Loading...
2000-11-15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ROBERT MC NALLY NORMAN HIMES ALLAN BRYANT PAUL HAYES JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT CHARLES ABBATE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-Just in case people don’t know, if they’re here for a couple of applications that have been withdrawn, Melanie Hastings on Queen Mary Drive is not on the agenda this evening, nor is Independent Wireless, for a cell tower on Courthouse Drive. Both of these organizations or individuals have withdrawn their application. So they will not be on the agenda tonight. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 95-2000 TYPE II MICHAEL J. VASILIOU, INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: PEGGY ANN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 28 LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM BOTH THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT AND THE MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 21-99 ZONE: SR-1A TAX MAP NO. 121-1-2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 LOT SIZE: 32 ACRES TOTAL SECTION 179-19 MATT STEVES, MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 95-2000, Michael J. Vasiliou, Meeting Date: November 15, 2000 “Project Location: Peggy Ann Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 28 lot residential subdivision. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the 150 foot minimum average lot width requirement as well as relief from the 1 acre minimum lot size requirement of the SR-1A zone, § 179-19, as follows: Average lot width Proposed Acreage Lot 11 142.66____________________________________________________ Lot 12 148.66____________________________________________________ Lot 13 0.09_____________ ____________ Lot 14 137.50 0.73_________________________ Lot 15 137.50 0.73_________________________ Lot 16 137.50 0.73_________________________ Lot 17 0.97_________________________ Lot 19 0.90_________________________ Lot 20 0.90_________________________ Lot 21 0.90_________________________ Lot 22 0.91_________________________ Lot 23 0.85 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to create the desired number of lots. 2. Feasible alternatives: Reconfiguration appears to be a feasible alternative. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The creation of 12 substandard lots in addition to the 8 substandard lots previously approved, bringing the total of substandard lots to 20 out of 28 lots, may be interpreted as substantial relief, relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there appears to be sufficient land area for compliant configuration. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Subdivision 21-99 res. 4/27/99 16 lot residential subdivision (17 acres) AV 26-2000 res. 4/21/00 relief from min. lot area and width requirements Subdivision 6-2000 sketch plan phase approved 9/28/00 28 lot subdivision Staff comments: Lots 1 through 17, on the proposed map, consist of 18.78 acres; this represents 17 lots on almost 19 acres. Lots 18 through 28, on the proposed map, consist of 10.59 acres; this represents 11 lots on less than 11 acres. Overall (not considering road) this represents 28 lots on 29.37 acres. Density is not an issue; therefore, what limits the applicant from creating conforming lots? Density calculations reflect maximums allowable, not minimums. The property can be subdivided without relief. There appear to be feasible alternatives to the creation of a subdivision in which 70% of the lots do not meet the minimum requirements. A petition for rezoning might be better suited to address the applicant’s desire for smaller lots. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Any County? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. O’Connor. MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, this is probably Step Five of many steps that we’ve been making or taking in connection with subdivision of this land. We were before the Board, last year, I believe, with the adjoining property to the west of this, and we asked for a number of variances for that parcel. At that time, we did not have control of the lands to the south, or to the east, I guess, and basically, we obtained approval, and went all the way through to final approval to do a subdivision, and if you look at the map, you’re going to see the lollipop turnaround. It would be straight in. It’s a cookie cutter subdivision, lots on each side. We, basically, could do the same thing here, and put a lollipop in here, and have a turnaround to the subdivision, but this makes a lot more sense, from a planning point of view, from a Town road maintenance, installation of the water systems, and all of those concerns typically you have with subdivisions. This development in this way, and this road configuration in this way, is probably $28,000 more a person to put it into two lollipops, but it makes more sense. We established, when we did the first Area Variance subdivision or Area Variance application, I think, at that time you had a number of neighbors from Tyneswood that came in, that we’re not affecting the character of the neighborhood. We were not in any way being detrimental to the community. We’ve set up no cut zones on the back of the lots, and the sides of the lots, and if you take a look at the tax map, and I don’t know if you have that in your kit or not, we’re very much in conformance with the standards or the typical size lots on the adjoining subdivision, one being Tyneswood, and one being Pheasant Walk, and I think the subdivision to the 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) north of Peggy Ann Road, which is West Mountain Road. What we’re asking for is not substantial. I think you have letters, or Staff has letters, from the Water Department, from the Highway Department, saying that they like this manner of subdivision, as opposed to two lollipops, or turnarounds, cul de sacs. We’ve been to the Planning Board with the revised subdivision. In fact, we have obtained a modification of the first subdivision, so that we can go ahead and put in part of that subdivision road with a turnaround, which we will later abandon, if this gets approved all the way through, and the Planning Board approved that modification. They also approved, in a concept, this layout. Basically waiting for us to get a variance, an Area Variance, for the lots as we’ve laid them out on the application. There’s really no negative impact to the community by allowing this to happen, and there’s a positive impact because you’ve avoided two cul de sacs, which are apparently more problematic, harder to maintain, and not good, from a planning sense. It allows a loop system, and that’s basically what we’re trying to do. MR. STONE-Is that it? MR. O'CONNOR-That’s it. MR. STONE-Two questions that I have, and I’m sure the Board has others. I gather, from your statement, that you plan to dedicate these roads to the Town? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we do. MR. STONE-Therefore, they will be three rods wide to begin with, or 49 and a half feet? MR. O'CONNOR-Fifty feet. MR. STONE-Fifty feet. Has any consideration been given to keeping these roads private, and therefore narrowing them down and letting the homeowner’s association maintain the road, therefore getting more room? MR. O'CONNOR-You can’t get a building permit in the Town of Queensbury unless you have frontage on a Town Road. MR. STONE-You’ve got to have frontage. I see what you’re saying. Secondly, would you comment on Staff’s statement, density calculations reflect maximums allowable, not minimums. MR. O'CONNOR-Basically, outside of the road, combining both parcels, we have 29.37 acres, and we have a total of 28 lots. It’s a one acre zone. We’re less than the minimum. It says one acre per lot. I disagree with the phraseology. The minimum that you can have is one acre. MR. STONE-Right. The maximum you can have on the property is 29. some houses, lots. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay, but by 28, that’s almost maximizing it. I mean, at least in my judgement. Has the developer considered 26 or 25, to make more of these lots conform? MR. O'CONNOR-If you do, you can’t afford to do it. We go back to the lollipop. If you lose lots, you can’t lose lots and have the additional cost on the road. It just doesn’t make it feasible. You’re going to pass on whatever your cost is to the lot purchasers, and you’re getting to a point that there’s just, it’s not something you could pass on. MR. STONE-And you would agree that’s a judgement call? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a fact call, based upon what the market bears, and also based upon the fact that you really don’t have a lot of, you’re not going to change the road configuration by changing the number of lots. The road configuration is pretty well determined by the arches that are required, and that’s the geometry of that site. You’re going to have that loop. So if you talk about eliminating lots, what you might do is, this lot here, you could make it wider, or this lot here, you could make it wider, maybe, but it’s not going to be appreciably different on any lot, which is what you’re going to have. The other subdivisions, if you take a look at this map, are generally smaller. This was established the last time, and I’ll pass this from one end to the other. Our parcel that we had the subdivision approval for is to the west side. It hasn’t been reconfigured on the tax map, yet, and I guess Matt Steves tells me that they aren’t going to reconfigure the paper maps because they’re going to this type setup in the near future. This is the parcel that we’re adding to, and talking about. That says “Walk”, that is Tyneswood and West Mountain subdivision across. They’re all established subdivisions, most of them with smaller lots than what we propose, even with the variances, none of them with enforceable cutting zones, I believe, proposed. That, in fact, makes a lot of, you’re not going to have clear cut lots like you could have had, or like other subdivisions. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. HAYES-Yes. Matt, what are the lot sizes in Pheasant Walk, I mean, prototypically? MR. STEVES-Between Pheasant Walk and Tyneswood, your average is about 125 wide by 125 deep. So, just over, they run 20,000 square feet, is your typical lot in the subdivision. There’s some other ones in the back of the cul de sac, just like we have on the exterior of the curves, are larger lots, because that’s just the shape of the property, but if you look on the tax map that has been passed around, your typical lots run 20 to 22,000 square feet. MR. STONE-And what were they zoned? What were those areas zoned? MR. STEVES-I believe that was 20,000 square feet. MR. STONE-They were 20,000. This is one acre. MR. STEVES-It was 20,000. At the same time the deeds were developed, that’s what the zoning was. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-So we’re in conformity with the surrounding lots, no question. Our smaller lot is larger than 80% of the lots that surround us. MR. HAYES-So what was it, rezoned, then, to go to SR-1A? MR. O'CONNOR-In one of the re-zonings, the zoning classification for that area was changed. MR. MC NALLY-When did Mr. Vasiliou buy the property? MR. O'CONNOR-The second piece is under contract. MR. MC NALLY-This property that we’re talking about is under contract? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MICHAEL VASILIOU MR. VASILIOU-We closed on one in October. MR. STONE-Mr. Vasiliou, just identify yourself. We know who you are, but it’s not on the tape. MR. VASILIOU-I’m Mike Vasiliou. I’m the developer. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. VASILIOU-We purchased the first segment, and we were trying to buy the second segment contiguously, I think that’s the right word, but we were told, no, the McEachron’s didn’t want to sell it. After we got approval, we were told that they would sell the second piece. Otherwise, we would have gone in for the configuration that we have now, from the get go. So what we’re trying to do now is not, what we’re trying to do is avoid two cul de sac roads, and make a loop. We think that’s a better plan. As Mr. O’Connor said, the road cost is about $28,000 more to make the loop, and from an economic standpoint, we’re trying to get that relief. MR. HAYES-Craig, in the Staff Notes it says subdivision 6-2000, sketch plan phase approved, 9/28/00, what is that? MR. BROWN-This drawing you have in front of you was approved by the Planning Board in sketch plan. There’s three phases to subdivision approval, sketch, preliminary and final, and this plan was presented to the Planning Board. Conceptually, there’s a road. There’s lots, conceptually approve it. That’s about as firm as that is. MR. STONE-Okay. So they don’t comment on the fact that a variance is needed? MR. BROWN-Right. The next step is to get their variance to come back to the Board, the Planning Board. MR. STONE-Right. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. STEVES-The Planning Board understood that we needed a variance to obtain the 28 lots, and when you go through conceptual subdivision approval in the Town of Queensbury, you can adjust the configuration, but, conceptually, that’s exactly what you’re showing, is your basic conceptual idea of what the subdivision is, and the number of lots you’re trying to obtain. The Planning Board understood wholeheartedly we were coming in with 28 lots, and they approved 28 lots conceptually, knowing that we had to come in front of this Board for a variance. