Loading...
2000-10-18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ROBERT MC NALLY PAUL HAYES CHARLES ABBATE NORMAN HIMES JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-2000 TYPE II ROBERT WALL OWNER: SAME AGENT: KEVIN MASCHEWSKI ZONE: WR-3A, CEA, APA LOCATION: 15 ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,900 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF, HEIGHT RELIEF, AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 73-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 1-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; R. WALL, PRESENT MR. STONE-This application was tabled last month. Why don’t you read the tabling. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Resolution The Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Area Variance No. 79-2000 Robert Wall Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 79-2000 Robert Wall, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: For no more than 62 days, in which time the applicant will furnish the following information: An accurate description of the amount of the project in Queensbury, in terms of garage, the square footage of the house, basically the square footage of the additions made in Queensbury. We need to know the building square footage total for this project that resides within the confines of the Town of Queensbury, be they second floor, garage or anything else that they may wish to put in this application. We’d need to know exactly where the Lake George/Queensbury Town line is, as it relates to the building square footage within either Town and the height. Duly adopted this 20 day of September, 2000, by the th following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE” MR. STONE-Would you read the Staff Notes in, the new Staff Notes. There have been changes from the ones that were read in the last time. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 79-2000, Robert Wall, Meeting Date: October 18, 2000 “Project Location: 15 Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1900 sf two story addition and 784 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 9.66 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement, and 11.6% relief from the 22% allowable Floor Area Ratio requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16, for a total FAR of 33.6%, in Queensbury. Also, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a non- conforming structure per § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to dramatically increase the living space of the home and construct a significant detached garage. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller compliant addition. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) plan/variance, etc.): SPR 73-2000 pending expansion of a non conforming structure in a CEA Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. This unique proposal is bisected by the Queensbury/Lake George town line, which is represented as an approximate location on the plot plan submitted. The Floor Area Ratio for the entire parcel drops to 27% when the lands and proposed development in Lake George are considered. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead, gentlemen. State your names and so on. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Good evening. Kevin Maschewski. MR. WALL-Robert Wall, the owner. MR. STONE-Anything else you want to tell us? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. You should have in front of you a revised sheet. It’s not on the Queensbury form, it’s just a handwritten form that depicts the property identification, as far as square foot, within Queensbury, square foot, the entire property bisecting both Lake George and Queensbury. Upon the last meeting, I visited with Craig, and went over the information that you folks had requested, and hopefully this is sufficient enough and gets a little better understanding of what we’re trying to accomplish. MR. STONE-Okay. Is that it? MR. MASCHEWSKI-For now, I guess, until the questions come up. MR. STONE-Let me just state, before anybody else gets a chance, that, obviously, this is a very complicated application. The fact that we’ve got two towns involved, and we both have quite different zoning when it comes to the waterfront. We, as a Board, on those properties that are in Queensbury only, have been very strict when it comes to height. We won’t even get to the Floor Area Ratio yet. Obviously, as I look at your drawing, you’re trying to make it conform to Queensbury’s 28 feet on that portion of the property that’s in Queensbury. However, that portion that’s closest to the lake, which is the one that we’re usually very concerned about, it looks like it’s 34 feet. Now we can’t do anything about that, but it certainly makes me, for one, look at the rest of the application very stringently, if you will, and I can only tell you that I, for one, intend to. We have to be very concerned with our zoning, to the extent that we have an influence on how this house is constructed. Any questions of the applicant? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Actually, can I make a statement? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. MASCHEWSKI-That’s interesting that you say that, but the grade drops, on this property. As with most of the properties around the lake, it, significantly from the road, dips down, and because this falls within Lake George, Lake George prohibits filling around Lake George within 1,000 feet. So, it brings on a situation of not being able to adhere to their regulations of no fill. I mean, we certainly would love to bring in four or five feet of fill to accommodate the 28 feet, but being that that’s on the Lake George side because they prohibit building. MR. STONE-It’s called between a rock and a hard place. MR. MASCHEWSKI-A Catch-22. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you for that information. Any comments, questions anybody wants to ask? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see any correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions, gentlemen? We’re very quiet tonight. Anything you want to add? Otherwise we’ll talk about it. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. HAYES-I just have one more question. Refresh my memory as far as the addition, how much closer to the lake that was going, as far as feet? MR. MASCHEWSKI-The property now, the setback is 62 feet, and actually it’s 62 foot 10, and it’s going to be 51 feet. So, 12 feet closer. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, I did find one letter. I’m not sure if we read it last time or not, from a David Montana. MR. STONE-Let’s err on the safe side and read it in. I’ll open the public hearing for the purpose of reading the letter. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. MC NULTY-This was received on September 14 and written on the 14, signed by David thth Montana, 17 Antigua Road on Plum Point. He’s addressed it to the Secretary, and he says “We are not opposed in any way to the permit application or variance requested by Mr. Robert Wall. This is a property that has not been upgraded in the last 40 years. We had the opportunity to review the blueprints and we are sure that what they are doing is in good taste and will enhance the neighboring properties. Sincerely, David Montana 17 Antigua Road Plum Point Lake George, New York” MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Jamie, do you want to start? MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I certainly applaud Mr. Wall’s effort to update this piece of property. It’s a very nice piece of property now, but I can understand his desire to modernize it, but, historically, and in this particular case, I’ve been opposed to traditional relief when it is toward the lake, and I think I’m going to maintain that position in this particular case. I think that alternatives to the proposed construction away from the lake are possible, and therefore I think they need to be explored. I think the cumulative relief is moderate, but I think when you couple that with the fact that there are alternatives, in my mind, to the plan that’s been put forth, I think the test falls against the application, and I would be opposed. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I agree with Jamie, when it comes down to my final conclusions. When I looked at this, I’m not sure the side setback bothers me a great deal, but the floor area ratio does, and while it can be argued that the floor area ratio isn’t that terrible, when you consider the entire project, we’re concerned with what’s in the Town of Queensbury. So, if I concern myself just with the Town of Queensbury, a floor area ratio of 33.6% strikes me as being higher than we should allow, and if I go the other way and consider the whole project, then I’m back into considering the height problem, which would also bother me. So either way, I come down on the negative side. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would voice the same opinion. I think that we’re looking at a floor area ratio that’s pretty extreme, compared to what would be reasonable, and I think that if you re- think that and try to lower that down some, I think that would be reasonable. I think we have to look at the totality of the whole project, too, you know, regarding the closeness of the lake, and I also, you know, even though it’s not in our domain, that part that’s down toward the lake, I still think that that’s something we need to consider. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you, Lew. Yes. I feel similarly. I know that last time it was mentioned you were going to do something, and reconstructing the slope of the driveway or what not to help somewhat with the runoff and I applaud that effort, and in connection with the overall floor area ratio, it’s still 5% or so above, and the side setback I’m not too concerned with, myself, but if that, in effect, could be shrunk down to be compliant, I might give it some further thought, but as it stands, I think I’d vote to decline the application. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Let me preface my remarks by saying that Mr. Wall and his representative have basically done everything they possible could to make adjustments. Before I state 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) my position, I just have one small question. Why can you not include a smaller compliant addition? If you answer that question, that will determine my position. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Why can we not include? MR. ABBATE-Let me rephrase it. Why can’t this project be just smaller in size, in area? MR. WALL-At this point, I mean, this was going to be a year round residence. The size that we established was basically my needs at this point. I’m going to move up here year round, and that was my needs. Let me go on just to say, and I hope I have the right understanding, and you have to understand my position also, as the owner. I understand it’s in the Town of Queensbury. I understand it’s in the Town of Lake George. I don’t feel I should be penalized, in any way, because it’s in two particular towns. It’s also my understanding, and I’m making a broad statement of this, but it’s also my understanding that the height restrictions in Lake George are 40 foot, if I’m not correct, 39 foot. The topography of the ground really warrants that, and we’re below that. So I think we’re meeting, as far as Lake George, the height restrictions and the lake setback, my understanding. I understand Queensbury’s setback is, I believe 75 foot. MR. STONE-No, it’s 50. MR. WALL-Is it 50? MR. STONE-This is one acre? MR. MC NULTY-Yes, one acre is what it says. MR. STONE-You say one here. I thought it was three. MR. MASCHEWSKI-It’s three, 75 feet. MR. STONE-Yes, it’s 75. MR. WALL-It’s 75, but in Lake George we are at 50, correct? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Correct. MR. WALL-So I believe we achieved those requirements in Lake George, with the 50 foot setback. We achieved the height, and well below the height restriction in Lake George also, and we tried our best to achieve the 28 foot height restriction in Queensbury. I understand Queensbury’s position that in fact, looking at the lake front, it doesn’t meet their requirements, but I think everyone has to understand that me as the homeowner, I was not the person who put that division line between my property. That was created. The two towns were created. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I appreciate that, your comments, thank you. MR. MASCHEWSKI-And if I could make a quick comment, too. We’re doing considerable improvements to the site, septic system is being totally replaced, relocated to be farther away from the lake. I certainly think, I’m a homeowner on the lake, and as a few of you are, certainly an advantage to pull that away from the lake. The square foot, it’s hard to, I can understand the Board’s position in looking at Queensbury, but it is hard just to look within Queensbury, and if Lake George did that, which we’re going to be attending the Zoning Board meeting tomorrow night, they say, well, Town of Lake George, you don’t have a septic system. It’s in Queensbury. So, yes, you’ve got to look on your individual township, but it certainly warrants looking at the entire property. I sat in front of the Board here a month ago. There was an approval for an increased floor area ratio, I believe up in the mid 25 to 26%. We are at 27% right now. If there is a need, the garage could get reduced to bring it down to closer to 26%. There was significant discussions with Robert and myself of reducing that garage to get closer to that 22%, but there was last month, and I did sit here, that approval on the floor area ratio, and we would be willing to reduce that garage a little to accommodate a better percentage. MR. HAYES-Was there any new discussion or resolution as far as the floor area ratio? MR. BROWN-Last month? MR. HAYES-Yes. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. BROWN-Yes. There was an application, I think Mr. Lapper represented Domer’s Golden. It was a house on Gunn Lane. MR. HAYES-I thought you were talking about a change in the Code. MR. STONE-No. MR. BROWN-No, just a previous application. MR. STONE-He was talking about something else that we did. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, something that was on last month’s. MR. STONE-Have you finished, Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Thank you, yes I have, thank you. MR. STONE-Where do you come down? You didn’t say that. MR. ABBATE-No, I didn’t say that. Unless the applicant is willing to reduce this project substantially, I’m afraid I would have to vote against it. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m going to be the odd man out, at least in part. I think it’s a unique property being straddled by the Town line, and I sympathize with the applicant’s position, although he also bought it knowing that it was in both towns. So I’m not so sure that we’re the ones that’s the cause of this problem, but that being said, if you look at the lot overall, it’s only a 27% floor area ratio. That’s only 5% above the Town’s requirement, and while it may be greater if you look at just the Queensbury portion, this is a single lot, and it’s a single home and a single house. So a five percent increase is not something that’s going to make me be upset. By the same token, the 9.66 feet of relief from the side setback, when I was out there, it would cause no one any trouble whatsoever. If I’m not mistaken, the house is pretty much if not existing already with the side setback of that, he’s looking to extend it where it is already. I don’t know if I’d be agreed that the house should be within the 28 foot or beyond the 28 feet, because I think that can be alleviated. The portion that’s in Queensbury is not subject to the fill requirements of that 1,000 foot setback, but, overall, I’d be in favor of the project. MR. STONE-First of all, you’re not being penalized because you’re in two. We are very protective. We have been, as a Board, and I know that a lot of people in this room can attest that we have been pretty protective of the lake. This is an unusual situation, as I said at the beginning, at the outset of the hearing, and, obviously, most of my fellow Board members agree that it’s very, we’re putting it to a very severe test. However, I don’t think a 5% over 22%, and we can play with statistics all we want, but we have a 22% floor area ratio requirement in Queensbury for lake shore property, and 27% represents approximately a 20 to 21%, I haven’t multiplied it out, increase over what’s allowed. It’s a very big increase as far as I’m concerned. I agree with most of my fellow Board members that that’s the problem here is the floor area ratio. I agree with Mr. McNally and a couple of other Board members who said the side setback doesn’t really concern him. The house is there. It’s laid out well, and that doesn’t trouble me at all, but I am troubled by the floor area ratio, which brings this down to a decision. It appears that, if I call for a motion, we will deny the application, which places a fairly large restraint on you. If you withdraw the application, and, Craig, we haven’t had this for a while, but if you withdraw the application, there’s no prejudice, and you can come back with a revised plan that might not have to be as different as it would be if we denied it. Am I correct there? MR. BROWN-So far, so good. MR. STONE-Okay. So you have two choices. I mean, I think that, if I call for a vote, it will be, the application will be denied. So you can either let us do that, and attempt to come back to us with a markedly different application, because that’s what you have to do to get us to reconsider a denied application, or you can withdraw it without prejudice, and come back to us at your leisure, with a different plan, which we might find more acceptable. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Tabling is not an option? MR. STONE-Tabling is not an option as far as I’m concerned, at this point. In other words, if you withdraw the application, you can tweak it. If we table it, we just keep going on and on and on. I don’t see any, from what I heard here, I don’t see anything that tabling is going to accomplish. What’s your pleasure? Do you want me to call for a motion? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. MASCHEWSKI-We’ll withdraw. MR. STONE-Okay. So done. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2000 TYPE II OSCAR AND DEBBY SCHREIBER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 111 SEELYE ROAD ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AND DECK. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 10/11/2000 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-30.2 LOT SIZE: 0.62 ACRES SECTION 179- 16 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; OSCAR SCHREIBER, PRESENT MR. STONE-Mr. McNally, you are recusing yourself because of a relationship with one of the people. Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2000, Oscar and Debby Schreiber, Meeting Date: October 18, 2000 “Project Location: 111 Seelye Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1739 sf two story addition which includes an 899 sf garage. Also a 5 ft by 10 ft deck is proposed for the South side of the home. Relief Required: Applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement for the garage addition and 6.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement for the deck, per §179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to substantially increase the size of the home. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration to request minimal relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 15 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial, however 6.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there appears to be an area for more compliant construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP37-96 res. 7/16/96 modified 4/18/00 boathouse AV25-93 res. 8/24/93 lot width and setback relief BP96-543 9/3/96 Boathouse BP93400 7/29/93 Single Family Dwelling Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Perhaps a two-car, shallower garage would be more compliant or at least require less relief. Consideration may be given to a detached garage centered on the lot. It does not appear that strict compliance with the ordinance would deprive the applicant a reasonable use of the property. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 14, 2000 Project Name: Schreiber, Oscar Owner: Oscar Schreiber ID Number: QBY-AV-57-2000 County Project#: Jun00-31 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant proposes the construction of a garage and deck. Relief is requested from side yard setback requirements. Site Location: 111 Seelye Road Tax Map Number(s): 16-1-30.2 Staff Notes: Applicant requests side yard setback relief of 9” on one side and 10’ on the other. The proposed project would exceed required shoreline setback requirements by 42’. The setback deficiencies are not particularly extreme, however Staff is concerned about crowded lakeshore development. Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Terri Ross, Warren County Planning Board 6/15/00. MR. STONE-Is that it? Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Oscar Schreiber. Oscar and his wife Debby are the property owners. Very simply, the three areas that we’re asking for variances, the two feet on the chimney, on the north side, is really minimal. The deck is a pretty small deck, and only a very small distance, 10 feet long, on the property line. So we’re really here, I presume primarily to talk about the garage. When you look at the site, like with Craig’s notes, you ask, why don’t you just move the garage to the center of the lot and then you wouldn’t need the variance, or as substantial a variance, and there were just practical reasons that if they moved it there, it would block the front of the house. It would block the windows. It would block their view out the front, and there would also be an issue that 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) Oscar will get into in terms of the turning radius into the garage. Ordinarily, asking for a five foot setback on a 20 foot setback requirement would sound substantial. What’s unique about this case is that the neighbor, Michael Kaidas, the neighbor to the south who would be the only one who would be impacted by that, has a letter that I’ll submit for the public hearing portion, that they are not impacted at all, and they are completely supportive, because their house, I’m sure you guys were all out there, but their house and pool are all substantially closer to the lake. This is all behind them. So they feel they won’t be impacted at all, and they have a nice wooded area there, and I have a landscaping plan to submit, that wasn’t submitted with the application, just to show you. So it’s really a practical reason that it’s a benefit to the applicant, and we would argue that there’s no detriment to the neighborhood at all for just the length of the garage, because there’s nothing else built there. We also have a letter from the neighbor across Seelye Road, saying that they wouldn’t be impacted either. So I just want to submit these additional drawings and letters. MR. STONE-You mention something which is not in Staff notes, this chimney. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Where is the chimney at? It’s going to be 30 feet? MR. LAPPER-No, two feet closer than. MR. STONE-Two feet closer, I’m sorry. MR. LAPPER-That’s the chimney, on the north side. MR. STONE-I see, all right. So you put the chimney here? MR. HAYES-It’s going to be to the left as you’re looking at the front. MR. STONE-So that’s going to be 18. So that’s two feet of relief. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Did we know that, Mr. Brown? Did we advertise that? MR. HAYES-We advertised for dimensional relief. MR. BROWN-It’s advertised as side setback relief. It’s not on this plot plan. It’s labeled 20 feet on the plot plan. So I didn’t pick up the north side of the building. MR. STONE-It’s labeled 20, but he’s saying the chimney is at 18. MR. BROWN-If you want to give him relief for it, that’s certainly within your purview. MR. STONE-But was it advertised? MR. BROWN-It was advertised for side setback relief. MR. STONE-On both sides? MR. BROWN-Side setback relief. You can take that any way you want. MR. STONE-Okay. I have to admit, I don’t read them. I can’t find them. MR. HAYES-They’re in the first part of the Classifieds. MR. STONE-I know where they are, but I never see them. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Lastly, I would just like to point out that , on the floor area worksheet, which I submitted, they’re using much less of the site than they would be allowed to. The site could accommodate 3700 and change more square feet, and this is 1700. So there’s roughly another 2,000 square feet that could be added, and then I’ve got the letters from the two neighbors. MR. STONE-Okay. We’ll read those in at the time. Yes. I was going to say that your original letter with the application, wouldn’t that be considered hearsay when you say that he didn’t object and you’re going to hear from him? MR. LAPPER-Only, yes, until I backed it up with this. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, I’m watching all these t.v. shows. I want to be sure that this is, in fact, hearsay. MR. LAPPER-I want to turn it over to Oscar to give you a little more personal account. MR. SCHREIBER-Good evening. My name’s Oscar Schreiber. We bought this property in 1993 from next door neighbor Mark and Linda McCollister. We built it as a summer residence, although it is winterized. We since have two children, Bradley is four and Eric is one, and we live in Clifton Park now. We are going to relocate to this house year round. For a lot of reasons, the lifestyle, most importantly the school district, and we wanted to expand the house, because as it sits now, it’s 1500 square feet of living space. With two children, it’s doable, but it’s smaller. The bedrooms are small. The kitchen is very small. There is no, virtually no dining area. There’s one small table. So we needed to expand the house. We came up with this plan, and the reason for the variances are a few fold. The most important is the safety factor. In your front page of your plans, you’ll see that there’s one window in the front by the door, to the right of the door as you’re looking at your plans. That is going to be the area where my wife or I can see the children playing in the front yard of the house, from the house. We don’t want them, obviously, playing on the lake side of the house, because we don’t want them to end up in the lake at this tender age. If the garage had to be moved over, we would lose that window. Besides the house then being roughly half garage, which I don’t think would look good to the neighbors or to the area in itself having to look upon a house and just seeing a whole garage in front of the house, as opposed to the house, the most important thing is losing that window. We wouldn’t be able to see the children playing in the driveway or the front yard. Bradley rides his bike up and down the driveway. That’s the big reason we want to stay in that house, is because it’s a dead end street. It’s great for children. There are other kids in the neighborhood. It’s level to the lake. It’s perfect for kids, and myself and my wife Debby want to see the children playing from the house, as everybody would want to watch their children in the driveway riding their bikes around, and that’s the biggest issue. MR. STONE-May I say one thing, though? MR. SCHREIBER-Yes. MR. STONE-You’re going to learn. That’s the back of the house. MR. SCHREIBER-I always say that, and everybody corrects me. I say that. The front is the lake, the back is, but everybody tells me I’m wrong. Everyone says the front door faces the road. MR. STONE-We call it the main door. MR. SCHREIBER-The main door. Okay. So basically that’s the only place where we can see the children play. If we lose that window, we can’t do this house. I can’t risk, in my heart, not seeing those kids playing out there. That’s the one thing. The second is the turnaround. In the landscaping plan, which is page one of two, you’ll see where the proposed garage is. As you pull out of the garage, we need that area, which is roughly 34 feet, to turn around a car. We lost about seven or eight feet of our property because of that retention swale. Obviously, we can’t do anything there. We can’t fill it in. We wouldn’t want to fill it in. That takes the water from Seelye Road all the way down to the lake. That takes the water from the McCollister property down to the lake. That takes the water from our property down to the lake. That was there, when we bought this lot, it was fully treed, had never been touched. We didn’t know what was there. Obviously, we couldn’t without a bulldozer coming in and no one’s going to let us do that without owning the land first. There’s that retention swale, and I don’t think, Craig, it was you at the time. I think it was Dave Hatin, said that retention swale obviously stays. So we lost about seven or eight feet because of that retention swale. That is all on our property. It cuts over right where that turnaround would be, where the see the pictures of the two cars. In order to turn around and go out the driveway, the garage couldn’t be moved closer to our house. It’s physically impossible to turn around a car. The other thing is the neighbors. Michael Kaidas is our neighbor to the south. He is the only one that would be, if you want to call it, impacted by it, he’d be impacted by it. I’ve spoken to Michael about this numerous times. Michael wrote a letter. He’s totally in favor of it. We’ve talked to him about plans. We’ve talked to him about how the garage would look, would it match the house, so on and so forth. Jim White is directly across the street on Seelye Road. He, because of the view, I wanted him to see it. He looked at it. He saw the plan. He saw the house. He wrote the letter saying it wouldn’t effect him at all, and he told me that he would rather have the garage closer over toward Michael because it would just look nicer. He said, for us, it would look nicer. That lot was, as I said, fully treed, and I think we’ve improved it a whole lot. I think we keep it up very nicely. I think Craig has seen it. It’s kept up very nicely. No one’s ever objected to it. I have some pictures that I can show you, which would show where the garage is. In this picture, the dirt area, and right here is approximately where the garage would be, and that would be looking straight into the garage. So if you look at that, you’d see that it’s a completely treed area. There’s no impact to Mr. Kaidas. You can’t even see his house in the front of the, in this picture. His house would be to the left of the picture, all the way to the left, his house and his pool, which is behind his house. So, as his letter said, he wouldn’t be looking at the garage. He couldn’t see the garage from his house. It would be impossible. The next 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) picture is a view of our house from Seelye Road, and you can see right where about the mini van is, you can tell with two kids we have a mini van, is around where the garage would be. It would be closer toward the house, a little bit, than that picture, and you can see how the driveway, to the left of the driveway, slopes off into that drainage swale, and the whole grassy area you see is our leachfield. When we built this house, the required leach field, it’s huge. It’s 150 feet long, and you see that on the plans, you can see the leach field, how big the leach field is. That whole area is leach field. So there’s not a whole lot of room, and the man hole is right here for the pump station. So there’s not a whole lot of room to put the garage. We couldn’t put it any place else. The next picture would show you, the green Jeep is mine, and that would show you where I’d be turning into the garage. Through the trees, you could see a little bit of Mr. Kaidas’ roof. So you could see how far it is from his house and see that there’s really no impact, and here’s another view of about where the garage would be, where the dirt is. We took out a shed from there. The building to the right is an old shed that Mr. Kaidas had on his property, and it’s stayed there, but again, you could see from there that there’s nothing that would affect his view. As I said, he wouldn’t even see it from his property. I mean, Debby and I really want to live here, and we really want to do this. The five foot variance, again, I can only express that it’s not as if it’s right next to Mr. Kaidas’ house. There’s really no impact in the back there, and his leach field abuts where that area is going to be. So there’s going to be no building there. No one will ever build there, unless they want to move his leach field, which I don’t think anybody’s going to want to do. So, even if Mr., no one could ever build back where it would be contiguous with our garage. It’s going to be that, and that’s it forever, and I’d ask you to grant this variance, simply so we can move here. The landscaping plan, as you see, we would have trees all around the property, as we have now. We’d make a perennial bed up on the leach field, and around the garage would be cedar trees and there would be a 10 foot elm tree on the road, the front side of the garage, I’ll call it. The garage will match the house. The reason for the three car garage is it just makes the garage longer, which we’re not asking for any relief coming out toward the road. The setback would still be the same. We could not do a garage in the middle of the property because of the leach field. As you could see, the driveway is all the way to the left of the property. The most left of the property is the drainage swale. Then the driveway, then the leach field. So we couldn’t put the driveway in the middle of the property, simply because of that leach field. Thank you. MR. STONE-Talk to me about the shed that’s there now. I see it’s on this thing, but that’s not where it is now. Are you proposing to move it closer to Seelye Road? The little shed, which seems to me, it’s in the picture. You have a little shed. MR. LAPPER-Existing shed. MR. SCHREIBER-Yes. MR. STONE-But it looks as if, are you intending to move that west toward Seelye Road? MR. LAPPER-The picture you saw is the neighbor’s shed. MR. SCHREIBER-That’s the neighbor’s shed. The brown building? MR. STONE-No. The cream one. MR. SCHREIBER-This one, the cream colored one? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. SCHREIBER-Yes. That’s a shed that’s there temporarily. We’ve, it really doesn’t matter where that went, to be honest with you. MR. STONE-So if we asked you to take it down, it wouldn’t? I don’t know where we’re going to come out. I’m just laying the groundwork. MR. SCHREIBER-It matches the house. It’s sided. It’s not an old, dumpy shed. MR. ABBATE-On the other hand, if your request is disapproved. MR. SCHREIBER-Then we get rid of the shed, but it keeps the garden equipment. It keeps the tractor. It keeps the kids stuff. MR. STONE-We understand what they’re used for. MR. SCHREIBER-I mean, could it be moved? Absolutely. MR. STONE-Well, no, it looks as if, from your drawing, that at least Mr. Girard has moved it for you. That’s not where it is now. I don’t believe. Is it? Do you guys agree? Where’s that picture? I thought 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) it was much closer up to where the garage would be, but it’s immaterial. We can talk about it when we get there. MR. SCHREIBER-I’m going to plead ignorant, because I don’t know. Because he was there Saturday when he did this plan. He did this Saturday, and that shed hasn’t been moved since before Saturday, I can tell you that. MR. STONE-I didn’t say it’s been moved since Saturday, but. I think it’s right at the end of the raised leachfield, right now. Okay. Any questions of these two gentlemen? MR. MC NULTY-To make sure I’ve got my orientation right. The garage is actually going to be kind of closer to the house than where your current parking pad is? MR. SCHREIBER-Yes, sir. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. That may be part of why you’re thinking. MR. STONE-I thought this thing was in here, though. MR. MC NULTY-The current black top is in here. MR. STONE-Right. MR. HAYES-It’s definitely away from the lake more than the garage. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, where the garage is, which puts the current one closer to the shed than what it looks like the garage is. MR. STONE-I understand that. It’s not material at the moment. MR. HAYES-I have a question as to, looking at the design of the garage and stuff, is there a second story on that garage? MR. SCHREIBER-Just storage, yes, for storage. MR. STONE-Define storage, as you understand it. MR. SCHREIBER-Not living space, kids clothes, kids toys. Things like that. MR. STONE-How is it accessed? MR. SCHREIBER-It’s going to be accessed by a set of stairs in the garage, I’m sorry, in the mud room. There’s a mud room between the garage and the house, and there’d be a set of stairs there going up. MR. HAYES-Is that part of the square footage, per se, Jon? MR. LAPPER-In the floor area worksheet I did not include that because it’s not living space, but I had an asterisk. If you added another 899 square feet for the second story, because there’s still 2,000 square feet allowed, it would still be well under the 22% floor area, even if you counted it, but they’re not finishing it. MR. STONE-Yes, it’s a large lot for, I mean, a deep lot. Do you agree with those numbers, Craig? I saw that. Any other questions before I open the public hearing? Let me open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Now you can read Mr. Lapper’s letters into the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We have two letters. The first is from Michael and Susan Kaidas, 113 Seelye Road. “Dear Mr. Chairman: We write in regards to the application for an area variance submitted by Debra and Oscar Schreiber. The Schreiber’s are our immediate neighbors. It is understood that Debbie and Oscar desire to locate their garage five (5) feet from our property line and build a small deck thirteen (13) feet from our property line. Please be advised that the proposed location of the Schreiber’s garage will not impede our view at all due to the fact that our house is located much closer to the lake than the Schreiber’s residence is. In fact, the Schreiber’s garage will overlook a wooded area in our back yard. We will not even see it from our home. Likewise, the proposed location of the Schreiber’s deck will not impede our view of anything else. The Schreiber deck will also overlook the wooded back yard. We fully support the Schreiber application for an area 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) variance and urge you to approve it. Sincerely, Michael and Susan Kaidas” The second letter is from James White, Seelye Road, “Dear Mr. Chairman: I write in regards to the application for an area variance submitted by Debra and Oscar Schreiber. It is understood that the Schreiber’s desire to construct a two story garage, deck and fireplace chimney on their property while remodeling their house in order for it to become a year round residence. I reside behind the Schreiber residence across Seelye Road. The proposed construction and area variance will not obstruct any view that I may have from my residence and will not affect me adversely in any way. I support the application and hope you will grant the Schreiber’s request. Sincerely, James White” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-Nothing else. MR. STONE-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Just a statement that at least I want to make. You know that Mr. Kaidas is not immortal, nor is the ownership of the property something that will stay forever and ever and ever and ever necessarily. That’s one of the things that we do have to consider. The fact that he has no problem with it doesn’t mean the next person won’t, and that’s what we’re charged with, the so called benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community. MR. LAPPER-We understand that, but the fact that his house is so close to the lake, and it could be added on and it would still be close to the lake, we think that’s probably unlikely that that’s going to change. MR. STONE-And I was going to congratulate Mr. Schreiber for building far enough back from the lake that that doesn’t come into play. Obviously, that is not true of the neighbor’s house. That’s another issue, but there’s nothing we can do about it. Before we talk about it, any other questions? Anything anybody wants to ask? MR. ABBATE-Jon, just so this is clear in my mind, has that 1739 square foot now been increased to 2,000? MR. LAPPER-No. What I said is that, that 1739, there’s still 2,000 left that could be used. MR. ABBATE-All right. Fine. All right. I didn’t hear the entire thing. MR. LAPPER-I was just sort of hypothetically answering Jamie’s question. MR. ABBATE-So it was still 1739. MR. LAPPER-Yes, if you consider that, there’d still be 1100 square feet, and that isn’t living space. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure. May I tack this on? And if it becomes critical, would your client be willing to do something with that shed that’s there? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SCHREIBER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Very good. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Chuck McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I like the design of the house the way it is. I think it’s going to look nice, if you’re able to build it, and I’ll agree that moving the garage closer to the center of the property would change the appearance entirely. I think it would make it look a lot worse, and probably force you to change the entrance to the garage to have it facing Seelye Road, because you wouldn’t have room to turn to get into the side of it. So, I can’t see any way, really, to improve on the design of what you’ve presented, and I don’t really have a problem with the extra shed that’s there. I think it will look satisfactory, where it is, and I see no need to trade off for that. At the same time, I am bothered by the amount of relief for the side setback. Getting five feet from the line is getting pretty close. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, at least right now, with the configuration of the property next door, it should not be a problem. I’m left, I guess trying to make a gamble, because also, being involved with real estate market on the lake, I know that a lot of times you’ll find people who’ll come along later on and buy a piece of property for several hundred thousand dollars, and the first thing they do is bulldoze the house on there. So there’s no guarantee that the house next door is always 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) going to be where it is now. It could be moved at any point, if the neighbor should decide to sell. Nevertheless, I think, considering everything, the attractiveness of this house, the fact that the addition is basically coming away from the lake rather than towards the lake, and the fact that it’s not going to be directly impacting at least the immediate neighbor at the present time, I’d be inclined to approve. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would echo the same sentiments. I think the proposed addition on the residence is reasonable, and the garage, ergonomically speaking, you know, the ingress and egress out of that’s going to make more sense, too. I sometimes wonder why we need three car garages. That would be probably my only hang up, but I guess I would vote for approval on this, too. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you, Lew. I think, additionally, regardless of what the future might bring, in terms of the neighbors, presently they have two, the applicant’s north and south there, large structures that are there that are right on the line almost, and certainly it should be looked upon as an impairment to the applicant. Their natural boundary of trees and so forth look rather nice there, and that rocky kind of ledge that descends down into the lake, I think will impede any problems with the setback that’s being applied for. So, in addition to my agreeing with the comments already made, I would be in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. The current plans are acceptable to me. I don’t believe that the 15 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement is a problem, and I think the plans currently submitted by the applicant will meet his family’s requirements, and the fact that there have been two favorable letters supporting your requirement justify, at least to me, that I would approve this application. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think Mr. Lapper and Mr. Schreiber have done an excellent job of satisfying any objections I might have. I think it’s a beautiful piece of property. The design is well thought out. Like Chuck, I am a little bothered by the side setback and like Jim, I’m a little bothered by the three car garage, but not enough to sway my opinion. I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I, essentially, agree. I think, you know, we’re charged with trying to minimize variances, but in this particular case, I think that the neighborhood and this property is better served by the garage, in fact, being closer to the property line from a design and safety perspective. I think, from a feasible alternative perspective, this thing has been well investigated and quite frankly makes a lot of sense. The most impacted neighbor supports the project, which, again, would be a major concern of mine, and as Norm pointed out, there is a significant natural boundary that exists there now that also mitigates this garage which seems to be the major fulcrum of this variance, as counsel has already pointed out, to protect and soften the garage, as far as that goes there. The addition itself is away from the lake, which is very important in my mind, and even with the addition, there’s significant compliance with the floor area ratio. So the property is not being, in my mind, overtaxed or overused. The applicant is not asking us, as a Board, to solve his problems. He’s within the prescribed limitations and he’s looking for some dimensional relief, dimensional relief, in my mind that actually makes sense. So I think the application is fine. MR. STONE-I certainly concur with my fellow Board members. I mean, I wrote down, when I looked at the property, listen, and I’ve listened, and I would agree with Mr. Urrico’s statement that you made an excellent presentation, and I think you took away any concerns that we have, and this is why we have the methodology that we use. I think it’s very good, and as I say, if you put the balancing test into play, the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community, I don’t think, with the exception that the Code is not being upheld to the letter, that’s about the only detriment to the community, in this particular case. I, personally, since it is a three car garage, I, personally, would like to see the shed go. Now, I’m not the one who’s going to make the motion, and we can include it or not include it. I would prefer it not to be there, because I think you have a beautiful piece of property. As a couple of people have said, a three car garage is a lot of garage, and if you don’t have three vehicles, I’m sure it will be used for some kind of storage, and I would think that maybe we could eliminate the shed, and that’s up to you, and I didn’t hear too much, but it does bother me that you want the garage and the shed. Having said that, I will call for a motion, and we’ll see what happens, a motion to approve, with the, and I will make you aware that whoever makes the motion we have to put two feet on the north side, side setback relief on the north side for the chimney. We also have to put into this thing the requirement that we’ve been making that we require 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) a finished survey when we’re all done, because this is not necessarily, or is this covered, in this particular case? This is not. So we need to put in the motion that as built survey would be required. Having said that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2000 OSCAR SCHREIBER, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 111 Seelye Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,739 square foot two story addition which includes an 899 square foot garage. Also, a five foot by ten foot deck is proposed for the south side of the home, and a chimney on the north side of the home. Specifically, the applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement for the garage addition, and 6.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement for the deck, and additionally, two feet of relief on the north side for the construction of a chimney of side yard setback relief as well, per Section 179-16. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to increase the size of his home to accommodate his growing family. Feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives, in this case I believe are limited, based on the necessity for a turning radius, and also the location of the current septic system. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I don’t believe that it is. I believe that it’s moderate, in this particular case. Fifteen feet of relief on a twenty foot setback is significant, but in this case, it’s significantly away from the neighbor’s home, and has a very substantial natural boundary that exists there. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe as proposed, the addition will be aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood, while simultaneously solving their family needs. So I think it’ll be a compliment to the neighborhood. There has been noted neighborhood support for the project as proposed. Is the difficulty self-created? I don’t believe that it’s totally self-created, in the fact, based on the septic system and the current existing configuration of the home. There is limited ways to construct the garage and the addition on this lot. Therefore, on balance, I believe that the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I would move for its approval. Additionally, I’d like to make one condition on the approval, that the applicant submit an as built survey to accurately locate the addition to be in compliance with the variance and the specific relief that was granted in this motion. Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Any questions on the motion? MR. BROWN-I just have one question, Mr. Chairman. Since it was a topic of discussion that the Board had, the shed, it’s clear that there’s no setback relief given for the shed. There’s no size relief given for the shed. That’s not part of this application. So, if in the future it’s determined that the shed doesn’t meet the setbacks, the applicant’s subject to compliance with the Ordinance. MR. STONE-It is 100 feet? MR. SCHREIBER-I don’t believe it’s more than 100 square feet. MR. BROWN-It would still have to be at least five feet from the line. As long as it’s not part of this application, it was never intended. There’s no relief given. Just as long as that’s clear. It was discussed. So let’s make it clear. MR. STONE-Okay. Just add that, that shed is not part. MR. BROWN-That’ll show on the survey. That’s fine. MR. SCHREIBER-I believe it is five feet from the line now. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SCHREIBER-If you see the fence, that’s on our side of the line. MR. STONE-I didn’t measure it. If it is, it is. All Mr. Brown is saying. MR. HAYES-He’s just uncomplicating it. Which is the right thing to do. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? Everybody understand the motion? Do I have a second? MR. ABBATE-I’ll second it, Mr. Chairman. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally AREA VARIANCE NO. 87-2000 TYPE II CB LESSER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: PARKWAY LANE, ASSEMBLY POINT ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, AP A APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING TWO-CAR GARAGE AND SMALL GUEST HOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 24 FT. BY 36 FT. THREE-CAR GARAGE. APPLICANT REQUESTS SETBACK, HEIGHT, AND FLOOR AREA RATIO RELIEF. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/11/2000 TAX MAP NO. 9-1-7 LOT SIZE: 0.40 ACRES SECTION 179-16 CHARLIE JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-I believe it’s Lake Parkway, not Parkway Lane, wherever that came from. MR. BROWN-On the application. MR. STONE-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 87-2000, CB Lesser, Meeting Date: October 18, 2000 “Project Location: Parkway Lane, Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of two accessory structures totaling 598 sf in favor of the construction of a 916 sf garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 28 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement, 6 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement and 2.1% relief from the 22% Floor Area Ratio requirement of the WR-1A zone, §179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a substantially larger storage building. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller more compliant building in a more compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 28 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as excessive when coupled with the 6 foot relief requested from the 16 foot maximum height requirement. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: While there may be several garages existing in the neighborhood, close to the right of way, none appear to be of this size and height. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as the applicant currently has two buildings in the vicinity of the proposed structure. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP94353 7/6/94 Demolition BP94352 7/7/94 Single Family Dwelling SP5-94 res. 2/22/94 Expansion of a Single Family Dwelling Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed oversized structure lies entirely within the required minimum front setback for this zoning district. While strict compliance with the ordinance may not be reasonable in this case, it appears that a smaller, single story garage could be located in a more compliant location. Consideration may be given to a referral to the Highway Department as this proposal calls for the addition of pavement within the Town right of way. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 11, 2000 Project Name: CB Leeser Owner: CB Leeser ID Number: QBY-AV-87-2000 County Project#: Oct00-27 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to remove an existing two-car garage and small guest house and to construct a new 24 ‘ x 36’ three-car garage. Setback, height, and floor area ratio variances are sought by the applicant. Site Location: Parkway Lane, Assembly Point Tax Map Number(s): 9-1-7 Staff Notes: The proposed action would occur on a lakefront parcel on the northwestern side of the Assembly Point peninsula. The application materials do not include a site plan, which is necessary to evaluate the magnitude of the proposed construction relative to what exists at the site now. Zoning Ordinances are designed to gradually remove undesirable configurations and property types. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that several other properties in the area have garages sited similarly close to the road (a local road) misses the point. Staff is concerned about the water quality, aesthetic, and recreational impacts to Lake George from incremental further development of the shore. However, Staff does not believe that the application materials are adequate for the Board to make an informed decision and recommends denial without prejudice due to the lack of a site plan. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been set for October 18, 2000 County Planning Board Recommendation: Deny without prejudice” Signed Terri Ross, Warren County Planning Board 10/12/00. MR. STONE-I understand the deny. What’s “without prejudice”? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. BROWN-My understanding is that they’ll re-hear it if they’re supplied with a site plan. MR. STONE-All right. We will need five votes, though? MR. BROWN-You still need five votes. MR. STONE-Okay. So, as far as we’re concerned, in terms of our voting it’s a denial. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Sir, go ahead. MR. JOHNSON-Good evening. My name is Charlie Johnson. I’m an architect with Paradox designs, here representing Susan and CB Leeser. We’re taking down the two structures, the two car garage and the small guest house, and replacing them, as you’ve heard. We feel that this location is better than another, for the following reasons. It impacts visibility from the lake the least. It’s the furthest from the lake. Visibility from the lake will not change, really, one bit. So it’s going to be pretty invisible from the lake, which is important. The site’s pretty fully developed right now. There’s plantings and retaining walls around the house. There’s not an awful lot of room without some relief from the side yard setback to relocate a garage further down the site. It’s a sloping site. The garage would stick up out of the ground. It would, again, be closer to the lake, more visible. So while it’s a detriment, so to speak, being so close to the road. It’s a benefit from the lake side. We thought that, with the garage being here as long as it has and everyone sort of being used to it, and activity in and out of the garage, there hasn’t been problems. We’re simply continuing a use, and a character that’s already there. We thought the look there also kind of mimics what’s already been there. So we’re not really going to be changing a look. We may be increasing its size to a small extent, in that we’re joining two buildings. So it seems a single larger building, but visually it’s about the same. Relief in the height of the garage, we’re looking to create some storage space. Right now the guest house is used for storage of stuff. They’ve collected heirloom pieces and things from different homesteads that they’ve been in, and they’re just not ready to part with it, and that’s how they used the guest house. That’s going to go into the attic of this barn. The reason it’s a three car garage is they’ve got two vehicles that they use in the summertime, CB’s at a point where he likes to tinker and he wants to have a workshop, and he’s going to have that kind of stuff in the third bay. So they’re going to have two cars with a sort of workshop space next door. The other reason we’re looking for this height and the size of this building is that we’re trying to mimic the rooflines of the existing house. We can alter that, to some extent, and get it back down, if we feel the six foot excessive height is important. It’s probably not going to be a major aesthetic change, but that was one of the reasons we went for that six foot, to limit the roof lines. Our floor area ratio is the other area we’re excessive on, and it’s a two percent over, and we don’t feel that that’s a large amount. It, again, doesn’t change the character of this site or the buildings with the two percent overage. We’re slightly over what’s required now. There would be, I think, 2.1% beyond that. So, at this time, I’d be happy to answer any questions, but ask the Board to grant this variance. MR. HAYES-Why the second story on the garage? MR. JOHNSON-Just for storage. We’re going to have an interior stair, the stuff that’s in the guesthouse, old pieces of furniture, things for the kids from different houses that the kids aren’t ready to take yet. MR. STONE-What has changed in six years? This property is relatively new, six years old. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. STONE-And why wasn’t this done at the same time? What has changed to make this necessary now? MR. JOHNSON-There’s getting, they like the little guesthouse. They’ve always loved it. In fact, six years ago, I was involved with the house design. They loved the guesthouse. They wanted to keep it. We talked about doing it at that point. At this time, the buildings need some repair. They’re thinking about repair versus rebuilding, and the need and the romantic attachment to this guesthouse is no longer there like it was six years ago. That’s the change, basically, is the repairs that are starting to become needed to these two bedrooms. MR. MC NALLY-The existing guesthouse or shed is a single story? There’s no second story. MR. JOHNSON-The guesthouse? Correct. MR. MC NALLY-And the garage is single story, right? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-And the garage you’re proposing is 916 square feet? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-And it’s dormered on the second floor. So much of that second floor is usable, then? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. I brought some plans here to show you. MR. MC NALLY-What’s the square footage upstairs? MR. JOHNSON-Well, maybe we’re going to develop eight feet right at the peak, and it’s going to slope all the way down to zero at the eaves. So it’s really not 100% usable up there, but I did sort of draft up something here quickly to show you. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have the height of the current versus the height of the proposed? What’s the height of the current structures versus the height of the proposed? The current garage is, what, 16, 18 feet? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And you’re proposal is how high? MR. JOHNSON-Twenty-two. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-Your comment in your letter, Mr. Johnson, Number Three, the building elevation has the gable roof and door flipped. In other words, if I look at the thing from the road, it’s this way now, and it’s going to be this way? Is that what you’re trying to say? MR. JOHNSON-No. MR. STONE-Well, then explain the line to me. MR. JOHNSON-Here’s the way the garage is now. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. JOHNSON-We’ve maintained that same sort of gabled look here. MR. MC NALLY-That’s the street side right there? MR. JOHNSON-This is the street side, and we’ve continued with the third bay (lost words). So we’ve tried to keep sort of the original scale with that garage, to some extent (lost words). MR. MC NALLY-Across the street from the garage, there’s a cleared area, which looks like it’s used for parking. Who owns that property? MR. JOHNSON-I’ve got a picture, I think it’s the community. MR. STONE-That’s (lost word), everybody around it. That’s common area, forever wild. MR. JOHNSON-They park one of their cars there now. Because this garage is so small, you really can’t get two cars in and open doors at the same time. So they really only fit one car in, and park their second across the road. MR. UNDERWOOD-Where’s your current septic system? MR. JOHNSON-The current septic system is what we call the front yard, between the house and the road. It’s pumped up from the house to there, and that was brand new in ’94. MR. MC NALLY-Now, you don’t want to put a garage next to the existing dwelling, within the allowable setbacks for what reason? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. JOHNSON-Well, as the grade. MR. MC NALLY-I understand the land grades down, but. MR. JOHNSON-We could put a structure in here. Access would probably create a one or one and a half car width. So now you’re looking to double stack to really accommodate two cars. So we can’t get the garage up against the house, there’s a porch and some windows here. We’d need to maintain a 20 foot side yard. So it’s not really going to leave the 24 or 20 foot wide buildable area. We thought about coming in with a drive facing this way, but it would destroy the whole front yard and would impact the site that way. MR. MC NALLY-And this room is going to have bathroom facilities? MR. JOHNSON-There’s a little bath in the guesthouse. We’re just going to keep it. So when CB is out there in that workshop he doesn’t have to go all the way to the house. It’s not an important element. If you need it to go away, it can. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, Chuck, you mentioned something in that letter about something not being submitted. MR. MC NULTY-That was site plan at the County. MR. STONE-That was the County. MR. MC NULTY-When the County was looking at it, they didn’t have this sheet, like we didn’t early on. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. MR. STONE-Yes. You said something about putting the cars one on top of the other. Knowing the applicant, not knowing them personally, but knowing that this is a summer place and that they live the rest of the year in another part of the Country, and that these cars are basically stored for the winter, when they leave them up here, they could be, without too much of a hassle, stacked, or whatever the term is. MR. JOHNSON-That could work. They store kind of end to end, rather than side by side. MR. STONE-One end, and then the other one backed up, put in that way, to its rear end. MR. JOHNSON-There’s a little element of inconvenience, if the first car in needs to get out, but that could probably be overcome. I think maybe a larger issue or more important issue might be just its visual impact, how it would sort of dominate the side of the house and impact the site, and visibility from the lake would be a larger issue as well. MR. STONE-Except it wouldn’t be quite as wide. It would be closer to the lake, but not as wide. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. It would also stick up out of the ground higher. We’re trying to maintain that garage level from the road. As the site drops away, it will become a taller piece from the lake side. MR. ABBATE-Are the Staff comments correct when they indicate that your proposal calls for the addition of pavement within the Town right of way? Is that an accurate statement? MR. JOHNSON-Correct, from the edge of the road to the building. That would all be within the right of way. MR. ABBATE-And have you touched base with the Highway Department? MR. JOHNSON-No, we haven’t. MR. ABBATE-You have not. MR. JOHNSON-Right now, as you can see in the photos, there’s a little lip of concrete and then grass between the actual garage and the road. Again, we can keep that. There’s not a lot of use of automobile back and forth. They haven’t turned that to mud so far. So we feel if pavement is a problem we can maintain the grass that’s there now. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. MC NULTY-On the other hand, every one of us has got a driveway. Has part of the driveway in the right of way. MR. ABBATE-That’s true. MR. STONE-Do we solicit comment from the Highway Department? MR. BROWN-No. MR. STONE-Are they aware? How do they become aware that someone wants to build two feet from the right of way, from the pavement? MR. MC NALLY-It’s just pavement. I don’t think they really care. MR. BROWN-How do they become aware that somebody wants to build a building two feet from the right of way? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-If it involves a new driveway, a new curb cut application, they have to file an application with the Highway Department. They may look at the building permit at that time, but if it doesn’t require a new driveway, typically they wouldn’t see it. MR. STONE-Okay. Two feet, in the middle of the winter, coming down that road, I don’t know if they’ve ever hit the garage, but it’s, three o’clock in the morning, I know first hand, they come down that road pretty fast. MR. BROWN-The driving surface appears to be, you know, at least 10 feet from the edge of the right of way. MR. STONE-No. MR. BROWN-On the drawing. MR. STONE-It’s two feet from the paved area, it literally is, maybe three. MR. JOHNSON-What does it look like in those photos? MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got about a two foot gap from here to the macadam. MR. JOHNSON-You can kind of see in this picture here, there’s a pretty good apron there. It’s a good three paces. So it’s probably between eight and ten feet. MR. STONE-It didn’t seem like that today when I parked out there. MR. JOHNSON-It does seem a lot closer when you’re there. MR. STONE-Yes. Any other questions of Mr. Johnson? MR. ABBATE-One, more of a comment. This application requires three variances. Is that correct? MR. JOHNSON-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. JOHNSON-Actually four. We missed the 900 square foot limit on the garage. That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-So this application requires four variances. MR. JOHNSON-We can chop a foot off the end so we’re back under 900 square feet. I just realized that today. We could make the 900 square foot limit on the garage, change the size of the garage to fall within 900 square feet. MR. ABBATE-Now, are you suggesting now that it doesn’t require four variances? MR. STONE-It requires three. MR. ABBATE-It requires three. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. JOHNSON-As submitted, as it’s drawn, it requires four. MR. MC NALLY-He’s willing to concede. MR. JOHNSON-I’m willing to change the garage to get rid of the fourth. MR. HAYES-Well, if we don’t give him the relief, he can’t build it as. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. BROWN-Yes, that portion of the application was reviewed, and I don’t think that the garage requires relief from the 900 square feet because that portion, if you look on the lakeside, that four by thirteen, that’s not vehicle storage area. It’s like a, you could consider it a stairway or you could consider it, it’s not in that 900 square foot calculation. So that’s why it wasn’t included in the notes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. JOHNSON-If you think the height is something else you’re concerned with, we’d be happy to take a look at that. Again, we were just looking at it from an aesthetic standpoint. MR. ABBATE-It’s currently 18, correct? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. ABBATE-And you want to go to 22? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. HIMES-I think we’d be concerned with all the variances. Maybe most of us would take the garage setting where it does now, in such close proximity to the road, that that, even though it’s the biggest variance, in terms of magnitude, and one we’d probably be concerned least with, but the others, myself at least, we’re concerned about them all, and when I look at this and it’s a garage, and now it’s a workshop, and a lavatory and, you know, but it doesn’t seem to be single-mindedness of purpose, here (lost words) it doesn’t help, as far as I’m concerned. That’s just a comment that I’ll make. MR. JOHNSON-Well, I think what’ll happen is, and we’ve sort of touched on this with the applicant, if they’re not sort of permitted to do what they like, he’ll probably reconfigure the roof rafters in that existing two car garage to create some storage, empty out that guesthouse, and that will become his sort of workshop area. MR. STONE-So you’re prepared for us to deny it? MR. JOHNSON-Well, with all my people I talk about that. I don’t want to prepare them and send them in to the Land of Oz here. MR. HAYES-Well, his job is to construct alternatives, and that’s what he’s doing. MR. JOHNSON-We struggled, really, on this site. We walked around looking at shrubs and walls we could reconfigure to try and get a garage, a two car with nothing on. I mean, we’ve looked at a couple of different things, and they were real, they were very concerned with the lake side look and destroying their yard and their property, so to speak, and they felt that this was least impacted, from their standpoint, on their property. MR. STONE-What is this 52 square feet? MR. JOHNSON-He wants to put the lawnmower, the rakes, a couple of the pieces of yard furniture there. It’s just going to be a roof extension off the back wall with a couple of plywood doors. Again, if that’s an issue, and we want to reduce the size. MR. STONE-Well, you are asking for a three car garage. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. STONE-At roughly the maximum, which is the maximum you can be, at the maximum, we can’t do anything about that, but it’s just another concern, I think that at least I have. I’ll open the 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) public hearing. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions we want to ask of the applicant? Any other concerns that we have? If not, let’s talk about it, then. Let’s start with Mr. Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think it would make more sense to narrow this thing down. Not having a place to park your car off the road I would think would be a pain to have to come in every time and pull in to your garage, and pull out of your garage and worry about opening and closing the door every time, too, but it would seem to me that if you kept it the width of what you propose for the cars, anyway, put the workshop on the back toward the lake, if it were my workshop, I’d much rather look at the lake. (lost words) As far as the height and everything else, the 22 feet seems to be negotiable, for the space upstairs. I would like to see it (lost words). MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I don’t feel too badly about the setback from the road. I agree with Jim that pushing it back a little bit to give a little bit of room to get off the road is good. I would like to see the height and the floor area ratio, some tinkering done to bring those things into compliance. Thank you, Lew. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. In the interest of time, I certainly agree with Jim and Norm, and I, too, would like to see some sort of modification to these plans, and I think I would be more inclined to support a proposal that would be somewhat modified than it currently is right now, because if the plans are submitted, are voted upon as submitted right now, I would not be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I was impressed at how well landscaped the gardens, the grounds were around the main house, and I think that the benefit to the applicant would be, if this is approved, that they could keep their flowers and shrubbery and what not. It certainly looked like they put a lot of time in. I’m bothered by the fact that there is clearly a feasible location that is compliant, and I know that they may not want their gardens to be disrupted, I think that one of the features you had to look for, one of the factors, is certainly whether there are alternatives, and there clearly are here. I think the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance. This, as it exists, is a pre-existing, nonconforming use, two feet from the road, and 28 feet closer than it should be under our current zoning code. I think that’s substantial. I also think that the relief for the height requirement is substantial, particularly when you’re thinking this is an accessory garage type structure. I was impressed by the comment that this was the alternative as proposed as the least impact on the personal needs of the Leesers, but it’s got the most impact on the community. You want to double the size of your existing garage and have it smack dab on the road. I think it is self-created, since this is the choice that they’ve made. So I would not be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I essentially agree with my other Board members. I agree with the applicant’s agent that the lake impact is paramount, and certainly, having this behind the house, if you will, is, you know, is a good idea, in my mind, as far back from the house as it really can be and away from the lake, and in that light, I’m not necessarily bothered by the proximity to the road, because they have the two buildings that are already there, and there are other garages that are very close to the road on this Parkway, by necessity, but I don’t see the plans, as they’re put forward, being a compromise that’s in the best interest of the neighborhood or community. I think Norm pointed out that, as proposed, this building is almost a multi use building, as far as workshop, bathroom, everything else. When I drove and looked at this property, to me, if we’re eliminating two buildings and making one new one and we’re eliminating a possible septic system and stuff, there’s something out there that could work for me, as far as a compromise to improve the neighborhood, but I don’t see the plans, as they’re submitted, being that type of compromise. I think they’re a reach. They lack compromise, in fact. I certainly would not be in favor of going any higher, as well. I think the Staff notes point out that, you know, we can talk about a compliant location, and I’m not sure, that could be a major 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) difficulty from a visual standpoint, and an architectural standpoint, but certainly a single story garage would be all that I would be in favor of, in this particular circumstance, because if the need is to have a good garage and park your cars and take care of your stuff in a climate where people need to do that, that’s fine, but I think that this 22 feet is more than that. So, as it’s submitted now, I think the test would fall against the applicant. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I have to basically agree. From the applicant’s point of view, I’ll agree. He’s probably picked the best location possible. I don’t like to see us try to redesign something that somebody has designed, because we’re a bunch of amateurs and hopefully the person that’s been doing the designing knows a little bit more about the job than we do. I guess where I come from more than anyplace else is I’m inclined to agree with the County Staff which says that the zoning regulations here were put in place, recognizing that there were a number of violations and nonconforming places when they did put these into place, and the general intent was to try to work toward compliance with what’s in place now. So even recognizing that the applicant may opt to keep what he’s got, which is still two feet from the road, I’m inclined to deny, and I’m also inclined to agree with my other Board members that, should I consider anything, I think it would have to be a single story, not a higher. MR. STONE-I basically concurs with what appears to be to be the majority, in terms of denying the application as it has been presented to us. I, too, was going to refer to the County, which I seldom do, but I was going to refer to the County where it says, “Zoning Ordinances are designed to gradually remove undesirable configurations and property types”. It struck me that, if someone backing out of this garage, that a car is already on the road before the passenger compartment clears the walls of the garage. I think that’s dangerous. We haven’t mentioned that before. I just think it’s a very bad location. I also think that the amount of relief requested, as a number of people have said, is excessive. Height is something that we’re fairly zealous on, in terms of lake properties. I think the fact that it’s going to be that high, it’s going to be that big, it’s going to be that close to the road, is just too much for me. Now, having said that, again, I can give you two alternatives. We can deny it, which means you’ve got to come back with a markedly different thing, or you can withdraw it and come back with something less, or we could table it, in this particular case. I wouldn’t have any problem, but it’s going to require on the basis of what I’ve heard, and I think everybody would agree, some significant changes to this particular application. MR. JOHNSON-Well, I think I’m going to kind of, sort of in the essence of saving time, take your advice, either table or withdraw, whatever would be appropriate action here, and look to make some changes, reduce the height, try and get it back from the road as much as possible, maybe even diminish its width along the road. That’s kind of the comments I’m hearing. See what we can do as a compromise between what’s required with zoning and what’s going to work for the applicant. MR. STONE-The easiest thing is to, I think, withdraw. Wouldn’t you say, Craig? Or you don’t like that? MR. MC NALLY-It stays on our calendar if it’s not withdrawn. MR. STONE-That’s right. MR. MC NALLY-And there are limitations as to how many days it can be tabled. MR. STONE-That’s right. You have 62 days. MR. BROWN-Right. If it’s withdrawn, it’s up to the applicant to supply an entirely new application, go back to the County, do the whole process again, and that’s fine. MR. STONE-Well, the County says that they want more anyway. MR. BROWN-That’s what the process is. MR. JOHNSON-They’d need to see it again anyway, probably. So, let’s withdraw, then, because does tabling require a response within a certain period? MR. STONE-Sixty-two days. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. We could make that. MR. STONE-It’s up to you. I mean, you can withdraw without prejudice. You’ve just got to resubmit the plan, but it’s got to be marked. I mean, if you listened to what we said, it’s got to be a very different plan. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. JOHNSON-Right. Well, I think, let’s do the withdrawal. That would give everybody the most flexibility because they may decide they’re not going to come back anyway. I’m not sure. So then that saves everybody. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s their option. Okay. MR. JOHNSON-Well, thank you very much. MR. STONE-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2000 TYPE II LORETTA M. & THOMAS B. MULLIGAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 38 MORNINGSIDE CIRCLE ZONE: SR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT EXISTING STORAGE SHED TO A SECOND GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GARAGE SIZE LIMITATIONS. TAX MAP NO. 149-2-30 LOT SIZE: 2.14 ACRES SECTION 179-7, 179-19 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 88-2000, Loretta M. & Thomas B. Mulligan, Meeting Date: October 18, 2000 “Project Location: 38 Morningside Circle Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes conversion of a storage shed into a second garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 246 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot maximum allowable square footage for private garages, §179-7. Additionally, per the listed allowable accessory structures in §179-19, parcels in this zone are allowed a private garage. This application is requesting relief for a second garage and for a total of 1146 square feet of garage area. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to convert the structure and gain additional vehicle storage area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include expansion of the existing attached garage. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 246 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate, however, when coupled with the request for a second garage, the request may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV39-1999 for second garage withdrawn 5/26/99 no action taken BP99154 4/26/99 storage building withdrawn 6/4/99 BP99376 7/2/99 storage building revised Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. During the review of Area Variance 39-1999, a concern was that the addition of a freestanding second garage on this property would appear to be for the expansion of the applicants contracting business. While this concern may not be relevant to this situation, what about the next owner? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Any County? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Gentlemen, and Lady, I’m sorry. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent Mr. and Mrs. Mulligan. They are here with me at the table, and basically, we are asking for permission to convert the storage building, or what is now used as a storage building, to a garage. The net effect of that is that it will give us two garages on the property. The total square footage that will be used for garage purposes will be 1146 square feet. There’s a little bit of conflict, and I’ve never really focused on the language or the interpretation of the language, and I’ve met with Craig, and we’ve talked about the language. If you look at the section of the Ordinance that we’re looking at, Section 179-19, accessory uses that are permitted in this particular zone include private garage, and I don’t know if I’ve ever really focused on the fact that that’s interpreted as meaning one private garage. I also see the same language, the same context is used for storage shed, and I don’t think we’ve ever taken a position that people are entitled to only one storage shed, based on that language, but I raise that as a point for the record. I think in the past you’ve been consistent. I think I was here once before, and in fact, I asked for permission for two garages for an applicant and it was granted, on a single family residence. At most, we’re asking for a garage, and part of another garage, if you take a look at the total relief that we’re talking about. We’re not talking about looking for 1800 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) square feet of garage. We’re talking about 1146 square feet of garage. If I look at the test that you have, and the balancing, I sincerely say to you that I think that we have no impact, and allowing the applicant to use this building for storage of a vehicle, as opposed to general storage, is not going to have any effect upon the community. It’s not going to have any effect upon the neighborhood, and really is not something of great consequence. You talk about, will the requested variance have an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to nearby properties. I think probably what speaks most to that issue is the letters that were sent in the last time this property was before this Board. I also would think, also that speaks to this issue is the fact that the lot that we’re talking about is 2.14 acres, and that immediately adjacent to it, the applicant owns the next 11.24 acres. It probably is best demonstrated on the tax map, which I’ll pass from one end to the other, if I might. The areas outlined in yellow are the areas that are owned by the Mulligans. The back parcel, is the 11 acre parcel, the landlocked parcel, and we have no problem with some condition or some stipulation that it be joined with the two acre parcel. In fact, since I’ve gotten involved in this, it’s my suggestion that they do it for real estate tax purposes, that they asked that it not be considered as a primary site, and that it be considered simply as back land, and we will make that application, I think there’s a form that the Town Assessor has, in the near future. If you look at the tax map, there are two properties, or the Mulligan property goes behind this existing property. If you go back and you look at the record of the prior application or prior consideration by this Board, the owners on all sides of the property said that they had no objection. I think, specifically, you had a letter from John and Kathy Accuri, who own Lot 31, which is a property immediately to the south of it, saying that they had no objection to the use of this building for a private garage, and you also had a letter from the owner of Lot Number 29 saying that she had no objection, and you had a letter from Lot Number 34, and probably that’s best demonstrated on this sketch or mark up of it. This is the survey of the property. This owner and this owner and this owner, everybody on the cul de sac has indicated that they think that this proposed change will have no impact on their properties. These are people that have an investment in their property. These are the people that know, or I think are in the best position of anyone to say whether or not this will have an impact on the character of their neighborhood or be detrimental to their property. I think that speaks strongly of the fact that it won’t. There also was a petition that was filed, from the last time. MR. HAYES-This was from the Imperiale application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Because I got confused there for a moment. MR. O'CONNOR-Here’s the minutes from the Imperiale application, which actually dictates the letters from three owners that we spoke of. They’re highlighted in yellow. Also, I understand at that time there was a petition signed by 18 different persons that said, “Let it be known, we do not have a problem with the garage variance”, at that time that Mr. and Mrs. Imperiale were applying for it. I didn’t check all of those addresses, but I think if you take a look at the numbering on them, everybody in this particular neighborhood, this subdivision, has submitted that petition. I would ask that that be made part of the record. So, I think we squarely address the first balancing test, will the Area Variance have an undesirable change, or create an undesirable change. The second test that you have is whether the benefit can be achieved by some other feasible method. The applicants have three vehicles. They have a need for an oversized vehicle. Mrs. Mulligan, and I know you don’t necessarily get into personal circumstances and what not, has a permanent disability and has a nerve condition, based upon something that happened to her that is not going to go away. Mr. Mulligan has retired. They came to this community to retire, to live in this house as their permanent residence. Her condition is not going to change. One of the ways that they have accommodated it, besides her being on constant medication. I understand she has a morphine pump that she wears at all times because of the nerve condition of her condition, is that they have an oversized van. It just doesn’t fit in with even one car, in a comfortable way with the existing garage. In bad weather, inclement weather, you can’t get in and out of the van, in the existing garage. So, probably when you talk about feasible alternatives, you might talk about changing the existing garage. I think Staff talked about that. You have a