-created in the fact that they need more storage. They’ve determined that by themselves, but it certainly seems reasonable to me. So I think, on balance, in this particular case, I think it falls in favor of the applicant. I’m in favor. I mean, I certainly have concerns about it being used for living quarters, but that’s a matter for Code Enforcement, not for this panel, at this time. So that being dealt with by the Code, I’m okay with the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, looking at the setback, for me, the fact that the neighbors are in a one acre zone, rather than a three acre, doesn’t justify saying that we ought to allow a 50 foot setback for this property. The fact that somebody zoned it three acre instead means that they looked at it for some reason, but, I will agree that, looking at the slope of the land, it makes a lot more sense to build the replacement garage where it’s not going to impact the slope, and we had a situation like this a while ago up on Lake George, the same thing. It didn’t seem to make sense to move the building back into the slope because it was going to create more of a problem. So, on that basis, I’ve got no problem with the setback. I think it’s smarter to put it where it is than to try and dig it into the bank. Height wise, I think with the land rising up behind the camp and the garage, I can’t see where it’s going to impact anybody on the land side. Anybody that would conceivably build up there is going to be above this anyway, and likewise I would agree, I don’t think it’s going to have that much of an impact from the lake as it is proposed now. So I have no problem with either one of these. 27 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would echo the sentiments that Mike said about not cutting into the bank. I think the Mozals was a good lesson. I talked to Dan Barber and they took about 200 loads out of there just to get it so it was reasonable, and it’s still, trying to reach an angle of repose on the side of the hill there, for perpetuity. So, rather than cutting further back into the bank to give you your 30 feet in, I would rather see us shift it and keep it out on the flats there. I think it would be more sensible to do that. It’ll look a little closer to the lake, but if we’re going to minimize cutting back into the hill, and as you said, keep the trees in front (lost words). MR. STONE-How about the height, any comment? MR. UNDERWOOD-The height. I guess I’d go along with the height, but if it is eventually changed into living space, I would hope that they would upgrade their septic at some point. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman. MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes, I agree with everything that’s been said. I might add that it is very secluded. It is a very nice spot, but in connection with what’s being done, the height and the setbacks, the seclusion and the fact that the impact of the setbacks, both of them, I think they’re very, very modest. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Okay. I certainly agree with everything my fellow Board members have said. I have two comments. One, I believe that Counsel made a logical and persuasive argument for the setback of 13 feet and six and a half, but just as important, and I’m going to type this up and place it in front of me. I like what Counsel had to say, I’m going to try and paraphrase it. Why place a stipulation on a hypothetical occurrence and not strictly focus on the application before the Board? I like that, and I have no problems with the proposal. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly don’t disagree with my fellow Board members. As I have been on record many times about the lakes, both Lake George and Glen Lake, I have concerns about setback and too high. Certainly the setback here, the fact that it requires 75, 62 is more than adequate from what I hear my colleagues. I apologize. This is the first piece of property I have not gotten to in all the times I’ve been on the Zoning Board, but I figured, discretion was the better part of valor, but what I’m hearing is, but certainly the setback is more than adequate for the area. It’s a quirk of the zoning, I think, that we’re three acre there, and I think you adequately explained why. The height one troubles me more, but being someone who is very knowledgeable about lake property, having some of my own, and the pyramid factor that happens from families as they get bigger and bigger as you go down the pyramid, and the fact that you’re all still speaking to each other, and willing to cooperate, you are to be congratulated, and wanting to put space in so everybody can store their own goodies and own toys, I think it’s wonderful, and I really have no problem, and certainly the balancing test, the benefit to the applicant, particularly when you consider the location of this property and it’s visibility, both from any side you want to consider, it’s going to have minimal impact. So, having said that I would call for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2000 JANE N. BARTON, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 52 Nolan Camp Road, off Hall Road. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing 338 square foot garage and construction of a 720 square foot garage. Specifically, the applicant requests 13 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement, and 6.5 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the storage building and store their personal belongings there. Feasible alternatives, feasible alternates are limited in this particular case based on the embankment and the nature of the lot, and the existing sewer system and the location of the existing camp. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I don’t believe that 13 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement is significant, based on the fact that it does exceed the 50 foot requirement of a lot of the surrounding properties and the garage is already located within the setback, as it is now, before demolition. Certainly the 6.5 feet of relief from the 16 foot height requirement is more significant, but I don’t believe that it’s controlling, in this circumstance, based on the fact that the way the garage is going to be constructed back into the bank, with a pyramid effect, and some sort of earth tone type coloring, I believe, that it will not represent a significant amount of relief in that way. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe, based on the construction as I’ve already pointed out, and the location into the bank of the proposed garage or storage building, that the impacts will be minimal on the neighborhood, in this particular case, and the difficulty, I believe, is self-created, in that they want additional storage, but certainly the existing garage seems too small to 28 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) me, and it is in full repair. So I think, on balance, in this particular case, the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I move for its approval. Duly adopted this 28 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much, gentlemen. MRS. BEEMAN-Thank you. MR. STONE-All right. We have a couple of minutes that we can do. CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 21, 2000: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 2000, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 28 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant May 17, 2000: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MEETING OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2000, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 28 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant May 24, 2000: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 24, 2000 MEETING, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 28 day of June, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally MR. STONE-I move we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. 29 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 6/28/00) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 30