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me just ramble for a second. You’re saying the neighborhood developments are half acre lots, primarily? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-So this is going to be more upscale, because the lots are going to be bigger. They’re just not going to conform to the current one acre zoning, but they’re going to be considerably bigger than the adjoining lots. MR. O'CONNOR-The lots themselves, yes. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. STEVES-The lots themselves will be larger. They’ll probably be consistent in homes with what’s in Tyneswood. Right, Mike? MR. VASILIOU-Very consistent with the nature of the homes that are presently in Tyneswood. MR. STONE-And what is the size of those homes, approximately? MR. VASILIOU-We have presently, we are presently looking at 2300 to 3400, 3600 square foot. MR. STONE-So a fairly wide. MR. VASILIOU-One hundred and sixty to two hundred and fifty thousand dollar homes, perhaps. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. VASILIOU-So very consistent with the neighborhood. MR. HAYES-And higher than Pheasant Walk, essentially? MR. VASILIOU-I believe so. I’m not sure what Pheasant. I know Tyneswood. I don’t know Pheasant Walk. MR. O'CONNOR-In discussing this with the Planning Board, at concept approval, they’ve all, almost every member voiced on the record strong support for it. They do not want to have dead end cul de sacs, and this was a way that we could do it, and I’ve also talked personally to Rick Missita, and I think there’s a letter here from him to Staff, that is in strong support of it. MR. STONE-I mean, that’s logical. I can see that, but that’s still incidental to the number of lots, except in terms of cost, and I hear you’re saying an extra $1,000. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you get into a balancing act on all of these Area Variances, and basically what is the harm to the Town or the community or the neighborhood. We’re very consistent with the neighborhood, if not even a little bit larger than the neighborhood, in size. We offer an additional factor that the other lots didn’t necessarily come with, and you can see the difference if you drive through the subdivision, where we will have no cut zones on the sides of the lots, which in part makes up for the lack of width on some of the lots. MR. MC NALLY-What are these no cut zones, and how are they going to be provided for, in the deeds? MR. O'CONNOR-We’ll put them in deed restrictions, that there’ll be no cutting of trees. I think we used the term three inches at chest height, four feet from the ground. MR. STONE-Is that the dotted line in here? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STEVES-Yes. Seventy-five feet on the rear, 15 foot on the side. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. HIMES-Seventy-five and fifteen? MR. STEVES-Seventy-five on the rear of all lots and fifteen on the side lines. So it effectively gives you a 30 foot no cut zone between the lots. MR. STONE-Do you have any other questions? Anybody else? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. One question. I wonder if you’d say something about why this shouldn’t be a rezoning request, rather than asking this Board for a variance, considering the number of lots that are involved? MR. O'CONNOR-You’d be talking about the benefit to one particular owner, and I think you’d have some problems with that from a legal point of view, and I think you also, it seemed to be it’s a much neater, simpler, more controlled manner in which you obtain approval, because we obtain approval on the condition of what we submit to you. If you do a re-zoning, are you simply going to go in and ask them to change it to a 30,000 square foot zone, and how many of the other lots are you going to include? A re-zoning is not a simple task. MR. STONE-No, and the other point, in thinking about it, this is a reduction, if we were to grant this variance, from one acre, it’s considerably far removed from 20,000, which the other ones would be. MR. O'CONNOR-And the other thing which you don’t want to miss is we’re not really changing the overall density. What we’re changing is simply configuration of lots. We could have, using the cookie cutter type subdivision, 29 lots. That’s what we qualify for. I don’t know if we’ve laid it out that way, but we had a showing, I think the last time that we were here, that we qualify for the cookie cutter type density. If I remember right, on the first subdivision, this lot here had a strip about four feet wide, that ran the back of this lot, and the same thing over on this side. You can do funny things on paper and meet all the requirements of the Statute, but what they’re trying to do is talk about good planning. We’re not asking for any extra building rights or any extra development rights. We’re just saying this makes a better configuration of the parcels. MR. STONE-Any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Let me 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? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB JACOBS MR. JACOBS-I’m Bob Jacobs from Peggy Ann Road. I was just wondering how these extra lots are going to effect the buffer zones that were talked about when they proposed 16 lots, and also the septic tank septic system, since there are more homes going in there. MR. STONE-Okay. The applicant is back there talking about, they’ll be glad to answer those questions when we get through. You’re concerned about septic loading or septic systems, and how is the configuration changed? MR. JACOBS-That’s right, how it’s going to effect the buffer zones. MR. STONE-And since you’re up speaking in opposition, are these just questions, or are you concerned with the project, with the variance itself? MR. JACOBS-Well, I am concerned because of the extra homes and crowding and the effect it’ll have on the neighborhood, with the effect on the road coming through there onto Peggy Ann with the traffic. MR. STONE-Those are things that the Planning Board will take up at site plan review, in terms of traffic. Right now, we have a property which is approximately, a little over 29 acres. They want to put 28 building lots on it, which is well within the density requirement, but to meet that density, they need some relief from lot size and road frontage, width. I’m sorry, average width, and that’s all we’re concerned with here tonight, and you’ve raised a couple of questions, and we will ask the applicant to attempt to provide answers to that. MR. JACOBS-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Do we have any correspondence? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-No correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I find none. MR. STONE-You gentlemen talked about some kind of correspondence. MR. BROWN-Maybe in the Subdivision file. I don’t know if a copy was. MR. O'CONNOR-I was told, today, that he had filed a letter saying that he was very much in favor of it, to Laura. MR. BROWN-It may be in the Subdivision file. MR. STONE-Yes. If it’s the road. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, he was in favor of the configuration as well as the road, and approved, also, the use of the hammer head. MR. STONE-Okay, but the configuration, the lots could be wider. The lots could be bigger and still have the same configuration. You could have a few less lots in the middle. MR. O'CONNOR-They aren’t going to be. I’m just telling you that, and I don’t mean that in a defensive manner. MR. STONE-No, no. I know what you’re saying. MR. O'CONNOR-But it just doesn’t work out when you do your lot costs per what you think your sales are going to be and your percentages and everything else. I’ll answer the questions directly. How does this change the buffer zones that were set forth on the first subdivision. It does not. They are the same. We have just carried them forth through the rest of the lots. The changes in the first subdivision are toward the back, and they are simply a configuration issue with those lots. We went back, and you can see on the map in front of you the faint line where the cul de sac was. That’s the only changes that actually effect the first subdivision. The septic systems are septic systems that the Town will approve. As part of the engineering for the Planning Board approval, we do perc tests, we do deep hole tests, we provide the typical septic systems on the maps that will be installed. When they are installed, they’re inspected and approved by the Town. These are good soils up here for installation of septic systems. MR. STEVES-When we did the soil tests on the first portion of this subdivision, on the westerly half, if you want to call it that, we also did the test pits in conformity on the easterly side, and we had the Department of Health review both sets of test pits, and they’ve approved the septic systems in the first phase. They’ve reviewed our test pits in the second phase. They were consistent with the standards and the soil types in the first, and the Department of Health has no problem. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Just for the record. Any other questions of the applicants? MR. MC NALLY-The entire parcel is 29.37 acres or so? MR. STEVES-Not, including the road. MR. MC NALLY-And the road, so that’s separate from that total acreage. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. O'CONNOR-We have to deduct the acreage of the road when we try to figure out our density. MR. MC NALLY-I was just making sure I understood what the numbers are. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, okay. MR. HIMES-I thought I heard that there was correspondence, possibly, or some communications from the Highway, maintenance and water people, in connection with certain aspects of the development design, being beneficial to the Town’s responsibilities. Do we have any of those? It 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) sounds reasonable to me, but I mean, I’m wondering if we do have that documentation that was referred to? MR. MC NULTY-There’s no correspondence in the file. MR. HIMES-That’s what I thought you said. MR. BROWN-More than likely they’re in the subdivision file, which is a separate file from the Area Variance file. If it’s something that the applicant and the Board would like to see, I can try and find them. MR. HIMES-I mean, it sounds reasonable to me. I’m just wondering if, in fact, do we have them or should we have them. MR. STONE-Well, basically, you’re saying that Mr. Missita said he prefers the road, the “U” Shaped road? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VASILIOU-As well as the water commissioner. MR. STONE-As well as the water commissioner. Okay. That’s logical that it would be easier to handle it that way. MR. VASILIOU-I would guess that if the emergency people were to be asked, they would prefer that, too, fire company. I mean, ingress/egress. MR. STONE-Right. Any other questions? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t understand this financial thing. You say that you can’t reconfigure these lots, because if you reconfigure them, the money’s not there, the profit’s not there? What numbers are we talking about? MR. VASILIOU-The road length creates about a $28,000 increase. MR. MC NALLY-How is that possible? I don’t understand? MR. O'CONNOR-The cul de sacs are shorter. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So we’re talking a distance of what? MR. O'CONNOR-Of length. MR. VASILIOU-Two hundred and some odd feet, probably. MR. MC NALLY-And the cost per foot of putting in a road is? MR. VASILIOU-About $110, $120 a foot. MR. O'CONNOR-This is in a water district. So you have to, the developer puts in the road and the water lines. MR. VASILIOU-As I recall, I think it was 230 feet, additional feet. MR. STONE-What does that do to the lot cost? I mean, to keep this number of lots, 28 lots, by putting the road in, let’s say, I don’t know, I haven’t figured it. Let’s say 26. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s about $1,000 difference from what our initial estimates were. If you lose a lot, you’re talking maybe a $2,000 add on to each lot. We’re absorbing approximately $1,000 per lot, and to be honest with you, we think that this is also a more saleable subdivision, instead of a dead end cul de sac. Typically, people appear to. MR. STONE-But that’s not really the discussion. MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. STONE-As far as I’m concerned. I mean, I certainly think the road is fine, and I’m only trying to get clarification for all of us here. The road is fine. The only question I ask, why do we, putting the road in that way, do we have to squeeze in 28 lots. Why not 26 and make them all conform? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. O'CONNOR-You put in 26, you then, you’re talking more money. MR. VASILIOU-My road length is the same, if we do the loop, my road length is the same, whether I have 26, 10 or 28. MR. STONE-That’s why, I understand that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Each lot we look upon as being a return of about $24,000, and you take out two lots, you’re taking out another $48,000, and that’s what we figured, but I still would go back to even the discussion that we had with the first subdivision, when we had approvals for the first sixteen lots, and we obtained variances at that time for lot width and also lot size on some of the lots, we’re not affecting, in any way, the character of the neighborhood, the character of the community. We’re not doing anything that is detrimental, in the environmental sense. We, in fact, have a plan that kind of assures you that we are not going to. These lots are even going to be a little bit more environmentally friendly, with the no cut zones as opposed to some lots that have, do not have the no cut zones, and that’s the balancing act that we kind of look at. MR. STONE-Well, that certainly is part of the balancing act, but I’m still trying to understand again, just to get it on the record, what would this lot cost me, if I went in there, on an average, if I wanted to buy one of the 28 lots, versus what would it cost me if there were all conforming lots on this same piece of property? MR. VASILIOU-The reality is, if we go to the two cul de sacs. MR. STONE-No, I don’t want two cul de sacs. MR. VASILIOU-I need to explain it this way, if you’ll permit me. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. VASILIOU-If we go to the two cul de sacs, I believe we get 27 lots. We already have 16. We would have 27 lots. They’re going to all conform. My cost would be about $28,000 less. We think it’s better planning to go to the “U”, and trying to make what we think is a better situation for the subdivision, for the residents, for the Town. MR. STONE-And I understand all of this, and I think you make a very cogent argument for that, for the loop road. I’m only trying to find out what the difference, the practical difference in someone buying a lot. I don’t want to go into your cost. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, the practical difference to us is that we can’t do, we’d have to use a different configuration, and it would be two cul de sacs, if we have to cut back on the number of lots. MR. MC NULTY-I calculate the difference between 28 lots in this configuration and 26 to be $76.92 per lot. If you divide your 28,000, by 28 lots, that’s $1,000 more. If you divide 28,000 by 26, you come out with $1,076.92. MR. HAYES-That’s not taking into account what you can sell them for. MR. STEVES-Right. So you’ve lost the sale of two lots, too. MR. BRYANT-To touch on something that the Chairman said. When you use the other configuration, you have 27 lots. Are those conforming lots? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VASILIOU-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Well, you save $28,000, because you don’t have to do the “U” shaped road. You have one less lot, but doesn’t that one compensate for the other? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but you don’t have the benefit, or you don’t have a cul de sac road, or you don’t have a loop road, which is a better planning tool. MR. BRYANT-Well, but you have 27 lots that conform. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. The benefit to the Town is obtaining the loop road, as opposed to two cul de sacs. That’s a positive benefit, as opposed to a detrimental benefit. We can build with two cul de sacs, and probably have the same financial result to ourselves, except that we wouldn’t have the 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) opportunity to have profit on one additional house, and I don’t know if that’s figured into the cost, and we’re going to get a little bit lost with. MR. HAYES-Well, theoretically, you’d save that in road costs. MR. O'CONNOR-You’d save the road cost. MR. HAYES-Or the rough equivalent, based on your calculations. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but you talk to anybody in the Highway Department, you talk to anybody in the water system, you talk to anybody on the Planning Board or the Planning Staff, that’s not good planning. This is a tool that allows you good planning. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but I’m still trying to get an answer to my question, which is, if we have the loop road, and I will stipulate that that is a better way to do it. There’s no question about that, and let’s say we’re talking 28 to 26. I don’t know what the number is to get conforming lots. Matt, do you have any idea? Would it be 26, just approximately? MR. STEVES-Twenty-six, twenty-seven lots, yes, twenty-six lots. MR. STONE-Twenty-six or twenty-seven. MR. STEVES-No, it would be about 26 lots. MR. STONE-Okay, 26 lots. Now, recognizing that Mr. Vasiliou, with the loop road, recognizing Mr. Vasiliou, on the sale of the land, forgetting the number, the cost of the houses, which is another thing, but on the cost of the land, what would I, how much more would I have to pay for one of those 26 lots versus 28 lots? That’s the number I’m trying to come up with. MR. STEVES-What would he have to pay, if you were to take off the cost of about $25,000 per lot. MR. VASILIOU-About $2,300 a lot. MR. STEVES-So, it would be an additional $50,000 added up between the 26 lots. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-Plus the road costs. MR. STEVES-Plus the road costs. MR. HAYES-So it’s about $3,000 a lot? MR. STEVES-Three thousand dollars a lot. MR. STONE-Three thousand a lot, and I’m hearing you say that that makes this, these lots prohibitive to the average person who might want to buy there? MR. HAYES-The micro economics of it, essentially, you’re saying. MR. O'CONNOR-It doesn’t make any sense to add that type of cost to somebody’s package, when there’s no benefit to the community. MR. STONE-The only benefit to the community is that it is zoned one acre, and you’ve got three lots or four lots that are less than three quarters of an acre. MR. O'CONNOR-But it’s kind of a unique parcel, and a unique area, in that this is the only area that got affected by that. It was nice to broad brush that area with one acre zoning. The other subdivisions were already established. MR. STEVES-So all your other lots in the area are nonconforming now, also. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what we need. You’ve given us information. It helps me, one way or the other. MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t think you’re arguing with me, and I’m not trying to argue back with you, but it fits in with all the criteria that you typically have for an Area Variance. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. STONE-Agreed. Agreed, but I wanted to know what it is that I’m granting, if I grant this particular thing. I mean, I certainly agree that if you consider that this area could have been 20,000 zoning rather than one acre. You’re saying on either side it’s 20. Is that correct, Craig? MR. BROWN-I don’t know. MR. STEVES-It’s all one acre zoning. MR. STONE-It’s all one acre. MR. STEVES-It was 20,000 square foot zoning with all the lots to the north, to the south, to the east and to the west were developed. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-This property that was left undeveloped in the 1988 rezoning got rezoned one acre, as well as all the lots that surround it. So, if you’re talking about. MR. STONE-So they’re all nonconforming? MR. STEVES-They’re all nonconforming. MR. STONE-Okay, and they’re more nonconforming than these would be. MR. STEVES-Substantially. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? I don’t want to belabor this too much, but I probably have, but, okay. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think there’s any magic to one acre. The issue is whether or not, the weighing test. MR. STONE-Well, why don’t you start, talk to us about it. MR. MC NALLY-Well, I’m always a skeptic. People call me cynical, but I see the benefit to the applicant, certainly, as twofold. One, that they can build a subdivision as a “U” shaped road that does allow two entrances and two exits, which, in a large part, is a better way, I think in planning and community planning a subdivision in our Town, and the benefit, of course, you’re going to have two extra lots which results in certainly a little bit more profit, nothing wrong with that. There are feasible alternatives when it comes to reconfiguration, but I was pleased at, there’s more than 29 acres. There’s only going to be 28 lots. So, effectively, the density is about the same, and while you can play games with, you know, 137 feet, 151 feet, 1.1 acres or .73 acres, in large part, whatever alternative you choose is going to result in 27 to 29 lots, with or without that road, and I don’t know that a turn around at the end of a straight road, parallel to each other, is the wisest way Queensbury should be encouraging its builders to build. I agree that, you know, you look at this map and you’ve got, you know, eight substandard lots, but you’ve got basically a number of lots which in large part, and to a large degree, conform with the existing requirement. Many of them are one acre or more. Many of them have 150 feet. Some do, some don’t, because of the configuration of putting this road in there. The real thing I think swings me is what’s the effect on the neighborhood or community? You know, whether you have 27, 28 or 29 is going to have no effect whatsoever at that end of the road. We’ve got the buffer zones between homes and at the rear of houses, and if you want to play games with reconfiguring it, you’re going to lose this turnaround road. If you lose the turnaround road, what’s better for Queensbury? I think what’s better for Queensbury is have the good road, and is the difficulty self-created? Absolutely, but given the nature of this particular lot and the desire of the individual, Mr. Vasiliou, to make a profit, and at the same time build a development which he thinks he can sell, and with the density of homes that he would like, I don’t really have a problem with it. So, on balance, I’ve got to say I can approve it. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with Rob. I have to admit that when I based it on the five criteria, yes, there’s a benefit to the applicant, yes, there are feasible alternatives. It is substantial relief, but the effects on the neighborhood or the community, I actually think it improves the neighborhood and the community, and the bottom line is that good planning is good planning, and sometimes that means not using the zoning rules as a straightjacket, and I think in this case, it becomes a straightjacket to the applicant, whereas the plan itself is a good plan, and three quarters of an acre is not really small. It’s a nice size lot anyway. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jamie? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. HAYES-I agree with the other Board members, in this particular case. As it was explained to me, I’m definitely not in favor of the two lollipop cul de sac configuration, and I think that immediately jumped, to me, to the benefit not only to the applicant, but to the Town, because I think in this case there is not only a benefit to the Town and to the applicant, potentially. So, as I run through the test, I think that, you know, with the loop style road, I think that the feasible alternatives have been fairly well investigated. This looks like a logical plan to me. I have some personal experience with builders and know that there is some level at which builders can not pass additional costs onto homeowners and have it be a feasible or economic success as far as a developer, and I’m not just saying that. That is a fact. I don’t think that the relief relative to the Ordinance is that large. I think as I look around the parcel surrounding this thing, the lots are smaller, and that is confirmed or supported, certainly, by the fact that at one time, prior this lot or this development area was zoned at 20,000 square feet, and I think the lots surrounding it reflect that. As far as effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that there won’t be any. I think Bob is right. I think, is there really a difference, in this particular case, between the 27 lots and 28 lots, as far as the impact on the neighborhood. The developer, in this case, has made accommodations or has made calculations to provide for a no cut zone, which I think does have some impact on the other lots in the surrounding areas, and, altogether, there’s support from the Town services departments. I guess we’re taking Counselor’s word for that, but it certainly makes sense to me that this would be an easier road to maintain and support, from a Town perspective, going into the future. So, I think, as I look at it on the balancing test, altogether, I think the cumulative relief that they’re asking for, which, in my mind, is fairly small per lot, is less problematic than two lollipop cul de sacs, and that impact on the surrounding neighborhoods, which in my mind would be something to consider. If the applicant had come with two lollipop cul de sacs, in this particular case, I think I would certainly have concerns about the effects on the neighborhood or community, as to the surrounding properties. So, on balance, I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-All right. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, several thoughts. The bottom line is I guess I’m in favor. The rezoning versus our granting a lot of variances here, all wrapped into one, bothers me, but given that the effect of that rezoning was basically rezoning this one specific piece of property, since the other developments were already there, changes things a little bit for me, and I think as Bob and Jamie have mentioned, too, it’s looking at it that it’s 28 lots on 29 plus or minus acres. So, taking the whole thing sum total, it would meet the current zoning, as you said, if you do a cookie cutter setup, and certainly this arrangement is going to be better, and with the no cut zones, I think that also enhances it. So on that basis, I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I’ve got to say that I disagree somewhat. I think that these variances should be the exception and not the rule, and when you propose a subdivision where more than half the lots are substandard, that becomes the rule. I think that a little more thought in layout, I’m not really convinced that this circular road is naturally beneficial for the Town of Queensbury. I mean, I have three children that delivered papers up West Mountain Road and Peggy Ann Road to these roads that have the cul de sacs, and they’re plowed just as easily as the circular roads are. So I don’t see the real advantage to this circular road, but more importantly, I think that more thought should have been used to layout this subdivision, so that maybe one or two or three of the lots, I’m not saying drop any of the lots, and I don’t think the Chairman was asking you to really drop any of the lots, but if you had one or two or three of the lots out of the 28 that were substandard, that’s a different issue. So I would be opposed to it as proposed. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I agree with what everyone has said. No, really, I do agree with all the comments made in favor, and I recognize what Al has said, and I think we’re always ringing our hands about trying to get things to match up to what the zoning is, but I feel that the thing is a pretty good idea, from everything that’s been said before. I mean, the only thing that I might be able to add, when you look at the numbers, you know, 18 or 20 out of 28 are non standard or nonconforming, that sounds pretty shocking, but the substantive, what is really happening in terms of the amount of space involved, I think, is, you know, not that great an impact. So I am in favor of the application. MR. STONE-I basically agree with the majority of the Board. I know that I dwelt on this pretty long. The reason I dwelt on it is because common sense says to me that if I took an empty pallet, which this lot was, you could put anything on there you wanted. Forgetting zoning, you could put one house on 28 acres, and you could put other things. However, this is zoned one acre, but even having said that, there is a way to make these all conforming lots, forgetting the density considerations. I mean, it’s not just density we’re talking about, as we’ve talked here. We have other 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) considerations, lot width and size, but I am satisfied, after listening to the applicant, all three of you, that most of my questions have been answered. I mean, it is a balancing test, as a number of my fellow Board members have said. The old benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the neighborhood, and I don’t really think this is going to be a detriment to the neighborhood. I think, as one of the people said, it’s 29 acres, 28. If you didn’t look at anything else, that’s perfectly legal in terms of one acre zoning. We’ve got less than 29 lots on the thing. It’s the internals that we’ve been talking about here a great deal, but having said that, as I look at the whole thing, and I think the various tests have been adequately documented by my fellow Board members, I would vote in favor of this application, somewhat reluctantly, but nevertheless I would vote for it, because I think it is, on balance, a good project, and having said that, I’d like a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 95-2000 MICHAEL J. VASILIOU, INC., Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Peggy Ann Road. Applicant proposes a 28 lot residential subdivision. Specifically, the applicant requests relief from the 150 foot minimum average lot width requirement, as well as relief from the one acre minimum lot size requirement of the SR-1A zone, Section 179-19, as depicted on the plot plan submitted to the Town, as subdivision 6-2000, at the sketch plan. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be able to create the desired number of lots and additionally to construct the subdivision with a looped driveway, versus a less desirable road configuration. Feasible alternatives, I believe that feasible alternatives are limited, based on the fact that a certain return is needed by the builder that would not be met, in this particular circumstance, if lots were reduced, based on an increased road cost to do the development in a fashion with a looped road, versus the multiple cul de sac. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Certainly, there is plenty of relief when you take it on an individual lot by lot basis, but as has been brought up by the Board members, in a cumulative sense, the developer is asking for 28 lots on 29 +/- acres, in a zone that’s zoned one acre per lot, which means that they are not asking for, in the cumulative sense, more building rights than the map would indicate, and considering that fact, I believe that the relief is moderate, in this particular case. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I believe that there will be no negative, or very few negative impacts on the neighborhood as a result of this plan. I think that the lots that are proposed in this particular case are equal to or greater than the lots in the immediate developments, and therefore probably will reflect at least or as good or better homes or economic value in this particular case. So I don’t think there will be a depreciation in the quality of the housing in the neighborhood. Is the difficulty self-created? I think that it is in the sense that the developer wants the 28 lots, but I believe that, based on the developer’s desire, and I would think the Town’s desire, to have the loop style road, I believe that that creates a lot of the difficulty associated with this development in this particular circumstance. In considering those facts, I believe that the balance of the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I move for its approval. The relief that we are approving is reflected in the map revised October 18, 2000, Michael J. Vasiliou subdivision, Peggy Ann Road, Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. MC NALLY-Do we have to condition it with the no cut zone or anything? MR. HAYES-I can do that. MR. MC NALLY-Is that essential or not? MR. STONE-Well, that’s on here. MR. HAYES-That’s as depicted. MR. STONE-It’s as depicted. That’s a no cut zone, where the dotted lines are. MR. HAYES-It’s on there. It’s written right here. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, but the understanding is that the applicant is represented there be a no cut zone as depicted on that same drawing, and that that’s part and parcel of this discussion? MR. STONE-Do you accept that? MR. O'CONNOR-We have no objection. MR. HAYES-That’s more than fine. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. BROWN-And I guess potentially if the Planning Board changes the layout of the subdivision, that affects the size and the shape of the lots to be approved, that may be something you might need to see again? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-It may or may not come up. MR. MC NALLY-You have some discretion in that regard, for minor modifications, right? MR. BROWN-I do? MR. MC NALLY-Well, the Staff does, a foot here, a foot there? MR. BROWN-Yes, maybe. MR. HAYES-Well, I guess I would put that out to the Board. I mean, do we want to see it again if they change it, or, I mean, is that the function of the Planning Board? MR. STONE-We can throw one of those wonderful words in, if it’s substantially different. MR. HAYES-I’m wondering if, in that particular case, we’re just cluttering our docket. I mean, if that’s their rubric to examine that and see what’s best for the Town. MR. STONE-Yes, I agree. MR. STEVES-Your lot configuration won’t change. The only thing that’s going to change is the location of drywells, hydrants, common infrastructure and facilities. The lot configuration would be highly doubtful that the Planning Board would change that. MR. HAYES-Just in case there is, I’m not going to make that as part of my motion, and we can take a vote, because I think if that’s the Planning Board’s job to do that, then we ought to let them do it. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions about it? Do I hear a second? MR. URRICO-I second. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Abbate MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MC NALLY-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-And I’m not trying to confuse the record, and certainly not asking for a recount, and I’ve been waiting to say that all night, we thought about what you said, Mr. Bryant, before we came, but we really would be pushing everything to one lot, and make that one lot out of configuration, so very substandard, as opposed to the other lots. The other thing, to Mr. McNally, and I wasn’t trying to duck you before, but I thought, after your question about rezoning. I think we’re very much straightjacketed, or whatever somebody said, with some of the subdivision regulations that we have or some of the zoning we have. The Town could change that, and this Board would be a good source of change, if you looked at the definition of “cluster”. Because if you are allowed to cluster plan a subdivision, you then can be a little bit imaginative, and you don’t need to use the cookie cutter. The problem with the present cluster is that unless you have a park attached to it, or some land that represents an open space park, you don’t qualify. I mean, this is preserving the wooded area. It’s preserving everything else. It accomplishes almost everything a cluster, except the last checklist. I mean, I know we’re in the process of revising our zoning, and I would urge this Board, or I’ve urged the Town to look at that, so you can do imaginative type planning, and not simply say, it’s got to be an acre, or it’s got to be 150 feet. I mean, there hasn’t been a successful subdivision in the Town of Queensbury with one acre. The only one that is now starting to turn and starting to be successful is Hiland Park, and that’s after it went through the bankruptcy, and the lots were sold for twenty some odd thousand dollars. One acre zoning, with the infrastructure costs that you have, with the frontage of a one acre lot doesn’t work, and I know why I came to one acre, because everybody wanted to put the breaks on development in 1988, and we jumped all over and we created all these zones, but that’s my soap box. Thank you for your approval. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Caimano, are you trying to say something? NICK CAIMANO MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Chairman, Nick Caimano from Queensbury. I agree with Mr. O’Connor. I rarely do. MR. O'CONNOR-He very seldom does. MR. CAIMANO-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Nick Caimano from Queensbury, and for the record, I’m also a County Supervisor. I agree with Mr. O’Connor. Not only that, I think that it’s this Board’s, if they so choose, should send that message to the Town Board, for when they review. You’re the people who are faced with having to give these variances, and the fact of the matter is, that you may be doing all this work for not a lot of reason, and you ought to alert the Town Board of that, and let the Town Board take this up, and find out where it should go. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. CAIMANO-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-And get rid of the 900 square foot garage. MR. BROWN-You may want to do those two cancellations again. MR. STONE-Yes. Just in case there’s anybody who may have come late, we have cancelled two applications which are not on the agenda tonight, one for Hastings on Queen Mary, and the cell tower. So if you’re here to talk about those things, they’re not on the agenda tonight. AREA VARIANCE NO. 96-2000 TYPE II KATHRYN PEASLEE PETER LIAPES OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: GREENWAY DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF THREE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON PARCELS AND REQUESTS SETBACK RELIEF AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE BUFFER ZONE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. UV 44-2000 ZONE: HC-1A TAX MAP NO. 72-5-12 (LOT MERGE WILL BE REVERSED AND REFLECT 4 SEPARATE LOTS) LOT SIZE: 0.39, 0.23, 0.23 ACRES SECTION 179-23, 179-72 JON LAPPER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Chairman, you’ll excuse me. I have a little conflict. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Underwood. