Loading...
2000-10-25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY NORMAN HIMES PAUL HAYES ALLAN BRYANT JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT CHARLES ABBATE ROBERT MC NALLY CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-2000 TYPE II ROBERT & DEBORAH SCHMIDT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 15 AUTUMN LANE ZONE: SR-20 APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 14 FT. BY 31 FT. SWIMMING POOL ON THE PROPERTY AND SEEKS REAR YARD SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 121-15-48 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-67 DEBORAH SCHMIDT, PRESENT; DAN SPRAGUE, REPRESENTING APP., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 89-2000, Robert & Deborah Schmidt, Meeting Date: October 25, 2000 “Project Location: 15 Autumn Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 14 ft. by 31 ft. swimming pool. Relief Requested: Applicant requests 9.71 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement for accessory structures per § 179-67. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize the pool. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller pool and relocation closer to the home in order to alleviate some of the property line setback relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 9.71 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. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 95-284 issued 5/14/97 168 sf deck BP 94-090 issued 4/12/94 single family dwelling Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The existing fencing should provide adequate screening. No public concern has been noted to date. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Anything from the County? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see anything from the County. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Schmidt, are you here? Please come forward. MRS. SCHMIDT-Just myself. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s no problem. I was afraid nobody was here. That’s all. State your name for the record and anything you want to add, subtract, from what has already been read. MRS. SCHMIDT-Yes. Deborah Schmidt. No, I don’t have anything to add. MR. SPRAGUE-I’m Dan Sprague, Pool Contractor. I’m just here to answer any questions. Are there any? MR. UNDERWOOD-Are most of your pools wider than 14 feet? I’m going to gather they are. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. SPRAGUE-Yes. The average pool is 16 foot. We tried turning it a few times in the yard, but you also have a setback of, because the deck is attached to the house, you’ve got to be 10 feet from the shed, and then that particular neighborhood, the septics, there’s like three houses on one septic. So we can’t move the septic. So that’s the only place it can really go, and also the fence that was there now, that can’t be moved either because the fence can’t go any farther than the corner of the house. MR. STONE-Somebody who knows the rules. I appreciate that. This is an above ground pool or an in-ground pool? MR. SPRAGUE-In-ground. MR. STONE-In-ground pool. What about the deck? I see you have extensive decking back there now. MRS. SCHMIDT-That was there. We just purchased the house. MR. STONE-Okay. Is that all going to stay the way it is? MRS. SCHMIDT-Yes. MR.. SPRAGUE-Yes. MR. STONE-This is going to fit up to the deck? MR. SPRAGUE-We’re going to be 10 feet from the deck, which meets the Code, okay. That’s why we’re asking for the relief off the back. If we could get closer to the deck, we wouldn’t need as much on the back, but then we’d have a safety factor in diving off the deck into the pool. So the only setback we’re looking for is the rear setback. MR. STONE-And the 10 feet is actually from the porch? I’m looking at the drawing here. It says porch. There is deck there, too, isn’t there? MR. SPRAGUE-Yes, but we’re farther, that’s even farther away. MR. STONE-That’s further away. Okay. MR. SPRAGUE-The 10 feet is off that wooden porch that’s there. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MR. BRYANT-Are you saying that you don’t make a smaller pool, as far as the width goes? MR. SPRAGUE-We could customize a smaller pool, but to meet the setbacks, you’re looking at 14, you’re looking for 9, it comes down to like a 4 foot wide pool. MR. STONE-That’s two people swimming side by side, carefully. Any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed, to speak against this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? Then let’s talk about it. Let’s start down at the end. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think they’ve been pretty reasonable in their request for the pool, and I don’t see that making it any narrower would make much sense. It wouldn’t give you much of a pool. So I’d be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I noticed that the neighbor to the back, you know, on the pool, has quite a large side yard, as compared to a lot of the places over there, which would add some distance, however, we haven’t heard anything from the neighbor anyway. So I probably would take that as them not having any complaints. So I agree with what Jim has said, that I would tend to favor it. MR. SPRAGUE-Plus that existing fence is on that neighbor’s side that you’re talking about. That’s staying there. MR. HIMES-I mean, the, what I would call the back, the other side of the pool, that house has quite a large side yard. So maybe that’s why they don’t feel they need to comment. I would tend to be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-As far as the structure itself, it’s going to be well hidden, and, you know, taking into consideration the size of the lot, I, too, would be in favor of it. I, again, question, I mean, you don’t have to go down, but couldn’t the pool be 10 foot wide? Couldn’t the pool be turned the other way? MR. SPRAGUE-There’s no way to turn it, okay. That fits the yard the closest to any of your Codes, all right. MR. BRYANT-If it was 10 feet wide, couldn’t it fit between the deck, you know, facing the other way, and still meet the Code? MR. SPRAGUE-Next to the garage, between the deck and the garage? No. Because you’ve got to be, number one, we’ve got to be 10 feet from the deck, and we also have to be 10 feet from the garage. So, that’s pushing it. We don’t make the 10 feet off the fence line and we don’t make, we still don’t make the 20 feet off the back. We tried that, too. Where it is right now was the best place to put it without asking for relief other than one setback relief. If we turned it what you asked for, we’d have to ask for relief off the back, plus relief closer to the garage or deck. MR. STONE-Just a question, while you mention fencing. Is that side, well, the second front yard. Let’s not talk the side. We’re talking Peach Tree front yard, because it’s technically two front yards, as you know. That fence, is that going to constitute a safety fence, or will there be a fence immediately inside that? MR. SPRAGUE-No. That yard that’s fenced in right now will be the fence that’s there. That meets the Code. Your Code calls for four foot fence, that encompasses either the pool or encompasses the yard MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SPRAGUE-So that fence that’s there now will be staying there. We’re going to take the front section down to come in, okay, and then that fence will be put back up when we’re done. So the fence is going to stay exactly where it is. MR. STONE-And it’ll be securely latched? MR. SPRAGUE-Yes. There’s already. MR. STONE-I mean, I didn’t look at it from that standpoint, I have to admit. MR. SPRAGUE-There’s one gate going in. It already has a self-latching gate, but again, when we’re done with the pool, your final inspection is the Town comes out and inspects the electrical and fencing. So it has to pass with the Town anyway. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-Actually, you know, according to my calculations, if you reduce the size of the pool and you turned it sideways, you’d only need three feet of relief. MR. SPRAGUE-When you say sideways? MR. BRYANT-If you turned it, just flip it 90 degrees, and were only 10 feet wide, you’d only need three feet of relief from the deck. MR. SPRAGUE-You’d have to show me what you’ve got. I haven’t got the picture in front of me, here. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. STONE-There’s 49 feet from the garage. Is that what you’re talking about? If I add up 10 and 25 and the width of the pool is 14, that’s 49, and if you put 31, then you’ve got 18 feet. MR. BRYANT-Would it necessarily have to stay at 31? That’s my question. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, that’s a question you can ask. MR. SPRAGUE-Okay. I guess, listening to what you’re saying, is the length part of it, that may fit, but the width from the fence to the wooden deck that there’s, I think, is it 27 feet? MR. STONE-Twenty-seven. MR. SPRAGUE-Okay. We have to be 10 from the deck, all right, and we have to be 10 from that property line. MR. BRYANT-But if you reduce the width also by, to 10 feet, at that point you’d only need three feet of relief. MR. SPRAGUE-Well, we’d need three feet on that side, and then we’ve got 49, we’ve got to be 10 from the house. MR. BRYANT-That’s assuming you’re going to keep 31. MR. SPRAGUE-No, we won’t make it the other way either. We’ve got 49 feet from the garage to the back property. You’ve got to be 10 from the garage. You’ve got 31 feet of pool, is 41, and we’d need 20 off the back. So, that’s why I say, I would be asking for relief off the side plus the back, if we turned it that way. MR. BRYANT-So we’re talking about two feet difference in the size of that pool. Is that right, 49 to 51? MR. STONE-Well, you’ve got 18 feet, and you’d need 30. So there’s going to be 12 foot of relief in there somewhere, because you’ve got to be 20 foot from the line and 10 feet from the garage. Are you there, Craig, okay. MR. SPRAGUE-Plus the width the other way, we have to be 10 from the deck, and also 10 from that sideline that is the corner lot. So you’ve got 10 and 10 is 20. MR. STONE-To conform, and we can figure it out, but to what Mr. Bryant is saying, if you didn’t need any variance, how big would the pool be, going parallel to Peach Tree? MR. SPRAGUE-Seven foot wide, and 19 feet long, seven foot wide. MRS. SCHMIDT-The grandkids aren’t going to like that. MR. STONE-I mean, that’s just for. MRS. SCHMIDT-That’s with no variance. MR. BRYANT-That’s more palatable, 10 foot by 20 feet. MR. STONE-That’s a valid question. MR. BRYANT-To me it’s more palatable, but anyway. MR. STONE-All right. Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m satisfied that they have done their best to meet the restrictive nature of this lot size, and I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I, obviously, agree. When I visited the property, as Norm pointed out, the neighbors have got a pretty good side yard there. I think they’ve done what they could to try and comply with the rest of the Ordinances in this particular circumstance, which makes it difficult, and, you know, people want decent sized pools, and that’s understandable. So, I think it’s a reasonable proposal. MR. STONE-Chuck? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree. It’s a reasonable proposal. I think they’ve done what they can to meet the Code. The fact that the fence is already there is not going to change the nature of the neighborhood, or anything of that sort, putting a pool in, and I think it basically comes down to the lot’s something that we’ll allow a pool in or say no pool, and I’m inclined to say yes, I’d approve it. MR. STONE-I agree with my fellow Board members. I think this is the minimum relief. I think, the reason I asked the question about the size of the pool, it seems to be, we’re coming down to a wading pool if this thing totally conformed. This is not to say that Mr. Bryant is wrong in his concern. He’s certainly not. That’s why we’re sitting here, but I think, in this particular case, the applicant has made a reasonable effort to make this as compatible with our zoning as possible. It’s certainly, using the kind of fence that’s there, and the kind of fence that’s going to stay there, it’s not going to be seen by anybody. It’s not going to be an attractive nuisance, although technically it is an attractive nuisance. You can’t get away from that. Pool’s are, but I mean, it’s not going to be obvious to anybody that it’s even there. I mean, I literally walked up to the fence, being the skeptic that I am, and said, I wonder if it’s there now, and of course it wasn’t, but you could not tell, obviously, from the road in any way, shape or form. So, having said that, I would call for a motion to approve this application. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-2000 ROBERT & DEBORAH SCHMIDT, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 15 Autumn Lane. The applicant proposes placement of a 14 by 31 foot swimming pool. The relief required, the applicant requests 9.71 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement for accessory structures per 179-67. The benefit to the applicant, of course, would be allowance to construct and utilize the pool. The feasible alternatives could be a smaller pool, an effort to relocate it or change its position. However, it’s felt that the size of the pool as applied for is reasonable, and we don’t think it’s necessary to force an alternative. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 9.71 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement could be interpreted as moderate. Effects on the neighborhood or community, moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of the action. We have not had anyone attend the meeting to voice yes or no. There’s no correspondence in the file. In connection with the problem in the first place, it may be interpreted as self-created. However, the dimensions of the lot, the placement of the house and septic system and so forth all play a role in this. I move that we approve this application as submitted. We would like to add a requirement that there be an as built survey completed when the work is done. Duly adopted this 25 day of October, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally MR. STONE-There you go. MR. SPRAGUE-One question. Let me say, you’re telling us when it’s done? MR. STONE-When it’s done, in other words, if you were building a house, straight, new, the Town Code, the Zoning Code requires an as built survey. We have recently modified our own rules to say that we want one for additions like this, so that we know exactly where it is on the lot. In other words, we say 9.71 feet. We’d like the as built to reflect that, with a survey. I mean, there is a survey on the property. It shouldn’t be a huge thing to do, but we’d like an as built survey. Okay. That’s it. MR. SPRAGUE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-2000 TYPE II PETER AND MARGARET BONHOTE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 124 RIVER STREET ZONE: LI-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 168 SQ. FT. (7 FT. BY 24 FT.) COVERED FRONT PORCH AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FROM BOTH THE LI-1A REQUIREMENTS AND THE SHORELINE AND WETLAND REGULATIONS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/11/2000 TAX MAP NO. 112-1-57 LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES SECTION 179-26, 179-60 PETER & MARGARET BONHOTE, PRESENT 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. STONE-May I assume that wetland is the thing that’s next to, that swale? Is that? It’s not the River we’re talking about. MR. BROWN-No. MR. HIMES-It’s Cole’s Brook. MR. STONE-Is that what it is? MR. HIMES-I think it’s Cole’s Brook, isn’t it? MR. BONHOTE-Yes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 90-2000, Peter and Margaret Bonhote, Meeting Date: October 25, 2000 “Project Location: 124 River Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 168 sf covered front porch. Relief Required: Applicant requests 32 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement and 8.5 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement of the LI-1A zone, § 179-26. Also, the applicant is requesting 25 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations; § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include expansion and or covering of the existing deck in the rear. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief may be interpreted as moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, however, a portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the location of the existing home. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Accessory structures incidental to pre-existing non-conforming residential structures are permitted, however, the proposed addition would not meet even a minimum residential front setback of 30 feet. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 11, 2000 Project Name: Bonhote, Peter and Margaret Owner: Peter and Margaret Bonhote ID Number: QBY-AV-90-2000 County Project #: Oct00-26 Current Zoning: LI-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a 168 sq. ft. (7’ x 24’) covered front porch and seeks setback relief from both the LI-1A requirements and the shoreline and wetland regulations. Site Location: 124 River Street, Hudson Falls. Follow Quaker Road East to the end. Take a left onto River Street. Travel ½ mile to 124 River Street (1 house on left after Watkins Garden Center). Tax Map st Number(s): 112-1-57 Staff Notes: It is unclear what body of water has triggered the Town’s shoreline regulations, but it is not the Hudson River or the Feeder Canal, both of which lie somewhat to the south of the parcel. Though the proposed deck would bring the structure closer to a County road (254), it would remain 18’ from the property line and 43’ from the road centerline. Staff does not identify any significant impacts to County or State resources. Local actions to date (if any): A Public Hearing has been set for October 25, 2000. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Terri Ross, Warren County Planning Board 10/12/00. MR. STONE-I think the County’s record ought to reflect that the Feeder Canal is to the north, I believe, and the River is to the south, but they’re not both to the south. Mr. and Mrs. Bonhote, is there anything you want to add to your application? State your name. MR. BONHOTE-My name is Pete Bonhote. This is my wife Marge, Margaret. MRS. BONHOTE-Not Mary. MR. BONHOTE-It says Mary on there. It’s Margaret. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BONHOTE-But we’d like to put a new front porch on our house. What we have there now is a six foot wide by eight foot deep front porch, and the new porch that we’d like to put is only going to be seven feet. So actually we’re not coming out as far as what’s there now. We are going wider, you know, almost the full width of the house. It’s kind of a plain Jane looking house. We just wanted to dress it up. I’m a contractor. I would like my house to look, you know, dress up the area a little bit. All the houses on that stretch are kind of older homes, and they are kind of close to the road. They did widen the road here a year or two ago, but as far as the back deck, like an alternative 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) to it, that’s really kind of our sundeck back there. Our daughter sun baths back there, and this would be a covered deck where we could get out of the weather but still stay outside. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, one of the questions, you kind of answered, but let me ask it. You made the comment “living space”. Well, define “living space”. MR. BONHOTE-Well, I guess a place where I could sit down. MR. STONE-Okay, but it’s not going to be enclosed? MR. BONHOTE-No. MR. STONE-Okay. Living space we normally think of as where you can live without, out of garments. I’m sorry. I don’t mean it quite the way that sounded. I meant, in the winter without undergarments. Okay. So you’re just talking a porch with a roof over it, and you did say it would be seven feet wide, compared to the eight of the stoop now? MR. BONHOTE-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Is that Cole Brook or Branchout? MR. BONHOTE-I think it is Cole Brook. There’s a bar down at the end of the road called the Cole Brook Inn. So, it sounds right. I don’t know that for sure. MR. HIMES-It seems like there’s a little more water in it up the road than going by your house, but I was wondering if that was it. MR. BONHOTE-I think so, yes. MR. BRYANT-The deck is going to be seven feet, and then how far are the steps going to stick out? MR. BONHOTE-The steps will stick out probably 36 inches from there. MR. STONE-So it will be more than the current? MR. BONHOTE-No one ever asked me about the steps. I could probably recess the steps back into the deck, and keep that line. I could do that, I guess. MR. STONE-But you figure, in your numbers, Craig, you figured flush steps? MR. BROWN-I did not include the steps. MR. STONE-But they should be included, if they’re going to be there. MR. BONHOTE-I could come off the side. Maybe that would help the problem with the frontage, maybe. MR. STONE-It would help me, although I haven’t got a terrible concern, but we’re getting very close to the road. MR. BONHOTE-Yes. Okay. MR. URRICO-Does anybody park in the front yard? MR. BONHOTE-No. Our parking is in the back, the back of the house between the garage and our house. We kind of share a common driveway with Watkins Garden Center there. MR. URRICO-So the steps coming off the front, where would they be going to? MR. BONHOTE-Just out to the front yard. We have a mailbox out front, but I could come off the side with the steps. There would be no problem with that. MR. BRYANT-One of the Staff suggestions was to improve the deck in the back and put a cover over that. Why aren’t you doing that? MR. BONHOTE-Well, that’s kind of our sundeck. We like to get out in the sun in the summertime. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. BRYANT-Put a roof over half. Here is the reason I’m asking this, is, you know, existing structure is already cutting 25 feet off the setback. Okay, and now you want another, you know, another bunch of feet, and the building is close to the road. There’s not a more logical? MR. BONHOTE-There’s a couple of factors, I guess, that I see, is dressing up the front of the house to make it look nice. MR. BRYANT-Yes, well, that’s why they make planters. MR. BONHOTE-Well, I have flower boxes and stuff, but. MRS. BONHOTE-And we also have the existing porch that’s on there, that just would be replacing that porch but extending it wider. MR. BONHOTE-As far as the back, I couldn’t extend the back porch anymore. Our septic is right there. We’d really like that to be an open porch, I guess. MRS. BONHOTE-We barbecue, and it gives us some privacy from the road, but the front of the house, you know, people in our neighborhood do like to sit out on their front porch, but be protected from the weather. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question? The 25 feet, is that including their porch? Is that from their porch, or just from the actual house structure? MR. STONE-You mean from the water? MR. BRYANT-Yes, their existing little porch, or overhang. That’s not included in the 25 feet? MR. BROWN-In the back of the house, the front of the house? MR. BRYANT-The front of the house. MR. BROWN-I don’t know. This is the drawing that the applicant prepared. I’m assuming that 25 feet goes to the house. MR. BONHOTE-That’s the front of the house. MR. BRYANT-That’s from the actual front of the house. MR. BONHOTE-Correct. MR. BRYANT-Not from the steps. MR. STONE-But the Brook is to the east. It’s that curved line to the east? MR. BONHOTE-Correct. MR. STONE-Of your property. MR. BONHOTE-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Yes, and that’s where the 25 feet is. MR. BONHOTE-There’s another 25 foot written on the front there, from the house to the front of our lot line. MR. STONE-Right. So, actually, it’s much further away from, we don’t have that number, in terms of what it is from the shoreline. MR. BONHOTE-Seventy-five feet from the front corner of our house to the property line. MR. STONE-As extended, but not. MR. BONHOTE-Okay. Yes. MR. BROWN-It’s 50 feet from the stream to the new construction. MR. STONE-It’s 50 feet. Okay. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. BROWN-That’s why they’re seeking 25 feet of relief. MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s none of these numbers that are on this drawing, but you’ve measured it out to be 50 feet? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. So, in the front of the house, where it is, it’s going to be 50 feet to the closest point of the street. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Any other questions of the Bonhotes? All right. Hearing no questions, I’ll 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 of the Bonhotes? Hearing none, let’s talk about it. Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you, Lew. I think the application is, for the porch, is reasonable, and I think it would improve the appearance of the house, and again, as I thought when I visited the place, the porch that’s there is out, appears within inches one way or the other, of what your intended porch is going to be. So that, really, there isn’t a great deal of impact on any of our codes that I can see, as a result of this change. So I would tend to be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Before we go any further. Norm, you would be willing to put the steps off the side? So we’re talking the relief that was advertised? MR. HIMES-That’s correct. MR. STONE-In other words, seven feet from the house to what we’re talking about. Is that all right with you? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. We’ll amend the application when we get there. Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I don’t have a problem with the wetlands relief, and I don’t have a problem with the side setback, but I have a major problem with the front setback. The existing structure now eats 25 feet away from the setback. Now you want to build a porch. You need another seven feet away from the setback, and pretty soon the house is going to be in the road. I mean, I think a more logical approach would be to renovate, I realize because of the septic you cannot extend the back porch, but, you know, there are other alternatives. I think that you can renovate in some way to still have a sundeck and still have a covered area, but to add, make a bad situation with the front setback worse, I would be opposed to it. MR. STONE-Okay. Just, again, for clarification, the relief that we advertise, Craig, is, the existing house is from the porch that’s there? In other words, that’s 17 feet from the property line? Because you’re showing 18 for the new porch, which is a foot less than the current porch. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-So it’s 17 feet right now. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Rather than, okay. I mean, that’s just for the record. The current porch is 17 feet from the property line. He wants to go to 18. Not to change your opinion, but just so we all know what we’re talking about. It’s currently 17. It will be 18 because it’s going to be pushed back, and he’s going to put the steps on the side. So, it’ll be 18. It’ll actually be better than it is. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. BRYANT-The current porch is nothing more than a set of steps. I mean, it’s a little platform and a set of steps. MR. STONE-No, but it does represent the setback boundary. Whether we like it or not, that’s the boundary, 17 feet back. MR. BRYANT-I understand. MR. STONE-All right. Let’s go on. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m satisfied the applicants have done their best to conform with the setback requirements, and I think it will improve the current setback status and also improve the look of that area. I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. As I drove down River Street, there’s a very mixed bag of usage’s on River Street. It’s kind of a complicated setup, in that particular sense, but yours is a residential house there, and in my mind, I view it from, as from the residential setback. We’ve run into this before, where an area is zoned Light Industrial but there’s a mixed bag of businesses and houses, and I think it’s a little bit of a hardship to impose a 50 foot setback on a residential in that circumstance. So, in my mind, this is a 12 foot or, you know, relief that we’re asking for here. I think, as the Staff notes indicate, I think this is an idea or an improvement that’s incidental to a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. This house is too close to the road, by the Statute, but as you look at the plans, and as I viewed the property, it’s a very natural thing to do. There are other decks on there. People have decks throughout Queensbury, on a lot of the homes, and it’s a usage that is perfectly natural to me. I think it will improve the house, quite frankly, and from that perspective, I think it’ll be an improvement in the neighborhood. I really do, and the other relief, as has been pointed out, 50 feet from the stream, to me, is adequate. I don’t think you’re impacting that in a way that I would be concerned about with that porch addition, in this case, which is, you know, basically a moderate addition, if there ever could be one. So, in the cumulative sense, I realize you’ve kind of hit a lot of dimensional relief triggers here, but I think, in reality, it’s a very moderate proposal, as far as what you’re going to put on the house. So I think it will be an improvement to the neighborhood. So I’m for it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I can basically echo what Jamie said. I’ll stay with my original impression. My original notes were, if the new proposal isn’t going to stick out any further than the existing entrance, than okay. If it’s going to stick out further, I’d say no, and since it’s actually going to be a foot less than the existing one, I don’t have any problem with it. I agree. I think it’s going to improve the appearance of the front of the house. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the request is very reasonable. It’s a minimal porch, and I think if your steps go off the west end of your driveway, it’ll make access just as easy as if it had come off the front, and I don’t think there’s any impact on the wetland area. MR. STONE-I concur with the majority of the Board. We hate to be faced with situations where you need this relief and that relief and this relief, but certainly when you consider the stream, and I’m all for wetland preservation and all that stuff, this is certainly going to be less close to the stream than the house currently is now on the back side. So, technically, yes, it does encroach on the 75 feet, but it’s a minimal thing. I believe, in my mind, your willingness to put the steps off to the side, whether it’s to the west or the east, obviously, I didn’t think one way or the other. The west probably more logical, is certainly commendable, because it does listen to what we’re saying, and the fact that the porch is going to be a foot less on the one setback that matters most to me, that’s being how close you are to the road, obviously, we have setbacks off the road, not only for the beauty, but also for the safety of those traveling and the safety of the people in the house. We don’t want anybody running in to your house because it’s too close to the road. I trust that hasn’t happened yet, and we pray that it doesn’t happen. Having said that, I would call for a motion to approve with the comment that, the steps will be off to the side, and they’re actually seeking 33 feet of relief, because it’s going to be, no, 32, it’s going to be an 18. I’m sorry. Okay. I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-2000 PETER & MARGARET BONHOTE, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) 124 River Street. The applicant proposes construction of a 168 square foot covered front porch in the front of their house. Specifically, the applicant requests 33 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement and 8.5 feet relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback requirement of the Light Industrial 1A zone, Section 179-26. Additionally, the applicant is requesting 25 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the shoreline and wetlands regulations, Section 179-60. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the covered porch in front of their house to improve it, as they desire to do and also to utilize it. Feasible alternatives, I believe the feasible alternatives are limited in this particular case, because this house is a pre-existing, nonconforming house, and also I believe the alternatives are limited, based on the fact that this is a Light Industrial zone. So, with the setbacks that are involved, they basically would need relief to do almost anything. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that the relief is certainly moderate, being that the applicant has triggered a number of dimensional relief requirements, but I believe, in totality, I don’t think the impact is great. So I think it’s, the relief is moderate. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I believe that there won’t be any. If there is any, I believe it’ll be in that this porch, as depicted, will be an improvement to the home, and therefore an improvement to the immediate neighborhood. Is the difficulty self-created? I don’t believe that it is. I believe this house is a pre-existing, nonconforming house, and the addition of the porch is incidental to the improvement and continued enjoyment of that home, and therefore I believe it has more to do with where the house is cited now. I’d like to make as a contingency of the approval that the steps for this new porch exit to the side, and therefore do not represent a further encroachment toward the road, and a reduction of the setback, and therefore, I guess, in total, I believe that the test falls in favor of the applicant, in this circumstance, and I move for its approval. Being that there has been expressed concerns that this is still a little bit tight, I’m going to make a second contingency that you provide to the Town an as built survey, as to the location of this deck, that accurately reflects the relief that you’ve been granted in this case. Duly adopted this 25 day of October, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Any questions about the motion? MR. BRYANT-Yes, I have a question, Mr. Chairman. I just want clarification on the existing porch and that 25 feet, now, that exists, you know, to the road, the setback. Does that or does that not include the porch? We’re only going to the building there? MR. BROWN-The dimension on the drawing, and the applicant correct me if I’m wrong, the dimension on the drawing is from the house to the setback, and the actual porch setback, currently, would be 17 feet. The proposed would be 18 feet. MR. HAYES-Right, but we’re granting relief to build the deck as depicted, being along that parallel line. If he goes closer, then he’s out of compliance. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. BRYANT-So the porch is actually now, you’ve got an eight foot wide porch there? MR. BROWN-They’re proposing a seven foot wide porch. That’s right. MR. STONE-And the only caution I would make, looking at your drawing, is the house looks like it’s not quite parallel. MR. HAYES-It angles toward the road. MR. STONE-It angles toward the road on the east side. Did you measure from that corner, Craig? I’m sure you did. You didn’t do any? MR. BROWN-The applicant prepared. MR. STONE-Where was the 18 from? MR. BONHOTE-It was from the center of the porch, the side of the house back. MR. STONE-So it’s slightly. MR. HAYES-I think, obviously it’s going to go to a vote, but, listening to what Chuck said and everything else, I think that that does angle slightly toward the road there, but I don’t, I, personally, don’t have a problem with it being the same distance, in other words, 33 feet of relief, as the existing 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) porch, and that one foot should cover that, but I agree with Chuck that I would not feel like going any closer to the road, but I’ll modify that, in my motion, to reflect that one more foot. MR. STONE-At the closest point. MR. HAYES-Well, that’s always what it is. MR. STONE-Yes, of course. MR. HAYES-So, outside of that, it would be a burden on you to make the porch such. MR. BONHOTE-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MR. BROWN-Just one addition. I guess the motion should be for Peter and Margaret. I know my notes say Mary, but it is Margaret. MR. HAYES-All right. Peter and Margaret Bonhote. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Comments? Do I hear a second to the motion as amended? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll second. AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally MR. STONE-There you go. MR. BONHOTE-Thank you. MRS. BONHOTE-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-2000 WILLIAM AND LINDA NIZOLEK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 24 ONEIDA DRIVE, CLEVERDALE ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 768 SQ, FT. CAMP AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A 2,288 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/11/2000 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-1.27 LOT SIZE: 0.05 ACRES SECTION 179-16 WILLIAM MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 91-2000, William and Linda Nizolek, Meeting Date: October 25, 2000 “Project Location: 24 Oneida Drive, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing 768 sf camp followed by construction of a 2304 sf single family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 5 feet of relief on all four sides from the 15 foot minimum side and rear setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, § 179-19. Also, the applicant requests relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the same section by seeking approval to construct a year round three level 2304 sf single family home on a lot with a total floor area ratio of 101%. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the construction and acquisition of additional lands. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: While the dimensional setback relief may be interpreted as moderate, the Floor Area Ratio relief can only be interpreted as excessive relative to the ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to Substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. The current lot configuration, while not created by the applicant, is still not an original parcel and the potential difficulties for expansion are obvious. Parcel History (construction/site plan/construction/variance, etc.): None 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) applicable. Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Several, if not all other lots involved in the HOA are of a similar if not identical configuration. Consideration should be given to these neighborhood similarities and the potential for identical requests for relief in the future. The original construction and use of many of these homes was seasonal. Current trends appear to be toward the conversion of camps into year round residences, irrespective of the lot configurations once thought to be sufficient. There are 26 other identical parcels which share the common areas referenced in the application, each with an interest in only 18 acres of common area. Consideration should be given to the potential of; 27 separate, 2300 sf single family year round dwellings on less than 20 acres on a WR-1A, CEA site? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 11, 2000 Project Name: Nizolek, William and Linda Owner: William and Linda Nizolek ID Number: QBY-AV-91-2000 County Project#: Oct00-29 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes the demolition of an existing 768 sq. ft. camp and reconstruction of a 2,304 sq. ft. single family dwelling and seeks relief as well as relief from the floor area ratio requirements. Site Location: 24 Oneida Drive, Cleverdale. Left off of 9L onto Cleverdale Road. Left on Hillman Road, then left off of 9L onto Cleverdale Road. Left on Hillman Road, then left on Oneida Drive. Tax Map Number(s): 11-1-27 Staff Notes: The applicant proposes replacing a 768 square foot structure with a 2,304 square foot structure on a parcel on which the total allowable floor area is 503 square feet. However, the parcel is part of the Takundewide Homeowner’s Association, which shares an additional 18.7 acres of land among 32 members. The applicants appear to be using the same footprint of the existing structure, but replacing the one-story structure with a two story building with a basement, tripling the square footage and adding a bedroom and 2 bathrooms (2 bedrooms and ¾ bath exist now). Given the Board’s close scrutiny of lakeshore development projects, Staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A Public Hearing has been set for October 25, 2000. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with condition that septic meets Town of Queensbury standards.” Signed Terri Ross, Warren County Planning Board 10/12/00. MR. STONE-Mr. Mason. MR. MASON-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Go. I have one question before you start. It said, in your application, 24 Oneida Drive, and yet this says 25 on the house, and it’s number 25. MR. MASON-It’s 25. I’m sorry. I hope that’s not going to be a problem. I just looked through the whole application when I got here tonight, realizing that the agenda said 24. That’s the first time I noticed it, and there’s a general typo, handwritten in my writing, but, under “General Information”, but everything else refers to it correctly. MR. STONE-It was obvious, from the drawing, which one it was, but, at least I wondered. MR. MASON-I won’t get mixed up, if I’m granted the variance and so on. We’ll do it at the right place. MR. STONE-Anything you wish to add to the application? MR. MASON-I’m here to answer any questions if you have them. I came in front of this Board, I think, two years ago, with one that was similar, very similar, right on the waterfront, John and Joann Forbes, and it was approved. So, I had anticipated that this one would go easier, if not, if anything, but I don’t know that that’s true now. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I have two or three questions. MR. MASON-This is way back from the water. MR. STONE-Right. Two or three questions. You say, how many have you built so far? How many have been increased in size and converted? MR. MASON-I have done two like this one, or this will be my second, tear down or a complete re- do. I did two others that were additions. One was a smaller addition. They only kicked up a dormer on the second floor on one side, and that’s all they’ve done in that. So they added two bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs, but it was smaller in scope, and the other one, we took the roof off and put a second floor on, and they don’t have a basement. They did a frost wall. MR. STONE-Okay, and the one that we were going to put a roof on, when you got in, you had to take it down because it was not structurally sound. Is that correct? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. MASON-It was having trouble. It was in the ground, yes, and it was twisting, in two places, across, diagonal from each other, and I knew it was going to fall apart, either moving it over or moving it back. MR. STONE-Okay. Would you comment on the Staff comments about “consideration should be given to the potential of 27 separate 2300 sf single family year round dwellings on less than”, on 18 something acres, where the zoning is WR-1A? Would you comment on that? MR. MASON-Okay. I’d have a tough time. I hadn’t even thought about that. That’s a different way of looking at it than I had looked at it. I submitted, I was addressing myself to that floor area ratio, which, when I filled that out, it was substantial. I ended up at, the current building is 768 square feet, and only 503 square feet are technically allowed on that lot. So, I’m at an impasse on that one, and I spent my whole effort in kind of justifying why this makes sense, based on the total amount of acres at Takundewide, and I included that sheet in my application. Regarding that issue, this is an existing housing development that was approved at one point. These people are not asking to add an additional residence, and if someone were to come to this Board and ask for an additional residence, then I would think that that would be what you would be addressing, but this is a nonconforming, I guess. MR. STONE-Yes, it’s pre-existing, nonconforming. MR. MASON-Nonconforming in that they do have smaller lot sizes, and maybe there should have been a little more thought to giving each lot more than the 10 feet around the building, but I believe that that was done, I’m not certain of this, but it was done back in 1985 or ’84, and I think that the setback at the time was 10, now maybe I’m wrong. I wasn’t involved in it, but I thought that that was why it was done that way, so that they were more or less conforming on a very minimal basis, but then throwing as much land as possible into the homeowners association, which, it really works well, and we maintain the whole property for all of the owners and keeps it very nice, rather than having larger lots throughout the property, I guess. MR. HAYES-The other one that you tore down, and built from the ground up, what was the square footage on that one? MR. MASON-The same thing. MR. HAYES-Twenty-two hundred. MR. MASON-Twenty-three oh four. It was the 768, we build them 24 by 32. You guys laughed about that the last time I was here. All the buildings are 24 feet by 32, and we put a basement underneath it and put a second floor on it, and it’s the same dormer configuration that I built there. So, it’ll look very similar. There will be one less, that one had a large six foot sliding glass door facing the lake, with an extra set of steps that this won’t have. This will just have a window in that place, but from the exterior, they look very similar. The owners are really bound by some very tight homeowners association rules. They have to have brick fireplaces. I think if I came to the Association and said, the owner doesn’t want a fireplace, the Association would turn it down. They’re very strict, in one sense, and so we have to work within those documents also, and we’re left with basically the same building with some variations over and over. MR. STONE-Have there been any comments made to you by members of the Association? MR. MASON-The only comments that I got, after, regarding this one? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MASON-Only positive. I haven’t heard anybody say anything negative regarding this at all. I haven’t really heard anything, the owners there are, as far as I know, very happy with what has been going on. There have been two that have been built that I had nothing to do with, and they look very nice, and the people are taking really good care of them. So, that would be my concern, the neighborhood would go downhill, but people are building nice structures, and it’s looking nice. MR. STONE-Any other questions of Mr. Mason? MR. UNDERWOOD-These individual lots are just that tiny little square, that 10 foot square around the house that you have on the lot? MR. MASON-The lot that they bought, and the deed, I have a deed here, you may have gotten one, but it is a 44 by 52 foot parcel. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. UNDERWOOD-It seems to me that at some point the Association could get together and come up with a plan where you could move these things around like chessmen, in other words, spread these things out. I mean, if you anticipated that all of them were going to be done at some time, wouldn’t it make sense to spread things out, in other words, move them 10 or 15 feet one way or the other, just to spread them out a little more, because it seems to me if they’re were going to all talk about changing them to these 2300 square foot homes, that they’re all going to be kind of on top of each other, you know, more so than the small houses that are there now. MR. MASON-The difficulty there would be they’re all privately owned, and I kind of smiled when you said it because I picture my discussion with these people when I tell them I’m going to move them 20 feet back away from the water. I think that would be a real interesting. I understand what you’re saying. We do have, on the total property it’s spread pretty well. There is an area, up near the tennis courts, probably five acres, that is undeveloped, at this point, with no plans in mind, and we could move up into there, but I really can’t imagine getting an owner to agree that, yes, they want to move their house a couple of hundred feet farther back from the line. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t mean a couple of hundred feet. All I’m saying is that, you know, these houses aren’t on foundations right now, but I’m just saying that it would be easy to shift them around. In other words, if you came up with a plan, a long term plan for the whole development, you know, in other words, one might get moved 20 feet this way, and one might get shoved 20 feet over this way, just to give you some more breathing room. I just see that, as it is now, with them as tight as they are, then when you double or triple the size of the square feet (lost words) in a sense is too much. MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Staff about this floor area ratio. Do you agree with that calculation? Is that a common practice, take common land and include that in a floor area ratio? MR. BROWN-No, that’s not the convention. MR. HAYES-That’s his rationale only. MR. BRYANT-I understand that, but have you seen it done before, other than this circumstance? MR. BROWN-No, this is a unique circumstance. MR. STONE-I’m not even sure we have any others. We may, the little ones that were, nothing of this size. MR. BROWN-No. MR. MASON-When I came in front of the Board before, I didn’t do it, well, that was a renovation because we were anticipating it as an addition. MR. STONE-That’s right. MR. MASON-Okay, but the other ones, I would imagine the other ones that were done, because they were both tear downs, and built, I would imagine they came before the Board with the same issues, but I don’t think that we got involved in it as much as I did including the acreage. They just asked for the relief. MR. STONE-When were they done, do you know, the two that you did, the other two, not the ones you did? MR. MASON-The other ones I don’t know exact years. MR. STONE-Craig, do you know? I don’t recall. MR. HAYES-One was like two years ago. MR. STONE-No, that was the one. MR. MASON-That was mine. I was here two years ago. The other two were done prior to that. MR. STONE-So prior to any of us being on the Board. MR. MASON-So probably four years ago was one of them, and probably back in ’88 or ’89, I would guess, was the other. MR. HAYES-Did we have the floor ratio back then? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. BROWN-’96. MR. STONE-No. The floor area ratio was ’96. So we’ve never considered this subject this way before. It is different, and it has not come to us this way before. MR. MASON-Okay. MR. BRYANT-Of the 32 owners, how many have converted their camps into year round residences? MR. MASON-There are I believe eight year round residences at Takundewide now, maybe nine. MR. STONE-Including the bigger ones? MR. MASON-Yes. MR. STONE-And you say there are three of those or four of those? MR. MASON-There’s the bigger one. MR. STONE-The bigger one. MR. MASON-Then there were, of the, there are also winterized ones that are of the original configuration. That’s why there are more than what. MR. STONE-I understand that. I was just wondering how many were enlarged of that eight. MR. MASON-There are four like this one, or this is the fourth, of this size, then there’s one that’s a smaller, that one that I described to you, where they just kicked up the dormer. Then there’s the main house, and there are two that are the original cottage but they’re winterized. MR. STONE-Just winterized. MR. MASON-There may be additional winterized ones. What did I come up with there, probably seven, eight? MR. STONE-There’s seven, you meant the big house, though? MR. MASON-And the big house also. Okay. MR. STONE-But that, the big house was there a long time. MR. MASON-Yes. MR. STONE-Is that one of the, would that be one of the 27 properties? MR. MASON-Thirty-two. MR. STONE-Thirty-two. MR. MASON-There’s 32 properties at Takundewide, 32 homeowners. MR. STONE-So where’d you come up with 27? MR. MASON-He said there were, I think that was in your notes saying there are 27 that have not been built. MR. BROWN-I think there’s 27 small lots. Are some of the other lakefront properties part of Takundewide? MR. MASON-Four of the lakefront ones are also part of Takundewide, that’s right. MR. BROWN-So that’s number 32. MR. MASON-Yes. MR. BROWN-My 27 is the small, postage stamp lots. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MASON-All of the lot sizes are not identical. Most of the lots are the 44 by 52. There are four lots along the lake, plus the main house that have larger lots, but they all have, all 32 of those owners, have that equal share in the 18.7 acres that is Takundewide Homeowners Association. MR. HAYES-Of the three previous ones, were any of those three on the lake on the bigger lots, or were they? MR. MASON-Yes. MR. HAYES-They were? MR. MASON-The one that I did was on the lake, on one of the bigger lots. MR. STONE-The one that was going to fall down, that’s on a bigger lot. MR. MASON-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay, that’s another reason why it hasn’t come up. MR. MASON-That’s right. That is a larger lot. That’s right. MR. BROWN-Yes, it was a larger lot. I don’t think you did the basement. So there wasn’t that floor area. I think it was granted some floor area ratio relief, though, not this much, but there was some floor area on that one. MR. MASON-Part of the difficult on the floor area, as I read it, I’m going to set this exactly at the same height that it was at, or that it currently is at, which it is 36 inches out of the ground, and if there is a law that, it’s 36 along one wall. It gets less along all other walls. If I had written that as 35, or agreed to cover that, one inch more than the basement, as I read it, wouldn’t fall into the floor area ratio worksheet. You have to have three foot of exposed, I believe. So that would lessen it by a third. If that would help, I’ll put an inch of dirt along that side of that wall, and we’ll have a 35 inch exposure on that wall. MR. STONE-There are numbers and then there are numbers. MR. MASON-I know. They still do want the rec room in the basement, I know, but, I mean, it is, they end up looking the same whether I do it or I don’t. I know. I’m trying to help. MR. STONE-I understand. Any other questions of Mr. Mason, before we see if anybody wants to talk about it? Any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this? In favor of? Anybody wishing to speak opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-The public is really involved tonight. Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Did that elicit any other questions from members of the Board? I can only say that I’m concerned, and I, for one, don’t feel, I would like to think about it a little longer, myself, because unless, and I’m only speaking for myself. I’m not directing the Board where they go. I think the implications of this thing, and I think Staff has pointed them out very correctly. We have a situation, particularly on Lake George. It’s also true on Glen Lake, both of which are covered by the same Ordinance, where we’re trying to make lots bigger. I mean, to me, that’s my interpretation of the 1996 Ordinance. It doesn’t state it that way, but that’s how I interpret it. In other words, particularly in the area that we’re talking about here, and in Rockhurst, for example, and on Assembly Point where I happen to live, there are no conforming lots, one or two exceptions. I think this thing is intended to try to make lots more conforming, and here, if we begin this process, and quite frankly I think if we were to approve this, we are beginning it. Yes, there are some houses that have been done, but none with the consideration I think that we’re looking at it tonight, and as I say, I will ask my fellow Board members to comment on this particular position, because I don’t want to be dictatorial, but I just think that I would like to think about it a little longer, and do a little more 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) studying on the subject, because I think there are some long term ramifications to this thing. Does anybody want to comment on what I just said? MR. BRYANT-Yes, I would like to comment on that, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Sure. MR. BRYANT-You’re right about the long term ramifications. I mean, I don’t know if Planning or the Town has looked at this possibility, but there are 20 some odd homes. I mean, you’re setting a trend here. There are 20 some odd camps that are going to be converted into houses big enough for kids, and then you’re talk about kids and school buses and service vehicles, on a tiny little dirt road. I mean, there are a lot of ramifications, long term ramifications, by this one project, and I think you’re right. I think we need to think about it, and I would like to see some of the renovations or some of the conversions to, you know, residential properties that have occurred already, and what their effects are on the adjacent houses, because I can see this house right in the middle of these three little bungalows that is going to be substantially bigger, and you’re going to have one bungalow on the other side. Eventually they’re going to be changed, but I think there are long term ramifications to this. I think we’re setting a trend, and it should be looked at. MR. MASON-Can I still talk? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. MASON-I don’t want to be argumentative. I want to help you. I think that one of the issues that you raised, about putting it in between the other homes, was one of my biggest concerns when this started. The Dennis’, who built on this exact same lot, it was a tear down, and the Frasers. So this was Number 27 and Number 20 that I mentioned before, and they were identical lots that got the identical house, really, that I’m asking for, and when they were built, I was very worried that they’d look out of place, and they don’t. They blend very well. Everybody, that is the one comment that all of the people within Takundewide have made to each other, and that other people, anybody talking to me, I think that’s why we’re not getting any public outcry here tonight. MR. BRYANT-But I think the Board should have the opportunity to see those projects, because I didn’t see any from that vantage point. MR. MASON-When you stand at 25, you look right over the hill. MR. BRYANT-I was looking at 24. MR. MASON-Well, then you were three closer. I’m sorry. I don’t mean to be argumentative, but my point is it was right next to you, and you didn’t even notice it. There’s a two story one that’s three houses away, right on the hill, and it jumps right out at you if you’re looking for it, but I you’re not, you walk by it. It blends beautifully. It’s the Dennis’, and they did a lovely job, and I didn’t build that, but it really is a nice house. The other comment that you made about the little dirt road, and I didn’t get insulted really, except that I take pride in the fact that we don’t have, we have almost zero macadam at Takundewide because it’s so environmentally sound, they have blue stone driveways and blue stone parking lots. MR. BRYANT-That’s understandable, but the reality is that you’re going to have year round residences. There are going to be kids in those. You’d have multiple bedrooms. There are probably going to be kids in some of those houses. MR. MASON-Sure. MR. BRYANT-And you’re going to have the Queensbury School buses going down these little roads, which are really nice MR. MASON-Well, no, they come up Cleverdale Road, just the same way they did when I, it’s Lake George School, and they picked us up at the top of the hill. It’s like a driveway anyway. MR. BROWN-I guess just for the record, to be clear, this application’s only for one parcel. It’s not for all 27. That’s the potential, but it just sounded like, if somebody was reading this. MR. BRYANT-I know, but we’re setting a precedent. MR. BROWN-Okay, just for the record to be clear, it’s just one parcel. MR. HAYES-Part of the test is the effect on the neighborhood, and that’s a legal part of the test. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-Yes, one of the comments that I wrote down here, when I looked at the property today, is change character of the neighborhood. Which is, as Mr. Hayes says, a very important determination that we have to make. I mean, this thing, looking at it now, you’re absolutely right. It is a lovely looking property. I mean, as I stood there in that hedged off parking area, on your blue stone, gravel parking area, and I walk through there, all I see is green and white, white houses and green grass, except for the blue tarps on the boats, but that’s another story. We won’t get into that one yet, because, obviously, those multiply as the winter goes on, or the fall goes on, but I’m just concerned, and, I mean, we have three options that we can do. We, obviously can discuss it. We can vote to approve this particular project. We can table it for our own edification to think about it, talk about it, do some research, or we can deny it. I mean, that’s the easy way out. We can just say, no, we don’t want to consider this. I, for one, would like to think about it. That’s what I’m suggesting, for me. Obviously, Mr. Bryant feels somewhat the same way, and as I say, I don’t want to impose. MR. MASON-I understand. I just want to talk to your concerns. MR. HAYES-Maybe we should go through and see how everybody feels. We’re kind of jumping around. MR. STONE-I know we are. Well, I wanted to put that on the table. Let’s talk about it. Allan, let’s start with you. MR. BRYANT-I’ve already said what I wanted to say. I’d like to look at the finished product, and I’d like to walk around and see the other, you know, the surrounding area. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’d like to table it? MR. BRYANT-Yes, I would like to see it tabled. MR. STONE-Okay, for further consideration. Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with yourself and Allan. I’m concerned about it’s overall potential impact on that whole area, and I’d like to know a little bit more about some of the other properties and how they’re positioned again each other. MR. STONE-Let me be sure that you would like to table it, rather than saying no or yes at the moment? MR. URRICO-Right. MR. STONE-Okay, because we always have the option of saying no. That would put the burden back on Mr. Mason to come forward with something else, if he wants, but we’ll go on. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, I certainly agree with Mr. Mason’s idea that we should try to be consistent and fair. I mean, I think that’s part of our job here, but I have to try and reconcile that with my overall reaction, which is that I think that we’re talking about, in a dynamic sense, an overuse of the property. It’s a beautiful piece of property. I’m up there every summer with friends and stuff, and it’s very beautiful, but I think, even considering what we’ve said in the past, as far as precedent, that effects on the neighborhood and community is a changing thing in this community, and certainly our, the changes in our Ordinance reflect the heightened concern for the amount of these conversions that are going on, and couched in that would be my response that I would like to see a downsized proposal, in this particular case. I’m prepared to say that I would not be for this as it is submitted currently, without further examination. I think that the potential here for overall, or for the conversion of all these properties, would amount to a negative impact on the neighborhood, particularly in the sense that our Ordinance is moving now and the changes in the sentiment of our Ordinance and the community. So, I think to triple the square footage of a camp is not a modest proposal. I think the relief, when you look at it, is substantial, and I think when you couple those two things, I think it would be hard for me to say that the balancing test would fall in favor of the applicant, in this particular case, with this amount of square footage, versus what’s there now. I guess I would be against the proposal. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I have several concerns. One is the degree to which it would change the nature of the entire community, and there my concern is more based on what would be concern to the people that own in there now. I could see that place looking nice with two story places in it. There’s townhouse complexes on Lake George that, if you like townhouse complexes, they’re fine. They look okay, but my one concern on that score would be how the other residents really feel, whether 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) they want it to go in that direction or not, but, beyond that, my big concern is the cumulative impact on the lake. I think as other people have said, this is a precedent, and simply because previous Boards have approved one or two expansions, doesn’t mean that we necessarily need to continue that mistake if it’s a mistake. I’m really concerned, you talk about 26 or 32 residences that were seasonal places that were used for maybe two or three months out of the year, and probably not steadily for that period of time, all of a sudden now are going to become year round residences, thinking in terms of the septic load. It’s got to at least double, if not triple, the cumulative septic load on the lake and on the area. My initial reaction was to say, I would be opposed, and I would just as soon vote against it tonight, but on the other hand, I think it’s a significant step. It’s important, I think, for this Board to consider, and think about where we’re going on this. So I would not be opposed to tabling and giving it more consideration, but, at this stage, I’m definitely not in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think Takundewide, as an Association, needs to get together and decide. I mean, you people have quite a bit of common property there, and it seems reasonable to me that you could, if you want to build all these double or triple size buildings, that they could be spread out to a greater degree over the whole property. It would give relief to the neighbors, you know, who may not want to rebuild or increase the size of their dwellings, and at the same time, I think there’s other considerations, whether it’s condominiums or clusters of two or three in one pocket, and then major empty space between the next one, but I think that what we’re doing here, in this instance, is we’re setting a precedent for, you know, too many things, too big, all on top of each other, and I don’t think it works as it does in the present. So I think we should table it, too. MR. STONE-Okay. Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. My sentiments fall much in line with Jamie’s, as he expressed them. I think that, although we’re the body here would normally consider an application by application type of approach to things. However, we just can’t close our eyes to something that has a little bit bigger impact than this single application, at least in my opinion, and the way I felt about it when I was out there, like many of the others, you call it splendor of the place, and I just think that it’s going to go from leisure to busy, and that’s the kind of an impact that, just in my opinion, is something that probably wasn’t on everybody’s mind when all this began. So I feel that the, I would be against the application. It would take a lot to me to change my mind. As Jim has suggested, a different kind of a plan, a different kind of approach, something that it’s not up to us to suggest what might be done or a better idea. I don’t think we’re qualified, but I think, I feel, that there’s got to be a better way, and that’s about the way I feel. Thank you. MR. MASON-I have to ask a question, because I have to be thinking. It’s pretty obvious where we’re going here. The applicant is the owner of one residence at Takundewide. They, although, the things that you say sound reasonable and logical, and would be, if you were dealing with a group that owned the whole thing, or somebody who owned the whole thing and could have that control, but there is no entity, and these people, the Nizoleks, will have no, although that’s a reasonable request, it seems, they will have no avenue to go that way, because there’s nobody else that has any interest there, including the Homeowners Association, to do what you’re suggesting. So that is not feasible, and it won’t work out. That would only get them, really, away from the setback requirement anyway, I believe. If they increased the lots a little bit, maybe, but we’re still dealing with 21 acres, 32 homes. We can’t change that much, and really, we talk about that anyway. It’s the floor area. I’m sorry. MR. HIMES-Much of what you, the area, I too, didn’t notice. I think I thought I saw one place that was a little different than the others, but as you say, things probably do fit visually and all, but I just think that there’s, if the situation out there now, to my way of thinking, if the situation was, you walked in and you looked and you thought, my goodness, what an improvement this would be, you know, some places that are falling apart, but, you know, the way, what was intended, when they were laid out, and their size and so on, to me, could prevail. Everybody wants a bigger house. Maybe new owners or what not come along, instead of camps and year round residents, and what this might entail is a real conflict for us, because we don’t meet, the Codes aren’t subject to this kind of handling by us, like the planning or the people that look at the land use and so forth, which is probably how some of this should be addressed, and maybe there’s different avenues that could be taken. That’s all I’m saying. I do, I see a conflict, as Lew explained, but I think it would take an awful lot to get me to change my vote, or my thoughts. I haven’t voted yet. Thank you. MR. URRICO-I’d like to ask that you ask us to consider it as a single entity, yet, in your argument, you’re using the shared common area as part of your argument. So it’s kind of hard for us to separate the individual from the shared. MR. MASON-But the Nizoleks, as owners, own that parcel. They also own one third second of the other, and its associated, and their ownership of that is really the value that they bought in. Certainly, and that 18.7 acres cannot be developed, in any other fashion. It’s all common property. It could 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) have accessory structures, at some point, if people wanted to, but there won’t be residences or things like that, so it really is part of their land when, in an honest approach to floor area ratio, you really should be thinking of their ownership of that land also. That doesn’t, the only thing that doesn’t address is 32 homes on 21 acres, which that argument, I can’t address, but then again, thinking on my feet, I thought it really had, because that’s a prior development. This development was in place. It was approved, one way or another. I’m not sure what all the rationale was. I’m sure it was because all the buildings were up at the time when it was done, and no one was moving buildings around at that point. MR. HAYES-So it wasn’t approved. MR. STONE-It wasn’t approved. It was there. It’s grandfathered. It was built in, what, 1956. MR. MASON-But then there was an approval process. When we dissolved the corporation, Takundewide Incorporated, and distributed the assets, we came in front of the Town, and it was approved. In fact, we had three lots in the back of the parcel, ‘84 or ‘85 this was in front of the Town, and we came, we had three lots in the back that we wanted to develop, because they’re undeveloped at this point. We were going to have, go from 32 to 35 lots, and we didn’t do those. MR. HAYES-But it was approved with 800 square foot houses, I mean, essentially. MR. STONE-768. All right. Let me state where I’m coming from. I was the first one to put on the table the tabling. I’ve listened to my fellow Board members, and I’m inclined, to give you bottom line, to ask for a motion to deny. Why should we deny this? Because I think we’re establishing a terrible precedent, if we allow one person to use the technique that you use. It’s good technique. I understand where you’re coming from, but the point is, we have a development of 18. some acres, with 32 pieces of property, that could end up having roughly a half acre apiece. I’m fudging numbers slightly. This is not one acre zoning in a Critical Environmental Area, and we have to live with what we have. It’s nonconforming. No question about it. It’s pre-existing, no question about that, but the fact that we want to make these houses so big, and use everybody else’s land to justify the floor area ratio, you’re telling me that the Nizoleks have no control over the Homeowners Association, nor do they have control over them. Therefore, it’s kind of hard, I think as Mr. Urrico said, how do we borrow their land to justify the size of their home? I mean, it’s a reasonable attempt, but I think it’s a concern. The most important thing, to me, is the change in the character of the neighborhood, and this is something that we are charged to look at. We have to balance the benefit to the applicant. Obviously, the benefit to the applicant is they’ll be allowed to build a 2300 square foot home. Now, keep in mind, when we say “build”, you’re not, demolishing takes away any pre-existing rights. We don’t have a footprint law in the Town of Queensbury. Once you take it down, it’s gone. We have to justify it on the basis of the zoning that we have. I think, by putting in such a large home on such a small lot, is just too much. I think it changes the whole character of the neighborhood, and it’s certainly self-created. These properties were bought. I can’t say they were built. Certainly they were built to be seasonal residences. I mean, it was a cottage colony, is my understanding. People bought these things for summer places to come up and recreate. Obviously, we’ve had a tremendous change in the character of a lot of individual properties, but nevertheless, here we’re being asked to possibly, and I agree it’s a possibility, to start a move in a direction that I find unacceptable. I say, it’s a wonderful piece of property. I think it’s well maintained. It’s a great summer camp colony, and if people want to live there full time in what they have, that’s fine. I have no problem with that, but as I listen to my fellow Board members, the predominant feeling I heard is a willingness, right now, to consider a denial of this application. I would like to float that motion. We’ll see where it goes. If it passes, that’s it. If it doesn’t pass, then we will consider tabling it. It doesn’t mean we accept it. It’s a motion to deny, not a motion to accept on the basis of a denial. I trust that’s true, Staff? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. I just want to be sure that we’re, okay. Let me ask for a motion to deny this application, and we’ll see how the vote goes. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-2000 WILLIAM AND LINDA NIZOLEK, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Bryant: 25 Oneida Drive, Cleverdale. The applicant has proposed demolition of an existing 768 square foot camp, followed by construction of a 2,304 square foot single family dwelling. The applicant’s requesting five feet of relief on all four sides from the 15 foot minimum side and rear setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-19. Also, the applicant is requesting relief from the floor area ratio requirements of the same section, by seeking approval to construct a year round, three level, 2,304 square foot single family home, on a lot with a total floor area ratio of 101%. In considering this, we considered the benefit to the applicant, which would be the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in their preferred configuration. Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the construction and/or acquisition of additional lands. Considering the relief 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) relative to the Ordinance, the dimensional setback relief is certainly at least moderate, considering that it’s relief on all four sides, and amounts to 33% relief on all four sides, and the floor area ratio, as Staff has indicated, can only be interpreted as excessive, relative to the Ordinance, being 101%. The effects on the neighborhood or community will be probably substantial, given the size of this expansion and the small size of the lot, and, finally, considering whether the difficulty is self-created, the difficulty is certainly self-created, given the current lot configuration, which, while it was not created by the applicant, never the less was existing when the applicant acquired the property, and the difficulties for expansion of the sort proposed should have been obvious. Given the anticipated total impact of such a project on the neighborhood and the environment, I move that we deny this application. In considering this application, we recognize that the applicant has pointed out that if his share of the common area in this development is included in his calculations, the floor area ratio becomes much more reasonable. We’d also note that there are 32 separate dwellings in this development, and there’s a potential for about 27 more of them requesting similar type expansions, and when you consider 32 dwellings on a total property area of less than 20 acres in a WR-1A zone that’s also a CEA, the total impact is more than, I believe, we should approve. Duly adopted this 25 day of October, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Would you consider adding a statement that the applicant attempted to show that the floor area ratio just is not excessive if you look at all, just so that it’s in the record that we considered it. MR. MC NULTY-Certainly. In considering this application, we recognize that the applicant has pointed out that if his share of the common area in this development is included in his calculations, the floor area ratio becomes much more reasonable. MR. STONE-Add that part, just to. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We’d also note that there are 32 separate dwellings in this development, and there’s a potential for about 27 more of them requesting similar type expansions, and when you consider 32 dwellings on a total property area of less than 20 acres in a WR-1A zone that’s also a CEA, the total impact is more than, I believe, we should approve. AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally MR. STONE-Sorry. MR. MASON-Thank you anyway. AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-2000 TYPE II ANTHONY J. KOENIG OWNER: ANTHONY AND JACQUELINE KOENIG LOCATION: 55 ROCKHURST ROAD ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, AP A APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A GAZEBO ALONG THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS SHORELINE SETBACK RELIEF. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/11/2000 TAX MAP NO. 15-1-3 LOT SIZE: 0.09 ACRES SECTION 179-67, 179-16, 179-60 JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ANTHONY KOENIG, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 93-2000, Anthony J. Koenig, Meeting Date: October 25, 2000 “Project Location: 55 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a gazebo along the northerly side of the residence and seeks relief to maintain the same in the current location. Relief Required: Applicant requests 8.17 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum separation requirements per § 179-67, Accessory Structures and Uses. Also, the applicant seeks 9 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of both the WR-1A zone, § 179-16 as well as the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the gazebo in the current location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation, possibly reorientation to a more compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 9 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relief, however 8.71 feet of relief from the 10 foot requirement may be anticipated as substantial relative to the ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 99-512 issued 8/16/99 Dock BP 95-103 issued 6/24/97 Septic Alterations BP 95-710 issued 6/24/97 Residential Alterations & replace foundation Site Plan Review 49-95 res. 9/21/95 Residential Alterations Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While the gazebo is apparently less than 100 sf and would not require a building permit, compliance with the minimum setback requirements is necessary. Reorientation may be a feasible, practical alternative in order to make the gazebo more compliant. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Nothing from County? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t think we have anything from County. MR. STONE-Gentlemen, it’s yours. MR. ROULIER-I’m Joe Roulier. I’m with Mr. Koenig, and we would like to address the issues and the questions that you may have. First I’d like to say a couple of things, though, regarding the background of the piece of property. I’ve worked for Mr. Koenig for several years now, and if you go to what Mr. McNulty just read, every time Mr. Koenig has asked us to do something on the property, the appropriate permits have been obtained, and we have followed them literally to the letter of the law. The inspections have been made appropriately, and we have never had any problem with the Town of Queensbury or the Building Department along these lines. Any time we have any questions, we’ve gone into former Jim Martin and asked questions as to a particular project, and currently I would go in to Mr. Brown and ask him if there’s anything that we should be aware of regarding any construction, either at Mr. Koenig’s or around Lake George where I work consistently. The problem is that you gentlemen go up there now and you see this gazebo and you think, well, maybe they just slipped it in on the side, and that’s why I want you to be familiar with the history, so that you know that’s not our technique. That’s not what we do. We do go by the letter of the law. Now, the fact that it’s there brings up several questions that I think should be addressed. First of all, as a builder in the Town of Queensbury, I was under the impression that structures under 100 square feet did not require a building permit. I understand that that is still the regulation. Given that scenario, how are the builders or how are the general people out there then to know that you then have to go ahead and obtain or go to the variance Board, so that a structure like this can be put on the property. It’s not a part of the Code that is well publicized, and in our particular case, I didn’t even know that this was required before that structure was obtained. Now, Mr. Stone, at the introduction of this, you said that this was constructed. This was a purchased unit that Mr. Koenig bought, which was then placed on the property. Had it been any type of construction, that would be attached to the building. Then, of course, we would have gone through the proper channels and obtained the permit. So, I just want you to realize that, when you see this, this is an innocent mistake that was made both by myself and Mr. Koenig, and we are here to, of course, address the questions that you have and to explain why it’s in the position that it’s in. MR. STONE-Let me just ask a question in that vein, Mr. Roulier. If Mr. Koenig came to you for a shed, a 100 square foot shed, would you know where to place it? MR. ROULIER-It was my interpretation that any structure within the Town of Queensbury, under 100 square feet, could be placed anywhere on the property. MR. STONE-No. That is not true. That is why there’s an application after this one to talk about the same situation. It has to be at least five feet from the line. MR. ROULIER-That’s right, and I did not know that prior to this particular case. MR. STONE-I could give you the ignorance of the law is no excuse type thing. One of the things that I stress to people when I talk with them, well, I can’t talk as a layperson, obviously, I’m involved, but I say, we have a Community Development Department, well Staffed, with trained people. It would be the first place that I go. MR. ROULIER-Okay, and I want to address that, Mr. Stone, and I think Craig Brown would back me up on this. If I have any questions, I am always in his office asking all kinds of questions, asking what we can do, asking what the proper procedures are so that we can either go through site plan review or to the variance Board. I did not know that that five foot setback was required. Mr. Koenig, on the other hand, when we initially decided, when he initially approached me about putting the gazebo on his property, did go down to the Town of Queensbury, and he did ask if there were any restrictions regarding where that could be placed, and he was told that it had to be placed a minimum of five foot from the side line setback. No other setback requirements were brought to his attention. So I just, I want you to be, okay. MR. STONE-Okay. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. ROULIER-Now we have it, and now you see it. MR. STONE-We understand, and, obviously, you obviously know that we are not usually very happy with things that appear in the night. I’m not saying this appeared in the night. MR. ROULIER-That’s why I want you to be convinced that this is truly an innocent mistake, and that it’s an innocent mistake in that it’s there and it doesn’t meet the current Code, but Mr. Koenig did go down and try to get the necessary information, so that, before he purchased it, so that we would not get in this type of situation. All right. Now, the area on the property where it’s currently placed, I don’t know if all you gentlemen have been up there yet. To be honest with you, it’s the only practical place where it can be placed. The deed that Mr. Koenig has says specifically in the deed that nothing can be placed any closer to the lake than where the footprint is of his house. The gazebo, as you see it, is one foot back from the front location of his house. The side setback, that only requires five feet, is approximately seven and a half feet. So the two most critical areas, which are the lakeshore setback and the sideline setback, we’ve already met the sideline setback. One of the issues that before you is the distance between the gazebo and the house, which requires a 10 foot setback requirement, and as I sit before you tonight, I cannot tell you what the logic is behind that determination, only that I had an extensive conversation with Mr. Brown, and it makes little sense to me, and apparently to him, that you could have an attached screened in porch, but a screened in gazebo has to be 10 feet. I don’t quite understand the logic in that particular rule that’s within the Town of Queensbury. MR. STONE-It’s a good question, but let me correct something you said. The fact that Mr. Koenig has some kind of deed restriction on where this thing has to be placed is superceded by the Town Code that says 50 feet from the lake. MR. ROULIER-Right, I’m aware of that also. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, that’s the most important thing. I mean, we do not enforce deed restrictions. MR. ROULIER-And the reason for me bringing that to your attention is that even though he has a much larger area in the front of the house, okay, he chose to bring it back because of both the 50 foot shoreline setback and the deed restriction, to the side of the house. MR. STONE-The one thing I will say, and I’ll let my fellow Board members say something, but the one thing that should be knowledge, common knowledge, by someone who builds on the lake, is the 50 foot. The one foot we can possibly, I could possibly say, well, maybe you didn’t know, and you asked a logical question. I’m not sure I have a logical answer, but you asked a logical question, but certainly 50 feet from the lake is 50 feet from the lake, and that’s something that anybody involved with the lake should know. I can’t say must know, but should know. All right. Having said that, any questions? Are you finished? MR. ROULIER-No, I’m going to have to address that. I’m thoroughly familiar with the 50 foot, as well as I was with the 75 foot before it became the 50 foot, okay. I think the ambiguity steps in when you have a structure where there is no permit issued by the Town of Queensbury for a structure that’s under 100 square feet, and I think that’s the gray area here, which, for me, I was not aware of. So I just want you to be aware of that. If this was a new structure, and we were building a new house or a porch or whatever, there’s no question the 50 foot is, that’s where we tow the line, but in a situation that, what we have here, it’s just such a gray area, we felt as though we were putting it in the appropriate place on the property. MR. STONE-Let me ask Staff. Craig, I don’t want to put you on the spot. Do we, I know we’ve had some problems with people placing buildings that don’t require building permits. Is this a big problem in the Town of Queensbury? The fact that you don’t need a building permit and therefore people may be mistaken or, I’m sorry, unaware of, that there are restrictions on where this non building permit building can be put? MR. BROWN-Yes. I think the very fact that we don’t issue a permit for it makes it almost impossible to monitor. I mean, if you have a shed that’s less than 100 square feet, and you put it up, nobody’s going to come for a permit. So we can’t tell you that it needs to meet the setback, and I think that’s one of the points Mr. Roulier is trying to make. Is it a big problem? It’s hard to tell because we don’t issue a permit. We don’t see them. MR. HAYES-There’s got to be a fair portion of those that aren’t actually built, either. They’re bought. I mean, that’s part of why that happens. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. STONE-Yes. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. HAYES-I mean, a lot of these gazebos and such, as yours was, you just purchased that outright, then, essentially. MR. KOENIG-I purchased it outright, but I knew I had to be less than 100 square feet. MR. STONE-It’s something that we might want to think about. MR. ROULIER-I can assure you Garden Time isn’t down there saying, you either need a permit or you have to come in front of the variance Board for approval. MR. STONE-Well, I think there was something, I know Mr. Hayes pointed out to me earlier, it wasn’t on this one, was it, or somebody was told, you can just do it, or something. Wasn’t there, earlier in the evening? There was something. I mean, this is one of the problems that we have. I don’t mean to suggest tar realtors or Garden Time, but we know people are given false information. We had one last week, a realtor said, no problem. Well, there is a problem. Anyway. MR. ROULIER-Can I move on? MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. ROULIER-All right. The location, as you have seen it, all right, as you view it, from the road looking toward the gazebo, you’ll notice that it’s set well down on the side of the property. In other words, we just didn’t keep it at the same grade level as the road. We dropped it down approximately three feet, so that as you see it from the rear, it obviously doesn’t have this monstrosity looking appearance to it. What we tried to do is we tried to disguise in the rear with that retention wall that goes around the back of it. The gazebo sits on stone, so that any water that comes off it is basically absorbed into that area without running off onto adjoining properties. There are plantings around the front. Mrs. Koenig has a big Dogwood there that disguises a portion of it to the south of it, and as you look further out towards the lake, there’s two or three cedar trees that actually prevent anyone from seeing it from the lake actually noticing the gazebo there. So we’ve done everything possible, up to this point, to make it blend into the area, that we feel as though is compatible with the area there. In addition to that, Mr. Koenig has gone through the expense of putting down a complete row of arborvitae’s, so that it not only delineates his property, but it offers him privacy as well as the adjoining neighbor privacy, and I think that’s something extremely important for the Board to consider. There’s no electric to the gazebo. There’s no telephone service to the gazebo. It’s strictly used only for their own enjoyment, to go out and either, you know how it was this year with the mosquitoes, just to sit there and really enjoy and to be able to use their particular piece of property. They’re retired people. They’re not up there having parties continually every weekend. Their property is extremely well maintained. As you can see when you were up there, I mean, we do the lawn every week. The gardening is done. Everything is beautifully manicured for Mr. Koenig, and I just think it’s a real asset to him. I know that he has brought and submitted to Craig today many letters. I believe he has 25 letters from the neighbors in the area, indicating what they think of it, and I just hope, you know, you can certainly go ahead and ask both of us questions, but I hope that we have a favorable response after this. MR. STONE-We thank you for your very complete presentation. Any questions? MR. HIMES-Yes. Just one, at the moment. In the history, this thing is already there. When was it put up? How long has it been there? MR. KOENIG-October 1998. MR. HIMES-So it’s just two years. So there hasn’t been a big fuss, I guess, about it. Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-So this was put up after, this was after your neighbor requested a variance? When I was first up there, across the street? I think when I first met Mrs. Koenig. MR. KOENIG-Tom Clune, maybe? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. KOENIG-Yes. I think he did some work on his place. I’m not sure about the variance. MR. STONE-Because I don’t recall seeing it when I was there then. That’s all. MR. KOENIG-Yes. Tom bought, probably in ’96. So it might have been right after that. MR. STONE-Okay. I don’t recall. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. KOENIG-Yes. That’s a couple of years back, I think. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. KOENIG-I have a letter here that I can read, and a list of the people. It’s essentially the same letter. MR. STONE-You can read that. We’ll get to the public hearing. Let me open the public hearing, if we have no further questions. MR. ROULIER-After the letters are read, if there’s any negative comments, we would like to have a chance to respond. MR. STONE-Absolutely. You get to respond, one way or the other. No question about it. I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM SARGEANT MR. SARGEANT-My name is Tom Sergeant. I live at 59 Rockhurst Road, which is two houses up on the same side of the street, two houses to the north, and basically I think the gazebo is very attractive. It’s well constructed, well maintained, as is the complete property, and I think it’s an asset to the neighborhood. So I would urge you to approve the variance on this matter. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else in favor? JANET REYNOLDS MRS. REYNOLDS-I think you came up to see my variance for my hair, and my roof, for the sun. I’m Janet Reynolds, and I live at 73 Rockhurst, in the summer, and, yes, I am up the street from them, but when we come around the corner, when you come in the gated area there, and you come in, and they come and they look at the neighborhood, you come down and you see this lovely home, you know, the gazebo is not offensive at all. I believe, I remember when they were thinking about getting it. They were saying that they went to the Town, because they talked to us and things like that. They said we’re going to go to the Town and see if it’s feasible to do this, and I remember that, and, let’s see, what else. I just think it’s something that the Board should let go through and the petty things just go forward and out. That’s my two cents. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Now, I know there are letters. Handle them any way you want, Mr. Secretary. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We have a number of letters. There’s three that appear to be individual letters which I’ll read first. Then there’s a group that seem to be a basic form letter signed by a variety of people, and we have three separate communications from one person opposed, which we’ll get to last. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-First letter is from Michael Doran and Peggie Ward. They’re at 81 Rockhurst Road. “My wife and I live across the street from Tony and Jackie Koenig on Rockhurst Road. We are familiar with their gazebo and are in full support of granting them their appeal for setback relief. Tony and Jacqueline are good neighbors. Their gazebo is tasteful and appropriate in style and size for our neighborhood. With all the remodeling changes now being made in our neighborhood, I can see no reason to not grant them their wish to enjoy their gazebo in the location on which it presently sits. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Michael J. Doran & Peggie Ward” And we have a letter from Josephine Horrigan, “Since purchasing the cottage, Mr. and Mrs. Koenig have made numerous improvements that have enhanced the property. The gazebo is an added attraction and I sincerely hope that relief will be granted. Every most sincerely, Josephine Horrigan” And a letter from John and Elaine Heckman. They’re at 68 Rockhurst Road. “Regarding the variance for Anthony and Jacqueline Koenig at 55 Rockhurst Road. We have no objection to the gazebo that is constructed on the Koenig property. It is very tastefully done and adds to the look of their well-kept property. We hope that the Board will grant them the variance that is needed. Sincerely, John and Elaine Heckman” And then we have what I count to be 24 letters that are all the same. There are one or two that have got comments written on the bottom, which I’ll try to pick up and read. The basic letter says, “I am writing on behalf of the Variance Application to maintain a Gazebo on the north side of the property of Anthony J. Koenig and Jacqueline A. Koenig 55 Rockhurst Road, Queensbury, N.Y. I live on Rockhurst Road, have seen the Gazebo, its location to the Shore-line, road and home. I am in favor of approval of the variance. Kindly pass this information to the Zoning Board of Appeals.” And, let’s see here. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. STONE-You’re going to read the names, aren’t you? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We’ll go down through, as I go down through, and read the names. MR. BROWN-I think if you just make a note, that there’s, they’re part of the record. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-They’re in the file. MR. STONE-Okay. Fine. MR. MC NULTY-Well, let me go down through. There was at least one here that had written extra comments. One from Peggie Ward and Michael Doran, “We live directly across from Jackie and Tony Koenig. We find the gazebo in question to be very attractive – and in keeping with the neighborhood beauty and use. Jackie and Tony are good neighbors who always maintain privacy and boundaries – but go out of their way to help when needed. Peggie Ward” And another comment, and I can’t quite read the signature. It looks like maybe Margaret. MR. KOENIG-Margaret Colacino. MR. MC NULTY-Okay, I’ll believe that. “I find the gazebo to be aesthetically beautiful to walk by, but find the garbage pails on my neighboring property to be offensive.” And I think that’s all the specific comments. MR. STONE-The garbage pails? MR. MC NULTY-On her neighboring property. MR. STONE-On her neighboring property. MR. KOENIG-On the neighboring property. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ROULIER-That’s what Mr. and Mrs. Koenig have to look at. MR. STONE-I see, okay. MR. MC NULTY-And then we have a series of three communications from Albie Ferrucci. The first one was, I gather, a fax, and “My grounds for objecting, among other things, is an infringement upon my quiet enjoyment of my land. I am entitled to equal protection under the laws of this land (i.e. Town, County, State, Nation) For the Town of Queensbury to grant this variance would violate our equal protection under such laws. The gazebo is already under our nose, can hear them, see them, company annoyance, look directly into our house, under our bedroom windows, etc. A clear violation of quiet enjoyment. No matter which way they wish to go with it is objectionable including going closer to the lake which would block view, etc. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Albie S. Ferrucci” This was dated October 19. th MR. STONE-Is there an address? I assume it’s 57? MR. KOENIG-Yes, it’s the neighbor directly to the north. MR. STONE-Directly to the north, yes. MR. MC NULTY-There isn’t an address on. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, it’s the house immediately to the north. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. STONE-The one with the garbage cans. MR. ROULIER-It’s with the garbage, yes. MR. STONE-I understand, as shown in the picture given to us by Mr. Roulier, so it’s on the record. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Then there’s a transmittal letter that sent a hard copy of the fax, and the transmittal, addressed to Mr. Brown, says “I called you on two occasions today requesting the information relative to the above referenced matter. I have not as yet received said information. enclosed herewith please find the FAX I sent you on 10/19/00 and the Application For Public Access To Records. Please note in my FAX Cover Sheet and my application my OBJECTION TO GRANTING THE VARIANCE in the above referenced matter, and that Mr. Koenig be ordered to remove said gazebo from the premises, as it is a clear violation of quiet enjoyment of my land and in violation of the structure requirements, etc. per the sections stated in your public hearing notice dated 10/18/00. Please submit this with the enclosed to the Zoning Board of Appeals for their consideration on the hearing dated October 25, 2000. Thank you for your attention and courtesy. Very truly yours, Albie S. Ferrucci Property Owner 57 Rockhurst Road” And finally there is another letter, addressed to the attention of Mr. Brown, “Thank you for the information relative to the above referenced matter that you sent me today. I am herewith submitting the following in addition to the objections I have previously sent you. My wife and I are the owners of the property No. 57 Rockhurst Road, Queensbury, N.Y. immediately north of the Koenig property which we have owned and used same since 1968. Mr. Koenig purchased his property in June 1994 and he had the property graded approximately 2-3 times more higher when the house was raised for the second floor and when two holding tanks of 1500 gals each were put in between my house and his. The gazebo was then placed on this raised land between the Koenig property and my property. It towers above my bedroom windows and when I look out all I see is the gazebo, its wood shingled roof and dome, blocking my view, light and air. When he originally put in the gazebo it was opened, and he has added, a door, step, screens all around, bamboo shades and completely furnished. As they are in the gazebo they are looking into my house, bedrooms, living room, eating and resting area. Can hear them talking, laughing, telephone conversations, visitors and strangers looking into my house. I can in no way enjoy the privacy of my home. Going in and out of my house people looking and staring from the gazebo and from the raised land. Rain water coming off of gazebo and its roof which is larger, and high graded land onto my land causing wash out, slippery and wet. I draw your attention to Map of Survey by VanDusen and Steves, Land Surveyors dated/certified June 21, 1994 (attached hereto) and additions made thereto by Joseph R. Roulier, contractor on March 23, 1995 relative to the septic tanks. How can you reconcile the above site plan with the site plan prepared by Joseph R. Roulier dated September, 2000 on the gazebo filed herewith for application for a variance. The drawing on said site plan is not a true drawing of the gazebo, it is an octagon. Further, it overcrowds the property and its intended use. Since Mr. Koenig purchased the property he put in a fireplace and beneath the outside chimney there is a large propane gas tank which is an extremely dangerous condition and if a fire should ensue to said building the gazebo would go up in flames causing a fire to my house. Which is all a dangerous effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Coming out of the doors of the first floor of the Koenig house facing the lake side he has a large patio area with a very large awning over the entire area approximately fifteen feet awning or more covering the entire patio and more and the furniture. They also have a swing with table and canopy which rolls on rollers and accommodates four to six people which is located approximately one foot from shoreline and one to two feet from my property line. The Koenigs have over encumbered their land since they purchased same in 1994. In his application with documents he has several different dimensions, and in particular as to the gazebo – it is an octagon. The true dimensions of this gazebo should be certified. The dimensions and the sketches are not correct, nor are they accurate. I again reiterate my OBJECTION TO GRANTING THE VARIANCE in this matter, and that Mr. Koenig be ordered to remove said gazebo from the premises, as it is a clear violation of quiet enjoyment of my land and in violation of the structure requirements. I also wish to submit this to the Zoning Board of Appeals together with my letter dated October 20, 2000 and the FAX dated October 19, 2000 for their consideration on the hearing dated October 25, 2000. I am also sending a copy of this letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Thank you for your attention and courtesy. Very truly yours, Albie S. Ferrucci Property Owner 57 Rockhurst Road Queensbury, N.Y.” And there’s a couple of sketches and drawings attached. MR. STONE-I’ll close the public hearing, if that’s it. MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-I have a question of you. Is this gazebo, one of the questions that was raised, is this gazebo 12 foot in diameter? MR. ROULIER-It’s 12 foot from tip to tip, and nine foot across. Okay, but the actual. MR. STONE-I’m looking at this drawing where it shows it, from post to post, it’s 12. MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. STONE-So that’s the diameter. This is a hex, you’re saying? MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. The total square footage is slightly under 100 square feet. MR. STONE-Okay. If it’s a hex, that would be. I had forgotten it was a hex when I started asking the question. Go ahead. MR. ROULIER-Mr. Koenig has prepared a letter that he would like to read in, and I’d like to present this document to you, and then also I’d like to respond, if you want, to any of the above claims that he’s made. MR. STONE-Okay. You can read the letter in as part of your presentation. It doesn’t have to be part of the public hearing, but just go ahead. MR. KOENIG-Okay. “I’d like to advise the Board that I’ve been owner of property and a tax payer in the Town of Queensbury since prior to 1960 and have been living year round since 1994 on Cedar Court and then Rockhurst Road. Having been an Executive at the First National Bank of Glens Falls, now Evergreen Bank, among other duties, I had overall supervision of the Facilities Management Division Thus, I am aware of the need for zoning requirements. I would not have purchased the Gazebo were it not for my misunderstanding current regulations. As a facility under 100 square feet, I understood that 5 feet from a property line was the only requirement I needed to follow. I have read the letter from Mr. Ferrucci dated 10/23/00 and was rather shocked to see that he is operating an office on 57 Rockhurst Road as indicated on his letterhead. The deed to his property”, and I know you don’t get involved in deeds, “states in item #1. ‘Said premises shall be used for residential purposes only’. A copy of the deed is attached. I will comment to the items in his letter in references to the gazebo: Road elevation and seawall elevation has not been changed. The gazebo, whose dome is slightly higher than Mr. Ferrucci’s south window, is at original grade levels of the property, set on stone to handle rain run-off, which it does”, the rain runoff. “There is grass or arborvitae on the north side of the property. The location of the gazebo does not block any views, light or air. The Gazebo was purchased 10/98 without screens since they were not in stock. The screen and door were added when they were available the next June. We also purchased wicker furniture at that time. We added shades on the north side (of the Gazebo) after Mrs. Ferrucci, indicated to us, that we were watching them eat.” We used those shade for that purpose. “Subsequently, we have added arborvitae on the north line to provide privacy for both parties, even though the gazebo meets Town of Queensbury neighboring property line setbacks.” We are well over five feet off of that line. “Both properties are located at the head of Sandy Bay which have buoys for 50 boats to use from spring to fall. This brings some 250 to 300 people outside our homes, almost daily, during this time. Additionally, being as close to the road as we are,” and our property depth is about 65 feet, 67 feet for both properties, “passing traffic creates significant noise and activity. This combination would cause a much greater detriment to privacy and noise levels than the gazebo. The five windows on the south side of 57 Rockhurst , contain two air conditioners, are high and require one to be standing in the room to look out. Views from the home (on 57 Rockhurst) are to the west”, not to the south. “The gazebo, on the south side, some 20 feet from a window in the home, does not have an effect on its living room, eating, and resting area since the door, some 12 feet further away has window coverings. We do not have a telephone or electric in the gazebo. As soon as remodeling was completed, a number of years ago, the complete yard was covered with sod to ensure that there was no runoff on either adjoining property”, either to the north or to the south. “We have since planted a complete row of arborvitae on the north side to further eliminate any runoff. The trees which gave privacy to both properties in the gazebo area, shown on the survey sent by Mr. Ferrucci, were cut down by him in late August 1999”, almost a year after the Gazebo went in. “This was immediately after he was asked to cease adding a deck to his already non-conforming U-shaped dock. If any water problems exist on his land this could be the problem. The use of the land is not over encumbered as referred to in the letter. A patio on the lake-side of the house, with a retractable awning, is for eating outside.” The patio is about 12 by 10. “My wife and I are private people and do not stare at neighbors. The positive response from 25 neighbors indicate their support of the gazebo. It is important to note that the gazebo is less than 100 feet square, further than 5 feet from the property line of 57 Rockhurst Road, further from the road than our home and in line with the lakeside of the house.” MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. ROULIER-I’d like to give you the letter Mr. Koenig wrote, and a copy of the adjoining neighbor’s deed, indicating that there is to be no office, or activity there, commercial activity. MR. STONE-Again, we do not get involved with deeds. MR. ROULIER-I want to offer to the Board a couple of pictures, so that you can see how well, this was taken by me, standing on Rockhurst Road, and from that you can easily see that the gazebo does not tower either over the windows or obstruct any view. In fact, if you stood in the front of Mr. Koenig’s house, the gazebo is one foot back from the front of Mr. Koenig’s house, and it’s also even with Mr. Ferrucci’s house. So any view that Mr. Ferrucci would have would be of Mr. Koenig’s side yard, of the 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) house. This is another picture that I took, sitting in the gazebo, okay, looking over at Mr. Ferrucci’s house, and you can see Mr. Koenig looks right out at the side of his house. You can also see the two air- conditioning units that are there on a permanent basis. Okay. When Mr. Koenig purchased the gazebo, Mr. Ferrucci had trees that were on the property line that actually obstructed the view of the gazebo from his house, and in spite, Mr. Ferrucci went out and cut those trees right down, right down to the ground, completely exposing the gazebo to his house, and I believe that he cut those down approximately a year ago. MR. KOENIG-Yes, well, August of 1999. MR. ROULIER-Okay. So there was protection on his property against not only seeing Mr. Koenig’s house, but also seeing the gazebo, and then finally, this is a picture that I took from Mr. Koenig’s dock, looking back to the shore, to the gazebo, to the house, and you can see that, from the Sandy Bay area, it’s almost completely obstructed. All right. MR. STONE-Any other comments you want to make? Obviously, we don’t get involved in neighborhood feuds, only to the extent that we’re exposed to them, or the fact that the neighbor has a comment. Anything else you want to add? Any questions before we talk about it. MR. URRICO-Yes. If you were starting all over again, would you still put the gazebo there, if you knew the regulations as they are today? MR. KOENIG-I would have gotten a variance. I initiated the action for the gazebo. I did talk to people in the Town. I went to Garden Time, and bought something under 100 square feet. It was my understanding that I needed to be five feet off the property line. I placed it somewhat further than five feet off the property line, but, again, you know, my background is that I would not do something along those lines unless I got the full variance that I needed, had I understood all the things that were involved. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, I guess Lew took a little bit of my thunder, speaking about the neighborhood, but I think in this particular case, again, I try and view these things as if I would have permitted this before, or been in favor of this before the placement of it there, and I really think, as the neighbors have pointed out, that I don’t think that there’s any negative neighborhood impact by placing this gazebo at this location, in this particular circumstance. I think the benefit to the applicant is very clear, and it’s honest. I think Mr. Koenig has presented a case where he is a complier, by nature, and that this was not an attempt to circumvent our Code in any way. Alternatives are limited, based on the nature of this lot, and the configuration. The nine feet of relief, from the lake, again, certainly is a consideration, but in this particular case, the actual gazebo is further away from the lake than the closest point on his house, and I think that that’s an important factor. The placement of this gazebo is not to gain closer to the lake square footage for usage than the house already exists. I think it’s an honest attempt to recreate on the outside, and Rockhurst is a difficult area. We’ve spoken about this many times. The lots are small. They’re narrow. It’s a tough area, but I guess the biggest thing that I would consider here is the impact on the neighborhood, and, you know, to my count it’s 35 to 1, and I’m sure that Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore would be happy with those kind of numbers. So I can live with them. I think the balance falls in favor of the applicant in this case. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree with Jamie. I’m initially concerned when a neighbor has problems, and I would generally put more weight on that than I would those that are speaking in favor, especially as they get further and further away from the property, but I think the applicant has pretty well answered most of the complaints that have been cited by the neighbor to his north, and it appears to me that there probably is relatively little impact on the neighbor to the north, and, given that he has placed the gazebo so it is the proper setback from the side line, and it certainly is no closer to the lake than his current home is, I think in sum total that the benefit falls to the applicant, and I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would agree, too. I think that this gazebo is set back reasonably from the lake, and, you know, the concerns of the next door neighbor, I live in a similar situation over on Glen Lake, and I sympathize with your situation. At the same time, I think that the setbacks from the road, you’re constrained by the narrowness of the lot, and I’d be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I agree with the comments that are made by Jamie and Chuck McNulty. I think I am also very sensitive when a neighbor is concerned. However, I focus, when the relief is from the neighbor’s separation. In this case, you are within Code as far as the neighbor who is doing the 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) complaining is concerned. So there’s little basis, in my mind, for the complaint. Otherwise, I agree with what’s previously been said and I’d tend to support the application. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I want to thank you. You put a lot of work into your presentation, especially canvassing your neighbors, but, once again, I think I’m going to be in the minority on this issue, and I disagree with the Board members in principal. A lot of times we get requests for variances for a gazebo or a storage shed or a swimming pool, and sometimes we get requests because a family has five children and only two bedrooms and wants to build an addition, and I’d put those in different categories, because we can live without a swimming pool. We can live without a gazebo, but sometimes we need the extra room for our kids. I just have to say, you know, zoning law was made for a purpose, and although it evolves over the years, you know, that purpose is still the same, and in this case, I question whether the gazebo really can be placed any place on the property. In reality, your property shouldn’t have a gazebo, because there’s no room on the property to have it. So, I would, in principal, I’m opposed to the application. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I understand where Allan is coming from, and I almost went in that direction as well, for the very same reasons, but the support of the neighbors, and the fact that the one dissenting neighbor really isn’t impacted, according to the zoning laws of Queensbury, put me in favor of it. MR. STONE-All right. I’m conflicted, only because it’s too close to the lake. Mr. Roulier made a very telling argument, in terms of, if it were an attached porch, it could be right against the house. Why should it have to be 10 feet away if it’s a detached porch? And that’s essentially what a gazebo is. I mean, having said that, we still have the rules and regulations, but certainly, if Mr. Koenig was of a mind, he could have built a porch out 10 feet from the property line, away from the house, so we would have had a sizeable porch in there, and it would have been allowed, except as it pertains to the lake, and that’s my only real concern, and the fact that it’s behind the house, it’s not closer to the lake than the house, and we’re really talking a technical problem, if you will, the fact that it is not 50 feet from the lake. It’s only 41, but as was shown by the applicant in the pictures, it’s well screened currently, with trees. Of course, trees are temporal, as a lot of us know who live near the lake. They do go. They seldom come, but they do go, but nevertheless, I am not concerned about that. I would certainly be inclined to grant this thing. I think Mr. Hayes made the comment, what would we do if you had come to us, without having put it there, not built it. You didn’t build it. You put it there. I probably would have gone along with it, primarily because it isn’t closer to the lake. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion to approve. MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to add to my comments, perhaps and some of the members also, that the matter of the history, in connection with the misunderstanding and what not about what the existence of the Code, particularly the separation from the house and so forth. I think that, in this instance, there’s credibility there, in connection with, well, here’s this thing and it doesn’t need a building permit and, as we discussed in the outset a little bit, I think something can slip between the cracks here sometimes, and in this case that happened, and that the article was put on the property with the understanding that it would be all right, and I don’t know that anyone mentioned that, but I would like to include it with my comments, in further support of my approving of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Yes. You didn’t get our normal speech. Nobody gave the normal speech of, we don’t…, but I think you’ve adequately explained why we’re here. Having said that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-2000 ANTHONY J. KOENIG, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 55 Rockhurst Road. The applicant has constructed a gazebo along the northerly side of the residence. They seek relief to maintain the same in the current location. Relief required, the applicant requests 8.17 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum separation requirements for Section 179-67, Accessory Structures and Uses. Also, the applicant seeks nine feet of relief from the fifty foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of both the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16, and the Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, Section 179-60. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to maintain the gazebo in the current location. Feasible alternatives, there don’t seem to be any feasible alternatives, other than to remove it, and that would not be reasonable. So, reorientation to the front of the location is not a possibility, due to deed restrictions. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Nine feet of relief from the fifty foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal, however, 8.17 feet of relief from the 10 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance. Effects on the neighborhood or community, the effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as minimal as a result of this action. This structure has already been in place for two years. Is this difficulty self-created? It may be interpreted as self-created, but due to a misunderstanding of whether or not this structure was actually too close to the road. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) Duly adopted this 25 day of October, 2000, by the following vote th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally MR. STONE-There you go. MR. ROULIER-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-You may leave it up. MR. KOENIG-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-2000 TYPE II MELANIE HASTINGS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 23 QUEEN MARY DRIVE ZONE: SR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 FT. BY 14 FT. SHED AND SEEKS BOTH SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 121-12-16.1 LOT SIZE: 0.16 SECTION 179-19, 179-67 MELANIE HASTINGS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 94-2000, Melanie Hastings, Meeting Date: October 25, 2000 “Project Location: 23 Queen Mary Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 10 ft. by 14 ft. storage shed. Relief Required: Applicant requests 5 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum side setback requirement and 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the SR-1A zone, § 179-19. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize the desired shed in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 5 feet of relief from the 10 foot requirement along with 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial; (50%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there appears to be a compliant location available. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. It does not appear as though a strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant a reasonable use of the property, as there appears to be a compliant location available. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-And we don’t have a Warren County Planning Board review. So we’re all set. MR. STONE-Miss Hastings. I have a question of Staff before we start. As I read 179-19, it says storage shed. Is not this a request for an additional storage shed, in addition to the placement? We had this discussion last week, I believe. MR. BROWN-That’s not the way that we had identified it, but you’re certainly at liberty to interpret the Ordinance the way you want to. MR. STONE-Well, accessory uses, private garage, and we certainly discussed that last week, storage shed is one. Swimming pool is one. So I would read that, I mean, we’ll get to whether, technically, we have a problem, is what I’m getting at. Because there are two sheds in your plan, is that correct? MISS HASTINGS-In my plan there are two, yes. MR. STONE-What are we going to do about that? We didn’t advertise it that way. MR. BROWN-If your interpretation is that she’s allowed one shed, then she would be required to get relief for a second shed. MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. BROWN-Okay. Now, if that’s the case, only one, that wasn’t what was advertised. MR. STONE-That’s correct. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. BROWN-What the applicant could do, to get around that, is propose to remove the smaller one in favor of the larger one. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. BROWN-Re-advertise for a second shed. I guess those are the two choices. MR. STONE-Those are the two choices. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-You want both sheds, I assume? MISS HASTING-I do want both sheds. MR. STONE-Well, it’s my feeling that, my ruling that it was mis-advertised, and that we have to advertise it again. I mean, does anybody disagree with that, in terms of a shed is a shed? We do say. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, that section in the Ordinance very specifically uses singular, in each instance. MR. STONE-I don’t know how else to read it. I can’t read plural when I don’t see plural. For example, at least I found one, under, this is 179-21, but it says, accessory uses signs, with an “s” maybe the only one in the book, but at least it does say signs. So I would interpret that, if you’re not willing to, we can’t act on it tonight, as far as I’m concerned. MISS HASTINGS-I hadn’t even considered that. That wasn’t part of my plans. I didn’t want to wait until December now, though, to do it, either. MR. STONE-I understand. We’d have to advertise it for next month. We can discuss it. You can make your presentation. We can ask questions. We certainly can open the public hearing. We can’t open the public hearing because it hasn’t been truly advertised. MR. BROWN-Well, a public hearing has been advertised. You can hold the public hearing on this portion of it, yes. MR. STONE-But I can’t close it. MR. BROWN-A public hearing will have to be re-advertised with the new description. MR. STONE-Yes. Right. Go. MISS HASTINGS-When I spoke with Craig, I didn’t have any clue. I totally explained to him exactly what I had wanted to do. MR. STONE-No, and quite frankly, I didn’t until it triggered the thought in my mind here that we had this discussion last week about a second garage, and we talked about, that’s what we granted. So, it’s the same thing here. So why don’t you go ahead and make your presentation. We’ll listen. MISS HASTINGS-My presentation is basically what you know already. I wanted to have, I had actually had purchased, I went and purchased another shed, but I knew the zoning that if I had a building that was more than 10 by 10 I had to get a building permit. So I purchased the shed on Saturday and went, on Monday, to get my building permit, and Craig did tell me, and I immediately went home unordered the shed. I unordered it, causing great distress to the woman who I had ordered it from, and then started this process. MR. STONE-And I put a wrench in the monkey works here. MISS HASTINGS-And you just put a wrench in it, and I sat here so patiently. MR. STONE-I apologize. Actually, I never even thought about it until I looked again. MISS HASTINGS-So, actually, no matter what size it is at all, if it’s a second shed, a second shed at all would need a variance? MR. STONE-That’s my interpretation, and as the Chairperson, I would stand by that interpretation. So, tell us why, forget the first shed. Tell us why you want to put this where you want to put it. MISS HASTINGS-The fact that where I’m proposing to put it is totally out of view. I have a six foot stockade fence on the one side of the yard, and trees that would block the view of it from the road. It 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) would not be visible, barely, possibly the corner of it, and if I were to place it in accordance with the proper zoning, I believe it would be sitting smack in the middle of the yard, looking straight up the driveway, and that’s all you would see, would be that building. The yard isn’t really big to start with, but if it were placed 10 foot from the back line and five foot from the side line, it would be, basically, invisible, even to my neighbors, really. There would be a four foot roof line, probably, that they could see over the stockade fence. MR. STONE-Any questions of Miss Hastings? MR. HIMES-I guess, in connection with the existing shed there, it’s not on a slab, right? MISS HASTINGS-No. MR. HIMES-Why wouldn’t you want just one big shed or? MISS HASTINGS-Well, because my step-father built this one. I don’t want to break his little heart. MR. HIMES-Or to add on to that one? These questions might come up, you know, any time. That’s really what kind of went through my mind, as to consider, we would be wanting to know what alternatives might be, in any circumstance of an application, that would go through my mind as to why two anyway. MISS HASTINGS-I considered a larger building, and possibly destructing, taking down the other shed, and possibly building maybe a garage, that would accommodate storage, and I don’t have a garage for my home. So it would be a place for my car, but I didn’t want to go through that expense. So, that’s why. MR. HIMES-I think a question for maybe Staff, it seems that a storage shed, maybe the size of it, is defined in one or another of the Sections. It’s not defined, I don’t think, in the glossary or what have you, but in one of the zoning areas, it defines it as being 200 square feet maximum, or something like that, but it’s not in all the dwelling codes, like this one. I don’t think it defines the square footage of it. In other words, if you, as presented, the 10 by 14 wouldn’t be a problem, but if you were to combine them into one, then you might have another matter that you’d want to consider, but I don’t know how it would apply in this particular zone, since it’s not defined by size. MR. STONE-Well, it’s 100 five feet from the line, and over that, it can be 200. MR. BROWN-It can be bigger than that. It’s limited to 200 in only SFR zones. This is an SR zone. MR. HIMES-So it can be any size? MR. HAYES-Well, if it’s not in the Code. MR. STONE-Yes, it can be bigger. It’s just where it’s located. MR. HIMES-All right. That’s all I have. Thank you. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Well, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application, as currently advertised? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM CORLEW MR. CORLEW-My name is Tom Corlew. I live at 23 Queen Mary Drive. Has anyone other than Mr. Bryant been out and looked at the facility? You all looked at the wrong house. MR. STONE-No, no. I didn’t. MISS HASTINGS-It is a typographical error. MR. HIMES-I saw no stockade fence that we were talking about. MR. STONE-Twenty-two. I went to 22. MR. HAYES-If you look at the diagram, you can figure out the right one. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) MR. CORLEW-All right. If you hit number 22, you’re in the right facility. Mr. Bryant, I caught him looking at my yard, and he’s looking at the map and nothing is jiving. So, I asked him, can I help you, and he said, yes, and I knew what he was looking for because I’d gotten a letter myself. MR. STONE-I looked at, the plot was right that we got, the directions that we got from Staff was on the west side, and I made sure, I found it, but I didn’t see any pink sign, though, that you were given. Were you? Was it up? MISS HASTINGS-Pink sign? For what? MR. STONE-Did Miss Hastings get a pink sign? MR. BROWN-I don’t know. MR. STONE-You’re supposed to get a pink sign. MISS HASTINGS-I never received any pink sign. MR. STONE-From Staff. MISS HASTINGS-I have everything I received right here. Nothing pink. MR. STONE-No wonder we can’t find pink signs. We must have run out and they’re very hard to print up. MISS HASTINGS-If I’d known, I would have made one. MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. Obviously, most of the guys looked at it, because as I say, the map that we got from Staff, the GIS plot, showed exactly where it was. MR. CORLEW-And again, I was curious just because it had the address where I live, which is not in my name yet. I just purchased the place. MR. STONE-Okay. Is that all? MR. CORLEW-And I have no problem with what she’s saying, from where you stand in the road, you wouldn’t see her building. I don’t think it would harm the area at all, and I don’t see any of her other neighbors here saying, no, we don’t want. Most everybody in there has some type of storage building. It’s just size. MR. STONE-Well, her drawing says 22. Okay. That’s all you’ve got? MR. CORLEW-That’s all I’ve got. MR. STONE-All right. Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-All right. I’m going to hold the public hearing open. I’m sorry, but we’re going to have to advertise two sheds, and I have no idea where we’re coming out, but even if we all agreed, I will not. MR. HAYES-Can I make one suggestion? That we put Ms. Hastings on the front of the agenda the next time? MR. STONE-Absolutely. MR. HAYES-So that she’d be the first one. MR. BROWN-The first item on the meeting of the 15, yes. th MR. STONE-Yes, you’ll definitely be first, and it’ll certainly be the first meeting in November. MR. BROWN-The 15. th MR. STONE-The 15. Okay. th MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-2000 MELANIE HASTINGS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/25/00) 22 Queen Mary Drive, because we have to re-advertise the request for two storage sheds where one is allowed, in addition to the variance that was already advertised. In tabling it, we would advertise it so that it appears first on the agenda, on the November 15, 2000 meeting. Duly adopted this 25 day of October, 2000, by the following vote: th MISS HASTING-I have one question. If there is so much snow fall, how long does this variance last for? MR. STONE-A year. MISS HASTINGS-Okay. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally MR. STONE-Sorry, but we’ll see you next month. You’ll be first thing, seven o’clock. MISS HASTINGS-I’ll be here. Thank you. CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 27, 2000: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2000, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 25 day of October, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally October 18, 2000: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2000, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 25 day of October, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally MR. STONE-I move we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 36