garage on site that simply can be used by changing the door to it, as opposed to maybe a $15,000 to $20,000 addition to the existing garage. It just is not practical to require somebody to do that, when there’s no impact. If there was an impact, I would understand what you’re talking about, but I can’t see an impact, and you determine each application on an individual basis. You’re not, you know, this is not a precedent that necessarily is going to mean that everybody in the Town is going to come in and want two garages. You’re going to have to determine, is there an existing building already there that could easily accommodate a garage, and there is in this particular instance. If you take a look at the survey that we submitted as part of the application, I know there’s a lot of history here, but I mean the paving is there. Everything is there. It’s simply a matter of changing the door or changing the front on an existing building, as opposed to doing major renovation to an existing garage to try and get some extra width in there, so that you could accommodate a garage or two cars, where one car, a person could get in and out of the car at all times, particularly an oversized van. Part of the existing garage, too, and I think the existing garage is 27 feet wide by 21.8 feet, and that’s outside measurements. Part of the existing garage, if you look at the back of the house, has a platform built into it so that you can get up to the level of the first floor of the house, and there is a passenger door along the back of it. So there’s an alleyway within that 27 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) feet that actually isn’t usable, or would change, maybe you’d have to change the entrance to the house, something of that nature, to try and make that more accommodating. The other thing you could probably do, if you’re talking about looking at all alternatives, or maybe minimizing the variances that we’re requesting, and to me, sometimes I think of things that may be ridiculous, but we asked for two variances, one of them is the size of 246 feet. If you look at the existing garage, my calculation is that, at most, is 594 square feet, and if you’re talking about 900 square feet as being a magic figure, you’ve still got 306 feet of garage that’s left. We could make the freestanding building a combination garage/storage building. Craig, I haven’t heard you distinguish before if we actually physically show something that it’s not being used as vehicle storage, like a workshop, but we could put a door on this garage here, I think I calculated out, up to 15 feet in width, and have the other side some type of a dummy partition (lost words). I don’t know what it would cost them. That’s a possibility. It’s an alternative, to try and figure out how that would lessen the impact, how that would change the impact of putting a vehicle on this side of the garage (lost words). We tried to think of alternatives, and that’s a possibility of an alternative. To say that we’re only going to use 306 feet of that garage for storage, then we’re not going to exceed the 900 square feet, yes, we are going to have two garages, but I think, to be practical, that’s putting a burden on the people that you really don’t need to put on them. Is the Area Variance requested substantial? I don’t think it is. You’re talking about the dimensional requirement. Given the size of the lot, given the proximity of the garage to the other adjoining properties, given the fact that you already have the building there as an existing storage building, who’s going to notice whether or not you put a car in it or don’t put a car in it, and that’s really the outcome of what an approval would allow us to do, is to use it for vehicle storage. Dimensionally, I just don’t see how you relate that to being substantial. We are talking 246 square feet over the total site, as far as the square footage of 900 feet. We are talking two garages as opposed to one. We’ve been here before on that, and we did get two garages approved for another reason, people’s convenience. I think at that time the wife wanted to have the garage near the kitchen so that she could unload the groceries. The husband didn’t need his cars that close, and he put them on the end of the building, or the end of the house. Will the proposal have an adverse impact or a physical or environmental concern to the neighborhood or the district? You’ve got the building there. You’ve got runoff. You’ve got whatever you’ve got already. All we’re talking about, instead of rolling a lawnmower out there, we’re going to put a car out there on an occasional basis. Was the difficulty self-created? Technically, I think you probably could say, yes, it was, but I think on an Area Variance that’s not a fatal flaw. In substance, I don’t think, and I can argue in good faith that it wasn’t self-created. When Mr. and Mrs. Mulligan contracted for this property this summer, they were told that this was a two garage property. This is one of the things that attracted them to the property, because of Mrs. Mulligan’s condition. I have copies of the listing, and the statement on this statement is the garage is one detached, one attached. Garage, detached two car garage, attached two car garage, and this was the computer listing that also accompanied the flyer that was handed out, garage, attached two car, detached two car. These were obviously wrong, and after Mr. and Mrs. Mulligan contracted for the property, and our office got involved in it, they had questions, and they had asked the applicant, what about the post? At that time, what about this closure type (lost word), and they were actually told, well, you can take that down any time you want, and they said, why is it there, well, we had a problem with the Town, but it straightened out, and I was not a party to those conversations. Mr. and Mrs. Mulligan were a party to those conversations, and they can answer your questions directly that you might have as to that. We, with due diligence, started snooping around, and we found out that there were a lot of problems with that enclosure. That the prior owner to the property had been here, and I’ve got all the minutes. There was a lot of discussion about it, and apparently was not ever intended or should never have been intended to be built as a garage, but those are circumstances that, in all honesty, Mr. and Mrs. Mulligan were not aware of when they contracted for the property. When they sold their existing house in reliance of the contract that they had a place to go, when they moved their stuff to storage, thinking everything was rosy, hunk dory, and they were coming to Glens Falls or the Town of Queensbury, and then when we got into it, and we found out that the prior applicant had made an application, there was a question whether or not he ever had a building permit, and there was a question when he made a application, apparently at the final analysis, it was withdrawn, and he determined it to be a storage facility instead of a garage, we, and I’ll tell you for the record, we did work out a compromise with the owner. It was not a substantial compromise. We didn’t have a lot of choices. The compromise that we worked out is less than, well, it’s $2,000. I’ll tell you for the record. If we have to remodel the garage, (lost word) touch it. Basically, they hoped it would cover the cost of doing something, trying to make an application, see if they could get approval. It certainly would cover that cost. So, technically, they bought the property, knowing that this building could not be used as a garage, but there were circumstances that said that they didn’t have a lot of choices. I don’t know if it was necessarily a real free decision that they made to go forward with this. They had already committed to the property by the time they’d become aware of the fact that there was a problem. I don’t think that that is necessarily the lynch pin, though, of whether or not you approve it or don’t approve it. I’m just trying to give you as much background as I can give you, and maybe distinguish a little bit from the past. There was question before about whether this was built per Code, and what not. We did straighten that out, and we did obtain a Certificate of Occupancy after inspection. That’s the reason that it’s attached to your application, just so that that wouldn’t be an issue at this point. So, I think the real decision that you have to make, with every application, particularly Area Variances, is what 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) impact will this have on the neighborhood or community, and I really think that, again, Mr. and Mrs. Accuri’s letter, Don and Reni Munroe’s letter, Grace Ciafana, and I think there was a letter by Craig MacEwan, but I didn’t find that directly, and then the petition by the other 18 property owners along the two streets that are in any way affected by this, are what you should be looking at and should be balancing. That’s basically the application. MR. HAYES-Craig, is this the one that was a no permit problem originally? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-This is one where we came very close to getting it torn down, and were criticized heavily, and probably we will be again tonight criticized for not having it taken down. MR. O'CONNOR-If it was torn down, we probably wouldn’t have bought the property, or Mr. and Mrs. Mulligan probably wouldn’t have bought the property. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And I don’t necessarily say that in defense of anything, but, I mean, they wouldn’t have gotten across the threshold they got across. MR. STONE-We understand that. I’m just saying that this is something, as Jamie says, that we have seen before and, as I say, we will listen to what the public has to say. I have no idea what the public is going to say tonight. MR. MC NALLY-I guess a technical question, but on this drawing, it’s 24 by 23 storage shed. In the picture it’s 21 by 26. How big is it? THOMAS MULLIGAN MR. MULLIGAN-That was the other garage. I think my wife brought it. It’s written on the back. That’s not that garage, I don’t think. MR. O'CONNOR-Those are actual measurements that Mr. Mulligan made, because I got confused when I looked at. He gave me measurements on the storage shed when I filed the application. You gave me measurements on your own garage today, but he actually went out and measured it. MR. MC NALLY-What is it? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s what’s on the application. It’s 594 feet. It’s the same. MR. MC NALLY-So the detached one is 594 square feet? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. MC NALLY-The existing one? MR. O'CONNOR-I will get confused. The existing is 594 feet. MR. STONE-Which is the existing? MR. O'CONNOR-The existing attached. MR. STONE-Let’s used attached and detached. MR. O'CONNOR-The storage building is 552. Okay, and I have the storage building as being 23 by 24 feet. MR. STONE-Mr. O’Connor, one of the arguments that I heard you make in your very capable dissertation, you tried to say that the singular doesn’t necessarily mean singular, I think you said. MR. O'CONNOR-I never focused on it. MR. STONE-Accessory uses say, “Private garage, swimming pool”, those are one. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but it also says storage shed. MR. STONE-Shed. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Have you ever told somebody they can only have one storage shed? MR. STONE-A shed is 100 square feet. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. Have you ever told somebody they can only have one storage shed? MR. STONE-I cannot recall yes or no. MR. O'CONNOR-On this application, when it was under your microscope, at that time there were two buildings on there, both of which would, I think, qualify. I’ve never heard the distinction. I’ve never focused on it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And I think it’s an area that needs to be addressed, the same as this 900 square feet needs to be addressed. I’m disappointed that the proposed Zoning Ordinance, and I will speak out about that at the public hearing, doesn’t get changed. I mean, if I want five bedrooms and a one car garage, or I want one bedroom and a three car garage, or a four car garage, because I collect cars, what difference does it make, if I don’t exceed my density, if I don’t exceed my setback requirements. I mean, you’re telling people how to live, and it evolves, and you’ve got to admit, it all evolves out of the Pickle Hill garage that somebody used for business, and that was an enforcement issue. That was not an aesthetic issue. It was not anything of that nature. MR. STONE-Well, let me, in defense of the new zoning code, which as you say, has not really been presented yet. It’s hard to say 900 if you have one bedroom or 2,000 or vice versa, you know. It’s a hard thing to write it that way, whether somebody wants one bedroom. MR. O'CONNOR-I won’t digress. My point is, why do you have to say it? MR. STONE-I understand. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. ABBATE-I do. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. ABBATE-I have three basic questions. Let me give you the questions first, give you an opportunity to answer them, then go over the questions again, if you don’t mind. Number One question I have is, why not just expand? Number One, and Number Two, do you have any intention to utilize this conversion with your contracting business? And Three, would you agree, in a stipulation, that there would be no commercial use on the property? MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Let me answer the questions. The Mulligans are retired. They have no business at all. They have no problem stipulating that this building, if the conversion is allowed, not be used for commercial purposes. That impacts your Ordinance. The expansion, you’re probably talking $15,000, $20,000. MR. ABBATE-You don’t have a contracting business? MR. STONE-No. MR. MULLIGAN-That was the previous owner. MR. ABBATE-Yes, okay. All right. That answers my question. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. HIMES-Just one, to clarify, on the two garages, let’s say the three vehicles. This is not awfully important. Is the van going to be in the house garage, the attached garage, and the shed for the other two vehicles? MR. MULLIGAN-We would like to keep the oversized van in the attached garage. MR. HIMES-The van? MR. MULLIGAN-Yes. MR. HIMES-Okay. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. MULLIGAN-It’s very tough to get in and out of it, when you open the door, to a vehicle, because it has to go in at an angle. MR. HIMES-I could see, when we were standing there talking about it, that would be, and then so the other thing would have the two, the other vehicle and the prospective third vehicle that you’re planning on the acquiring. MR. MULLIGAN-We don’t want to leave it out in the snow. MR. HIMES-I understand. All right. Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-So if understand this right, this shed is going to store vehicles? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And Mr. O’Connor has suggested that there might be one vehicle and some storage area, or it could be two vehicles, just suggested. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. It’s two vehicles. The idea was that maybe that’s an alternative. Maybe that’s a condition that you would impose upon us, and then they would have to take the oversized van and keep it out there and put their other two vehicles in the attached garage. MR. MC NALLY-I just wanted to understand what your plan was with this property. MR. O'CONNOR-The application is to use the total building for vehicle storage. MR. STONE-And how many doors would there be? MR. O'CONNOR-There would be one overhead door. MR. STONE-Just one double wide garage door. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, before I open the public hearing? MR. ABBATE-Not necessarily a question, but Counsel opened the door, in terms of providing this Board with some of the problems that were involved when purchasing the property, not being made aware of certain problems. Is that correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. ABBATE-I guess there’s an old proverb that, let the buyer beware. MR. O'CONNOR-Before we got to, they had enough sense to question the vague answers that were being given to them, and we did, honestly that’s why I say, technically, this was self-created. They knew, at that time, that the only permission to use that building was as a storage building. They’re not coming to you telling you that they totally didn’t know. They were advised that if they were ever going to use that they would have to apply for a variance. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Hopefully all of us learned a lesson. MR. STONE-That was after the fact. MR. MC NULTY-Let me make a statement on this. To begin with, I don’t know whether the Mulligans went direct to a listing broker or had a buyer’s representative, and don’t tell me. I’m a realtor, and they were not well served by whoever it was that they dealt with. The realtor should have known that, and should have told them. So in that sense it’s not their fault. It’s the realtor’s fault. MR. STONE-And you’re saying some satisfaction, a small satisfaction, was (lost word). MR. O'CONNOR-I did not represent Mr. and Mrs. Mulligan personally. My partner did, and I know that there was threats of litigation. There was, it was not what should be a happy event. It was not a good event. MR. MULLIGAN-And part of that compensation, we had to put all of our stuff in storage because we couldn’t move into the house. We had our house sold. So we were in limbo. We had to get somebody to store the stuff. So, basically, that’s what that was for. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. STONE-It was a wash, in other words. LORETTA MULLIGAN MRS. MULLIGAN-There was a lot of deception, absolutely deception, and lies. MR. HAYES-You didn’t have any leverage when you were sitting there with no place to go. MR. MULLIGAN-No. We had no house. MR. ABBATE-Of course, that’s a very stressful time. MRS. MULLIGAN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-We all went through that. MR. O'CONNOR-And it also was the conclusion of seven years of litigation that Mrs. Mulligan had been involved in, based upon some serious injuries. So it wasn’t a good time at all. It should have been a good event, and it turned out to be, I do know enough, because we talked about different problems that they had with different files, that it was not a good file. MR. STONE-The question that I have to answer myself is that, as far as I can recall, this building was built without a permit. It was an illegal building, and one could argue that maybe we weren’t as forceful as we might have been when it appeared before us, but all of a sudden now this building is legal. It’s like a bootlegging fortune that now is old money. MR. O'CONNOR-But we would not accept the building unless they could get a Certificate of Occupancy for it. I think what they did is they came up and applied for it after the fact. I’m not 100% sure. An inspection was made, and it was approved. MR. HAYES-I still don’t think we were over lenient. Once he called it an accessory building, it, essentially, was out of our purview. MR. STONE-That was the judgment that we made. MR. HAYES-Well, that’s was the judgment that the. MR. MC NULTY-That became an accessory storage shed. MR. HAYES-We didn’t have a thing to say. MR. MC NULTY-What height overhead door would you put on this? Let me put it this way. Would you agree to put in a normal residential height overhead door, rather than a higher one? MR. MULLIGAN-Yes. MRS. MULLIGAN-Sure. MR. MC NULTY-Which might then limit the size vehicle. MRS. MULLIGAN-It’s in there already. MR. MULLIGAN-Yes. I think that’s what’s there already. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the door is there. The door is there. They put a false. MR. MULLIGAN-The door is there. There is a door on the side of it right now, and it’s a normal height, eight foot, I would say. MR. MC NALLY-They’ve got a garage door on the other side of that thing? MR. MULLIGAN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Really? MR. O'CONNOR-They put a false front on it. MR. MULLIGAN-Yes. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. STONE-All right. Anything else? All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PLINEY TUCKER MR. TUCKER-I don’t like you using the word “opposed”. MR. STONE-Speak on the application, Mr. Tucker. MR. TUCKER-Pliney Tucker, Division Road. At the time that this problem showed up in front of this Board, I was Councilman in Ward Four, and I’d like to explain some of the things that took place. This building had been built for a year, and Mr. Imperiale, who built it, went around Town bragging that he built the thing without any permits, any permission, or anything else, and two people that he bragged to came to me, and requested that I report it, and I reported it. Tonight you were shown a letter, or not a letter, but a petition, with signers. All those people signed that petition after the garage was built. One of the people that signed that petition was a member of the Planning Board, and knew the garage had been built illegally, yes, and he’s now a Councilman on the Town Board, all right. Mr. O’Connor mentioned Craig MacEwan. I’m sure you all know who Craig MacEwan is and his position on the Planning Board. He’s Chairman of the Planning Board. He wrote a letter in favor of this, after he knew this building had been built illegally. The night that the Zoning Board heard it, and I don’t know whether you guys were here. I know some of you were, heard it, it was 11:30 at night, when we got done, or 12:30 or something like that, and I just couldn’t understand it. This guy sat right here at this table and told the Board that he built the damn thing because he was tired of the system, didn’t want to work in the system. He’d just build it, and, so what, and I assumed that he was going to be told to tear it down, and it didn’t happen, and I think I told everybody here that night that I didn’t think they did their jobs. Now, you’ve got this situation here, and I’ve got a feeling that you’re going to allow this thing to happen, but if I was these people right here, I’d be suing the Town of Queensbury, because I feel you people did not do your jobs. This guy sat right there and told you to go to Hell, and he told 25,000 people in the Town of Queensbury the same thing. Now, I’m a contractor/builder, and I’ve been a contractor/builder for a lot of years, and I’ve been involved in this government a long, long time, and I’ve seen people come here and sit here and go through this system, who want to put a second garage on their house, or add to their garage, and be told, no, and they don’t do it. Yet somebody like this comes along and tells the system to go to Hell, and he’s allowed to do it, and then it’s not taken care of properly, and then it comes back to bite you, and bite everybody in the system. Thank you. MR. STONE-Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Anybody else wish to speak? Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do you have anything to say, Mr. O’Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t, you know, everybody just got caught, is the best way I can say it, particularly the Mulligans, and my office advised them of the fact that that, that there was a problem there, and they were aware of it, and they understand it. I don’t think there’s any basis for thinking that they could sue the Town, if that’s the question that was just raised. Basically, when this guy said it’s not a garage, and withdraws the application, you lose the jurisdiction. I think there was an issue, then, about the building permit, and that apparently was resolved. That’s my presumption because a Certificate of Occupancy was given. So I think you still go back to the basic issue, what’s the impact upon the neighborhood if you allow the present owners, who are not going to use it for commercial purposes, to store vehicles in it, and I don’t think there is any impact. MR. STONE-Mr. Tucker makes a valid point, that, and, as I was driving out to look at the thing today, I did some thinking on the subject that, you know, in one sense we might have dropped the ball. We certainly had the ball when the application was here, to say, tear it down, and we didn’t do that, but, as you pointed out correctly. MR. HAYES-I don’t think that’s true. MR. STONE-Well, if he wanted to persist on the application. As soon as he withdrew the application and said, I’ll make a shed out of it, in order to get a building permit, I mean a CO, eventually, it was out of our jurisdiction. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. HAYES-Well, he was within Code, once he called that a shed. Right, Craig, I mean, essentially? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. TUCKER-And guess what happened, guys? Guess what Mr. Imperiale did? He used it for another garage. MR. MC NALLY-Again, that’s an enforcement problem, and it’s also a problem for the Town Board. The Town Code has a gap in it that has to be covered up, fixed up. You can call a garage an accessory use structure and get away with it. This is water under the bridge. This is past history. MR. STONE-Well, when was the, can you answer the question, when were the partitions put in? MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t know. MR. MULLIGAN-They were there. MRS. MULLIGAN-When we first saw the house. MR. STONE-When you first saw the house. MRS. MULLIGAN-Yes. MR. MULLIGAN-He had told us that that was a problem that was straightened out. You could take that down. Therefore, we inquired, we had a problem with that. MR. STONE-We appreciate that, that you didn’t accept it on face value. MRS. MULLIGAN-No, absolutely, we questioned it a lot. MR. MULLIGAN-And the realtor told us basically the same thing. MRS. MULLIGAN-Yes. We were mislead. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but Mr. Tucker does make a valid point. He suggests impropriety, but I submit that that may very well be true, but that’s not a subject for this Board at this time. Perhaps that should be referred to Town Counsel. It’s not this Board. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I think the two signatures on the petition simply are saying they have no personal objection. I think they were both property owners in the neighborhood. They didn’t think it affected the value of their property. I don’t think they say that it’s legitimate, not legitimate. They were asked, do you think that this has an impact on you? That’s typically what happens. I’ve given up on going on neighborhood petitions. I think they’re nice, but sometimes they create more issues than not. MR. STONE-Quite often, we will sit here and one or more of us would say, when something comes before us built, we ask the question, what would we have done if it had not been built. I think that’s kind of the question that’s before us tonight. The building is there. Would we have said yes? On the basis, I mean, you made an argument for us to allow the building to be built, in one sense. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, the distinction, though, I would make, even of that argument, Mr. Stone, is, and I guess it’s a legal distinction, when you look at the balancing, you look at the practical difficulty that a person would incur. The building is already there. You can’t ignore the fact. I think there is a consideration that you say, okay, if I were looking at this as thought it was fresh and the land was clear, that’s a consideration, but that’s not necessarily, that’s not a controlling consequence. MR. STONE-I didn’t mean that that in a negative way. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right. MR. STONE-Quite often we come out and make a positive determination, based on that kind of thing. MR. ABBATE-In spite of everything that’s been said, Mr. and Mrs. Mulligan certainly had nothing to do with the initial difficulty, if you will. They’re absolved, as far as I’m concerned, from that, even though there may have been problems. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Norman, let’s start with you. What do you think? MR. HIMES-Well, thank you, Lew. I, for one, as is intimated here, we shouldn’t be punishing children for the sins of their fathers, so to speak. So the stage is set. The building is there. It certainly lends itself to what is being applied for . The aspect of their being two garages there, and they applied for, where the Code says one pretty simply, it seems to me, in the case of an application to construct a new building, I probably would find it very hard to go along with it. I’d almost feel like I was legislating Code, which we are not supposed to be doing. However, in this case, everything that has been said, I think I would be in favor of this application. MR. STONE-All right. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Dealing strictly with what we are charged with, I have no problems with this application, and based upon the application as submitted, I am of a mind to approve it. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-This is a lawful structure, and the problems beforehand, if it was a garage and was kept as a garage, I would have been the first person to vote to shut the damn thing down, but this applicant has I think demonstrated that this is a use that they can legitimately put, related to their residential property. The amount of relief that they’re requesting is relatively minimal, when you consider the size of their existing garage and in combination it only being 246 square feet more than what our Code allows. We have, on other occasions, allowed second garages, particularly where there is a large lot or there are circumstances where that second garage would be away from their neighbors and not impact on their neighbors. In this case, the neighbors have said nothing. What they’ve said, to the contrary, is that they are in support of the application, or at least the idea of a garage in this location before. I honestly don’t see any effects on the neighborhood or community, and therefore I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I think Bob’s entirely correct. Before, in my mind, Mr. Imperiale was able to escape us prosecuting our job, in that particular case, I would have been in favor of not allowing that garage as well, but once it became a compliant structure, from a Code perspective, I think it was no longer our issue, at that particular time. Going past that, as Norm said, examining this for what is before us today, I think it’s an important part of our job to examine every application on its merits. No fact pattern is exactly the same, and that’s important. We have to evaluate this application based on the area test that we’re charged with, and I think that the applicant’s Counsel has satisfied me. I think there really is a benefit to the applicant to aid and relieve Mrs. Mulligan’s condition. The feasible alternatives of putting a $20,000 addition on to this existing garage, versus converting this building. I mean, is that what we’re going to enforce upon these people in this particular case? I don’t think that’s, I think that’s a heavy burden. I don’t think the relief is substantial to the Ordinance. The 246 square feet of overall relief, when you combine the two structures, I’ve been on the record before as saying that our garage ordinance, in certain circumstances, is overly restrictive, in my mind, and I think in this case I can certainly overlook the 246 square feet. The effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t think there really is much of an impact. The shed is there. There’s, basically, overall neighborhood support for the shed as it exists. They have agreed to, or intend to combine these into a parcel that’s going to be almost 14 acres, when it’s all said and done, and that, to me, that’s a very landed piece of property, and like Bob said, we have approved second storage, you know, or second garages for these type of parcels. So I think when you apply this to this case, with the balancing test, I think that, in the unique circumstance that’s in front of us, I think that this passes the test, and I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I basically, I guess, am going to be in favor, too. If this were the previous applicant, I’d clearly be opposed, but this is a new situation. These are not the people that built the thing illegally. They certainly have a need. The benefit to granting the variance is obvious. If circumstances were different, I would like to accept the Counsel on his proposed alternative and make it a one stall garage and have storage, but I can understand the sense of wanting to have the van in the attached garage, which means you’ve got to put two vehicles in the other one, and my only concern would be, if a subsequent owner might tend to use it for a commercial purpose, but it’s in a residential area, and that becomes a Code Enforcement problem, rather than something that we’re granting with a variance. We’re not granting a variance for commercial use. We’re granting a variance for residential use. So, that being said, I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think so. At the same time that this thing needs to be approved, as it is, as it is represented by Counsel. Had I looked at it from the standpoint of nothing being in the back yard, I probably would have gone for an addition on the garage and reconfiguration of the garage, but the fact that this structure was already there, even though it was, you know, it was illegally built at one point, nonetheless, (lost words) garage, so it makes more sense to (lost words). MR. STONE-Well, I agree with everything that’s been said, but I’m still going to vote no, and the reason I’m going to vote no is, you have, first of all, I have to be consistent with what I’ve done before. Two garages, to me, is 100% variance. Regardless of the fact that the building is there, it still says we’ve got two garages where the Code calls for one. We’re always sometimes talking about two percent, five percent, when we talk about some other things, not necessarily garages, but we’re talking 100%, and while I buy everything that’s been said, I agree that the benefit to the applicant far outweighs the detriment to the community, and the fact that because the building is there, and again, as my fellow Board members have said, if the building wasn’t there or then the previous owner, it would have been easy to say no. It’s easy, in this case, because I’m being consistent with what I’ve done before. I don’t think it has anything to do with the information provided by Counsel. I think he did an excellent job, and as I say, if nothing else were there, I would say, yes, but it is two garages where one is allowed. So I will say no, but, nevertheless, I will call for a motion to approve this application. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2000 LORETTA M. & THOMAS B. MULLIGAN, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 38 Morningside Circle. The applicants request 246 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot maximum allowable square footage for private garages, as set forth in Section 179-7, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, according to a list of allowable accessory structures in Section 179-19, parcels in this zone are allowed a private garage. This application is requesting relief for a second garage, and for a total garage area of 1,146 square feet, which is, as noted, 246 square feet above the permissible amount. I note that this motion is based on the fact that we have to balance the five factors, and I find the balance falls in favor of the applicants for the following reasons. First, the benefit to the applicant would be that they would be permitted to convert the structure and gain additional vehicle storage area. While not controlling, certainly the personal needs of Mrs. Mulligan are considered here, given the oversized nature of the van that they require. The feasible alternatives don’t exist, in my opinion. It’s not feasible to insist that people build a $10,000 addition in order to go to 900 square feet as an attached garage, when sitting a few feet from their home, on a two acre lot, is an existing structure that would accommodate their two vehicles. To require them to do that doesn’t make sense. It’s not feasible with the one that’s already there. With respect to the third requirement, whether the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, I don’t find it’s substantial. The reason I don’t find it’s substantial is 900 square feet is a relatively modest garage, and while that may be a maximum Town requirement, given the 2. some odd acre nature of this lot, and the nature of the surrounding area where the existing shed exists, it’s not substantial at all. It’s reasonable under the circumstances. When you consider the effects on the neighborhood or community, I find that there are none. As I noted above, it is a large lot. Second, there’s support in the community and the adjacent property owners for the variance. There’s also the fact that these people own the lot behind them. The shed is already there. It’s relatively remote from their neighbors, and in all due respect, it’s not going to have any effect on the community at all. Lastly, I don’t think the difficulty is self-created. Certainly, they had knowledge of it, right before they closed on the property, but this is not a structure that they, themselves, built. That was Mr. Imperiale’s responsibility, and he’s not in front of us. For all these reasons, I move the approval. Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally NOES: Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 92-2000 TYPE II JOHN AND KATHLEEN TARRANT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 338 CLEVERDALE ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, AP A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 18 FT. BY 35 FT. OPEN BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK. REILEF IS REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 74-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/11/2000 TAX MAP NO. 13-2-2 LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES SECTION 179-60, 179-16 SEAN CALLAHAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 92-2000, John and Kathleen Tarrant, Meeting Date: October 18, 2000 “Project Location: 338 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 18 ft by 35 ft open boathouse/sundeck. Relief required: Applicant requests 5 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, §179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct an additional recreation area at the shore. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited, as the construction is proposed in the same location as the existing boathouse roof. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 5 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, however, a portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the location of the existing dock. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP40-99 res. 8/24/99 expansion of a non conforming structure in a CEA. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed construction does not appear to be out of character with the existing conditions along the shoreline in this area. Relocation of the dock in order to facilitate a compliant boathouse does not appear to be a feasible alternative. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 11, 2000 Project Name: Tarrant, John & Kathleen Owner: John and Kathleen Tarrant ID Number: QBY-AV-92-2000 County Project#: Oct00-32 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes the construction of an 18’ x 35’ open boathouse/sundeck. Relief is requested from side yard setback requirements: 20’ required, 15’ proposed. Site Location: Cleverdale. Directly across from northern intersection of Cleverdale and Mason Roads (picket fence). Tax Map Number(s): 13-2-2 Staff Notes: This proposed action was also referred by the Town for County review of a site plan (Agenda Item Oct00-31). Please see that agenda item for a copy of the elevation drawing, the site plan, and the site development data sheet. Given that the proposed action does not exacerbate the existing, not very extreme, setback deficiencies, Staff recommends a determination of no County Impact. Local actions to date (if any): A Public Hearing has been set for October 18, 2000. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Terri Ross, Warren County Planning Board 10/12/00. MR. STONE-Sir, you’re up. MR. CALLAHAN-It pretty much speaks for itself. My name is Sean Callahan. The whole thing is to replace the existing without changing any of the dimensions to be used for a sundeck, versus just a boathouse. MR. MC NALLY-So are you a contractor? MR. CALLAHAN-Yes. MR. STONE-You’re going to flatten out the roof and put a sundeck up there? MR. CALLAHAN-Basically. MR. STONE-Within 16 feet? MR. CALLAHAN-Yes. I don’t think it’s going to be any higher than the existing. MR. STONE-Have you made application to the Park Commission? MR. CALLAHAN-Yes, I have. MR. STONE-Okay. Have they acted on it yet? MR. CALLAHAN-I got the letter of confirmation that’s sent in now. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CALLAHAN-I’m still in my 17 day wait. MR. STONE-Okay. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. MC NALLY-You do work in the Town regularly, I take it? MR. CALLAHAN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-When you ask for a variance, they give you the sign to post. I’m serious. I spent a little bit of time looking for this place. MR. CALLAHAN-I posted the sign the day I got it, which was Sunday, because it got sent directly to the Tarrants in Saratoga, and they forwarded it to me, and Sunday morning, I think, I went, as soon as I picked up the mail, and posted it right on. MR. STONE-The site plan sign. Not the pink one, the green one. MR. MC NALLY-The green one I saw. MR. CALLAHAN-That’s the only one I got. MR. MC NALLY-All right. MR. STONE-Are we sending out the pink one? MR. BROWN-I hope so. MR. MC NALLY-Anyway, on the next project, good instructions on how to get there and where it is, a sign out front. Okay. MR. ABBATE-Yes. In addition, being confused where your location, I’m also confused about this drawing, this diagram. Are you the one who submitted this? Is this your work? MR. CALLAHAN-I submitted it, but the drawing was an addition work done to the house last year. MR. ABBATE-Well, okay. Here’s where I’m confused, please help me out. Do you have a copy of it in front of you? MR. CALLAHAN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-You do. Okay. Take a look on the upper left hand corner. It says covered boat slip. It indicates 28 feet. You see that up there? MR. CALLAHAN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, you also have an indication that there’s a 15 foot and a wood deck to the boathouse. Do you see that portion right there? MR. CALLAHAN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Are you proposing construction there? MR. CALLAHAN-At the 15 foot mark, yes. MR. ABBATE-Was it addressed in your application? MR. STONE-That’s what he’s talking about. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, he’s just doing a roof. MR. STONE-He’s doing the roof from the elevated poles, which is 15 feet from the property line. He’s not touching the decking. MR. ABBATE-Right, but what about that portion? MR. MC NALLY-The dock part? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. CALLAHAN-The dock’s staying the same. MR. STONE-That’s in violation. I mean, that’s nonconforming. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. ABBATE-That’s nonconforming. All right. So we’re talking about a nonconforming structure anyway. MR. STONE-But the dimensional relief from the new. MR. BROWN-Correct, from the property line to the new construction. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else? MR. MC NALLY-Is this going to be the same dimensions as the existing roof? MR. CALLAHAN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-I see 35 feet long from shore to out in the lake, right? MR. HAYES-Lengthwise. MR. STONE-Lengthwise. MR. MC NALLY-And the height you show is 12 feet, and that’s from the deck to the dock surface? MR. CALLAHAN-Yes, on the new one. MR. MC NALLY-That’s a foot taller than the existing one, but that’s the railing. MR. CALLAHAN-That’s including the railing. MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got a 36 inch railing, right? MR. CALLAHAN-Thirty-six inch, yes. MR. MC NALLY-And I see stairs to dock. MR. CALLAHAN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So the stairs are going to go down from the deck, onto the dock, not to the shore? MR. CALLAHAN-Right. MR. MC NALLY-Where are they going to be? MR. CALLAHAN-It’s going to be tight. MR. MC NALLY-I mean, where are they going to be, which side? MR. CALLAHAN-It’s going to have to be something that I work out with them at the time. MR. STONE-When I looked at the property this morning, I noticed on the dock, where you show, on the north side, you show a three or four foot wide deck, the thing that Mr. Abbate was talking about, that portion inside the 15 feet. Okay. All well and good for that, but I notice there was a projection to the north from that side of the dock, which looked new, relatively new. It’s not on the drawing. Was that possibly built in violation? MR. CALLAHAN-I didn’t notice any projection. MR. MC NALLY-It’s got to be like an eight by eight, like a floating dock attached to the side. MR. CALLAHAN-Floating raft. MR. MC NALLY-It’s on some kind of a. MR. HAYES-Floating stock. MR. MC NALLY-Floating stock of some kind. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. CALLAHAN-Yes, there’s just a raft there. MR. HAYES-Do they bring that in from out on the lake or something? MR. CALLAHAN-I don’t know if they have a mooring for it. It wasn’t really any question. MR. STONE-I didn’t walk down to it. MR. MC NALLY-It was attached. I walked down to it. MR. STONE-It was attached. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, but I don’t know if comes loose or what not, but it was clearly. MR. CALLAHAN-No, that wasn’t attached even to the dock, when I first looked at it. It’s tied to it now. MR. MC NALLY-It’s hinged, so that it floats up and down with the waves. MR. STONE-But it’s attached to the dock. I mean, it certainly looked attached to the dock. Now, is that legal construction, if it’s attached? MR. BROWN-No, it’s not, it’s clearly not. MR. STONE-It’s not. MR. BROWN-I think we have to determine what it is. If it’s hinged, is it hinged because they pull it out of the water in the wintertime? I didn’t see it there the day I made my inspection. MR. STONE-I didn’t see it as a float when I was there, but I didn’t walk out on it. MR. MC NALLY-It’s about the right size, but it’s almost even with the dock, too. It could be a lot of different things. MR. CALLAHAN-I think it was tied maybe into that little cove to the dock. MR. STONE-It certainly looked level with the decking itself, and like an extension of the dock. MR. HAYES-Craig’s aware of it now. So now it’s an enforcement issue. MR. STONE-Your picture doesn’t quite show it, unfortunately. I mean, certainly when you’re talking about encroaching, this really encroached. You’re going to take care of it? You’re on notice. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. STONE-Any other questions, with the exception of that? I mean, that bothers me. MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s what I was referring to. I don’t know whether it’s part of this or not, but Craig has it now. MR. BROWN-Make it a condition. MR. STONE-Okay. That it’s got to go. MR. BROWN-Well, figure out what it is, first. MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Let them take care of it. MR. STONE-Well, we’d make it a condition. MR. MC NALLY-That they would remove it? MR. STONE-That it become conforming. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. STONE-We’re not granting relief for it, I don’t believe, is what we’re talking about. All right. Are there any other questions of Mr. Callahan? If not, I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions, comments? Then let’s very quickly talk about it. Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Okay. The request, the application doesn’t seem to be inappropriate. It is a nonconforming structure, and you’re requesting expansion of the existing nonconforming structure, and I don’t have a problem with that. I am of the opinion, right now, that I would probably vote for approval, however, on the stipulation that this item that we just discussed earlier be cleared up by the Zoning Board, or Mr. Brown. MR. CALLAHAN-The extra dock area, raft, whatever it is? MR. ABBATE-Okay. So what you’re basically saying is that you would be more than willing to go along with any modification, based upon approval? MR. CALLAHAN-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fair enough. Well then, in that case there, if we have a stipulation in the approval, if it’s approved, then I would certainly go for approval. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I was impressed at how nice this house was, too. Very well maintained. When I walked down to the boats, I was impressed at how old the roof was, and how much it really needed a new roof, and how, if you were going to do that, you might as well put on a deck as, I think about 10 people on the left hand side have done, and maybe three or four people on the right hand side have done. I have no problem with this. It’s not going to change the nature of the neighborhood, and it’s something which I think people have come to expect when they have a boat slip that’s covered. I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, just like Bob said, I mean, I think it has virtually no impact on the neighborhood, based on the fact that it’s entirely consistent with it, the whole notion, so at that point in my analysis, would only focus on the benefit to the applicant, and certainly a feasible alternative to, when you have a bad roof and a structure that needs repair, is to make whatever upgrades you’re going to make to that particular structure. It only makes sense. It’s the time to do it, really, and I don’t think five feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement is a big hurdle. I think it’s minimal relief, in my mind, particularly considering the structure is already there. So I guess, on balance, I think I’m okay with this application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree. It strikes me, if you’ve got to make a repair, other people have done the same thing, and the flat roof and sundeck certainly doesn’t intrude any more into the view for anybody, and I suspect probably the floating item that we were talking about may well be a swimming float, and that may be a clever way of getting it out of the lake in the winter, bring it over, drive the lynch pins in it, and winch it up out of the water, but in any event, I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think there’s plenty of examples, as mentioned, of other docks that have had the same thing happen to them. So this is the last thing that needs to be fixed on the property, I’d go for this. MR. STONE-Norman? 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I feel the same as the rest of my fellow Board members. I didn’t hear any objections from the neighbors, contrary to this undertaking, and there’s really not a shocking new development. They’re fixing up something that’s already there. I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-This is going to be 12 feet from the water to the railing. MR. CALLAHAN-No, from the top of the dock to the railing. MR. STONE-All right. The Code calls for 14 from the water to the top of the railing of a flat dock. MR. CALLAHAN-Mean high, yes. MR. STONE-It’s going to be no more than 14. MR. CALLAHAN-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. I just want to get that on the record. I certainly have no problem with this. As I think the Board members have said, having a deck on top is probably less obtrusive, because you can see through it, than having a peaked roof, which can be higher. So you’re actually picking up some height by going to a flat deck. Having said that, I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 92-2000 JOHN AND KATHLEEN TARRANT, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 338 Cleverdale Road. The applicant proposes the construction of an 18 foot by 35 foot open boathouse with sundeck. The relief required, the applicant seeks five feet of relief from the twenty foot minimum setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, 179-60. The benefit to the applicant in connection with this is they would be permitted to construct an additional recreational area at the shore. The feasible alternatives appear to be limited, as the construction is proposed in the same location as the existing boathouse roof. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Five feet of relief from the twenty foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. Effects on the neighborhood and community are minimal, or no impact at all. Is the difficulty self- created? It could be interpreted as so. However, the dock has been there in the past, and it’s being maintained and improved somewhat. On that basis, I move that we approve the application as submitted. Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. MR. CALLAHAN-Thank you. MR. STONE-And you will check, look into that, Craig. All right. We have one set of minutes. I believe that’s all I got, right, or have I got two? MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got one. MR. STONE-One, September 20. th CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 20, 2000: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FOR THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2000, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/00) NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-I move the meeting is adjourned. MR. MC NALLY-Second it. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 39