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 96-2000, Kathryn Peaslee Peter Liapes, Meeting Date: November 15, 2000 “Proposed Location: Greenway Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of single family dwellings. Relief Required: Applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement, 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement, 30 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum side setback total, 15 feet of relief from the 25 foot rear setback requirement of the HC-1A zone, § 179- 23. Also, the applicant seeks 50 feet of relief from the 50 foot buffer requirement, per § 179-72. 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 single family dwellings. 2. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Feasible alternatives may include petitioning the Town Board to rezone the property. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) The cumulative requests for relief can only be interpreted as substantial, relative to the ordinance. 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.): Use Variance 44-2000 res. 5/24/00 to allow residential uses on HC-1A site. Staff comments: While the proposed action may present only minimal, if any adverse impacts on the neighborhood or community, the applicant has not exhausted or attempted the option of rezoning. Granting substantial relief from the setback requirements on all four sides and complete relief from the buffer requirement is akin to rezoning, without the proper review. There is little question that the properties would be better suited with residential uses on them, however, rezoning; which seems to be the proper method, would require no relief from the Zoning Board. The 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends rezoning for this parcel. Please see Neighborhood 7 page 3, recommendation – R7.1 (copy enclosed) SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Matt Steves. As most of you will recall, Matt and I were here in May for the Use Variance, which was what we consider a far more complicated aspect of this project, at the time. The reason we asked for the Use Variance, just to refresh your memories, is because even though this parcel is in the center of this existing residential subdivision, it was zoned Highway Commercial One Acre. The justification for the Use Variance was because there were deed covenants that prevented these lots from being developed commercially. So you had a zone that was incompatible with the deed covenants. It was just sitting there, it has been for a long time as a grassy lot. At the time that that was granted by the Board, we mentioned that once we had a sense from the proposed builder, because this is in an estate right now. It’ll be sold to a builder, Tony LoCasio, what he was going to be look for, for footprints, that we would likely be back for Area Variances, because the underlying Highway Commercial zone buffers that were in the application that was just read, the 50 foot front setback, all the larger setbacks and the buffer zone, because it’s between a commercial zone and a residential, even though it would be all residentially used, it doesn’t make these developable with that underlying setback requirements, but this is exactly, what we’re asking for is exactly what the rest of the subdivision has. It will be completely compatible, and just to address Craig’s mention of the rezoning. We discussed this when we were here the last time. We had something that we thought was not appropriate, didn’t conform, and I determined that we should come before this Board because it just seemed like such a simple case that we had the covenants for the zoning and it didn’t conform, and it made it unbuildable, and the Board agreed, but at the same time, it did require us to come back twice. So it may have been simpler if we had gone, just in terms of the legislative process, it requires going to the Town Board, then going to the Planning Board for recommendation and then coming back to the Town Board for a vote, which I thought was more cumbersome, and in the end, maybe this is more cumbersome, but it was really just a practical consideration to get to this same result, and the fact that Craig included in the notes the Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommendation that for the Town’s interest this ought to be residential, I think that just gets us to the result, and the question of, in terms of the method to get there, I think either one are completely acceptable, and this is the one we chose, and that’s our story. MR. STONE-I have one question, and I don’t mean to embarrass you, Mr. Steves. What’s an “Hpouse”? You’ve got two of them. MR. STEVES-Yes, we’ll take out the “p’s” on those two. Now you’ve got a “house”. MR. BRYANT-I just want to kind of refresh my memory. This is the lot that the Hess station sits on in the front? MR. LAPPER-No. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. STONE-No. MR. LAPPER-It’s next to the Econo Lodge. It’s farther to the east than where you’re thinking of. Craig included the map in his notes, the location map. MR. MC NULTY-There’s a boarded up house on the front end of it. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. STEVES-There’s a house in the front, and you know where the “Welcome to Queensbury” sign is on Aviation Road? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. STEVES-It sits just to the west of that. MR. STONE-There’s a house behind the trees, it’s hard to see, but there’s a house. MR. LAPPER-This map is perfect for our perspective because it just shows that the whole thing is residential all around, and we’re right in the center here. MR. BRYANT-Wasn’t this revisited already, where your deed lists four lots? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BRYANT-In reality there’s one tax number. It’s one lot, one zoning, and the question was, why didn’t you just divide the thing up into four lots? MR. LAPPER-And the answer to that was that we provided the documentation last time that it was always four lots, and the County Tax Map Department somehow combined it at some point. They gave us a letter, which Matt has a copy of, saying that they are now in the process of separating, and so we have the four lots, and we have that documented. MR. BROWN-Do we have the new tax map numbers yet? MR. LAPPER-They have not yet assigned those numbers. MR. STEVES-I talked to the County. I talked to Ron at the County. Mike Swan was on vacation, who is the Director of Real Property. All of Warren County Tax Maps are going to a new digital format. So they are not updating them because they are going to be giving all new system and all new numbers. So they’re not updating the current tax maps. They’re giving that information to the new tax maps that we will have in place some time around March. That you can take your existing tax map number on every one of your parcels and throw it out, because they’re all brand new. So that’s the reason it hasn’t been updated, but, yes, they do realize, and I have the letter from Mike Swan, the Director of Real Property Tax Services, said that they will update the new tax map to reflect it. MR. STONE-My concern, going in, is the amount of relief that’s necessary to make these buildable lots. I mean, I know they’re there, and I know they’re cut out, and let’s assume they’re residential, I mean, for the purposes of my discussion. You’re asking for six or seven pieces of relief to make these lots buildable at all. MR. LAPPER-I have a really simple answer to that. The underlying zone, Highway Commercial, is what you’d do if you wanted to build a gas station, convenience store. It has nothing to do with how you’d develop residential lots. So that’s why we mentioned it when we were here last time, that by necessity, if you have the rezoning here, and you have small lots, and you’re going from an underlying Highway Commercial zone, you’re going to need setback relief, because the Highway Commercial setback is just irrelevant to building small homes on small lots, in an existing subdivision. So that’s why it appears that it may be substantial, but this is exactly what every other house in this long developed subdivision has. So that’s why we asked to be just exactly compatible with the neighbors. MR. STONE-Do you, I did not make these calculations, in terms of assuming this was residential, whatever it is, 10? MR. STEVES-Ten thousand. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. STONE-Ten thousand. What would the numbers be, how much variance would you need, relief would you need, if it was 10,000 square feet? MR. LAPPER-If it was in that zone, it would have the setbacks that we’re asking for right here. So we wouldn’t need any relief. We’re not asking for any more than what that underlying zone has. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s the question I’m asking. If this were zoned like the rest of Greenway North. MR. LAPPER-That’s what we’re asking for. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. LAPPER-No relief from that. MR. STEVES-If this was the same zoning as Greenway North, we would not need to be in front of this Board. MR. STONE-Do you agree with that, Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-I guess my concern is we’re talking about a whole lot, which ends up including that boarded up house now? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STONE-No. That’s gone. MR. MC NULTY-That’s gone? MR. STONE-This is separate. MR. STEVES-That’s a separate lot. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, that’s a separate. MR. STEVES-We’re only talking about the three residential lots that were part of, and are part of, the Greenway North Subdivision. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. STEVES-There are three tax parcels from the original Greenway North Subdivision that now lie within an HC-1 Acre zone. MR. STONE-Okay. To the north, that lot is built on, this white space here? I’ve got this upside down. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-With the house. MR. STEVES-With the house. MR. STONE-With the house, right. MR. LAPPER-But that’s zoned Highway Commercial. MR. STONE-That’s Highway Commercial, too? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Because it was all one lot. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. STONE-This is where the old house is. There is an existing lived in house right now here, but that’s, that’s 10,000. That’s residential. I’m talking to the north. MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry. To the north that is zoned residential. There’s an existing residential home. MR. STONE-Right. Okay. MR. STEVES-As well as all the subdivision, or lots that border to the east. MR. MC NULTY-Okay, and the relief from the buffer zone you’re asking for is the buffer zone between commercial and residential. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. STONE-And both, well, it’s 100 feet. MR. MC NULTY-As far as they’re lot’s concerned, they’ve only got 50 foot responsibility on that side. MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. MC NULTY-And we have granted a Use Variance for this use. MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. MC NULTY-The only place that leaves me hanging up is now we have no buffer protection between what the Use Variance has said is residential, and that portion which is commercial. MR. STONE-Except that you’re not asking for relief on the south side. MR. MC NULTY-He doesn’t need relief there. MR. STONE-He doesn’t need relief on the south side. MR. MC NULTY-But if this were zoned residential, then he would need 50 foot buffer there. MR. STONE-Yes, but if you look at where the house is, there’s more than 50 feet. The only thing in there is the septic system. MR. MC NULTY-Right. Well, what I’ve got in the back of my mind is maybe if we decide to approve this, whether or not we should stipulate that there should be a 50 foot buffer there. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-It was really never our intention not to include that. I agree with Chuck. There should be a buffer on that side. MR. STONE-On that south side. MR. MC NULTY-Because otherwise it’ll open the whole development up to commercial. MR. STEVES-We’ll include a 50 foot buffer on the southerly of the three lots. MR. STONE-Okay. Wherever that is. MR. BROWN-Is that going to affect the septic system? MR. LAPPER-The septic can be built in a buffer, can’t it? MR. STEVES-You can shorten up the lateral, Craig, and pull them to the north. I don’t see any problem. MR. STONE-Or you can make the lateral go out to the north. MR. STEVES-I can just reconfigure the septic system. MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. Any other questions? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. BRYANT-I’m still not quite understanding, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-This lot, the whole lot now is Highway Commercial? MR. LAPPER-It’s zoned Highway Commercial. MR. STONE-But we recognize that you could put, in our Use Variance said on the northerly three lots, which are not, do not have tax numbers of their own at the moment, but will, according to Mr. Steves. We allowed those to be residential, and as Mr. Lapper says, knowing that he was going to have to go through this drill either this way or through rezoning. MR. BRYANT-Well, the logical progression, though, is to get those three lots rezoned, and not go through this aggravation. MR. LAPPER-Well, zoning is really dealing with use, even though zoning also deals with setbacks, and since we’ve now received the Use Variance, that would really be the big reason. I mean, this Board’s already granted that relief, so now it can be used to build residential homes. So the only issue we really have is just the Area Variance and setbacks, just to start the process over. MR. BRYANT-The only reason you need the setbacks is because it’s Highway Commercial. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. BRYANT-So I’m not understanding this whole process. MR. STEVES-We described that the last time we were here, that we had to come. MR. BRYANT-I know, and I objected to it last time. I wanted you to change the zoning so that we wouldn’t have this discussion. MR. LAPPER-We agree that it could have gone either way. We chose this way. Whether that was the best or not, we just had to make a judgement call, but at this point, now that we have the Use Variance, I would just propose that the Area Variance sort of goes hand in hand with that. It’s relatively minor. MR. MC NULTY-The other problem they could end up with is, if they were to ask for a rezoning of this particular piece of property, it’s a unique situation, but in effect they’d be asking for spot rezoning, just as the previous applicant has pointed out. MR. STONE-You don’t agree, because there’s three? MR. BROWN-I don’t think there’d be any complications with it. MR. STONE-So they could go that way, but. MR. LAPPER-Here we are. MR. STONE-But here you are. So, it’s our call. We can say, go that way, or we can say, we’ll accept your application. Any other questions? MR. HIMES-Would it be, I don’t know how much, not to just chase around in circles forever, but if this were to be approved at this level, with the condition that it be followed up with an application to rezone, if that would make everyone happy, would that be practical? MR. BRYANT-They don’t need this variance if they rezone. MR. LAPPER-If we get the variance, we don’t need the rezoning. MR. STONE-Right. MR. HIMES-I just meant as an expeditious step, to let them go ahead and get started with what they’re doing. MR. STONE-If they get it quick enough, and in the new zoning plan, it could be changed in there, without going through the process, and approve the whole thing. Would you agree? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. BROWN-I would agree with the process. I don’t think the timeframe is going to work. They’re here now. MR. STONE-No, no. I’m saying if we approve this, then the new zoning could merely reflect that it’s residential, and then obviate the need to do this now, but we don’t know that in the future. So, that’s all I’m saying. It could be done. So that they would not be nonconforming lots at that point in time. That could be done, if, in our judgement, we approve. Any other questions? Any other comments? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED WILLIAM REAMER MR. REAMER-My name’s William Reamer, 10 Greenway Drive. I live kitty corner across from this proposal. I, personally, don’t think you can fit three houses in there. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. REAMER-I don’t think there’s enough room. My lot width is 75 feet. These are 67. The one of them on the road is 40. You’re going to end up with, you might as well build them altogether and make one big house. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. REAMER-So I’m strenuously opposed to it. MR. STONE-So you’re, is this your property over here? You say kitty corner? MR. REAMER-Kitty corner. If you head northwest, so you go directly across the street and up one house, and that’s mine. MR. STONE-Okay. Across the street and up one. MR. REAMER-That’s right, sir. MR. STONE-All right. Thank you. Anyone else opposed to this? Please come forward, sir. NICK CAIMANO MR. CAIMANO-Nick Caimano, again, from Queensbury. I had not planned to say anything about this one, but I’m stunned, having, as many of us have, fought the battle of Greenway and Charlie Wood for all those years. I’m amazed that anyone wants to put a residential building lot in here, and I would hope that you would do so. Now I’m not saying put three in there. I’m not an engineer, but I am saying that if you grant this, and allow them to put residences in here, then not only are you putting a lie to the fact that nothing can be put there except businesses, but you’re also giving some relief to the other 120 homeowners there who, for years, have felt as if we were trying to cut them off, kill them, and I think this is a great opportunity. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Then I shall close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Let me just, for the record again, since we had someone who is concerned about building three houses on these three lots. You are saying, because I don’t have it in front of me, that if these were zoned like Mr. Reamer’s property, he’s across the street. MR. STEVES-These are exactly like his. These were lots as they were in the original subdivision. MR. STONE-Okay, and they were fit on there. If it were zoned that way, you would not be here. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STONE-You could build three houses? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STONE-On these three lots? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STONE-Where they’re laying? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I’d also just like to comment on Nick’s comment. Just reminiscing on the rezoning application that was here before, that was before the Town. Where Nick was talking, that was along Aviation Road, which borders the commercial. Where we are here, this is right in the heart, in the center. So this is even an easier case. I mean, that this absolutely should be residential, and that’s why you granted it, because it’s right in the center of the subdivision, and it does cement the residential nature of that part of the subdivision. MR. STEVES-Have you ever been in Sherman Pines Subdivision? MR. STONE-Maybe. MR. STEVES-They’re all 10,000 square foot lots. Those are all 10,000 square foot lots. MR. STONE-They are? MR. STEVES-Yes, they are. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? If not, let’s talk about it. All right. We’ll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I guess I’m on the side of favoring it, even though I see a lot of variances. The reality is that this is probably zoned incorrectly, and it will be. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I can’t hear you. MR. URRICO-Should I start from the beginning? I say I’m generally in favor of this application, even though I am bothered somewhat by the number of variances that are being suggested, but that’s probably because this is zoned incorrectly, as to how it should be used, and I believe this is an opportunity to rectify that, probably before the actual zoning gets changed for this area. I’m satisfied that it meets the requirements, had it been zoned residential, and I would be in favor of it, with the stipulation that that 50 foot buffer zone be included on the south side. Is that what we said? MR. STONE-Right. MR. URRICO-That’s it. MR. STONE-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I think I essentially agree. I can’t speak for the rest of the Board members, but it certainly seems like there’s a lot of agreement that this should be residential housing in this, on these parcels, regardless of the zoning being Highway Commercial. It appears to be entirely consistent with the existing subdivision that’s there, and the surveyor’s testifying to that fact. So, to me, if it is zoned incorrectly, for whatever reason, then I think that’s why I voted for the, or would be in favor of the Use Variance that has been mentioned in the past. If it were zoned, as the rest of the development is now, they would comply completely and they wouldn’t need to be here at all, and that, to me, is further evidence of what’s really here. So what it really boils down to, for me, is is this the correct method to handle this, because I think the result is correct, in my eyes, either way. I guess that has to be decided, should the variances be granted or should they go for rezoning, but I think we have a chance to deal with this right now. I that the result would be positive, and I think if you look at the test, you know, that’s involved with Area Variances, I think the benefit, certainly there’s a lot of relief, but the effects on the neighborhood or community are positive, and it’s just a complete of this subdivision as probably was envisioned before the zoning changed to Highway Commercial. So, on balance, I think we can handle this now, without too much difficult, and I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree. I think we’ve already spoken, as far as Use Variance, and I think the reality is somebody is going to build something on that piece of property, and it might better be houses than it be a gas station or something else, and as has already been mentioned, I would be inclined to approve, with the proviso that there be the 50 foot buffer added on the southerly most lot. I would also like to see something encouraging a move forward to get it rezoned, because looking down the line a few years, something could happen, the houses burn down or something, and somebody could go back in and still put a gas station on it, if it’s not rezoned. MR. LAPPER-You could communicate to the Town Board, perhaps, as part of the resolution. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. So I would like to see the rezoning pursued, but I’d be willing to vote for this. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I somewhat agree with Chuck, and without any doubt, those three lots should be houses. I mean, the whole neighborhood, that’s what it is, there’s no question about it, but I think at our last meeting I said that I think the process is flawed. I think that the proper procedure should be to rezone those lots forevermore. Let them be residential. Build your houses, without having all these variances, because I think that this Board really is a last resort, rather than a fix it for the Town Board to decide on the zoning, okay. So, you know, in my heart, I’m for the project, but I think the procedure is flawed. I think that property should be rezoned. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. Again, I’m in agreement with just about everything that’s been said, including Allan, again. I should follow you all the time, I guess. The previous Use Variance, of course, qualifies this greatly, as I think we all know, and in my mind you look at this lot, and it would probably be even harder to use it as Highway Commercial, given the dimensions of it and the rest. It might be a tight squeeze to even use it in that way, probably. So, I think the use that’s being applied for in the variance should be granted, as numerous and as formidable as they appear to be under the present zoning, and again, I will echo that there might be some way that we could condition it on getting this, pursuing it be rezoned because of the possibility that it slips through the cracks down the road with the Town’s plans toward rezoning, and doesn’t get changed. That’s all I have, Lew. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s in keeping with what’s already in Greenway North, and whether the zoning is done after the fact doesn’t really make any difference. MR. STONE-I agree with my fellow Board members, obviously. If we accept the applicant’s figures, and that’s the only one we have, that these, if this were zoned 10,000, that these houses would all be perfectly legal, in terms of setback, and we wouldn’t be here, then I really have no problem at all. I do suggest, as a number of my fellow Board members have stated, that we ought to see about getting this rezoned, and I think it might easily be done in connection with the new zoning, if we can make an addendum, because we’re still working on that, if we can make an addendum and rezone these three acres for SFR-10. That that would be the easiest way to do it, and then these would be conforming lots. The only concern I have, and I just want to say it, is I’m concerned with the southerly most lot, because I know that house is going to be tucked behind the existing house and garage that’s there on the corner, and, one, I hope that the builder can sell that piece of property and sell the house he builds there, but having done that, if owners say, what did I buy, after the fact, and don’t take care of their property because of the way it’s going to be configured on this lot and in the neighborhood, I’d just be concerned for the future. There’s nothing I can do about it, but I would be concerned about it, because I do see the current house on that corner, the garage is right on the property line, if not over the property line. I’m sure it’s not over, but it’s right on the property line. MR. LAPPER-The advantage on that lot, though, is that it is almost 17,000 square feet. MR. STONE-Okay, hopefully it’s a balancing test for somebody who wants to buy it. We’ll see what happens. I do also echo Mr. Caimano’s comments that it would be great if in this general neighborhood, we’re obviously not talking about a particular piece of property that has become infamous or famous whatever we want to call it, but this is certainly a positive for the neighborhood, new construction in a neighborhood that has been severely impacted by commercial activities on almost all sides, and I think this would be a boon for the neighborhood, so to speak. Having said that, I need a motion to approve. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 96-2000 KATHRYN PEASLEE AND PETER LIAPES, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Greenway Drive. The applicant proposes construction of three single family dwellings. Relief required, the applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement, 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement, 30 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum side setback total, and 15 feet of relief from the 25 foot rear setback requirement of the Highway Commercial One Acre zone, Section, 179-23. Also, the applicant seeks 50 feet of relief from the 50 foot buffer requirement, per Section 179-72. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the three desired single family dwellings. The feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives may include petitioning the Town Board to rezone the property, and we are encouraging and ask that that be done. However, the applicant already has a Use Variance allowing for residential construction, and in view of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, this particular lot is desired to be rezoned anyway. So I don’t feel there is any need to get the rezoning done before they proceed. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The cumulative request for relief could only be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance involved, which is Highway Commercial. However, not so when you look at it as a residential use, where, under which circumstance there wouldn’t need to be any variance requested. So it is a technicality here, because it is zoned as Highway Commercial. We have to allow this variance. Effects on the neighborhood or community, minimal effects on the community may be anticipated as a result of this action. The land will be used in the same manner as the neighboring residential community. Is the difficulty self-created? It may be interpreted as self-created, but for practical purposes, this is resolved via the recently approved Use Variance. We’re requiring maintenance of the 50 foot buffer on the southern side of the southern most lot. Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-I heard you say, and I know we can’t go back and look at the exact wording, that we have to do something. You meant we have to do it because it’s Highway Commercial zone, and to m make it conform to the residential zoning of the neighborhood. Is that what you meant by have to? Because we don’t have to do anything. MR. HIMES-No. I don’t recall exactly what I said. The Highway Commercial zoning asks for the distances that they’re applying for relief from, but, as a residential undertaking, it doesn’t. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HIMES-And the Use Variance given before. MR. STONE-We’re treating it as if, in a sense, that’s fine. MR. LAPPER-The 50 foot buffer. MR. STONE-Yes, I was just going to mention that. Add about we’re requiring maintenance of a 50 foot buffer on the south, southern most lot, on the southern side of the southernmost lot. MR. HIMES-Yes, all right. MR. STONE-You accept that? MR. HIMES-Yes, I do. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions about the motion? Second? MR. HAYES-Second. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally MR. LAPPER-Thank you, and sorry we had to bother you twice about this project. AREA VARIANCE NO. 98-2000 TYPE II THE MICHAELS GROUP, LLC OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: LOT 31, HOUSE NO. 61 SURREY FIELD DRIVE SURREY FIELD SUBDIVISION APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED SCREENED PORCH (10 FT. BY 15 FT.) AND 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) SEEKS REAR YARD SETBACK RELIEF. CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 5-1997 AV 17-1997 ZONE: SFR-1A TAX MAP NO. 48-8-31 LOT SIZE: 0.17 ACRES SECTION 179-20 MATT STEVES & PAUL LAMBERT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 98-2000, The Michaels Group, LLC, Meeting Date: November 15, 2000 “Project Location: Lot 31, House No. 61 Surrey Field Drive Surrey Field Subdivision Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a single family dwelling with an attached screened porch. Relief Required: Applicant requests 1.15 feet of relief from the 3 foot minimum rear setback requirement per Subdivision 5-97 modification dated 6/16/98 approved the three foot rear setback. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the existing structure in the current configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration to meet the setback requirement. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 1.15 feet of relief from the 3 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. (38%) 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-532 issued 7/24/2000 Single Family Dwelling AV 17-97 res. 4/16/97 allow cluster subdivision on substandard lots in SFR zone. Subdivision 5-97 res. 9/16/97 45 lot residential cluster subdivision. Modified 6/16/98 to allow 10 foot rear setback for homes and three foot setbacks for decks and porches. Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the requested setback relief may only affect the common areas of the Surrey Field subdivision, the applicant has previously been granted, by the Planning Board, a significantly reduced rear setback……3 feet for decks. Per § 179-20, SFR-1A, the standard rear setback is 20 feet. This subdivision has been granted relief to; cluster development in a SFR zone, create substandard (less than one acre) lots, construct buildings and accessory structures within 10 and 3 feet, respectively. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves, and with me is Paul Lambert, from The Michaels Group, and I can start off, or Paul can start off. Which one do you want? MR. STONE-It’s your call. We just sit and listen. MR. STEVES-All right. This is a lot in the Surrey Field Subdivision, as Staff has noted. The screen porch is on the northwest, or almost due north side of the house, as you can see on the map. It 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) abuts the large common HOA property. As far as Staff’s comment that, yes, you could have a reconfiguration of the lot. Because of the vastness of this open space or Homeowners Association property, we could jog the back property line, go in for a modification of the subdivision, re-file that, or come in front of this Board for the variance for the one plus, you know, two inch, you know, fourteen inch relief, and in our opinion, that was the proper way to go about this. As far as the detriment to the community, definitely not. As far as, does it affect any neighboring properties, both properties, since this is on the outside of a curve, you’re going away from the properties on either side. It doesn’t really affect them. They, like I said before, to the west is all Homeowners Association property for approximately about 1,000 feet. It just really has no, zero effect, as far as the character of the neighborhood. MR. LAMBERT-I think Matt probably summed it up just as well as I could have. My name is Paul Lambert. I’m from The Michaels Group. Certainly, our intent when we built this porch, or constructed this house or plotted this house on the land, was not to build this thing too far back, and not to have the screened porch over the back line. So it was merely an accident or mishap, but our intent was not to put it back that far. MR. STONE-Well, can you, before one of us, because we take turns giving the lecture, when things are built that require variances, then you come before us, can you tell us, explain how this happened? Since you’d already gotten extreme relief to begin with, why did you, how did it happen you took more? MR. STEVES-Well, The Michaels Group comes into my office with every house and says, stake it here at this location. I talked with Mr. Stone, in passing a few days ago, and gave him some scenarios of how all this can happen sometimes. We stake a lot with a two inch wide stake. You put it to the one side of the stake, the back side or the front side of the stake, the mason strings it to the back side. Now he puts his foundation in the hole. His foundation, his footing is two feet wide. He then forms his wall up and he goes back an extra half an inch, just because you’re working with concrete forms. It’s not an exact science. You then frame the building in and you put siding and sheathing on. I don’t know of too many houses where the sheathing and the siding is inside the foundation. It usually protrudes beyond the foundation. So you keep adding up and inch, an inch, an inch, or two inches here, then you run into this possibility. It was never intended to be this way, as Mr. Lambert has stated, but this is how it ended up. We don’t try to stake it out this way or have it built this way. It happened. That’s why we’re in front of this Board. MR. MC NALLY-The Michaels Group is a pretty sophisticated organization. They’ve built one or two porches before in their time, I think. I’m always leery when someone comes after the fact and says, hey, I made a mistake, as opposed to maybe not, as one applicant said this summer, my architect said just build it, they won’t do anything to you, which is not something we like to hear. MR. LAMBERT-Well, certainly that was not my intent. The whole time that we were building this porch and constructing this porch, you know, it certainly wasn’t my intent that it was over the setback line. I did not realize that at that time when we were building. MR. MC NALLY-Is this someone’s home? MR. LAMBERT-Currently, the customer, their closing has been delayed. They haven’t closed on the house yet, due to this problem. MR. MC NALLY-It’s new construction? MR. LAMBERT-Yes, sir. MR. MC NALLY-And these people are looking to move in one day? MR. LAMBERT-They’re looking to close, you know, if I’m granted this Area Variance, they’re to close on their new home, yes. MR. MC NALLY-Have there been any other problems like this up and down the development? MR. LAMBERT-No. MR. STONE-Do many of these homes have porches on the back? It was pouring when I went by. MR. LAMBERT-There’s probably, certainly a lot of the homes in there have decks on them. There’s probably a handful of screened porches on the back of the homes, some that we’ve constructed, others that a homeowner has constructed after they’ve closed on their house. MR. URRICO-Are they all within the setback? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. LAMBERT-Certainly the other ones that I have built, yes, they are. I don’t know if the other ones that a homeowner has constructed are or are not. I do not know that. MR. STONE-Are the homeowners aware of how, are most of these houses that tight to the line, the back line? MR. LAMBERT-Yes, sir. On the sides and the front of the house, we’re 30 and a half feet off the front property line. We’re 11 feet off each side. They’re very tight lots. MR. STEVES-This is the first one, out of all the ones they’ve built in here, of approximately 40 homes, 42 homes, then they’re all, had the constraints of, you know, within half a foot. We never intended this to happen. MR. STONE-What happens, this HOA common green space, what is that going to be, or what is it is now, in terms of, and who’s going to maintain it? MR. LAMBERT-It’s meant to be forever green, or forever lawn space, and the Homeowners Association, their fee is actually to pay a gentleman or a landscaper to maintain this grassy area to the woods, which is about another 25 feet. MR. STONE-Okay. So there is grass back there. MR. LAMBERT-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-That does not belong to the individual homeowner? MR. LAMBERT-Right. MR. STONE-And, not that we enforce covenants, but what do the covenants say about a homeowner encroaching on that land, with anything? Can they put a swing set up. MR. STEVES-Not to my knowledge. They would have to go to the Homeowners Association, and they would have to get approval from the Association, which is the group of homeowners in there. That would be something that they would have to resolve between themselves and the Homeowners Association. MR. MC NALLY-Are there restrictions in the deed regarding the use of the homeowner’s space, the homeowners association space? MR. STEVES-I believe that the restrictions that are placed on the Homeowners Association property is it can never be used as development, and as far as any restrictions as far as the use of the homeowner, can they place a shed or anything on that? That, I do not know. MR. STONE-Well, do homeowners treat that as their back yard? MR. LAMBERT-Yes, the feel it is. I mean, it’s maintained. It’s mowed. They certainly walk their dogs and they use that area as it is theirs, yes. MR. STEVES-And they have their right to do that, yes. MR. STONE-But they don’t necessarily have the right to put up a jungle gym. MR. LAMBERT-Well, not just to put it up. I mean, they may have to go in front of the Board of Homeowners, or the Homeowners Association and propose their case of putting up a shed or putting up a jungle gym or a swing set. MR. HIMES-How far back did you say the wooded area, how deep did you say that it was? MR. STEVES-It’s about 25 to 30 feet beyond the porch to the edge of the woods, and then the common area goes behind this lot probably another 1200 feet. MR. HIMES-That’s what I thought you said was that 1200 feet. MR. STEVES-That includes the woods. MR. HIMES-Right, into the woods. Another question. How near completion is the development? In other words, how many yet to be built that might be thinking about putting on porches? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. LAMBERT-We have five more closings for the year to finish out the site. It’s near completion. All those homes are sold, and they will be closed, this year, be beginning of next year. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? All right. Hearing none, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOE KOPCZAK MR. KOPCZAK-My name is Joe Kopczak, and I live at 59 Surrey Field Drive, right next door, and I, personally, have no objection to it. Every day I go out on my deck, I’ll look out, and I’ll see that and, frankly, it is not distracting to me at all, that extra foot. So, I do want to make one comment, though, and it’s not directly a positive comment, and that is, although I live next door, I never got a notification of this meeting, and in checking through some of the other people in the neighborhood, this is true for others as well, and I don’t know what method you use to notify people about meetings of this type. MR. STONE-Five hundred feet, supposedly. Now, is there a problem? Did you notify The Michaels Group and nobody else? MR. BROWN-There should be a notification list in the file. MR. MC NALLY-Is this a problem with other members of the community? MR. KOPCZAK-Yes. MR. STONE-Well, it’s certainly our intent, I mean, the Planning Department’s intent, to notify anybody within 500 feet. MR. KOPCZAK-It fell in the crack somewhere, and I hope it doesn’t happen on something serious. MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see any indication of any notification. MR. HIMES-Some of those residents might be there only. MR. KOPCZAK-I’ve been there six months. MR. HIMES-Have you? Have the others? MR. BROWN-Our mailing lists are based on information forwarded to us from the County. I mean, you may have heard Mr. Steves talk about certain delays in tax mapping at the County, and if there have been closings. MR. KOPCZAK-Did you get a notice, Nick? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. BROWN-We could be operating with not current information. MR. KOPCZAK-Okay. It’s a minor point, but I just wanted to make sure. MR. STONE-No, we thank you very much for it. It’s very important because one of the things that we want people to know, because we use neighborhood input, to a large extent, in helping us form our opinion. So we’re very sorry that you didn’t get it, and I can’t say it won’t happen again, but it won’t happen again with Number 61 Surrey Field Drive, I assume. MR. KOPCZAK-Okay, and I think I’m speaking for two other people back here. MR. STONE-Well, I’d just as soon have them come up, if they would like to speak. We’d like to get it on record. MR. KOPCZAK-Okay. RUTH KNOBLOCK 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MRS. KNOBLOCK-Good evening. I’m Ruth Knoblock and I live at 44 Surrey Field. I’ve resided there for one full year now. I have a screened in back porch that The Michaels Group constructed, and it is within bounds, and it’s just fine. None of the other folks who have screen porches have any problems. We are all very, very happy to have (lost word) come in as a neighbor, and see no problem with her having infringed a foot into the common area. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak in favor? NICK CAIMANO MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Chairman, if you don’t mind, I would also ask Mrs. Butler. Mrs. Butler recently lost her husband, and she was a little nervous about coming forward, so I told her I would come up here with her. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Mrs. Butler, go ahead. MRS. BUTLER MRS. BUTLER-I just want to say that I live at 43 Surrey Field, and I have no problem with the foot infringement. MR. STONE-All right. You have our sympathy. MR. CAIMANO-I’m Nick Caimano, 36 Surrey Field Drive. I live across the circle. I obviously have none. I can answer some of the questions, if you’d like to ask them again, that were not answered earlier, regarding the common ground. We all will, effective January, become owners of the common ground, as members of the Association. MR. STONE-All right. Let me ask, do you expect that the people on the outside, like this piece of property, are going to put things in the common area? MR. CAIMANO-It’s possible, but they’ll have to come to the Association Board members to get approval to do so, and if you go back there, you will see that it really is a woods, for the most part. You’ve been there. MR. STONE-Sure. MR. CAIMANO-And, you know, unless you were technical about it, you would never know the extra foot was added on. We also put a deck with the porch on our house. We’re on the other side and face the other woods, and we had it measured, and of course the Town came. We had building permits, etc. So all of this was under the aegis of the Town, if you will. MR. STONE-The only concern is, that I have, and I can’t speak for the rest of the Board, is extreme relief was granted. MR. CAIMANO-I understand. MR. STONE-And yet we’ve had this problem, and of course we don’t like these kind of problems, and I’m just afraid that this whole area, this common area will just be an extension of people’s back yards, which is not the intent of the subdivision that we agreed to, because it came before our Board in ’97. MR. CAIMANO-I don’t think you’ll see a problem. I think what you see here, Lew, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that a simple mistake was made, and it was made up and down the line, not only by The Michaels Group, but by the Town. They were there. They knew, and they didn’t know, because it was so insidious that it never quite caught anybody’s attention until the last moment. I’d ask for you to think about that. I don’t think you have a worry. I think you have people there who, and by the way, Craig, I did receive a notice, and I think it has to do with the County, because I’ve been there a little over year, and I think the tax maps and all that kind of stuff got caught up. So I think the reason the others weren’t noticed was because of the County’s, I hate to say this, because of the County’s problem. MR. STONE-It is distressing. I mean, first of all, it’s distressing, I mean, I don’t know the facts, and I’m not tarring anybody or criticizing, but Staff should be aware of whether they sent letters out to properties around. I mean, somehow you know that there are neighbors. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. CAIMANO-I’ll let you fight that battle. I have my own little battles to fight, and I would ask that you give serious consideration to who moves into this area. We are not, and I’m dating myself because I’m as old as you are. We are not young spring chickens here. We are people who have been around the horn. We understand the ramifications of where we live, and the responsibilities that go with it. Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Let the record reflect that Mr. Caimano is not a spring chicken. All right. 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-Any further questions of the applicant? Okay. Let’s talk about it. Where do we start? Mr. Hayes. MR. HAYES-Well, I guess Bob has already made the already constructed. So we’ll leave those alone in this particular case. MR. MC NALLY-We have allowed people to take them down, from time to time. That’s always a pleasant experience. MR. HAYES-And that’s always an option for already constructed type problems, but in this particular case, I think this is fairly simplistic, and I think, you know, as far as I’m concerned, we ought to keep it that way. I think I, personally, save my fire for people who have come in and done an already built construction and apply for a variance afterwards, when there’s a detriment to the neighborhood, or, my sense is that they’re trying to get leverage on the Board by already being there, and I don’t think that either one of those things is in effect in this case. I think it was an honest mistake, and I’m really not at all disturbed by one foot. I mean, it’s not a lot, in this particular case, particularly when you consider the amount of common green space that’s behind this property, that I think it’s exceptionally minimal, in non impact form, and there’s neighborhood support for the porch itself, which, to me, you know, that’s three for three, and I think, in this particular case, when you balance this test, I think I’m fine with this. There’s very little relief, and I think there’s no impact on the neighborhood or community whatsoever. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-On the one hand, I don’t like bailing somebody out because they made a mistake, and I would think, in this case, that the developer should have been extremely careful, knowing that they were close to the lines and they had some fairly substantial breaks given already. On the other hand, we all do make mistakes, and given that this backs up to common area, and we have not heard any concerns about infringement on the common area, and balancing the fact that there would be some substantial expense if they were required to rip this thing back off, I think the balance falls to the benefit to the applicant. So I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, normally, I’d view myself as the defender of the Code, but I think in this case it’s a simple mistake. The common area really hides the infringement. None of the neighbors object to it. So I would be inclined to go along with the proposal. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I agree with everything that’s been said. I don’t have anything else to add. I’m in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’ll approve it. My Board members said everything that was necessary. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Thank you. I think one of the benefits of a cluster development is that you have this common area which gives you leeway, and I think that you’re not backing up on anybody else’s property. Your neighbors certainly support what’s been done here. I agree that it was probably a simple mistake, and I’m in favor of it. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/00) MR. STONE-I’m, of course, in favor of it, too. The only thing that comes out to me, as I look at this thing is this is a perfect example of how to lie with statistics. 1.15 feet on 3 is 38%. Thirty-eight percent sounds terrible, 1.15 feet doesn’t sound like very much at all. You’ve gotten the speech. I think all of us are concerned with pre-buildings before a variance is granted, but this is, as everyone has stated, and everyone feels, an honest mistake, and we’re dealing with a very nice development. I think the common area behind this thing makes this a very nice development, and something that I feel very good that we had a part in three years ago, when this thing. I’m just amazed that it’s almost sold out. That shows you how fast time goes, which is scary, but I’ve known that, too. Having said that, I would like a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 98-2000 THE MICHAELS GROUP, LLC, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Lot 31, House No. 61 Surrey Field Drive. The applicant has already constructed a single family dwelling with an attached screened porch, closer to the rear line than is otherwise allowed. Specifically, the applicant requests 1.15 feet of relief from the three foot minimum rear setback requirement, per Subdivision 5-97 modification, dated 6/16/98, and approving a uniform three foot rear setback in this cluster development. The benefit to the applicant would be that they would be permitted to maintain the existing structure in the current configuration which was built by accident and inadvertently. Feasible alternatives would include taking the property down or reconfiguration to meet the setback requirement. Given the fact that the amount that the porch extends beyond the three foot setback is so minimal, that makes no sense. The effects on the neighborhood or community, particularly with the number of neighbors that are present here tonight, and who have offered support to the applicant, indicates that there’s going to be no significant effects whatsoever on the neighborhood, and while the difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, certainly it was inadvertent. For all these reasons, I move the approval. Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate MR. STONE-There you go. MR. STEVES-We thank you. MR. LAMBERT-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Go and sin no more, please. All right. We have one set of minutes, gentlemen, I believe we can do. CORRECTION OF MINUTES October 25, 2000: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES FOR THE SECOND REGULAR MEETING, OCTOBER 25, 2000, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNally ABSENT: Mr. Abbate MR. STONE-I move we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 31